Science and Religion Message Board 1001-1500

After evil came into the world through man's decision, things changed as a consequence of that decision. because of free will we must live withthe consequences of our actions. - bill unverferth

I’m following the evolution-DNA debate, but reserve participation until I’m done on the universal creation part. I tried over on the evolution board, but found I couldn’t maintain two dissimilar threads at the same time. I’m glad you’re doing it, so I’ll learn where you are coming from in that. I haven’t made up my mind yet on how life fits into the puzzle. It’s such a confusing development at odds with the ‘rules’ for energy conservation and dissipation on cosmic levels.

I personally would applaud the demise of violently enforced religion, Carl. There will always be fanatics on both sides, but as long as they are non-violent, it’s none of my business. Religion as a political institution will keep going - even if it is forced to evolve ‘interpretations’ - because there’s money and power to be had from subscribers. I’ve got no problem with that, either.

Faith is something else. Faith in God is something the stauncher believers in ‘interpretations’ or charismatic interpretors have failed to separate. The definitions for Faith and Belief differ in significant ways on this level. If all organized, political religions disappeared at 2 a.m. tomorrow morning, faith would still exist.

Congratulations, Joy!

You beat me to become the 1000th poster. Hadn't I spent time uncorking a fine claret from the better slopes of the Burgundy, my post #1001 would have beaten yours.

Oh, well, there is always #2000.

; - )

When discussing the basic origins of how life started from inert separate chemicals and elements, I don't see that spontaneous generation has been proved. - Marie M.

Bernhard Schopper - Friday, 01/29/99, 11:07:24pm (#985)

Marie M. - Saturday, 01/30/99, 9:17:16am (#994)

What about near death experiences?

Bernard I take very strong exception with your suggestion that Marie should not introduce the subject of near death experiences.

I also disagree with your implied disapproval of "biblical tales" being discussed here.

This is not a science message board.

This is a Science and Religion message board. Bernard, if you dislike some of these common religious themes so, why do you bother being here instead of some regular science board?

The biblical stories have great relevance and value. I am not a Christian. I am a believer in God and I consider Jesus one worthwhile teacher among many. The biblical stories are records, very imperfect as they are, of God’s interaction with humans.

Marie, near death experiences have never been explained by physical sciences.

Not one single representational fact of consciousness has ever been explained by physical science. Not one.

It takes a lot of false pride and it is false science when any scientist denies the simple possibility of hypothetical testing for putative phenomena.

A real scientist would accept near death experiences as a subject for study.

A real believer who is mature in her or his faith would submit his or her experiences to scientific scrutiny.

It is as simple as that!

Marie you should not give in so easily to sheer blustering. Your suggestion was very good.

To address your objections to Velikovsky’s theories, I would remind you first that the celestial mechanics interpreted as supporting the multi-cultural observations of strange planetary goings-on in historical times are Velikovsky’s, not Moses’, the Egyptians’, the Babylonians, the Chinese, the MesoAmericans’ or the Picts and Bretons’ (etc.). He compared the histories, weeded out the "Thunder God" cultural interpretations, and found common observations.

The theories concern an unstable triad of inner solar system planets jockeying for orbital position between Jupiter and the sun. Apart from the historical encounters Velikovsky documented ~c.1500 B.C. and later (during the Hebrew conquest of Canaan) with the protoplanet Venus - a relative newcomer to the inner system via violent ejection from Jupiter - he found evidence in the geological and paleontologic record to support prehistoric encounters with Mars. In these encounters, Velikovsky postulated that the exchange of debris might have included primitive life forms evolving at that time on Earth. (Continued...)

Part 2...

There was no "collision" in the strict sense (depending on where science at some point attributes the origin of Earth’s moon) between the three similar-sized planetary bodies. Velikovsky postulated that there may have been a smaller planet between the orbit of Mars and Jupiter, which was destroyed during some encounter with its larger neighbor’s originally elliptical orbit, and now makes up the asteroid belt.

The voluminous details of these theories and subsequent confirmations (especially concerning conditions on Venus) are out there for anyone who cares to look. I will not present them here, but would encourage anyone interested to research the existing material for themselves and come to their own conclusions. The outrageous attempts to destroy Velikovsky and his theories by a consortium of what became known as the "Scientific Mafia" are legendary, and included the foremost scientific luminaries of the time. All of whom maintained that the universe was in a "steady state" where nothing ever moves from its assigned place, and stones do not fall from the sky.

We now know more than we did before. The universe is a far stranger place than was once believed by ‘modern’ science, who’s Absolute Truth turned out not to be so absolute after all. Conversely, the Absolute Truth recorded in Exodus (both of these supposed ‘Absolutes’ being in reality something less than that) turned out to have more validity than science wished to contemplate. (Continued...)

Part 3...

As Bernhard’s attitude points out, many in science belief-set still resist thinking seriously on the subject because it threatens their passionate atheism. Which is more revealing of how brilliant minds can close to entire aspects of the human experience than it is revealing of any marvels the religion of science is able to produce.

This evident attitude also happens to explain the contradictory assertions seen here in the past few days concerning what it might mean if evidence of DNA-based life forms are found on Mars. Once again, the possibilities presented by such a discovery are:

1. DNA is the universal constant for life, and all life forms in the universe will be DNA-based. This suggests a subverted probability factor at creation (Big Bang), or in other words, a Plan.

2. Earth and Mars encountered each other in a violent way - exchange of debris including primitive life forms - at some point in planetary history.

Science will fight tooth and nail to prevent the ‘God’ argument from arising (as I am raising it here). Either Genesis is correct or Exodus is correct (in essence if not in cultural context). And if one is correct, the other is likely to be correct as well. This would mean a reevaluation by science of the other part of our human experience in this universe, the realm of consciousness. It would also mean a reevaluation by religion of its reliance on relativistic ‘interpretations’ of what is merely history. This is a positive development all around.

The End.

Hi, Jane! Don’t mind Bernhard. He plays a vital role in the debate, and plays it very well. There’s a heckler in every crowd!!! §:o)

"A real believer who is mature in her or his faith would submit his or her experiences to scientific scrutiny."

Believer in what, Jane? In the reality of the experience? Of course I believe in that, since I am the empirically-minded human who experienced it, examining every detail as it happened with a strong degree of innate distrust. But no matter how I viewed it, it remains within the realm of subjective experience rather than objective phenomena. Science has no way of testing or knowing whether it was ‘real’ or not. It would be a matter of belief.

I know how science works, so I know what it means to open my personal experience to scrutiny here. I would inevitably lose any possible debate in this arena. What I am doing here is trying to relate how my experiences (in general) point toward the existence of an ‘other’ outside of time-space, which I have experienced to exist in reality. I’m trying to do it on terms my opponents in the debate understand. That’s all.

So I’d love to see a board devoted to consciousness. That is the ‘other half’ of human nature I’ve been trying to establish.

Joy Busey - Friday, 01/29/99, 11:32:36am (#944)

It is interesting that you mentioned the possibility of a spirit-soul-animator. It is one of the greatest questions in the history of science and religion. It is my inclination to use the term psychomatter.

I felt saddened that the fellow who introduced Barrow and Tippler here has not followed up. Kurt Shoedel, are you still around?

If Kurt is not going to develop this suggestion, I will.

Beyond Barrow and Tippler, there is a long line people who questioned whether matter has consciousness and feeling. The U.S. government and the CIA are still funding serious statistical studies by true scientists like J. Utts, Brian Josephson, and many others on this question and the larger field of exo-biological awareness and parapsychological phenomena.

I am not sure if Barrow and Tippler are totally right and yet it is good to remember that they gave one way of seeing how exo-biological awareness and broad sentient consciousness and such phenomena are not related to faith in a conventional Judeo-Christian God. I am not meaning to offend believers here. I believe in God. I am not so sure that I believe the whole package of the Judeo-Christian God.

It is very important to remember that the descriptions of hard science, as David Chalmers shows, are very good at showing fall quite short explaining how and why we experience any consciousness at all.

There are far too many leads for us to dismiss the possibilities of a psychomatter union. This possibility may help us understand much about religion and science.

Joy Busey - Saturday, 01/30/99, 4:32:10pm (#1010)

Hi Joy!

Thank you for the clue about Bernhard :). I was hoping we would have at least one grouch around!! Bernhard, what fun!

It is true what you said about belief. It does raise the need for belief whenever we delve far into consciousness. It is quite true. It is entirely possible also that the whole of our scientific enterprise is an act of faith. We certainly do not hear quite enough today about scientists having faith :))). It is quite amusing how scientists do not want to admit that science is built up upon heave doses of faith.

It is also quite true and healthy I feel to have what you say is innate distrust. I love that description. I have not heard that phrase for some time and it is a welcome old friend. I suppose that from the first time our own experience deceives us we learn a lesson to ask healthy questions and to distrust a lot that we experience. Joy, I don’t know about for you, but for me it is this distrust that makes life interesting! We live in a very magical world. I know that this word magic is frowned upon and I do not mean witches brews and stuff like that, just a sense of childlike wonder at the sheer miracle that there is anything at all! And not only is there stuff, there is some rather amazing stuff :))).

I pray to God I never loose my sense of wonder. It is a lifelong struggle to keep wonder and innate distrust in balance. I am not there yet. I think I can, I think I can, I think I can!

In our universe we even have old Bernhard, grouchypie! I have more about the sun for Bernhard. He is so wrong about the sun. Ug.

I honestly do not wish to explore the subject of past and ongoing consciousness-based research by government or its military underlings. But I did think it a nifty coincidence that we posted responses relating exactly to that subject within a 2-second span (time-delay in server capability?). Hmmmm.....

Yes! Very interesting indeed :).

Now Joy, we need some innate distrust around here.

And some food! I will be back later. I need some real energy in order to read more of Bernhard!

Yes! Very interesting indeed :).

Now Joy, we need some innate distrust around here.

And some food! I will be back later. I need some real energy in order to read more of Bernhard!

"Brotha, Ah have seen the light!"

(But seriously, I do think your point is well taken.)

But I disagree here. I don't see that happening. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that there are simply too many questions that science can not answer, and it seems to me that, above all else, people want answers. Guess where they are going to get those answers? In the old religions, that's where. Oh yes, do give that "Old time Religion." It has all the answers, even about what happens when we die. Can science promise heaven on earth and a thousand year rein after which we fly away to our heavenly abode?

