60 Million Year Old Mummy?

How un-mathamatical of you.

Anything that is over 2000 years old is still 2000 years old is it not?

How threshold-English of you.

Are the older or younger ones Tariff exempt?

I think that the problem is, that the Bible is not a religion. Religions that use the Bible as a foundation were formed when certain groups of humans decided that they had it figured out, and nobody else got it.

While they all accept Christ as the savior, massive chasms exist between various Christian religions on the interpretation of the Bible, and quite frankly...................................they don't like each other.

If both Christians and scientists could look objectively at the Bible as a truly fascinating thing that came about in the course of human history, the conversations wouldn't be so heated. I am not a Biblical scholar by any means, but one thing I know for sure...............................the Bible was not intended to divide people. Only humans can do that.

Any conversation that starts with one side claiming that the Bible is basically a fraudulent work of fantasy, and the other insisting that everything that is said in the Bible is literal, will lead nowhere.

Personally, I think it's a hugely interesting topic. The shows on the History Channel about the lost books of the Bible, as well as parts that were left out intentionally by humans, are really engrossing to watch, and handled objectively.

I was raised by a devoutly Catholic mother and an Atheist father. I never really got around to picking a side....................nor will I. To each, his/her own.

It shouldn't prevent us from discussing it rationally........................but it does.

Neither side likes what I have to say.

I hear what you are saying .....but I have a problem with the to each his own position.

Do you say the same if a person says the green humans are less intelligent than the blue humans? Is it OK if a teacher wants to teach your children that there is no gravity the world just sucks, and do you take the same stand if a person thinks it is prefectly alright to have sex with his 5 year old son or daughter?

None of those examples can be proven or disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt (yet). So why does "to each his own" apply in one case and not another?

Millions of people are dying fighting over "My imaginary friend is bigger than your imaginary friend." I had lots of imaginary friends when I was a child, but like mankind, I grew up. Isn't it time we gave up our collective imaginary friends?

1. given an equal environment base; how do the IQ tests compare? (use science)

2. give me the scientific explanation of gravity (until then one is as good as the other)

3. the 'standard' applying is 'sin' (later confirmed by science as 'stupidity')

4. otherwise known as 'product differentiation' (politics = party. religion = sect. stock market = GFC. shampoo = stuff for washing hair on head only)

Now I'm sure I never want to "grow up"

So if I take your point # 2 .......

We have supplied the scientific explanation for evolution, there is no scientific explanation for creation or young earth or intellegent design. therefore one is NOT as good as the other and then "to each is own" should not apply.

In fact all your points quote science. Where is the experimentation to test the so called theories of creation, young earth or ID? Where are the peer reviewed papers? Where are any of the tools of science being used to test these faith based ideas?

No hard feelings Apothicus.

I don't quite understand the need to beat the snot out of someone whose faith happens to bubble to the surface within a particular thread................but whatever. They shouldn't bring it up if they don't want to be challenged.

On the other hand, I can't prove that I ate dinner 4 nights ago. The evidence has been flushed, and the best I could come up with is a witness................far from proof.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again................I'd rather argue with friends than sit and be silent around people that I don't care about.

All is well as far as I'm concerned. Keep an open mind.

I was a denier of light, until I dabbled with the dark.

Sometimes, demanding proof is not such a good idea.

Some interesting stories here. I DO keep an open mind I think. Like most people I am intrigued by stories of the occult, suoernatural goings on and parapsycology etc. I just want to see them investigated better. There has been a standing 1 million dollar prize waiting for anyone who can demonstrate these powers in a controled environment. Offered by Randi I believe. No one has even attempted to claim the prize. Why not? There are too many charletans and con-men involved in the whole business right now to take it too seriously.

Not for a second do I think we have discovered all there is to know about the (multi)universe we live in. I even hope some of the forces and powers that are rumored to exist turn out to be real. Wouldn't speaking to the dead really put a dent in the murder conviction rate? Tlelkinesis would be a real cheap energy source?

I'm an avid reader of science ficton, sword and sorcery and such and love to play "what if" thought games with people. I just want to see it all investigated properly. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs as long as it does not intrude on anyone elses identical rights.

The old saying still holds true IMHO, extrodinary claims require extrodinary proof. At least show me some investigation or search for proof.

English Rose, your postulation sounds interesting, now we need an experiment to generate evidence that is is true. That is the way of science.

When I was messing around with that Ouija board, it would stop dead in it's tracks if someone approached the house and was going to knock on the door, before we were aware that anyone was there.

This kind of stuff has always interested me too, although I will never get that close to it again.

I've had a couple of other experiences that aren't creepy, but odd and inexplicable.

I'm on family time for the rest of the day, but I think it would make an interesting thread. I'll try to think of a tactful way to phrase things and start one tomorrow. Or anyone else can too, if you want......................I'll be there.

If you believe in telekinesis, raise my hand!

If I could think of a method, I'd do it!

See you over on kramarat's new thread...

It's up!! True story too.

I looked earlier and it wasn't there - thanks for the heads up

If you feel like it, put your baby smelling story up there. I think a lot of people unsubscribed to this thread.

"We have supplied the scientific explanation for evolution,"

There is a big difference between explanation and proof or evidence. The Old Earth scientists present explanations but no proof that doesn't have all kinds of holes in it. There are too many holes in the theory to make it believable.

Check out a book titled The Young Earth by Dr. Henry Morris. It may be data that you may like but you should look at it objectively. It certainly has much food for thought.

