Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 155,474
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69963 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I understand...I believe the Quantum field might be outside natural laws.
Don't think so.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69964 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree. Someone takes a PCP to achieve a desired emotional or mental state. But because drugs can be toxic, it produces an undesirable side-effect just like any prescription drugs. Trauma doesn't trigger the same chemical response in the brain that drugs or alcohol do. Trauma actually is opposite of the effects of what drugs do to your brain. Trauma produces a negative effect such as pain or fear but because it triggers chemicals in the brain, the fight-or-flight response, it produces a good desired effect such as peace or positive sensation after reacting or responding to a crisis, it's why in NDE people actually survive death.
No.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69965 Jan 4, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have-time and time again, and that hasn't changed an iota.
I find the type of work being done at CERN, amazing.
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69966 Jan 4, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No.
Do you have an explanation?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69967 Jan 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text> Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Shared cellular memory could be the reason.
Cellular memory isn't really a thing.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69968 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an explanation?
There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something." If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?

And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69969 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol
Is what because (Science has named what has eluded them since time began) the God particle?

Was there something you were trying to ask?

Again, try the CERN web, certainly they can explain their life's work, should one ask them a coherent question anyway.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69970 Jan 5, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?
Theoretically, according to still in process hypothesis being studied in comparisons of say justgenetics, in it's parts of the whole of basic evolutionary tenets, Yes, it could be quite "different", due to a little, relatively new phenotype phenomenon dubbed "phenotypic plasticity".

Which is why SOME us have ascribed to the notion, for quite some time(since the first thought existed on the subject anyway) that Science itself would be limited in it's endeavors of exact complete recreation, of anything.

MMMmmmm (NOT) frog legs. lol.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69971 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.
Are you just skimming for keywords now? Here, let me copy that line again:

An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not.

I am denying you assertions on the grounds that you lack evidence, you are making the assertions, therefore it is me denying your assertions. Now you are just projecting again, it's like a roller-coaster with you.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69972 Jan 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
but the fact of the matter is that science doesn't give two hoots about theism or atheism.
Another "well stated".

Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.

It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69973 Jan 5, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Another "well stated".
Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.
It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).
Sagan didn't seem to think so...

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69974 Jan 5, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
It appears that even in accordance to some of his own quotes, that statement would prove detrimental, in thinking Einstien was "hatefilled" like that. Seems the man had better things to do in life.

"God is subtle, but not malicious;" (Einstien).

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69975 Jan 5, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
What do you believe?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69976 Jan 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Personally myself, I've always felt that both compliment (rather than detract from)and often times do indeed, validate, the other.

I just have a hard time with tolerance for ones so small minded, or ignorant or something(?), that they can't comprehend, MANY have always, and still do, have "room in brain cavity" for the existence of concepts pertaining to BOTH realms.

But that's just my opinion :-).
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69977 Jan 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
For example- what you just typed, actually VALIDATES, what I stated my own opinion to be prior-

As in-

(FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever)

So in only using the presented statement from the person you referenced,it appears they might think right along the same lines. However, with out researching the subject referenced any myself, that just really constitutes just a third party assumption on my part, being based only on the statement you posted about another, so that assumption in no ways makes it any sort of "fact"... Just opinion upon assumption :-).

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#69978 Jan 5, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Is what because (Science has named what has eluded them since time began) the God particle?
Was there something you were trying to ask?
Again, try the CERN web, certainly they can explain their life's work, should one ask them a coherent question anyway.
Actually it was named the "Goddamn" particle, in exasperation at its elusive nature.

Some press flack cleaned it up - much to the irritation of the scientists involved, who cordially hate the name.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69979 Jan 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Sagan didn't seem to think so...
“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
Sagan also smoked pot, and I think he was a big fan of acid but I don't recall the specifics. If we discredited everyone with one crazy idea, nothing would ever get done. Bill Mahar doesn't think illness is caused by germs and viruses. Newton thought he could change lead to gold with magical words and herbs. Imhotep believed Horus was real. I believe that our machines are more alive than we think. We all have crazy ideas not based on scientific facts, it doesn't change the things we contribute to advancement. Until you understand that, you won't understand the difference between fanciful dreams and science.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#69980 Jan 5, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Actually it was named the "Goddamn" particle, in exasperation at its elusive nature.
Some press flack cleaned it up - much to the irritation of the scientists involved, who cordially hate the name.
Funny. Laurel and Hardy called...said you needed A (one) sanitary wipe for yer mouthn' lol.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69981 Jan 5, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something."
What mystical something did I mention here? I tried to explain how chemicals are involved.

http://www.ehow.com/list_6907783_parts-brain-...
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?
I believe we can induce NDE. Yes it would still be like natural. In fact, I've had many NDEs of different types.
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>
And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.
No, from my experience I wasn't trying to avoid death, I was responding to death as I thought I was going to die!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69982 Jan 5, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
For example- what you just typed, actually VALIDATES, what I stated my own opinion to be prior-
As in-
(FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever)
So in only using the presented statement from the person you referenced,it appears they might think right along the same lines. However, with out researching the subject referenced any myself, that just really constitutes just a third party assumption on my part, being based only on the statement you posted about another, so that assumption in no ways makes it any sort of "fact"... Just opinion upon assumption :-).
We already know the secrets of the bible. Do you think the periodic table does too? I think it does. I think if scientists study it, they would find out things we don't know yet such as which atom came to existence first, etc. Before finding out about the God Particle (Higgs Boson), shouldn't we first know which atom was created first?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Next Person Game (Mar '11) 3 min Sharlene45 9,621
Happy April Fools Day. (Apr '11) 3 min Enter Username 33
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 7 min -TheExam- 4,626
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 7 min wichita-rick 267
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 159,988
Word Association (Jun '10) 15 min Mega Monster 27,036
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 23 min Princess Hey 139,812
motorcycle traveling stories 42 min Gerbil Herder 89
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 3 hr Observer 8,168
More from around the web