The biblical stories are records, very imperfect as they are, of God’s interaction with humans. - Jane Patrick

What are the writings of ancient Greece and Rome in respect to their gods' interaction with man? What are the Bhagavad-Gita and the Koran? What are Norse and Germanic mythologies?

Fairy tales, my dear. Nothing but fairy tales.

Ask yourself: Why has nothing been added to the Bible since the last chapter was written? Has your god suddenly vanished in space? Have potential contributors realized that man has wisened up seeing the fraud that is being perpetuated in the Holy Book?

There are far too many leads for us to dismiss the possibilities of a psychomatter union. - Jane Patrick

Before I reached the age of enlightenment, I used to belong to a cult, named Transcendental Meditation. There, I was being told, that it is possible to develop such a strong psychic force, that not only could alter the consciousness (i.e. brain processes) of other human beings, but also interact with physical forces, such as neutralizing gravity.

Of course, in order for one to develop such a psychic force, lots of courses had to be taken, which didn't come cheap.

Bernhard Schopper: #1016:...Ask yourself: Why has nothing been added to the Bible since the last chapter was written? Has your god suddenly vanished in space? Have potential contributors realized that man has wisened up seeing the fraud that is being perpetuated in the Holy Book?

The Bible is a completed work. God's still here, and always will be. Because it is complete, no new chapters need be added. Science on the other hand is still writing their book ,they don't have it all yet.

Jane Patrick: thanks for the support, on NDE's, but it really isn't all that important to me whether it is discussed here or not. I agree it has been studied on the subjective experiences, and no physical reasons can explain them. Since there have been so many documented cases, it certainly gives us something to think about. It's not imagination nor hallucination.

<sigh> Because the last chapter was written nearly 2,000 years ago, Bernhard. The total revelation of all that needed revealing in the context of Judeo-Christian experience. Science (bless its pointy little head) gets to take it from there. When science gets to the event horizon (incidentally guarded rather jealously by Cherubim with flaming swords) and can come up with as simple an Answer as Jesus did, we will have learned what it is God intended for us to know. We will have finally digested the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, and be ready for the Tree of Life.

I am teasing you, friend o’ mine. I suspect you don’t subscribe much to metaphysics, so this probably won’t make any sense. Still, I am enjoying you very much anyway.

And you’ve totally distracted me from my reply to E.C. on his diversionary tactic of last night. <again sigh>. There’s only so many hours in a day, including a Saturday! Hopefully E.C.’s away for the weekend and I’ll have the time to counter expansion as a convenient excuse for Singularity... §:o)

Although Velikovsky was cetainly erudite, even brilliant, he was by no means a scientist. There are too many reasons too list why his theories concerning "worlds in collision" are unfounded from every conceivable law governing planetary motions, and the current theories concerning the evolution of planetary bodies. Instead, below are to websites that discuss the essential flaws:

If there is one thing that Velikovsky has done for science is that he has placed a mirror in front of some researchers and they didn't like what they saw. The ferocious attacks of his theory may have been warranted but the manner in which he was dismissed out of hand made many astronomers uneasy since it merely reflected on the past when Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, etc.. introduced new concepts which were attacked to the point where the theory was indistinguishable from the man who proposed it. The astronomers were observing that they were now playing the role of the church while Velikovky, no matter how incorrect his theortical framework, was playing the role of Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, etc.. It was an awakening for the "establishment" which hopefully has netted a change in the way new concepts are examined.

Carl Nicoli

I lost the number of the message on this board where you wrote that it is sad for theists that people are losing faith in God and are putting faith in science.

This is not sad at all. This is an observation that is not supported by studies. Many people today believe in God and some polls have the numbers around 70%-80% of the adult population. It is also true that people today believe in science and it is further true that science is based on faith :). The real neat point to consider about this is the fact that since so many people do believe in God and also believe in science, the sort of discussion that is going on here in this board is like the discussions that go on inside the very minds and hearts of so many sincere believers :).

Bernhard Schopper - Saturday, 01/30/99, 6:49:07pm (#1016)

Marie M. - Saturday, 01/30/99, 7:15:04pm (#1018)

Bernhard you ask a very good question in asking why no new books have been added to the bible.

I cannot answer that one. I am not a Christian. I do believe in God. I just cannot answer your question about the bible and I wish someone here could do a fine job responding.

It is my opinion that there are new chapters added to the bible. I do not mean to offend Christians here, and I must differ with Marie on this one, but it is my opinion that the entire history of human life is an ongoing journal of interaction with God and each human life is a new chapter.

Have you ever read the poetry of Wordsworth? That is an addition to the bible. Have you ever heard Handel’s "Messiah"? That is an addition to the bible. Did you see the Buddhist monks who immolated themselves in protest to the Vietnam war? They were additions to the bible. Have you ever read Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle? That is an addition to the bible.

God has a hand in inspiring all good and true and loving things, Bernhard, even you!

Bernhard Schopper - Saturday, 01/30/99, 7:06:11pm (#1017)

Bernhard! Look at what you wrote –> "Although I admit that the mind can influence the workings of the body, psychomatter is just psychobabble to me."

Now, now. If your mind can influence just one piece of matter, then your mind can influence matter! So, if your mind can influence your own body, then your mind can influence matter! Unless your own particular body is not material, Bernhard :)! Are you an angel??? Are you a spirit???

Hmm! It is not necessary to all psychomatter hypotheses to hypothesize that mind can influence all matter, just some matter. But even this is not the most important relationship.

It is the most important part of psychomatter research to understand that what is

I hope you caught my answer to this question, Cliff. There are two aspects to ourselves. Religion ministers to one aspect (Faith), science to the other (Curiosity). Both are relevant, both are enate to our being, and both will eventually transcend their opposition to form a new whole. Unless, of course, science kills us all first... or God does.

What I’m saying is it’s y’all’s ball. The psychological ‘sciences’ are in infancy, and still unaccepted by the empirical sciences. There is an abyss we need our mutual humanity to bridge. I’ve been at both ends of that bridge due to circumstance unique to my own life, but I have learned to recognize the validity of both (despite fanatics).

Those of us who can remove the motes from our own eyes will lead the way. Those of us who can’t will still be blind... §:o)

Oops! here is the ending.

It is the most important part of psychomatter research to understand that what is being examined is a mutual influence, a reciprocal influence, a two-way street of mutual give and take between both mind and matter.

Well, I guess that sews up my laziness for straying, doesn't it?

Hi, E.C.! How ya doin' tonight? er...uh... gee. I was going to toss multiple dimensions in here, but haven't yet correlated and defined them yet. It's coming, I promise!

I suppose that if one is a proponent of Everett's Many Worlds theory, inflation as expressed by Guthe is just one of many ways the universe did develop. Every Planck time interval would spawn different world lines upon which "parallel universes" developed and we just happened to come to existence in a universe compatible with the processes of nucleosynthesis, weak gravity and strong nuclear forces, and manageable rate of entropy increases which among other things made the develop of life possible.

All we can say for certain is that inflation is the best theory currently available to explain certain essential problems in cosmology. It is not without its detractors but no alternative theories have done a better job at reconciling isotropy, flatness, and symmetry-breaking. It does not mean that the search ends here, however. As long as my colleagues and I venture to probe the mysteries of the Cosmos, we will never run short of things that destroy our current world views. That is what we want, it drives the entire enterprise of discovery.

Marie, I'm horror struck... you mean that no science older than 19 years old means anything? Look, you can criticize my references, you can complain I'm not up to date on this issue. Who'd blame me for for not being up to date on an issue that was settled 150 years ago.

But you can't just ignore perfectly good scientific data just because it's old, and just because it suits you to ignore it.

Do you have even one solitary piece of evidence to prove that the data showing the intimate genetic relationships between chimps and people is wrong?

No? I thought not :) Ball's in your court.

Cliff Beall - I have to admit I don't have a reference to circle species available, and I can't remember where I read about them. Obviously not in my library, so it must have been in some journal not referenced in the databases I have access to. Sorry, but I don't think I have access to the relevant databases.

For those who are interested, the current obsession in high energy physics is the detection of the Higgs boson often described as the "God Particle".

According to the current Big Bang cosmology, the era of inflation was capped by the breaking of symmetry between the weak and electromagnetic forces. The forcing carrying particles for each force are W and Z bosons and photons, respectively. However, before the differentiation of these two forces the "electroweak" force possessed the Higgs boson as its primary means of interaction. It is the holy grail of particle physics because its detection could possibly throw the "Standard Model" of particle physics into jeopardy. For more information look at

Thank you for this much concession, friend. Science alone will eventually establish truth or not-truth in this controversy, and that final chapter is not yet writ.

I also appreciate your defense of science and its tendency to persecute as harshly as the church was ever known to do. I would disagree if you were to maintain that the persecution of abhorrent ideas is anywhere close to over with the Velikovsky affair. That too, based upon personal experience with such things. That brother I mentioned long posts ago, for instance. The one working on anti-gravity drive. Science has come up with methods of control every bit as evil as religion ever envisioned. This is something you should see and consider for what it is.

?????

Please! I am long out of that loop...

Leszek,
I *think* I have Isla'a adx in my mail client at work; If so, I will ask her for the refference on the terns Monday.

That is -- actualy fine with me. Since any "meta-period" can define the interval between "ticks" (which must, by definition, appear to be absolutely regular to us) there is no limiting factor to the available compression or expansion of this "meta-time" relative to ours.

All of space-time may be no more than the evolving information "state" of the singularity. Isn't it possible, in some cosmological premises, to view the monobloc as a point with a tem-dimensional surface? (Wanna guess where this is heading?)

Have you ever read the poetry of Wordsworth? That is an addition to the bible. Have you ever heard Handel’s "Messiah"? That is an addition to the bible. - Jane Patrick

How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin, Keith? <g> Entire eternities can be experienced in between moments, if moments are measurable at all. Heisenberg, remember?

I think I do know where you’re heading, and am anxiously awaiting your presentation!

Huh? I'm lost here. Not a new occurrance by any means.

Now, now. If your mind can influence just one piece of matter, then your mind can influence matter! So, if your mind can influence your own body, then your mind can influence matter! - Jane Patrick

Joy Busey - Saturday, 01/30/99, 2:00:45pm (#1002 of 1036)

Hi, Joy. Are you familiar with the International Association for Near Death Studies? (you'll find them at www.iands.org)

My husband experienced this in l974. We are very active in our local chapter of this organization, whose headquarters are in Connecticut.