"Despite my disagreements with Morris and young earth creationism, I regard those disagreements as far less serious than my disagreements with the Darwinian materialists. If you will, young earth creationism is at worst off by a few orders of magnitude in misestimating the age of the earth. On the other hand, Darwinism, in ascribing powers of intelligence to blind material forces, is off by infinite orders of magnitude." This is a statement by William A. Demski after an interview with Dr. Morris and some other scientists, creationists and evolutionists.

If you're serious about looking at peer-reviewed data and research check out some of the following resources:

Only books written at high school level or above, and of 75 or more pages in length, are included. The listing is tentative and incomplete, but at least indicates the significant amount of literature now available in this field, with over 125 titles listed here. With the above limitations in mind, it is hoped that this bibliography will be useful to our readers. All of the books listed are believed to be still in print and thus accessible.

There are many creation-oriented books which also accept the so-called "geologic ages." These are not included in this listing.

1. Ackerman, Paul D., In God's Image After All (Baker Book House, 1990), 101 pp.
2. Ackerman, Paul D., It's a young World After All (Baker Book House, 1986), 131 pp.
3. Andrews, Edgar H., Concepts in Creationism (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1994).
4. Andrews, Edgar H., From Nothing to Nature (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1978), 120 pp.
5. Andrews, Edgar H., Christ and the Cosmos (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1986), 128 pp.
6. Andrews, Edgar H., God, Science and Evolution (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1980), 129 pp.
7. Austin, Steven A., ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Institute for Creation Research, 1994)
8. Austin, Steven A., ed., Catastrophes in Earth History (Institute for Creation Research, 1984)
9. Baker, Mace, Dinosaurs (Bible Science Association, 1995).
10. Barnes, Thomas G., Science and Biblical Faith ( Creation Research Society, 1993), 191 pp.
11. Barnes, Thomas G., Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field ( Creation Research Society, 1983), 132 pp.
12. Bartz, Paul A., Creation Moments (Bible Science Association, 1990), 260 pp.
13. Bartz, Paul A., Letting God Create Your Day (Bible Science Association, 1991), 267 pp.
14. Bartz, Paul A., ed., Influencing Our Children: Darwin's Impact on Education (Bible Science Association, 1992) 213 pp.
15. Bergman, Jerry and George Howe, Vestigial Organs Are Fully Functional (Creation Research Society, 1990), 97 pp.
16. Bird, Wendell R., The Origin of Species Revisited (Thomas Nelson Co., 1989), 2 vols., 1149 pp.
17. Bliss, Richard B., Duane T. Gish and Gary E. Parker, Fossils: Key to the Present (Master Books, 1980), 81 pp.
18. Bliss, Richard B., Voyage to the Stars (Institute for Creation Research, 1991), 111 pp.
19. Bliss, Richard B., and Donald DeYoung, Voyage to the Planets (Institute for Creation Research, 1994), 128 pp.
20. Bliss, Richard B., Origins: Creation or Evolution (Master Books, 1988), 76 pp.
21. Boys, Don, Evolution: Fact, Fraud, or Faith (Freedom Publications, 1994), 352 pp.
22. Brown, Walter T., In the Beginning (Center for Scientific Creation, 1989), 122 pp.
23. Camping, Harold, Adam When? (Frontiers for Christ, 1974), 297 pp.
24. Chittick, Donald, The Controversy (Multnomah Press, 1984), 280 pp.
25. Coffin, Harold, Origin by Design (Review and Herald, 1983), 494 pp.
26. Cooper, Bill, After the Flood (Creation Science Movement, 1995), 250 pp.
27. Cousins, Frank, Fossil Man (Creation Science Movement, 1971), 138 pp.
28. Culp, Richard, Remember Thy Creator (Historic Christian Publications East, 1990), 207 pp.
29. Curtis, Wm. R., The Gospel Prior to Moses (Brentwood Christian Press, 1993), 155 pp.
30. DeYoung, Donald B., Astronomy and the Bible (Baker Book House, 1989), 146 pp.
31. DeYoung, Donald B., Science and the Bible (Baker Book House, 1994), 110 pp.
32. Dickson, Roger E., The Fall of Unbelief (Apologetics Press, 1982), 571 pp.
33. Dillow, Joseph, The Waters Above (Institute for Creation Research, 1982), 479 pp.
34. Frair, Wayne and Percival Davis, A Case for Creation (Moody Press, 1983), 155 pp.
35. Gentry, Robert, Creation's Tiny Mystery (Earth Science Associates, 1986), 315 pp.
36. Gish, Duane T., The Amazing Story of Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 112 pp.
37. Gish, Duane T., Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!, 391 pp.
    Formerly: Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (Master Books, 1985), 277 pp.
38. Gish, Duane T., Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 451 pp.
39. Gish, Duane T., and Henry M. Morris, The Battle for Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1976), 321 pp.
40. Gish, Duane T., Dinosaurs by Design (Master Books, 1992), 88 pp.
41. Gitt, Werner, Did God Use Evolution? (Hanssler-Verlag, 1993), 152 pp.
42. Ham, Ken, Genesis and the Decay of the Nations (Master Books, 1991), 81 pp.
43. Ham, Ken, The Lie: Evolution (Master Books, 1987), 168 pp.
44. Ham, Ken, Andrew Snelling and Carl Weiland, The Answers Book (Master Books, 1991), 140 pp.
45. Helfinstine, Robert F. and Jerry D. Roth, Texas Tracts and Artifacts (Bible Science Association, 1994), 109 pp.
46. Howe, George F., ed., Speak to the Earth ( Creation Research Society, 1975), 463 pp.
47. Humphreys, D. Russell, Starlight and Time (Master Books, 1994), 133 pp.
48. Huse, Scott, Collapse of Evolution (Baker Book House, 1983), 178 pp.
49. ICC Procedings: 1986 (2 vols., Creation Science Fellowship, 1987), 446 pp.
50. ICC Procedings: 1990 (2 vols., Creation Sience Fellowship, 1991), 612 pp.
51. ICC Procedings: 1994 (Creation Science Fellowship, 1995), 645 pp.
52. Johnson, Wallace, Evolution? (Tan Books and Publishers, 1976), 138 pp.
53. Keane, G.J., Creation Rediscovered (Credis Pty, Ltd., 1991), 302 pp.
54. Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Scientific Studies in Special Creation ( Creation Research Society, 1971), 343 pp.
55. Lammerts, Walter E., ed., Why Not Creation? ( Creation Research Society, 1970), 388 pp.
56. Leupold, Herbert C., Genesis, Chs 1-19 (Baker Book House, 1949), 576 pp.
57. Lester, Lane P. and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits to Biological Change (Zondervan Publishing House, 1984), 207 pp.
58. Lubenow, Marvin, Bones of Contention (Baker Book House, 1992), 295 pp.
59. Manley, Isaac V., God Made (College Press Publ. Co., 1994), 209 pp.
