THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD

Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

THE CREATIONIST METHOD

Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it.

Go light a black candle and cry about how the world has wronged you. Then when your done with your self pity come back on this site and keep trying to destroy someone else’s belief system because your world is void and meaningless.

Cant seem to fill up that hole in the center of your being ...can you????

That just about covers it doesn’t it Sweet Heart.

So which do you think God would be more pleased with?

The Atheists who love their neighbors when they have no reason to.

Or only those selfish religious people who couldn't care less about their neighbors unless there's something in it for them?

You better look out mister or I'll turn you into a newt!! Run away! Run away!

Ahh love ya Di, you see right through what I try to do . . . hehe

Yes, show me the "What this god does and does not that makes it real to them." and I will then work to explain it through nature. Then one would have to conclude to keep there god, that god is nature, then I could say . . . well hell now we agree . . . but does nature answer prayers? then I get to lol

Go light a black candle and cry about how the world has wronged you. Then when your done with your self pity come back on this site and keep trying to destroy someone else’s belief system because your world is void and meaningless.

Cant seem to fill up that hole in the center of your being ...can you????

That just about covers it doesn’t it Sweet Heart.

Edited by GOALLTHEWAY on Wed 09/24/08 04:55 PM

Eljay,

I follow your logic to a point. I understand the need to begin your conversations with the same basic premise. When we speak of basic, however, we must mean the lowest common denominator, or lowest indivisible properties of the premise.

I suggest you determine what you think that premise is but it must be the minimally acceptable indivisible properties of what you call God. Here’s the reason why. If one reads a scientific journal that has tested some theory, the first thing they read includes the properties of that which was tested.

In the case of God a property can be a “human attribute” which must, of course, include all human attributes (emotions) but one cannot assign partial human attributes as that makes no sense. The first thing your verbal opponent will come down on are the ‘summaries’ of texts in which God exemplifies ALL human attributes you have not assigned.

So you see, someone must come up with the premise to be discussed and since Abra is using full text summaries as argument, then I thing you should either provide the premise or proceed with full text summary rebuttles.

Anyway, at least then you would both be on the same page. Just suggestions mind you as I think you could both have more enjoyable conversations that way.

And you claim to be a loving person for the sake of God?

You've got me fooled.

GOALLTHEWAY.


All your post shows me is that not only do you not understand evolution, you also do not have a clue about animal society, they are just like us . . . those pesky apes (not monkeys go learn something about evolution again please) have rules of society, rules of mating, social fo pahs, they have wars, and make peace . . . everything you can attribute to us . . . they do in some form or another.

Its time to get educated bud.

GOALLTHEWAY

Go look up chimpanzee and human DNA comparison markers while you are at it. You might get an indication as to why they are identified as our PRI-MATES. I hate to play the evidence card but it is what it is.

bushi

Awe look Krimsa - he sees right through to your Sweet heart. At least still remembers he's on a dating site.

Nothing like insulting and complimenting at the same time.

Warning:


Hey, I've been in three offices this week where the National Geographic (oh wait, was it Nat'l Geographic? Dang, I can't remember) cover page and cover story were about Neanderthal man and all the lates discoveries. Between the three offices I've nealy finished the article.

Very good in case anyone would like to read about the "other" humanids that also inhabited this world.

I wonder why theology never addressed this topic???


BACK TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAM.

They just deny everything that doesn't fit into their romantic novel.

That sounds interesting. Neanderthal was kind of unattractive though very advanced. Im not sure if he is directly descended of Adam and Eve or the later Noah clan but someone must have had a pretty gnarly genetic profile to pass on those traits to their offspring. Good thing we "adapted".

Or even one step further, go look up the DNA markers for pigs . . . . and then notice that when you take a baby pig from its mother and lock it in a cage a few feet away but allow the mother to see the pig but not get to it, that the mother will cry and squeal and be very upset . . . so what makes the mother pig love her young if she doesn't believe in god? lol (same for cows and most other vertebrates really)

Seems silly when we place that context on any other critter than ourselves that have emotions and value life doesn't it . . .


The same thing that gives them there sense of right wrong, and good bad, works for us . . . .

DI:


Being an investigator, I use the term "theory" in my own context unrelated to the scientific definition of the term. I gather my own evidence and I come up with my own theory. I don't claim to be a scientist in the scientific sense of the word. I am a scientist in that I explore my own evidence and imagine my own "theories."

It is creative I admit, and I have taken liberties with the word, but this is just the creative side of my nature.





My personal opinion.



The scientific community is only just beginning to understand and recognize the pineal gland as being the organ responsible for regulating sleep and dreams and hallucinations, and NDE's and OBE's. I don't think they are fully aware of all that the pineal gland does.

I call it the "mind's eye" because it allows us to imagine, visualize pictures, dream, remote view, astral travel, etc. Some believe it regulates the aging process, but I don't know if science has confirmed this or not.




Being interconnected does not mean that we can communicate. Telepathy is a form of communication via the mind's eye.
The "mind worlds" are worlds created by the collective universal mind. (They are dream worlds just like this one. Why should there only be one world?)

I don't know if this can be "proven to the masses," although it can be proven to a few people who have seen them. (I don't know why everyone seems to be so concerned with proving everything to the masses.)

I am expressing my opinions and ideas. I am not claiming these statements to be proven "scientific fact." Sorry if that is what you expected. Yes these are my conclusions and beliefs. Call them my "religion" if you like. This is, after all, a religion forum.

I have a very long list of why I have concluded certain things. I just put it out there if anyone is interested, if not, that's okay with me.



I don't know what keeps science in the dark concerning them. I imagine they will remain in the dark until such time spirituality and science bridge the gap between them.

I use the term "soul" because it is easily understood as the spiritual side of a person incarnate. Of course science has not proven the existence of any energy called a "soul," therefore it remains a mystery. I am not sure myself how I would describe a "soul" as it relates to a person except to say that it is just another container of "self."




"Imagination rules the world" Albert Einstein

Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support

Sky said:

Redy said:No, no and no.

I would answer that with “No reason that I can think of.” But with a note that I have no idea what either the question or its answer has to do with remote perception.

Well, first of all, I’m not in agreement with the idea that they “invariably” do. They also make up physical laws to explain them as well. But I imagine the answer to both is something like: because it helps them make sense of their environment.

Uhhhhhhh……. yeah ok. But you’re not gonna start down that “you can’t understand it right now, but if you work hard enough, you might be able to understand it someday” path are ya?

Well…sort of: If "the ongoing theories that science has encompassed" don’t align with their experiences and observations (or even their opinions), then it makes perfect sense to accept some other theory.



Now I'd like to ask some questions of my own regarding According to your definition of science (and feel free to modify your previous definition in any way you see fit)…
0) Can there be non-physical? (def: “non-physical” – that which cannot be detected by any physical means)
1) Can there be interaction between physical and non-physical?
2) Can “non-physical” be cause over physical.

I think the answers to those questions will clarify a lot for me.

Obviously, a simple yes or no would be best for me. But I realize that when discussing things of this depth, sometimes questions cannot be answered simply. (And obviously, #1 and #2 are meaningless if the answer to #0 is “No”)