A small humorous reference to Los Alamos' linear accellerator, E.C. They had to shut it down at rush hour (highway ran right past the target) because the NRC said it was too much radiation... But of course, a little neutron activation never hurt anybody, right?

I am in an optimistic mode. I leave with:

-Woody Allen

Many people today believe in God and some polls have the numbers around 70%-80% of the adult population. - Jane Patrick

It is also evident that "The National Enquirer" is the best-selling weekly tabloid in the United States. Its circulation is more that that of "The Washington Post, The New York Times" and "The Wall Street Journal" combined.

Joy: you're welcome!

Last Gallup poll indicated 15 million Americans have experienced this. Can they all be "hallucinating"? Not the ones I've met!

The Bible is a completed work. God's still here, and always will be. Because it is complete, no new chapters need be added. Science on the other hand is still writing their book ,they don't have it all yet. - Marie M.

If I were to subscribe to fantasy, I would say the Bible was a complete work after the "Genesis" chapter. What more had to be added?

In regard to science, on the other hand, new things are being discovered every day. Where in the Bible could have been such reference as to man having created new life forms (e.g. petroleum-gobbling bacteria) by means of genetic engineering?

Marie, some time ago, you have asked me to supply a source as to why I believe creationists are genetically identical to normal humans not closer than 99.99%.

The unfolding of The Plan, that's what, Bernhard. Humans have had a hard row to hoe, long before science became the prince regents of acceptable philosophy.

Religion can only go so far in explaining the portion of ourselves it is designed and intended to address. That 'far' was reached a long time ago, which pretty well explains the resulting chaos since. Pride. Power. Riches. Is there more???

When science gets to the event horizon (incidentally guarded rather jealously by Cherubim with flaming swords) and can come up with as simple an Answer as Jesus did, we will have learned what it is God intended for us to know. - Joy Busey

What simple answer did Jesus provide?

E.C. Thanks for the links about Velikovsky, particularly to "The Skeptic's Dictionary." I had no idea how silly Velikovsky's so-called "theories" actually were until I read that. And some people thought Sagan was unfair. My, my.

BTW, here is a link to a page describing life that appears to have existed 3.7 billion years ago.

Cheers.

The unfolding of The Plan - Joy Busey

Well, according to the Bible then, this "Plan" was grounded around 2,000 B.C.

Nothing was written afterwards. Not the kind of "Plan" I would accept to be a valid one.

Why don't we stop this nonsense. The Bible is just a mythical literature, as are mythical literatures from other civilizations. Nothing more, nothing less.

Love. The Whole Of The Law. Everything else is just shysters making a buck on the desperate. You know that just like I do.

Unless you read what it is the critics are bashing, how can you make an informed opinion about it? Shame on you, Cliff!

With that bit of added scientifically-minded fascism, I bid adieu, y'all!

Bernhard Schopper - Saturday, 01/30/99, 10:33:44pm (#1040)

Hi Bernhard. Look what you did again.

I said that studies show around 70%-80% of the adult population still believe in God.

And you said –>"It is also evident that "The National Enquirer" is the best-selling weekly tabloid in the United States. Me thinks, there are a lot of idiots in this country. "

I am so glad you reminded me. I almost forgot to renew my subscription to the Enquirer, and the Globe too, oh and Mad Magazine. What an idiot I would have been to let them run out.

Now, now. There are several Nobel laureates, plenty of good hard scientists, and numerous hard working authentic social scientists and plenty of hard working and thinking people who are open and favorable to psychomatter hypotheses :). Several government fund the research. It is not an area of research that is going to go away! I know how scientists lovingly give each other funds for meritorious research out of their pet favorite fields :)! I know why so many scientists poo-poo psychomatter research. Sure a lot of it is speculative. And yet significant statistical studies show nonrandom influences at work that we have yet to understand.

Tut tut.

Joy, I hope you are not leaving.

Please stay and keep putting up messages!

I do not agree with all of your own personal ideas about God and religion and faith, but I am very interested in learning more.

Please stay!

Don't leave.

Or did you mean you are leaving for the night only?

Joy, it was the quotes from Velikovsky's book that convinced me. Consider:

and:

God, what a crackpot!

With that bit of added scientifically-minded fascism, I bid adieu, y'all! - Joy Busey

Don't leave!

; - )

Well if you think about it that is exactly what they are doing. From the ecologists who are striving for a superbly balanced eco structure to the sustainable energy types to the space station builders. The pesky genetic engineers are even starting to create complex life.

If you include the social and political sciences as well as medical fields there is not much about religion that is not being subsumed by Science.

I personally lay the blame on the monotheists in they have this God which is a creator. To really cap it off, the humans are the children of that God. As more and more of humanity came under the influence of this central idea, the society as a whole, and many in it, decided to be creators just like their God.

Science is increasingly giving them the tools.

I agree and think we are in a transition period.

I think Russel Husted could answer that question more in depth, than I. I can add to what I started, that was so concise:

Nothing has been added to the Bible ,for 2000 years, because the Revelation of Jesus Christ and the Plan of Salvation is complete. Basically the whole unlying theme of the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation lays down, God's solution for mankind, and reveals Jesus, as that solution.

In Genesis, when it says God (Elohim) Hebrew language translates into plural: Gods. In the beginning God... ( Jesus was present at Creation.) In John in the new Testament, this is revealed in Chapter One.

The Genology documented in the Bible ; is the linage of Adam to Christ. God chose the Hebrews,(Jews) as his chosen people to give Messiah to the world. (Abraham was the first.)

The prophets in the Old Testament predict Messiah's birth. Revelation predicts events that are to occur at the return of the Messiah. ( This is the traditional Christian View; as I know it) I,m sure there are various others.

Hi Kathy: The near death experiences, I've heard about, are hard to dismiss, as just hallucination. In RN magazine, they related a true story of a woman who was in a car accident, near a sports stadium. The accident backed up traffic, of people leaving the stadium. While resue workers were with her, she died, and found herself floating over the scene. She heard several drivers cursing her, because the accident, kept them stalled in traffic. She heard a woman in one of the cars praying for her. Suddenly, the experience ended.

A few days later, when she recovered enough, at the hospital, she told a friend to write down a liceanse # of a car. She was very intent on finding the driver of that car. When the car and driver were found; the woman requested to see her, and told the driver about the experience. The driver was amazed; as she had been doing the very thing the woman had heard and seen.

I'm flattered.:)- LOL.

Seriously, though; perhaps the .01% difference, is spiritual.*** I've chosen what "fantasy to believe; as have you."

Who'd blame me for for not being up to date on an issue that was settled 150 years ago.

Goodness, I would hardly conclude, it was settled by Darwin, if that's what you are referring to.

But you can't just ignore perfectly good scientific data just because it's old, and just because it suits you to ignore it. Do you have even one solitary piece of evidence to prove that the data showing the intimate genetic relationships between chimps and people is wrong?

Yes, common sense. The 2 split chromosones on the chimp, have a multitude of genetic difference than homo sapiens. The other 46 chromosones are not similiar in total compositions. The chimp does have similarities to man, but also has vast differences, that are obvious also, and just because one study decides a 2% difference, especially without more facts, is very premature. A deermouse has 48 chromosones, also, as does the gorilla. So the number of chromosones, doesn't really establish, the family tree completely.

I've chosen what "fantasy to believe; as have you." - Marie M.

With the possible exception that your fantasies are a whole lot wilder than mine.

But you see, the banding pattern on human and chimp chromosomes stained for microscopy is so similar, it can't be a coincidence. And when you put *those* two chimp chromosomes together, they look so much like human chromosome 2, a couple of obvious inversions apart, it's uncanny. The rest of the chromosomes also show remarkable similarities. Since there's no reason to have identical arrangements of genes on chromosomes in separate species - and the further away from the human line you go, the fewer similarities you find - the obvious explanation is separate descent from a common ancestor. If they weren't descended from a recent common ancestor, there would be *no* correspondence between the banding pattern on the chromosomes.

There have been several studies now reporting a 98 or better genetic similarity between humans and chimps... in fact, we now know that there are more genetic similarities between people and the bonobo chimps, Pan paniscus, than the more familiar chimp species Pan troglodytes. Of course, that does mean that the 2% that is different is crucial, and granted, we don't know everything, but you know, that's a smaller genetic difference than you find in some animals that have been classified as almost identical sub-species!

I'll make this prediction, though... the more we study chimp and human genetics and biology, the more evidence we will find to confirm common ancestry. We won't find any to contradict it. Care to make a small wager on that? :)

Still, tell me this. What philosophical objection do you have to evolution, and common ancestry between humans and other apes? I'm phrasing this badly, I know, but suppose, for example, that there was evidence that convinced you of the fact of evolution. How would that actually affect your religious beliefs? Because I don't really understand why it should have any affect at all.

I think one confusing feature about genetic differences between species is that most of the human genome consists of what molecular biologists have labelled "junk DNA" - their code word for saying they don't know why it's there. Junk DNA consists of many repetitive sequences that are not believed to code for any proteins, so the part of the genome that actually codes for proteins and regulatory genes is small. Estimates of the difference between chimps and people, however, include this repetitive DNA, which makes it even more remarkable that they are so similar if the animals are not related.

But even if you look at the differences in gene sequences that code for functional proteins, and thousands of these are known for a large number of species, the most similar groups to the humans come in this order: chimps & gorillas > apes >monkeys > mammals > non-placental mammals > reptiles > amphibians > fish. And that's true for every protein that's been looked at... we get the same pattern of increasing sequence divergence as we go from people to fish, yet these proteins all function pretty much alike - the sequence differences are not functionally significant, and there is no sense in which one can say that one is more "advanced" than another. In fact, in the test-tube, you can mix and match proteins from different species, and they work together pretty much the same as proteins from the same species.

So if it doesn't matter, up to a point, which form of the protein an animal actually has, why does this pattern of relationships follow the identical pattern that was independently derived by paleontologists from fossils? It's a truly remarkable coincidence if it were just random, and I just don't buy it.