60. Marsh, Frank L., Variation and Fixity in Nature (Pacific Press, 1976), 150 pp.
61. Martin, Jobe, The Evolution of a Creationist (Biblical Discipleship Publishers, 1994), 203 pp.
62. Morris, Henry M., The Beginning of the World (Master Books, 1991), 181 pp.
63. Morris, Henry M., The Remarkable Record of Job (Baker Book House, 1988), 146 pp.
64. Morris, Henry M., The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Baker Book House, 1986), 516 pp.
65. Morris, Henry M., Scientific Creationism (Master Books, 1985), 281 pp.
66. Morris, Henry M., The Long War Against God (Baker Book House, 1989), 344 pp.
67. Morris, Henry M., Many Infallible Proofs (Master Books, 1974), 381 pp.
68. Morris, Henry M., Science and the Bible (Moody Press, 1986), 154 pp.
69. Morris, Henry M., The God Who is Real (Baker Book House, 1988) 96 pp.
70. Morris, Henry M., The Genesis Record (Baker Book House, 1976), 716 pp.
71. Morris, Henry M., Biblical Creationism (Baker Book House, 1993), 276 pp.
72. Morris, Henry M., The Revelation Record (Tyndale Publishing House, 1983), 528 pp.
73. Morris, Henry M., Creation and the Second Coming (Master Books, 1991), 194 pp.
74. Morris, Henry M., Men of Science - Men of God (Master Books, 1988), 107 pp.
75. Morris, Henry M., Christian Education for the Real World (Master Books, 1991), 295 pp.
76. Morris, Henry M., Twilight of Evolution ( Baker Book House, 1963), 103 pp.
77. Morris, Henry M., History of Modern Creationism (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 444 pp.
78. Morris, Henry M., and Martin E. Clark, The Bible Has the Answer (Master Books, 1987), 394 pp.
79. Morris, John D., and Henry M. Morris, Science, Scripture and the Young Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1989), 95 pp.
80. Morris, John D., The Young Earth (Master Books, 1994), 206 pp.
81. Mulfinger, George, ed., Design and Origins in Astronomy Creation Research Society, 1983), 151 pp.
82. Nelson, Ethel R. and C.H. Kang, Discoveries in Genesis (Concordia Publishing House, 1979), 139 pp.
83. Nelson, Ethel R. and Richard E. Broadberry, Genesis and the Mystery Confucius Couldn't Solve (Concordia Publishing House, 1994), 174 pp.
84. Oakland, Roger, G.S. McLean and L. McLean, The Evidence of Creation (1988), 185 pp.
85. Oakland, Roger, and Caryl Matrisciana, The Evolution Conspiracy (Harvest House, 1991), 216 pp.
86. Oard, Michael, An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood (Institute for Creation Research, 1990), 243 pp.
87. Overton, Basil, Evolution in the Light of Scripture, Science and Sense (Apologetics Press, 1988), 165 pp.
88. Parker, Gary, Creation: Facts of Life (Master Books, 1994), 215 pp.
89. Parker, Gary and Henry M. Morris, What is Creation Science? (Master Books, 1987), 363 pp.
90. Pearcey, Nancy R. and Charles B. Thaxton, The Soul of Science (Bible Science Association, 1994), 349 pp.
91. Remine, Walter James, The Biotic Message (St. Paul Science, 1993), 538 pp.
92. Rohrer, Donald H. and Henry M. Morris, The Decade of Creation (Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 316 pp.
93. Rosevear, David, Creation Science (New Wine Press, 1991), 158 pp.
94. Rusch, Wibert H., The Argument: Creationism vs. Evolutionism ( Creation Research Society, 1984), 87 pp.
95. Rybka, Theodore W., Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks (American Writing and Publishing Co., 1993), 134 pp.
96. Sharp, G. Thomas, Science According to Moses (Creation Truth Publ., 1992), 442 pp.
97. Sharp, Douglas, Revoltuion Against Evolution (Bible Science Assoc. 1993), 107 pp.
98. Sippert, Albert, Evolution is Not Scientific (Sippert Publ. Co., 1995), 466 pp.
99. Slusher, Harold S. The Origin of the Universe (Institute for Creation Research, 1980), 90 pp.
100. Slusher, Harold S. and Steven G. Robertson, The Age of the Solar System (Institute for Creation Research, 1982), 131 pp.
101. Sunderland, Luther D., Darwin's Enigma (Master Books, 1984), 177 pp.
102. Taylor, Charles V., The Oldest Science Book in the World (Assembly Press, 1984), 142 pp.
103. Taylor, Ian, In the Minds of Men (TFE Publishing, 1984), 498 pp.
104. Taylor, Paul and Ken Ham, The Genesis Solution (Baker Book House, 1988), 126 pp.
105. Taylor, Paul S., The Illustrated Origins Answer Book (Films for Christ, 1990), 128 pp.
106. Taylor, Paul and Mark Van Bebber, Creation and Time (Films for Christ, 1994), 128 pp.
107. Thompson, Bert, Creation Compromises (Apologetics Press, 1995), 303 pp.
108. Vardiman, Larry, Ice Cores and the Age of the Earth (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 87 pp.
109. Von Fange, Erich A., Helping Children Understand Genesis and the Dinosaur (Living Word Services, 1992), 208 pp.
110. Von Fange, Erich A., Genesis and the Dinosaur (Living Word Services, 1990), 311 pp.
111. Von Fange, Erich A., Noah to Abram: The Turbulent Years (Living Word Services, 1994), 372 pp.
112. Watson, David C., Myths and Miracles (Creation Science Foundation, 1988), 118 pp.
113. Whitcomb, John C., The World that Perished (Baker Book House, 1988), 178 pp.
114. Whitcomb, John C., The Early Earth (Baker Book House,1986), 174 pp.
115. Whitcomb, John C., and Donald B. DeYoung, The Moon (BMH Books, 1978), 180 pp.
116. Whitcomb, John C., and Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Flood (Presbyterian and Reformed Publ. Co., 1961), 518 pp.
117. Whitcomb, Norma, Those Mysterious Dinosaurs (Presbyterian and Reformed Publ Co., 1991), 115 pp.
118. White, A.J. Monty, How Old is the Earth? (Presbyterian and Reformed), 126 pp.
119. White, A.J. Monty, Wonderfully Made (Presbyterian and Reformed), 128 pp.
120. Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Master Books, 1981), 185 pp.
121. Wilder-Smith, A.E., He Who Thinks Has to Believe (Bethany House, 1981), 94 pp.
122. Wilder-Smith, A.E., The Creation of Life (Master Books, 1970), 251 pp.
123. Wilder-Smith, A.E., Man's Origin. Man's Destiny (Bible Science Association, 1968), 320 pp.
124. Wilder-Smith, A.E., Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory (TWFT Publ., 1987), 198 pp.
125. Williams, Emmett L., Thermodynamics and the Development of Order ( Creation Research Society, 1981), 141 pp.
126. Willis, Tom, Real Scientists Just Say NO! (Mid-America Creation Science Association, 1993), 110 pp.
127. Wilson, Clifford, Visual Highlights of the Bible: From Adam to Abraham (Pacific Christian Ministries, 1993), 147 pp.
128. Woodmorappe, John, Studies in Flood Geology (Institute for Creation Research, 1993), 208 pp.
129. Woodmorappe, John, Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study (Institute for Creation Research, 1996), approx. 300 pp.
130. Wysong, Randy, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Inquiry Press, 1976), 455 pp.