This is the sort of grand result that leads scientists to take an evolutionary view of life. While we argue about this or that single observation here, I'm looking at the big picture, and the vast preponderance of evidence in every biological field points to evolution. It's overwhelming, in fact. I think that in the long run, our view of the meaning of Genesis is just going to have to change to accomodate reality, because reality has been increasingly less accomodating to Genesis over the last 150 years. But you can always hope, I guess! :)

Leszek, I found the reference about birds I remembered in general, but could not remember where I had read it specifically. On Thursday, 12/31/98, 9:49:41am (post #199 on that board) Ilya Taytslin posted the following to the Evolution Message Board.

With the specifics cited in the above post, it should not be too difficult to establish if the facts as presented are true. Perhaps Ilya is still aroung and can help us. Also, apparently, Keith knows of a different example, one involving terns, of which I was not familiar.

Yes, it is wonderful, is it not? BTW, did the article give any specifics about the incident such as the names of the individuals, the date it occurred, the location, the sports event, the license number, the names of the hospital witnesses, or was all this omitted to protect the privacy of the individuals involved.

I think there are several circle species, mostly birds as far as I'm aware, but I'd expect to see similar phenomena among animals, and in species that stretch across entire continents. It would be interesting to know just how common it is. It certainly underlines how fluid the concept of species is, and the spectrum of genetic change between the concepts of micro and macroevolution at either end. I still can't find an outside reference, though... I may have to browse those evolutionary journals that are on-line *sigh*

Sounds great, Leszek. But the first thing we have to find out is if it is true. It is truly wonderful--if it is true.

Same thing for Marie's "near death experience" example.

Let us see if we can find out--on both.

I've chosen what "fantasy to believe; as have you." - Marie M.

With the possible exception that your fantasies are a whole lot wilder than mine.

Same thing for Marie's "near death experience" example. - Cliff Beall

When I was a child, I used to be "near death" (so I was told) at one occasion, having had a fever of 104+^o, and being unsconscious. Can't recall any "out-of-body" experience that might have happened, though.

Perhaps, being a Kraut, I wasn't welcomed in heaven.

I appreciate the need for documentation, but alas, I cannot remember where I read about circle species, and a cursory search of some biology databases turns up nothing. Those databases were far from comprehensive, but still, it's irritating :) it's at the back of my mind, but a fat lot of good that does us.

Bernhard Schopper - (906) and Joy Busey (907)

I am sorry people. I am still a bit new here and trying to catch up after my last message.

I am interested in your discussion of programming language. I am not completely clear what you mean by programming language in the context of religion and especially as related to God.

I am interested in information science and am curious what you meant by this.

Can you give me a little more on this? Or give me some numbers of your previous discussions and I will look them up?

Marie M. (915)

Amazing reference to the 7 seals. Do you mean this as the movie or the real Bible passages? If you really believe in the Bible passages, then do you read these 7 seals as conditional branch logics?

How would you propose finding ‘truth’ in a near-death experience if you can’t find ‘truth’ in genetic structure, Cliff? Names and license numbers would establish nothing, nor would your opinion about the ‘credibility’ of the witness. I don’t imagine the supporting testimony of others, including psychologists within whose specialty the phemomenon rests, would effect ‘truth’ as you would choose to see it either.

But I’ve thought about it quite a bit since last night, and decided I’m not going to let anyone silence me. I took a stand not long ago against a hacker who targeted me for no better reason than to deny me the right to participate in these forums. I stood because the little freedom I retain in my life is important to me, and I have lost too much in defense of that freedom to back down now.

If science still feels after 20 years in the gulag that the ‘truth’ I might speak is so darned dangerous, it’s going to have to send the goon squad again. This is not a challenge, it is my plea for pardon. Let My People Go.

Probably :-)

That is what I suspect. But I am willing to be shown. If someone has the goods, show me.

I likewise have been searching the web. I have seen nothing. Perhaps it is too early to give up. Ilya Taytslin may yet look in on our dilemma and direct us to the correct source, or perhaps Keith will be able to contact his source and get the convincing information. But to be frank, it is looking pretty grim to me.

Of course, it won't be the end of the world--unless we fail to find documentation on this and Marie comes up with convincing details on her "near death experience" example. ;-)

(Do you believe that is possible?)

I think it was me who made the allusion to programming language, Benjamin, so maybe I can explain what I meant by it. I am of the strong suspicion that we (the public) will soon become aware that there exist extraterrestrial life forms that are DNA-based. I expect this confirmation to come from Mars, along the lines of those Mars rocks discovered a few years ago here on earth which contained evidence of primitive life.

Whether this means Earth and Mars exchanged materials (including DNA) at some point - ‘contamination’ - or DNA is the only possible programming language for life in this time-space universe, is still open to debate.

Near Death Experiences are being examined by the scientific and medical community... I think there's no doubt there is some phenomenon there that all human beings have the potential to share. Whether it has any religious relevance or not, is another matter. Maybe it's just an effect of neurones shutting down... who knows.

At any rate, it does seem to be something amenable to scientific investigation, and I'm quite happy to reserve judgement until actual data are available :)

Precisely what do you mean by "truth" in genetic structure, Joy? I agree it is. I agree it exists. If there is more, show me.

Joy, I am willing to listen. But a willingness to listen does not mean a reluctance to question. If you don't want to answer my questions I think you should stop suggesting that I have a closed mind.

I know of no one who would wish to "silence" you. But this is the Science and Religion board. It is not the "Speculations into the Paranormal board." If you want to move into the paranormal, I reserve the right to ask you to show me the "science," as well as "religious" underpinnings.

Please be assured that I have no evil intent toward you, Joy. I am most happy to discuss and argue Science and Religion issues with you on this board.

First, Joy I am not a scientist, do not wish to represent science and I certainly do not think what you speak is dangerous, although I do not necessarily accept it as the "truth." I mean, after all, what is "truth"? This concept of truth is difficult, often an individual choice, and is not necessarily what "happened." So look at this way, Joy. I am an agnostic. There are things of which I do not know, and I admit it. However, there are other so called "possible" things that seem to "attach" to those things of which I know not. And many of those so called "possible" things are things that appear to me to be blatantly false. I tend to disbelieve those things I find to be blatantly false. And if you wish to change my mind, you had best come up with fact to convince me. Your subjective testimony will not suffice.

You misunderstood me, Cliff. I never had any intention of bringing up the subject of near-death experiences. I have no intention of pursuing it. But I ‘know’ it is real. I ‘know’ this more fundamentally than I ‘know’ anything science tells me is real. Because I ‘know’ this, I do not believe Heisenberg defined the parameters of the universe. I will continue to try and present my reasoning in ways science can understand.

The rest was aimed at the "Scientific Mafia" made infamous by the Velikovsky affair, pertaining to quite another matter.

We (humanity) chose to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Yet for all our knowledge, we are still ignoring what it is we need to learn. We won’t find good and evil in Alpha, we will find God. We will find good and evil in Omega.

But since the subject was raised here, and Leszek would present such a statement, I'll say, 'Not So!' §:o)

This might be arguable for those who are heading out and get brought back from this end, but I 'know' that's not true on the other end. My neurons were just fine, thanks. It wasn't me who was dying.

Joy 1075

It is good to get a better notion of what you meant by programming language. Joy I cannot keep up with you on the physics stuff very well but I am enjoying the back and forth between you and the others. What is very encouraging to me personally is the way you are willing to take some risks with these scientists and how you feel about your inner beliefs. This is encouraging to me because after trying to understand dry and empty dreary structures for managing information I am feeling a desire in my heart for more.

Right now I am learning Tao. I feel like it is true about Tao what you say about God, that we cannot prove it by scientific rules. I do not know how to say this even. It is like what you say about time and how we cannot say what all is embedded in the time before time or what is real in the moments we cannot measure. In programming languages we cannot come up with a program that can figure out what branch of functions to choose over another branch based on real life conditions. The computers we are using right now depend on our human instructions. This is not my way of saying the Tao or God is true but just a way of saying how little we know.

The Tao is nameless in the sense that it is impossible to use branches of thought to evaluate the Tao and put it into a hierarchy with other things we can put into categories. It is something we can experience. People who limit life to calculations and intellectual intelligence alone cannot get there. The whole universe is full of feeling and this is something that can only be experienced.

I will continue to try and present my reasoning in ways science can understand. - Joy Busey

Not much action on the genetics/cloning boards, but I see there are more messages here than anywhere else in the Science group. Some old friends around, too! There is a book by Michael Shermer, "Why People Believe Weird Things." Shermer was hungry, dehydrated, exhausted, and suffering from lack of sleep when he experienced an alien abduction that seemed very real to him. He was smart enough to realize later that it was all in his oxygen-deprived brain. Why would anyone who has crazy dreams ever think that a near-death experience was real? Lack of oxygen and glucose can make you think strange things. If this is repetitive, I'm sorry. Haven't been in this neighborhood before, but it looks lively.

What a beautiful post, Benjamin! Your conception of Tao is well-spoken, and resembles my conception of God. I suppose the primary difference in belief systems is that mine takes it further. A personal involvement of God in the product of his creation. Intent.

Between moments is eternity, or there would be no moments. Time is not an absolute, it is relative. It is relative to more than matter and energy. I guess that’s what I’d like to establish here, but I don’t know if I can. I’m glad you are participating.

Oh, but I understand science all too well, grouchmeister! §:o)

That about explains it then, doesn't it?

If I came across as overly facetious in that last post, I apologize. What you pointed out - and I thought was most obvious - is that in the end it was Shermer's own analysis of the phenomenon that prevailed. No one can know what it was unless he knows what it was, I think I'm trying to say.

Which makes the phenomenon he experienced entirely outside the realm of science to prove or disprove. Because he analyzed it himself and came to the conclusion that it was not real, who's to say different?

So what you've done is verify my position that it's up to the one who experiences such a phenomenon to decide if it's real or not. I can't 'prove' anything to science. Nor can they 'prove' me wrong.

Gosh, Cliff, I had to go looking in my attic and basement, to find the reference. It's in "Nursing 88".Nov issue. NDE's. The story was an excerp from a lecture by Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. who has been one of the most well-known authorities on dying, and caring and helping people and their families during this time.

Forgive me for mixing the story up a bit, since I read it 10 years ago. The person who died was a Swiss architect, and it occurred near a soccer stadium on the day of a championship game. And No I don't have any names. I do think the reference is reliable.

Joy: I've never had an experience, like you had, but I've had other experiences, which would sound foolish, to others. The experience, like you stated is very real, and you know it's real, it can't be explained logically. Was it Shakespeare who wrote for one of his plays; " There is more in heaven and earth...." I can't quote the rest accurately.:)

Cliff Beall - Sunday, 01/31/99, 3:02:41pm (#1074)

Leszek Rzepecki - Sunday, 01/31/99, 4:09:22pm (#1076)

Dawn Willis - Sunday, 01/31/99, 6:22:41pm (#1083)

Michael Shermer's book is excellent for showing mistakes all we humans make in reasoning. It is a good book for us to learn from as to why we force hopeful conclusions on experiences and data. It is also a good book to make us look in the mirror and face ourselves about what we want, wishful thinking.

It is not a good book for answering questions about psychomatter or near death experiences.

Cliff and Dawn what is missing with science and what Shermer is missing very badly is the point of what it means to believe. What does it mean to believe in near death experiences? Shermer is terrible and is not any authority at all for that. He completely misses the point of what it means to beleive. Many experiences like NDE’s experiences just happen to people. I am not any authority on NDE and I have not had one. It is true that I believe that matter is united with consciousness and so these NDE’s are events that need study. This is what Leszeck is saying, that we need more study.

The problem with Shermer is the problem with science. Shermer just does not get it. Science is based on faith. And Shermer will never admit that. Shermer is a horrible example of how people believe in science as a new religion and he cannot see what is right in front of his face, and that is science is based on faith too. He calls himself a skeptic but he is a skeptic about everything except for skepticism!

You cannot really believe in these things in any real way and Shermer misses the point.

Cliff please think about what you said -->It is not the "Speculations into the Paranormal board." Well it is fair to speculate, I think. Cliff it is fair to speculate as long as we admit we are just speculating! New discoveries by science are not the result of

Cliff please think about what you said -->It is not the "Speculations into the Paranormal board." Well it is fair to speculate, I think. Cliff it is fair to speculate as long as we admit we are just speculating! New discoveries by science are not the result of technique and methods but of insight and intuitions:).

For other references:

"Scientific Evidence...Now",Kurt,P. In Psychology Today. Sep 1988.

Life at Death: A Scientific Investigation of the Near Death Experience. Ring,K. New York, William Morrow and Co. 1980.

The nursing article cites NDE's ..." if they are hallucinations, then they are universal hallucinations." It also reports, that if the person is heavily medicated, it is less likely that person will remember any experience. So the person who has these experiences, is not influenced by medication. It talks about lack of oxygen, massive endorphin release, during time of death. But these things don't explain why all people who have them, can recount details so vividly.

Hello, Marie and Jane! Guess all the guys are doing that guy-worship thing right now...

And I thank you for the backup. In psychological phenomena, those things that can only be defined in terms of experience, there is no empirical method of measurement. That is what I experienced, and I was not drugged, I was not drunk, sleepy, ill, or looking to go anywhere at all. I was looking for life, and I met death.

I am sure my inquisitors (they know who they are §:o) will question my emotional attachment to the object. This is a factor I have considered, weighed, and decided was pertinent only in my getting sucked into the experience. I'm talking a mistake - his death was a mistake, I mean - not a long illness or sudden fever. He didn't know he was dying. Neither did I.

So I know what I know. Doesn't bode well for those who reject the notion that we're clay-bound beings, does it?

Hi Benjamin. No, I wasn't referring to the movie." The Seventh Seal". It's in Revelation, in the Bible. I've been studying Revelation for some time. I'm still somewhat perplexed by it. I personally think that ; the first 6 seals are only mankind's own fault, such as famine, war, disease, enviromental disruption, caused by our own progress, radiation leaks, Chernobyl type-disasters, etc. Pollution of the waters. Ozone holes, more severe weather patterns, etc. To me, it's some prophesy starting to be fulfilled.

How's that for imagination, Bernhard?:)

...Did I say "reject?" I mean we are more than clay-bound beings. I'm thinking backwards again!

Oh, yes, Super Bowl.:)

Joy, I think that sometimes those type of experiences are more real in some ways, then physical reality. I'm sorry you lost your son. It's difficult for me to follow some of your posts on metaphysical theory, but keep doing what you want. It's just I don't understand it well.

Metaphysics is a lot easier than physics, Marie. It's the 'more real' you mentioned, the other half of the totality of ourselves. The roots of religion, though religion is a political institution as it exists in the world. That must mean we're political critters, I guess. What we build on the outside to reflect what we are on the inside is political. All the relativities proceed from there.

...How's that for imagination, Bernhard?:) - Marie M.

I see that as; we have our true inner self, and our outer self we present, to others. I think for someone to be content or relatively happy, that both must be true to each other. "To thine own self be true".

Maybe it's our political nature that gets people into trouble, especially when it is in conflict with the inner self.

Not spellbound by Super Bowl, Bernhard? Hmmmm... Does this mean you're not paying your tithes? §:o)

... But these things don't explain why all people who have them, can recount details so vividly. - Marie M.

Who are all these people? How many are there whose reports coincide?

Nostradamus from the 16th century followed the writing of Revelation by about 500 years. Do you believe in any of his predictions?:)

Joy, The Super Bowl got over at 9:40p.m.LOL:)

"You shall love your neighbor as yourself." Leviticus 19:18

"Set me as a seal upon your heart, as a seal upon your arm, for Love is as strong as death." Song 8:6

Love is the Whole of the Law. Obscure? What it means to the political world (as it exists) I'm not sure. I've been away for awhile!

Science is based on faith. - Jane Patrick

Love is the Whole of the Law. Obscure? What it means to the political world (as it exists) I'm not sure. - Joy Busey

Nostradamus from the 16th century followed the writing of Revelation by about 500 years. Do you believe in any of his predictions?:) - Marie M.

As much as I believe in the tales of Baron von Münchausen! <now I'm giggling myself to sleep>

They occur all the time. Most people don't publish their experiences. Doctors and nurses hear about it frequently. We know that when someone is being revived from death in any situation, that, those people can often recount the scene in the operating room, or emmergency room, things various people said, etc.; When that person had no pulse and was dead for a few minutes. I did write down two references. I'm sure that I could find more.:)

Whoa. If I could do that, I guess we'd all know what it 'Is,' wouldn't we? §:o)

So no, I don't have a ready answer for you, though I do have a ready answer for those Cherubim. I would have to surmise based on the experience that whatever connection was there between my son and myself constituted the essential element.

Joy; I think Bernhard's team won.;)

Yes, the Law of Love, ... all the ten commandments are fulfilled, if one can only keep that one commandment... to love God, and love others.

Joy: I would have to surmise based on the experience that whatever connection was there between my son and myself constituted the essential element.

I see I didn't understand what you meant, by the previous post, on the Bible verses, you quoted. Yes, the Love you have for your son is something, that is real, but intangible, as for any of us to describe, that links you to your son. I would agree that strong bonds, have elements, we don't understand. Many people have had some internal message when a loved one was in trouble; like waking up in the middle of the night, and somehow knowing that something was wrong. Maybe that is part of how strong bonds of love between people cause a connection.

This particular connection is one we all recognize, n'est pas? We 'know' it. It is part of us, though I admit I've met parents who should never have been parents. This was not true of me. My son was 21 years old. We had a very strong connection.

Still, without an agreeable definition of Love itself, as Bernhard pointed out, what common base of reference do we have to examine such an experience?

I guess it's a lot like trying to define "evil" to people who pretend they don't know what it is. That things like good and evil are relative entirely to the political manifestation of the choice they're presented with. As "love" is defined as relative to how comfortable the situation is. Alterable by the stroke of a legal pen, or enforceable in the same way for biological progenitors who could care less.

This is not my situation. My husband and I have been married for 30 years, and we both worked hard to raise our children well. We felt it important to do so, and our children turned out fine because they understood our motivations so well. This was not genetic. This was love for the creations we created.

Can it really be so hard for the hard-nosed here to recocognize as also applicable to the creator who created us all?

deleted

E.C. - Saturday, 01/30/99(#1028)

"For those who are interested, the current obsession in high energy physics is the detection of the Higgs boson often described as the "God Particle"."

Thanks, E.C. That reference to the Fermilab website was a new one, to me, and the article delightfully written. That kid (the young Dr. Kastenbaum), however, better watch out. He's far too literate, and honest, in his writing! He did such a good job, I've decided to step out of the narrower guidelines I set for myself, here, and talk a bit about his article. Its hoped that his refreshing balance might affect a few of the radical groupies on the boards here. I'll also use him (to try) to make clear, in some new language, why I've broken the faith with some of the true believers (or maybe just the groupies) of the "Societe' Scientifique".

This is right out of the article at Fermilab:

>"Physicists talk about the Higgs as if they knew it intimately, but don't be fooled. "The Higgs" is just a Band-Aid. They know that something like it has to be there or else the Standard Model goes haywire, but no one knows exactly what form it will take. The Higgs has been called the Holy Grail of particle physics. It has also been called the rug of ignorance under which the problems of the Standard Model have been swept. One eminent theorist referred to the Higgs as the "toilet of the Standard Model; every house must have one, but no one likes to talk about it."

"Groupies", btw, is what I call those followers and devotees of "science" who really know very little about it, have very little role (if any) in it, but make up that screaming throng who mob the gates, and quickly turn to riots and bash and pummel anyone who doesn't share their idol worship. They are so like crowds of "Grateful Dead" fans, or some hard-rock group. Many who post here, and on "science" message boards (even the august "Talk-Origins") are such groupies. Most gro

deleted

part 2...

Most groupies' remarks, (and thinking, I presume) always state the hypotheses and theories of science as FACT. While its easier to do that with the "softer sciences", like those dealing with "evolution", because many scientists themselves have forgotten or obscured the truth of their paradigm (mostly, I think, because it is here where the "rubber hits the road" in the philosophical/theological wars dividing humanity, and the science is become more weapon rather than tool or truth-seeking), it is more difficult to do it in the harder sciences – like physics. (Now I admit my partiality for physics. I started there but removed myself to work in those "softer" - yeah, I'm the first to admit, "mushy" – disciplines). Maybe its because physicists really do have to keep clearer heads, and they recognize that they are circling the real "black hole" of human intellect, the place where "God" might truly await. I wonder if He is just waiting to see our fingers grasp at the edge of that hole, then see our eyes bridge the rim at last peering in to SEE the ultimate truth we seek. Well, the truth that the "real scientists" seek. Groupies, unfortunately, just want one more self-abandonment into the rock-frenzy of one more concert before they die; tomorrow is someone else's problem – like the trash left for the concert hall cleanup crew.