Are all of these scientists and authors simply misguided and delusional in their thinking, or do they simply have an opposing view that warrants exploration?

"any arguement which uses "and then here in step two, a miracle occurs" will be disregarded. I have confined myself to a study of basic facts"

Do you understand everything about a little thing like the food you eat or the car you drive? And yet you don't disregard that. Just because we don't understand something doesn't mean it should be discounted. "We don't know what we don't know". There is probably more that we don't understand due to the complexity of the Universe we live in than what we do know, and that is where science comes in; to investigate, test, seek to understand and "connect the dots", not to prove a point one way or the other. The data examined will lead to conclusions. The difficult part is to do that without personal bias and ideology.

Because man is fallible there are people on both sides of the ideological aisle who don't always treat the data and evidence unhindered by bias and seek to stretch something to "prove" one point or another. The difficulty lies in discerning what is truly correct. The total context of the rest of the data will help to differentiate the good conclusion from the bad and point out the deficiencies.

I'm not saying that every person on that list has the most logical presentation of evidence about the origin of man and our universe. If one would find a list of people who support the religion of evolution they could also find fault in some way with about everyone there too. Everyone is fallible regardless of which side of the philosophical aisle you are on and anything or anyone can be knitpicked to death if we seek to.

Just because someone has an affiliation with an organization doesn't mean that they wholeheartedly agree with everything that organization is seen as representing. The Log Cabin Republicans (fruitcakes) are associated with the Republican Party, does that mean that all Republicans are "fruitcakes"?

I totally agree with your comments about Harold Camping. He is a fraud and heretic in regard to Scripture and future events and any information he gives could be suspect.

Check out Dr. Henry Morris and the book The Young Earth.

We may all see things differently for a variety of reasons and I don't expect everyone to see things, regarding the explanation of scientific facts/data, the same.

Very true. And good answer. There is much we do not know, and it is very true that we don't know what we don't know. I can't tell you how thunderstruck I was when I discovered (for instance) that the orbital model of electrons I had grown up with is, in actual fact, so oversimplified that it could be termed "wrong". Makes me wonder how much else there is "out there" I am "certainly wrong". But an oversimplification doesnt make the science wrong, and I discovered that it is unfair to attack the scientist because he had to dumb it down enough for me. Mr. Austin has not learned that lesson.

I remember being amazed at the discovery of "plate tectonics" and how difficult it was to "prove" to a resisting world that it exists. (The proof is fascinating by the way, but it was resisted by the "establishment" for a long time.)

I am only confining myself to physical facts because it is a discussion ABOUT physical facts. If we want to discuss theological issues, I will move to the appropriate forum. For instance, I think the Coyote God chasing a fast moving rabbit makes as much sense as any other theistic arguement. If the Coyote God seems silly to you, imagine how silly the concept that all the animals in the world lived within a month's walk from Noah's house makes to me!

I think discussions about the Gods of the Apaches, Druids, Christians and the flying spagettii monster belongs on a theistic forum. I'll see you over there.

I'll check out Mr. Morris's book. I'll get back to you on that.

There is a reality that exists outside of the realm of "normal" human consciousness.

Just because it can't be accessed with a slide rule, equations, or pencil and paper, does not make it imaginary.

I'm with you there kramarat. My experiences are why I haven't completely eshewed the religion in which I was raised, despite being very aware that a significant number of its teachings are man-given not god-given (on the rest, I reserve judgement).

Those of a scientific bent should remember the scientists' motto:

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

There are things we have not yet explained to the satisfaction of science. Religions are what humans have made out of previous explainations. We need to strip away the dogma to find the "truth". We need to stop doing it the way we've always done it!

I don't belong to any particular religion either. Not saying that they are good or bad, but based on my experiences, religion seems to illustrate the human propensity to take ownership of, and make esoteric, something that is freely available to all. I don't judge any of them.......................if the individuals within a particular religion have found happiness and completion there..............good for them.

As long as they don't try to tell me that the path that they have chosen is the only path, and that I must do the same.

Hehehe We seem to be on the same wavelength. Religions are most definitely manmade and usually for the purpose of power and control. The mismatch comes because they are often founded around very reasonable social rules and some unobjectionable esoteric stuff. So when someone disagrees with some higher level dogma, the High Dodee can swing the argument around and accuse the heretic (a word meaning free thinker) of contradicting the reasonable founding principles.

Many paths, one mountain has long since been my interpretation. I'm interested in your path and will happily talk about mine. I might join you for a stretch on yours and you're welcome on mine, but if they don't converge here, I'll see you at the top!

Yep, it's all really based in the belief that consciousness can, and does, exist independently of the human body, and that we are part of a bigger something, that is beyond our ability to comprehend.

Since it's been described, written about, explored, accepted, etc., for thousands of years, by many civilizations, and billions upon billions of people, it seems a little silly to write it all off as imaginary..................................it just cannot be defined or proven by traditional science.............................kind of like antimatter. When scientists say that they know it exists, but they can't quantify it, it's perfectly understandable.

If I was to postulate that antimatter is a theoretical representation of the space that our consciousness occupies when it no longer resides in the human body, would that be considered imaginary religious hogwash?

Again you make my point for me. Antimatter is not so much of a puzzle anymore. Scientists create it and experiment with it regularly nowadays.

http://press.web.cern.ch/livefromcern/antimatter/

It was a hypothesis created to explain certain things we observed, experiments were designed and then carried out, discoveries were made, things were learned, better experiments were designed, better tools were created until today we can basically create the stuff at will.

Now if you would please follow the same process with all your beliefs we may get somewhere. Just to say a billion people can't all be wrong is lazy. And why can't they, a billion people have been wrong before? The world is not flat, the earth is not the center of the universe.

It is not your belief that I have a problem with so much, it is the lack of any atempts to prove or improve it.

Cool. Although I don't think the puzzle is solved.

Hmmm....I think you thought you were disagreeing with kramarat, but to me is sounds like you're agreeing...

kramarat's point about billions reporting similar experiences isn't lazy; it's the first step in data gathering. Those billions don't agree on the causes, but the experiences are remarkable similar - I think the point could be better made if one said "why would those billions of unrelated, unconnected people all lie about their experiences?"

There was contraversy about anti-matter when it was just a theory. The fact that antimatter has now been "seen" has more to do with funding than lack of will to find and bottle consciousness. That and since there was a mathematical model, it was possible to calculate what type of "bottle" one would need.

So far, no mathematical model has been developed to quantify consciousness...but that doesn't mean one won't be. To say it can't be done is to demonstrate an arrogance in today's level of knowledge.

So far, we can only see/feel the effect - just as for thousands of years mankind accepted that up and down existed, but couldn't explain why thing didn't fall upwards. It may be, as one hypothesis has it, that all of our perception of consciousness and related phenomemena is merely down to the chemical cocktail sloshing round our brain-pan. But as we stand today, it quite equally might be something else.

I'm not asking to believe in anything in particular. I'm just pointing oput what I see as inconsistancies in your argument.

One more thought: it would be interesting to find out if there are biological/physiological differences between those who have "religious" experiences and those who don't. Why do some people see ghosts and others don't? Why do people see them sometimes and not others? Why are some moved to tears by a piece of music whilst it just irritates others?