Anyway, that first quote, above, is pretty revealing, to an open and inquiring mind. It shows that we have no certain knowledge of the "Truth", even if we do have one darn good model with which we can work, within the rigors and rules of the ultimate truth. But, alas, we know the model is still a construct, – and close, many fear, to a house of cards. True scientists, however, are just not afraid to confront that house of cards, and push it hard to see if it stands, or completely falls apart. And they are ready to accept whatever they find. Groupies, and religionists, should be so true and faithful, so confident in thei

part 3...

so confident in their "God" (God, or Darwin, or Marquis de Sade, whoever). They wouldn't have to stoop to scuffling and spitting on them that don't join their trek.

Well, now a few more quotes from the article.

>"The Higgs sits at the center of one of the most remarkable accomplishments of physics – the development of the Standard Model. The Standard Model is a "theory of almost everything". (except gravity!) ... >"... The Standard Model has yet to break. But break it must. (Will the groupies and true believers stumble, or glibly pick up the new and improved Grateful Dead Model without a hesitation, still certain everyone else is — "idiots", as Bernhard so loves to say?)

>"Physicists look on the Standard Model with a mixture of reverence and frustration. Since they have put it together, they have always known that it is incomplete. First , it does not incorporate gravity. Second, and equally bothersome, it raises as many questions as it seems to answer. Why, for instance, are there four forces, and not six or one? Why are there only the particles we see, and no more? What accounts for the crazy quilt of masses...? (some might answer, and no amount of scorn or guile can dismiss the legitimacy of their answer, that a Creator simply chose to put it together that way. The puzzle fits together seamlessly, just as we hope/need it does, but how it is designed, and does fit together, is strictly arbitrary, and a matter of choices by a Creator. Indeed, the arbitrariness, and seamlessness, both point a Creator)

>"Deep inside the Standard Model, physicists think, something is wrong. There must be a larger, more elegant theory, a "theory of everything". (Again, need I point out, that "something" is a gaping, beckoning hole – a deep black hole – almost begging for "God" to be the answer?)

Well, for brevity's sake, I give you the rest of my selected quotes without editorial comment. If you have an open mind, I th

conclusion...

I think they can speak to you themselves.

>"Imperfect Ideas, like old clothes, begin to fray at the edges. And so it is with the Standard Model ... without something Higgs-like, its predictions for very high energy events degenerate into nonsense. For instance ... the Standard Model predicts that things happen more than 100% of the time... the Standard Model "blows up just down the road:...

>"Take a poll in, say, the Fermilab cafeteria on exactly what the Higgs is, and you could very well start a food fight. The 25-year reign of the Standard Model has given physicists plenty of time to propose successors, and each has its cheerleaders and its critics. Everyone's goal is a "theory of everything"....

>"...The Higgs might turn out to be something completely unexpected. "Its hard to imagine that we've missed something", says Boston University theorist Ken Lane, given all the mind-years at work on the problem, "but it would be great"

Russell, I'm heading for dreamland, but I understood that better than anything you've yet posted. And I think you just might be right!...

Leszek Rzepecki - Sunday, 01/31/99(#1062)

" There have been several studies now reporting a 98 or better genetic similarity between humans and chimps.."

And, to no great surprise, we find, by both visual inspection and biological analyses, that chimps and humans are very similar biological "machines", or life vessels. That the biological genetic "blueprint"of the design of these two (or several) species is similar, therefore is not surprising. But, after decades of behavior observation and subsequent analysis, we find no better than a 44% similarity between humans and chimps in significant behavioral, cognitive, cultural, spiritual, and intellectual similarities. In fact, the chimps are much more similar to dogs than humans! We are unsure what we may deduce from this. Some assume "evolutionary" descent, others assume design similarities.

Indeed, "of course, that does mean that the 2% (genetic code difference) that is different is crucial,

(or), we don't (yet) know everything, >(or that perhaps the biological blueprint in the genes is far less important in whatever it is that makes up/defines "MAN" than we know).

I'll make this prediction, though... the more we study chimp and human genetics and biology, the more evidence we will find to confirm common ancestry. We won't find any to contradict it. Care to make a small wager on that? :)

And I'll make this prediction. The more we study human behavior, cognition, and mind, the more evidence we will find that common design (some presume connotes ancestry) in the body signifies nothing about the essential qualities that make humans human, and leave chimps merely interesting animals. You appear to have already wagered a great deal on your theory and belief, far more than anything I could add in to your cost when you lose.

Great to hear from you, Dawn. I still check the cloning board from time to time, but it does seem to have died for the time being. Been having fun over here with Leszek, Carl, Bernhard, Keith, E.C., Marie, Jim, Russell, Matt, Joy and now, Ben, Jane and you. With respect to your comment, it is not repetitive. Actually, mention of "near death" and "out of body" experiences have come up only in the last couple of days or so. Before that we spent a week or so on Joy's concept of evil--in addition to the twin concepts of micro and macroevolution. (Leszek and Keith do not think the terms micro and macroevolution are valid. I insist that if we wish to engage creationists in debate on evolution, we have to accept some of their terms, but that it is okay if the terms are appropriately defined in a way on which we can reasonably agree.)

With respect to the point in you post, I remember an article in a magazine sometime ago, on the theme you mention. I thought it made the point very well, approximately as you did. I am therefore already somewhat familiar with your argument and it makes sense to me

You can believe that if you wish. I do not. I think the Tree of Knowledge and of Good and Evil were a literary devices only. I think it is a mistake to take such things literally.

What science has shown is that such hallucinations can predictably be induced by privation. That these "experiences" are always hallucinations can not be proven, but since they typically occur in periods of extreme stress (privation), it seems likely to me that this is the case. You can chose to believe as you wish.

First of all, Marie, you can not possibly be worse than me getting things wrong. In that regard, I take a back seat to nobody! :-) With respect to my own position on that particular matter. I have no difficulty believing the people who reported this are sincere. But I do not think the manner in which it is being discussed on this board has little to do with science.

If you mean I have faith in science because I believe in the scientific method, what can I say? Yes I believe in the scientific method. And I think Carl has a point. I think it is true that the old religions have failed. But I think they will still be around for a while.

I agree it is fair to speculate. Insisting it is "true," and the value of "believing" and trying to shut off my questioning of same is not my idea of "speculating," however. :-)

Yes, I agree with that.

Nor does it explain how some people can recall dreams so vividly.

Joy, I would never belittle your relationship with your son, nor your last experience with your son. I am sure the experience was real to you and I would want it to be real to you. I would never wish to deny you that which is obviously very important to you. If believing is important to you--believe! Don't apologize. Believe!

I am not sure we can, and I am not sure we should always. The problem is that I empathize with you and wish for you what is best for you, but it does not change my belief system (or lack of one).

I recommend reading the published studies by Jane Goodall and co-workers on chimps, and those on their cognitive abilities. If you do, you'll find out why I think your statement that chimps are more like dogs than humans pretty amusing :)

A lot of the battle between science and religion has been due to constant efforts on the part of religionists to find a compelling dividing line that sets man above the animals, and perhaps on par with the angels. We picked on intelligence, only to find that we just had more of it than other species; we picked on self-awareness, only to find that we just had a more acute sense of it; we picked on tool manufacture and use, only to find that we did just did it better; we've picked on language, and though so far, this one seems to be holding, other animals are chipping away at our monopoly of the ability to abstract concepts and consciously plan for the future.

Why the desperation to justify a gulf between man and the animals? Russell, you said:

I put it to you that after many decades of research we've found that humans are merely other animals, who have specialized in cognitive and technical abilities. These we use as exquisitely and uniquely as a spider spinning her web, but our roots, like the spider's are still in the mud with the other animals.

This finding is seen as having dethroned man from centrality in the universe (whether accurately or not doesn't really matter), and this perception is the cause of all the fuss. I, however, don't think it detracts from our accomplishment one single whit.

Russell Husted,
Is it really anything other than raw hubris that elevates mankind to any qualitative state beyond all other animals?

We are more intelligent and extrordinarily successful, but are we actually more important? phoey.

I can think of a great many compelling (although inconclusive) reasons to believe in God, but the elevation of mankind to a "station" between all other life and God is hardly compelling or conclusive.

Of course it’s a figurative device, Cliff! I never said not so. Related to the human psyche, not the matter that comprises human bodies. Human bodies can’t read or understand words. Human minds do. If we agree it’s a literary device, we must also agree that it serves a purpose in the communication of a concept. Why would you see these words as meaningless just because they are in a ‘holy’ book rather than in a text book?

I have a book before me as I write this, which tells me on page 40 that "...The core continues to compress to a density a thousand times the density of the core in a normal star until the rising temperature at the center of the core reaches 100 million Kelvin."

Now, I cannot touch the star’s core and 100 million Kelvin is inconceivably hot. The scientist who wrote these words is no more a witness to the event he describes than I am. He is conveying his theory on stellar collapse. If I "believe" his theory to be correct, I have invested his theory with faith. My belief and faith, however, do not make his theory truth. So it works both ways, you see.

‘Science’ tells you hallucinations occur, and you believe that. So do I. But when you make the illogical leap of faith to say that because hallucinations happen, then my experience must BE hallucination, you have slammed a heavy door in your mind against experience. This is about as scientific an exercise as washing dishes.

In this you are the "believer," not me. I’m apparently the only one here who has actually experienced such a phenomenon, thus can speak from a position of "knowing" rather than "believing." Faced with a subject that might shake your belief system, you have chosen to retreat into the comforting arms of your faith in hallucinations. Fine. Just don’t project your retreat onto me, since I have done no such thing.

<sigh> I apologize to all for ever allowing myself to get sidetracked onto a subject like NDE. At the same time, it has served a useful purpose.

If what I experienced is ‘real’ by any objective measure of human experience, it constitutes evidence that consciousness survives death. All present in the discussion recognize that and do not dispute it.

On the one hand, there are spiritually-minded people, who automatically tend to believe such experience is ‘real’ because it is in line with their basic premise. On the other hand, there are atheistic-minded people, who automatically reject the ‘reality’ of the experience because it is not in line with their basic premise.