To prove or disprove: I'm not sure how I would do that. What proof would you accept that I have had a certain experience? How do I prove how something made me feel? That I smelt something?

I can tell you that each time my sister got pregnant, I, from 200 miles away and long before I was told, spent weeks annoying my bf telling him I could small bablies. I did the same thing at 17 when our dog was clandestinely impregnated. My Mum got fed up of my saying I could smell puppies (we only found out the dog was pregnant 2 weeks before the pups were born, I'd been going on for what was prbably the first 4 weeks of the gestation).

Is that proof? There were witnesses, but after all this time, whether they'd remember my odd behaviour is unsure.

One more thought: it would be interesting to find out if there are biological/physiological differences between those who have "religious" experiences and those who don't.

They're working on that one, please see. (Google "religion gene" or "god gene")

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&cp=11&gs_id=w&xhr=t&q=religion+gene&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=religion+ge&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=8df1d35cc2b99606&biw=1024&bih=571

Is that proof? There were witnesses, but after all this time, whether they'd remember my odd behaviour is unsure.

No it is not proof, it is evidence. Now can you sit blindfolded in a monitored area and have 100 dogs/people/whatever paraded in front of you and pick which ones are pregnant? Can you do this way over the stastical norm for random hits? While you do this you will be monitored every which way possible to see if it can be determined what senses, what parts of the brain, are in use when you make your call. etc etc etc ........ this is how a proof is developed.

There are people looking for the god gene, just as there are people investigating near death experiences (and finding physical causes for all the "weird" experiences). Pondering the evidence so far it is easy to see that a god gene would be very useful in a developing society. And if this gene tended to increase the chances of survival then it would proliferate. In todays society the gene maybe is not required so much, but religous couples tend to have more children than the non-religous couples so it will still tend to spread.

Postulate - experiment - theorize - more experimentation - conclude - test conclusion - repeat. This is how good evidence and proof are obtained. Not by collecting more anicdotes.

Now what happens if someone locates the god gene(s) and learns how to turn them on and off? Will that be proof of something? If so, what?

I've reached the conclusion, that regardless of what we believe, it would suck if we were all exactly the same.

I'm behind on several links I want to look at from different threads. I'll get to them this weekend, including your latest.

"Will that be proof of something? If so, what?"

God's Will, obviously.

As a general observation; I do not have a problem with facilitiesmgr's approach to this topic. It seems to me he/she is simply stating that there are many things that remain unknown and is open to knowing more. Much has been put up as; "what do you think of this then?"

I also note; a lot of "this" has been discussed previously.

So it would seem the "science people" have not answered cogently enough the first time around to actually evoke a reevaluation.

2¢

Postulate - experiment - theorize - more experimentation - conclude - test conclusion - repeat. This is how good evidence and proof are obtained. Not by collecting more anicdotes.

I would argue that collecting anecdotes is the first stage....in order to spot patterns to create the postulation. The rest of your sequence I agree with.

No - I wouldn't spot the pregnant ones in a parade. But you knew that...

If I had known the difference between an antidote and an anecdote a friend of mine would still be alive today!

Piece of cake to set up a test for you English Rose. If you can do it, you could earn yourself a cool million bucks, just in time for the holidays.

That is, IF you can do it. In a blind test, with independent evaluators and a protocol you approve yourself.

If you can't do it, then this observed annecdoteal phenomon is either a lucky guess, or an educated guess, or perhaps you are perceptive on an unconscious level. I used to be able to "smell the coming rain" when I was little. I think now it might be the freshness of the washed air, or maybe the ozone. Later, I noted that my broken foot hurt when the weather changed. So I tried to use it as a barometer. I had to check it with a real barometer of course. Turned out that it didn't always hurt, but when it did, it had nothing to do with the falling barometric pressure...it was just random aching which I had thought was a pattern. I noticed a false correlation when there was none.

I had a friend who was a perpetual moaner and groaner, always complained that he got all the red lights. One day while riding with him, I noted down the number of green lights we went through as well as the number of red lights. Turns out his perception that he set off all the red lights was erroneous. It is possible that your baby detecting ability is like that. You remember the "hits" but not the misses.

There you go. Two explanations for your baby smelling talent. Neither explanation requires an outside agency like ghosts, spirits or anything else. Oh there is one other possibility...perhaps you really CAN detect the endorphins given off by pregnant mammals. Which would be pretty cool actually. But I rejected that possibility when you told me you know about it a long distance away.

Fun stuff...the tricks humans play with their own minds.....

I looked into that contest. It looks like it only applies to established psychic mediums.

The contest means nothing anyway. The people that have chosen to wander into the darkness can easily pick up a million bucks, no contest required.

For the people that walk in the light, a million bucks means nothing.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

There was a local doctor, back in the 1950's that had a 100 percent track record for guessing the sex of an unborn child.This was before ultrasound,etc.

When an expectant mother came to him, he would examine her, and make his prediction."OK, Mrs Smith, it will be a boy" and he would write it down in his book as he told her.

The only catch was, he wrote GIRL in the book.If it was a boy, he had would smile knowingly.If it was a girl he would say, "Let's check my book on that", and sure enough, there it would be "Mrs Smith,Girl" "'You must have misunderstood me that day."

I see in the contest that you have to be over 18. I did some inexplicable things (even to me) before 18 that I haven't done since. I don't know how I did them. Even then they were very sporadic. I think there were some emotional conditions required to bring some of them on. I also think there are many gifted & talented people who lose them after childhood.

One of my coworkers never believed in voodo until his wife had an encounter with a girl from the neighborhood. His wife started having some severe pains. Later they learned that she was practicing witchcraft. Now he does. I have had no experience with it. Such practices are shunned here.

Since April 1, 2007 only those with an already existing media profile and the backing of a reputable academic are allowed to apply for the challenge.

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

The requirements of having a reputable academic involved was put there to help weed out those who are truly mentally ill (those suffering from Jerusalem Syndrome for instance) and those who can or have claimed to have only created a "one off" event". As you know, it isn't science if it isn't repeatable. It is part of defining an "experimental protocol", something I am certain EVERY member of this forum knows how to do.

On March 8 2011, the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) announced that the challenge was being altered to allow more applicants. Wheras before, applicants were required to submit press clippings or a letter from an academic institutuion to qualify, they can now add a public video of their claimed activity to the list. The JREF explained that this allowed people who don't know any academics, or do not have any media exposure to participate. There is a lot more on the wikipedia article Karamat came up with. I personally have no problem with any of it...after all, its their money. Interestingly enough, the requirements for testing usually include a provision that the testing be done by third party. The JREF are only there to set the criteria, and to provide observers to ensure that protocols are not violated. They don't usually participate in the testing. The test protocols are standard scientific protocols recognizable by any science student and are agreed upon by the all participants at the very beginning, and the definition of success is clearly stated. (Like...if you can spin a key hanging by a thread in a sealed glass jar, then how far should it spin, how many times should it spin, can you do it on a concrete floor that you can't jostle, and can you touch the jar. Standard stuff.)

I spend a happy two hours last night going over the log of applicants. Some were clearly off their rocker (as they said in the log about one poor soul, "When should we get this person to visit a pscychiatrist?".) Some were entertaining, some were VERY likely, but when the test occured, they failed somehow.

But the JREF is ram rodded by James Randi himself, a charasmatic individual who is willing to put his money where his mouth is. As am I. A trip through the log of applicants for the million dollar prize is sobering. Not at ALL entertaining.

I am sorry to see you bow out of this discussion, Yusef.Your opinions are always enlightening and informative.It is sometimes hard to remain objective and non-emotional on certain subjects, and that trait affects us all as human beings, no matter what our stance on a subject.We tend to become defensive of our position to the point of sometimes becoming emotional.Usually, once viewed in the cooler light of reason, we sometimes question why we had any ego-equity in the argument.

Philosophy and science are not mutually exclusive,especially on the quantum level, where it is sometimes very hard to distinguish the two, and things become very "Alice in Wonderland-ish".Such as the quantum computer that solves a problem before it even runs."Counterfactual Computation"http://www.physorg.com/news11087.html.

"The possibility that the algorithm could run, prevents it from running."(Quote from above link.)

I look forward to your participation in other forums where your insight and opinion is always welcome, as it is and was in this one.

I enjoy Yusef as a contemplative believer in the truth inherent in mathematics, in the laws of nature and the inevitability of discovery. The light of reason is not apparent in most of these young earth cartoons and intelligent design arguments. It's not hard to discount those who profess to believe in science while making exceptions. There are errors in measurement and faulty interpretations of that data which lead to poor science. I am searching for any of these in your assertions. There has been massive peer review. Still you persist in stating, " It is still an open question" It is not assuming a philosophical position to state the the 6000 year old Earth is a theory that has basis. What has led you there? I am retiring as well, thank you all for a thought provoking thread.

This forum has strayed far from my original question:"Anyone read any theories on how this is possible ?".

To the befuddlement of some, I did not intend to open a can of worms, I simply failed to anticipate the consequences.My apologies for leaving the inquiries so open ended.

I was simply seeking an explanation of how soft tissue could survive for millions of years, and was it possible that a Cosmic Ray Burt(aka Gamma Ray Burst) could have sterilized the planet's surface long enough for the fossils to be covered by sterile debris?

I understand that subsurface bacteria would soon repopulate the surface.Could the same sterilizing effect happen with the planet-wide firestorm from Chixulub?

Theological arguments have been raging since man had the ability to exchange ideas, and it will persist as long as at least two people exist.We cannot settle it here, nor should we try.It is a futile task.I am amazed how far man has progressed in spite of our differences, but think how far we could have come without any wars in the name of religion or politics.

I believe that tolerance is the ultimate truth.To accept that reality is slightly different for every observer and respect the differences as no better or worse than our own.

I do not mean this to be interpreted to mean no social mores or laws, but insofar as religion or politics is concerned.

Mar Twain told a story about a scientist who put a cat and a dog in adjacent cages.He kept putting their feeding dishes closer and closer together every day.

At first, there was much growling and posturing, but after about a week, they were eating silently side by side.He then put them in the same cage, and they continued to get along just fine.

Then, he put a Catholic, a Protestant, a Baptist and a Methodist in the same cage.

When he checked on them the next day, they were all dead.Which made him question God's wisdom in creating man in the first place.

For those not familiar with it, I recommend John Lennon's song: "IMAGINE"

The OP is an interesting question, and I don't know the answer. I don't know that any of us do.

So anyway, a priest and a rabbi were sitting in a pub............................................

"I was simply seeking an explanation of how soft tissue could survive for millions of years,...."