Then there’s me. I tend to take most everything with a grain of salt until I’ve rationalized it well enough to fit in somewhere. Because I am old enough to have experienced quite a bit, I long ago learned how to judge experience. I think I have a good handle on what’s ‘real’ or not, but in this digression of subject matter, I haven’t been asked.

This tells me Cliff is not being intellectually honest when he says he is "agnostic" rather than atheist. An agnostic would examine the evidence to see if it supported the concept. An atheist would reach for any possible weapon (no matter how illogical) to swat the concept down before it takes wing. Even if that means telling me (in public) that I am suffering serious induced psychosis complete with hallucinations. An odd diagnosis, I think, since I am the psychologist and he is not.

This, for the benefit of the paying audience, is what happened when Immanuel Velikovsky tried to demonstrate scientifically that the events of Exodus could indeed be true. I can’t wait to see what gyrations of passionate dissociation science comes up with to explain DNA-based life on Mars...

Why would science have to do that?

If we find that Martian life used a DNA genome we could choose from the following hypotheses:

1) DNA is the most efficient material for passing on genetic information, and evolution will always find a path to it because that's the path of least resistance - this would be the conclusion favored if the structure and substituents of Martian DNA were very similar to, but not identical with, earth DNA (there are many ways of building something like DNA, it has - and requires - a chemically variable structure);
2) Earth life was seeded from Martian life, or vice versa;
3) Both were seeded from elsewhere.

Conclusions 2 or 3 would be favored if the actual DNA codon usage by Martian and earth life were similar to any degree, and one of them would be required if the rest of the gene sequences were the same or very similar. Too many coincidences otherwise.

I don't think science would have any difficulty with any of those. As to Velikovsky, what is he but an example of pathological science? His theories were shown to be inconsistent with astronomical observation and astrophysics, but are still religiously believed by some. That's a strange phenomenon :).

Hard to keep up these days....

Jim,
You asked/mentioned previously about a morality derived via science. In Paulos' new book, Once upon a number, (I just quickly scanned the first chapter) he states that science can not give rise to a morality (or some such statement.) He does not back it up, and since I was skimming, I did not pay much attention. But I thought you might check it out if it catches your fancy.

In fact, the book itself is quite interesting. It proposes that there is some sort of link between statistical and narrative descriptions. He quaintly touches on his Ur-religion (a meta-religion which coincides with modern religions and science ) and generally entertains the reader. I recommend it to all here.

steve

Cliff, Leszeck, Steve

Cliff, thanks for summarizing the thread on macro/micro. Very helpful. I've been busy playing this weekend, and I'm too lazy to dig through the posts to learn the outcome of that thread. So the summary helped, thanks.

Leszeck, I haven't forgotten the question of deriving morality from science and reason. I want to pick it up later, maybe sooner. I need to catch up.

Again, I'm willing to be quite wrong, and to be shot down, and to explore deriving moral principles from science as much for the learning process as for any new insights on the final merits.

...the obvious explanation is separate descent from a common ancestor. If they weren't descended from a recent common ancestor, there would be *no* correspondence between the banding pattern on the chromosomes.

...the more evidence we will find to confirm common ancestry. We won't find any to contradict it. Care to make a small wager on that? :)

It's not obvious, that due to identical banding patterns on chromosomes, that chimps and man had a common ancestor. Perhaps a common Creator. Also as the Human Genome project, is not completed, isn't it a little pre-mature to present a 98% identical genetic structure, when they are specifically discussing the banding on the chromosones?

I'll wager that the more they learn about the genetic structure, that trying to find common ancestry will be more baffling than it is now.:)

As a side note: In today's news, A Dr. Hahn has determined the exact species of chimp, which originated the AIDS virus, in man. Yes, Pan troglodytes troglodytes.

Joy (and others)

On: Love and Evil

Not fair! You stinker!

You stated:

So what? What does this pretension establish even when it occurs?

Consider a counterfactual possibility. Evil occurs by supposing one knows what evil means!

Joy, several religions exist in this big old world.

We find no single shared definition of evil comparatively across different religions, and none even within the same religion.

The absence of shared fundamental definitions of key terms points to a telling difference between science and religion.

Science establishes fundamental definitions of key terms. Science passes knowledge through consistent definitions of say a square in Euclidian space, or by formally defining that 1+1=2, or by replicable observational means producing confirmable evidence that genes entwine in a double helix. Key scientific terms and knowledge satisfy conditions required to communicate ideas and facts despite differences in culture, language, caste, economic status, political party, and other differences.

Religion offers no such agreed vocabulary or knowledge.

Worse, even if a few terms, such as ‘good' or ‘evil' do have usage across different religions, we can't assume such terms share currency in meaning equally across different religions. The diverse religions compete for, more than share, common foundational knowledge. Moreover, if the same term, say ‘evil,' shares some, even a little common meaning across different religions, there still exists no agreed method uniting all religions by which they commonly experiment with, say ‘good,' so as to add increased knowledge upon established fundamental knowledge of ‘good.'

(more)

Joy, you mentioned pretending: people who pretend not to know evil.

So, let's pretend.

Let's pretend all Christians agree on what constitutes evil. Buddhists would differ: evil is ignorance and illusion. Hindus would differ: evil is phala (consequence) active in karma (law of consequence) with an entire ajiva (atomic science) explaining due and owing deserts of prior behaviors. Animists would differ: evil involves attributing sufficient causation to material reality alone instead divining heirophany, or spirit, as the effective cause of moral good.

I'm open to attempting explorations of common understandings of evil comparatively across religions.

I'm not open assumptively to pretending common understandings exist, or can commute from religion to religion.

Joy wrote:

Joy, moral relativism has its express advocates. Machiavelli, for one, did a fine job revealing the political uses of religion. I think you know this.

Do you mean to say that there exist no alternatives in the roster of moral reasoning other than a choice between moral relativism or instead moral absolutism? These two choices? That's it?

(concluded next)

More, what do you mean by "manifestation of the [moral] choice?"

Do you include in this choice a choice between alternative moral claims from among different religions? That is, does moral choice include choosing either the Buddhist prescription, "do no harm," or the Christian golden rule, "do unto others ...," or perhaps a choice to mix, match, pick, and choose moral principles from among competing moral sources using some guiding criteria?

Or, by moral choice do you mean choice, not between different moral formulae, but instead only a choice between alternative behaviors: behaviors like, to lie or not to lie, to take God's name in vain or not to do so, and so on?

You continued:

Joy, I feel I know what love is. Some :). I know I've been loved. I know I've loved.

Again, as with the question of evil, is it possible that love has both variant and invariant poles, or some other range of expression on a spectrum between absolute and relative?

And, can you clarify what you mean by our "biological progenitors?" Do you mean our biological parents, our immediate fathers and mothers? Or, our common evolutionary ancestors?

Either way, can you give an example of love being different for them (or the same) as love is for us? What do you mean by this?

Jim

No, I'm saying that human beings haven't yet figured out the nature of good and evil. We don't know what they are, thus are ignorant. We do not have knowledge, and knowledge was what the Judeo-Christian religion identifies as fundamental to our participation in time-space. That's it.

But you've done such a great job of pointing this out all by yourself, I'll just say thanks for the support! §:o)

Conclusion to third paragraph (on religions with different definitions of evil): should read,

Animists would differ [with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus]: evil involves attributing sufficient causation to material reality alone instead of divining hierophany, that is, the manifestation of spirit in (or with, by, through) matter, as the necessary but not sufficient cause of material and of moral good. Religions differ widely in their definitions of good and evil, love and hate. We cannot pretend the religions all agree. So, pretending that religions all agree on these key terms amounts to a more mistaken pretension than pretending the religions do agree. The better approach is to pretend little, and instead carefully to ask for the definitions of love, good, evil, and so on that one's conversation partner has in mind.

Thanks for the opening, Leszek! §:o)

I beg to differ. Whatever inconsistencies there may have been in Velikovsky’s predictions about the atmosphere of Mars or the conditions on Venus, they were far more accurate than anything science could show at the time. In fact, at that time science didn’t believe in cosmic catastrophies at all. Science confidently informed the world that All is now what it has always been, and will always be thus. They were wrong. As for the religious, they hated Velikovsky even worse than science did because he’d neglected to examine the subject of how Moses knew what was coming before it got there.

If Velikovsky had troubled to examine the presence of synchronicity (a la Jung), it would have been the only thing about his theories actually related to his specialty. But the fundamentalists would have hated him for that, too.

This website has some valuable insight for those who cannot abide by their Constitutional rights being trampled upon by the Christian Right.

Yes Marie, even you can read it since it is not an affront to you sensibilities. Not to get too far into the political realm, I support Larry Flynt's campaign to reveal the true meaning of "family values" which conservative congressional representatives (which happen to be the sweethearts of the Christian Right) claim to have.

Immanuel Velikovsky was a Russian Jew born in 1895. He earned his medical degree in Moscow and became a psychoanalyst in Tel Aviv. During his researches into the sources of Freud’s doctrines, he began to examine the natural disasters of Exodus and what they represented to human psychology. When in the course of that research he found an Egyptian document referring to the same events, he began to wonder if the events were real. "Worlds in Collision," the first product of Velikovsky’s voluminous research across the spectrum of science, history and sociology, was published in America in 1950.

"Worlds in Collision" presented evidence from testimony, tradition, legend and religions worldwide concerning the birth of the planet Venus. The following few years saw publication of "Earth in Upheaval," containing the geological, paleontological and archaeological evidence supporting the same theory, and "Ages in Chaos," Velikovsky’s revised chronology of Egyptian history.

The scientific campaign against it began well before the first book was published. Harlow Shapley, darling of American astronomy, personally led the charge against the publisher by the academics it relied upon. "Worlds in Collision" became a best seller, but the Macmillon caved and turned the following volumes over to Doubleday because it had no textbook division and wasn’t subject to professorial blackmail. Velikovsky was denied publishing access to scientific journals to reply to his attackers for the rest of his life. It’s a long, ugly saga of "Administrative Measures," unequalled in the annals of science, which has since honed its administrative techniques to things far less public and far more effective.

And good evening to you, E.C.! Frustrating day? §:o)

Hi Joy,

Even a stopped clock is correct once a day. One of the common fallacies of logic and rhetoric is observational selection (counting the hits and forgetting the misses).