I think this was answered within the articles, but you have to admit this has turned out a very interesting thread.

Another thing you might look at is the 'bog man'/people found in the UK moors

"God I love this street" - From the movie The Burbs

At Last! The Solution!!

Not sure if everyine will be able to listen to this (copyright / broadcast license issues), but if you can, it's worth it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b017m14t

I can get it. Just don't have 30 minutes at the moment. I'll definitely have a listen.

Forgot to say - it's only up for 7 days after broadcast....

I was also able to listen to it as well. Unfortunately, it requires so much concentration for me to try to understand, that there is no way I could get through 30 minutes of it.

Even in my native American English, I am accustomed to watching people's faces to help me understand what they are saying. Without those cues, my hearing and/or brain processing is sporadic at best. Add the British accent, and I'm lost.

PMSL - and at least 4 distinct British accents in that show....

Personally, I don't find Dr Brian Cox all that dishy or whatever and he has a nasty annoying nasal voice that I find difficult to hear. I haven't had a TV for so long, and spent so much of my childhood listening to radio that it's just natural to me.

We get to hear so many American accents so much of the time over here, that we have no trouble understanding them...

Every body who has posted on this forum should listen to this broadcast. Though after a very good beginning, it sort of lost momentum...

It shows the difference between an economic, or political and a scientific debate. Balance is not fifty percent one fellows opinion against another fellow's fact. Balance can only be between the fact guy versus the fact guy or conversely the opinion guy versus the opinion guy.

"The frustration from scientist is that they have to follow rules that politians or media don't have to follow. The rules of media demand that a balanced debate is between two people who are equally interesting." That is true enough, the droning economist will never get as much air time as the wild eyed anarchist, no matter how right he might be.

The example they use is the mathematician who after many years of work discovers that two and two are four, and appears on a talk show with the opposition, a member of the "duodecimal liberation front" who states that of course two and two equals five. After an hour of back and forth, they decide that in fact two and two equals something between four and five, probably closer to four. And after they shake hands and leave the studio, they now have to face their respective groups who will then try to destroy them for giving in.

If somebody is determined to disbelieve, you CANNOT come to a balance. (says the biologist)

"Science has no conscience. OTOH, you don't need a conscience to get through your day." And there you go...justification for throwing out rational thought.

Well, enough of this....very good pod cast. Very...um....balanced.

In Carl Sagan's book, "Demon Haunted World" in the introduction, he tells the story of this taxi driver who wanted to know why Carl did not tackle the "real" issues. The "important" stuff. Carl had a popular television show at the time, and was a little taken aback by that since he thought he "HAD" tackled important stuff...you know, like the origins of the Universe and Life and all that stuff. No, the taxi driver wanted to know why he didn't talk about Area 51, re-incarnation, and astrology, things he had heard about on "Coast to Coast" (a radio show that comes on in the early morning when the nutbars come out to play). Sagan thought about that, and did some research. He discovered that the astrology columns in newspapers are not cheap...they take up space which can be quantified in dollars...they call it "column inches" . What you would pay to have an advertisment inserted on that spot. In fact, the amount of money the papers spend to carry astrology columns country wide exceeded the yearly budget for the science of astronomy by several times. So, he noted that if the money spent on astrology (a harmless passtime) were to be put into astronomy (another harmless, but rather more interesting passtime), we would have several more Hubble telescopes, and we would know a LOT more about the universe than we do now.

The rest of the book is worth reading because he actually DOES tackle those issues important to the taxi drivers of the world. But that one comment has stuck with me. How much money is spent on quackery instead of on (say) socialized medicine. Would we have a cure for cancer in place now if we didn't spend all our money on Q-Ray bracelets, Chiropracty, dietary supplements, Cialis, Acupuncture and Homeopathy? I will leave it to the reader to do the research on how much money is spent on the search for a cure for cancer compare to how much is spent on those other things.

Science,in a way is a religion.

Scientists ask us to believe certain things based upon scientific evidence and

repeatability of results.

Other things they ask us to believe because of a theory that has not yet been

disproven,and is currently supported by emperical evidence:

The entire observable (either directly or indirectly observable) knowable universe

began with when a singularity expanded into a void and created space-time and all

of it's contents.

All physics cease at the instant of expansion,and no one dares to go there (Beyond here there be monsters.)

Some believe that God created the universe from nothing with a Word.

The Bible dose not say that the universe was created in 6 days,it states that the six"days" are :"the generations of creation" in effect,the sequence,not necessarily the defintion of literal time as we know it.

What was a "Day" before the Earth rotated on it's axis?

Perhaps it was a Galactic day,one rotation of the Galaxy or the Super Cluster, or the

Group,or some other rotation that we are too short-lived to even observe?

The Bible also states that "a thousand years is as a day,and a day is as a thousand years."

I interpret this to mean that the time frames of the Bible are not to be taken literally,but relatively.

So which is easier to believe,the Singularity or the Word?

Take your pick.

There is much to fear by both sides of the argument,each afraid of losing control and power.

Imagine an advanced alien species,looking at Earth's civlilization and thinking how

quaint was our knowledge and beliefs.

The Bible states that it will interpret itself,and that no one is needed to help you interpret it.

One but needs to but study and ponder it dilligently and the questions you have will be answered.

"Knock,and the door will be opened unto you.Seek and you shall find."

And this applies to many disciplines,including science.

OK:I will get off of my rant now,and give a link to the ancient DNA.

http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html