The difference between you and me is that you want to believe the world is an immediate "let it be thus" miracle, and I don't. From your point of view, the world could have been created just the way it is, fossils, our memories and all included, 1 millisecond ago, and I find that rather unlikely. I'm afraid that rather sounds like the end of useful discussion on this topic, as I don't think there is any conceivable scientific evidence I could possibly offer, under any circumstance, that would ever change your mind, don't you agree? I will take up that wager though :) at least in a metaphorical sense... because I know that miracles do not now, and have never happened :)

Joy

Haha!

You are quite a stinker. But, thanks for the compliment :).

Now you bring in space-time. Ok. Fair enough. Our participation in temporal existence by virtue of our birth and death, our passing loves and hates, our temporary material gains and losses, our evanescent pains and pleasures, all these gut-level temporal experiences condition our understanding and our moral valuations of experience. We participate in our own temporal limitations, in our ordinary experiences, without any resort to Einstein.

Consider the alternatives.

We can either know: 1) nothing; 2) all; or, 3) something about good and evil (or anything else).

If we know 1) nothing about good and evil, and can know nothing, then good and evil are irrelevant, or inconceivable. End game.

If we know 2) all about good and evil, then I presume we have identity with what you call God. You don't claim this level of knowledge, so I'll skip it (but come back later).

If we know 3) something about good and evil, then the question is, "how much?" You claim to know that space-time limits your knowledge. Thus, you know 3) something. You know you have limited knowledge of good and evil. So, you know something, at least a little. Again, how much more can you clarify?

How much? How much more can you say about this particular condition, evil?

(concluded next)

Yes. I am forced to take mass transit as my vehicle expired over the weekend. A lot of very strange people ride mass transit. I watched someone have an argument with himself this morning.

Joy (concluded)

Again, how much can you clarify regarding the nature of evil? Just, how much?

I'm not pressing this to the point of being overbearing.

I agreed that we might proceed toward a limited mutual understanding by looking at "what is evident" (your words), that is, by looking at fact-sensitive expressions, actual examples, real-life concrete cases.

This concession follows from the basic sense of, say obscenity cases, in which obscenity defies precise formal definition, and instead amounts largely to a matter of "I know it when I see it."

In obscenity cases, however, obscenity is defined beyond mere the impressionistic and relative criteria of, "I know it when I see it." Obscenity involves more specific elements. The elements fall short of any full, formal definition; but, added elements exist. In extremely hard cases, however, even our best professional judges occasionally (not always) exclaim, "I can't define obscenity in this particular case; but, I know obscenity when I see it, and this case is (or is not) it."

In short Joy, we, like judges, face extremely difficult real-life situations in which we must make fallible judgments based on imperfect principles and partial facts. I suspect that you in your personal life make judgments about good and evil, despite what you know as the limits imposed on you by space-time.

Again, it's a matter of how much we can define regarding what you call evil.

How much?

I'm not going to argue about Velikovsky. The man is delusional. Nothing he says makes any sense. There is no data to support his wild speculations.

I'm afraid he lies on the crossroads of science and religion, where he hasn't the integrity of either.

If what I experienced is ‘real’ by any objective measure of human experience, it constitutes evidence that consciousness survives death. - Joy Busey

Ridiculous!

There is a vast difference between being "near-dead," and being dead. "Being dead" is medically defined as a state where all brain activities have ceased (that does not occur even in the deepest comas.) No one has ever proven that someone, whose brain activities have ceased, returned to life.

Leszeck (and Joy)

Leszeck, it's been years since I've read Velikovsky and his co-hort Sitchin as a bored college student one idle summer. I don't remember well enough to cite specific claims or instances, but I'd disagree with you mildly and narrowly, limited to your one judgment regarding Velikovsky's competence at religious studies.

I'd say he's certainly impressive for the range of comparative religious data he marshals, and his interpretations are novel and quite fascinating. I recall judging his work as mistakenly giving prior weight to historicism and historical mythology, and forcing scientific data to accord.

I'm not a believer. I'd point out, however, that one of my own favorite comparativists, Mercia Eliade, a serious and reputable scholar, former professor at University of Chicago, chief editor of the Encyclopedia of Religion, and an influential figure in late 20th century comparative religious studies, displayed measurable pro-Christian bias. Very unfortunate.

Thus, scientific studies of religion remain in their infancy. Objective judgments and methods await development. Even the best modern comparative religious scholars fall short of objectivity.

Velikovsky presents a mixed case of decided advocacy and comparative study.

(outa here back to work :)).

Where is the scientific evidence to support Velikovsky's ideas? I won't even call them theories, they don't amount to that much.

He's both pathological science and pathological religion. He makes things up, and provides no evidence. What's the point?

An atheist would reach for any possible weapon (no matter how illogical) to swat the concept down before it takes wing. - Joy Busey

Of course, you creationists would never do such a thing. No?

Oh, I have no intention of defending Velikovsky. I raised the gnarly specter of his unwelcome existence merely to make the point that science is neither so ‘truthful’ nor so ‘noble’ as it likes the public to think it is. That’s all.

Sort of evens up the preconceived notions on both sides, or as politicians are fond of saying, "evens the playing field."

Boy, you'd really have a hard time around here, then! <hehehehe>

But I do sympathize. My sister once told me I had the worst Car Karma she's ever encountered. I've been known to fry an interior electrical system in 2 seconds flat just by touching the steering wheel!

Cosmological solutions of Einstein's equations:

It is possible to show athat for a homogeneous and isotropic Universe, an arbitrary line element ds^2 can be written as

(1) ds^2=c^2dt^2 - R^2 (t) d q^2, where

(2) dq^2 =(dr^2 +r^2(d theta^2 + sin^2 d phi^2))/(1+wr^2/4)^2

in spherical polar coordinates (r, theta, phi) where w=0 or +(-)1. The line element was derived by Robertson and Walker (1968) and holds for evert homogeneous and isotropic system. R(t) is a function of time only and is dubbed the scale factor. The expansion of the universe does not alter the radial coordinate r of a galaxy. The true distance of a galaxy, however, is Rr where R increases with time. If w=0, space is Euclidean (flat), if w=-1 the space is hyperbolic and if w=1 space is closed (spherical). Einstein suggested that a more general form for field equations can be written as

(3) Guv + lambda guv = - kappa Tuv

where lambda is the "cosmological constant", and kappa=8 pi G/c^4. The function R(t) must satisfy the two conditions

(4) 4/3 pi R^3 rho = M = constant > 0 and

(5) (dR/dt)^2 = 2GM/R + lambda R^2 /3 - w

which were first derived by Lemaitre (see note at end).

The first condition essentailly means that the mass-energy of a sphere of radius R does not change as R increases i.e. matter or energy are neve created out of nothing as the universe expands. The second condition is a trivial differential equation. Every solution of this equation represents a different model of the universe. For a static universe, R does not change with time. It can be shown that w=1, and lambda takes a specific value

(6) lambda_C=64 pi^2/9 kappa^2 M^2

while the scale factor R is equal to Rc=1/(lambda_c)^(1/2). The solution was originally derived by Einstein in 1917. Lemaitre demonstated that the solution is unstable such that if R or lambda are perturbed away from R_c and lambda_c then dR/dt will not remain zero but will start to diverge.

We are really only interested in val

Hi, Bernard Schopper:

There is a vast difference between being "near-dead," and being dead.

Not as vast as you think, Bernard.

Being dead" is medically defined as a state where all brain activities have ceased (that does not occur even in the deepest comas.)

I agree with you, there.

No one has ever proven that someone, whose brain activities have ceased, returned to life"

Yes, they have. There are , at the last Gallup poll, l5 million Americans who have had a near death experience.

How do you explain a lady declared "dead" on the operating table by a team of doctors who was able to repeat a conversation she heard down the hall at the hospital when she was "dead"?

Her consciousness had left her body, that's how. And she was revived and came back. She was also able to see and describe what was being done to her while she was "dead". Thing is, Bernard, she has been l00% blind since birth.

But, that's okay. Skeptics are a good thing. They keep the charlatans at bay.

(continued)

We are really only interested in valid solutions types to equation (5) given as

I: (a) w=0, and lambda > 0 (expanding flat universe), (b) w=-1 and lambda > 0 (expanding hyperbolic universe) and w=1 and lambda > Lambda_c (expanding spherical universe).

II: R(t) inceases from zero up to a maximum value R_max and afterwards decreases to zero again (pulsating universe)

(a) W=0 and lambda <0, (b) w=-1 and lambda < 0, and w=1 and lambda < lambda_c.

III: The universe contracts without ever going through a superdense state (a singularity) at R=0 which conflicts with cosmological evidence of a one time singularity at t=0.

(a) w=1 and 0 < lambda < lambda_c.

I admit my stinkerhood most humbly, Jim! I just couldn't resist...

But you are right that in a world of relativities, the choices we face are not and cannot be absolute. That is why we need to 'know' the nature of the absolutes.

I once heard that if you don't invite the vampire to cross your threashold, he couldn't harm you. Nice Balkan fairy tale, guaranteed to instill sweet dreams. When I grew up and started encountering real evil, it started to make sense to me.

For instance, part of my work is intervening with at-risk youth, mostly teenagers. I have encountered individual children with similar family backgrounds (horrible), similar opportunity levels (none) and similar intelligence, in "trouble" for similar delinquency.

Let's say I take two such examples into my home for short-term foster care. One just needs a chance. Some attention, a little real caring, a goal to aim for. He grows up to become Mayor and lives happily ever after.

The other turns out to be hopelessly evil. May have a nice smile and convincing manner, but kills my whole family while we sleep, steals our car and cash, leaves a trail of destruction from New York to LA.

What might have alerted me to the difference? How am I to know which child I can help, and which one needs to be left on the doorstep and not invited in? The relative circumstances are exactly the same, the answers on IQ and personality tests are non-instructive.

Just an example of my conundrum.

I suppose that it is ironic for the creationists that a one-time priest would be one of the first to devise the essentials of Big Bang theory. Lemaitre should really receive more credit than what is alotted him.

Thanks for the link, E.C. I'll do that reading tomorrow, since all those lambdas are giving me cross eyes right now!

Thanks, Kath. You know more about it than I do. I had no idea the experience was so common!

As I said to Kath, I have avoided research qualitatively and quantitatively in this area. I have avoided in on purpose, as it challenged me on such basic levels I had to incorporate it into myself first. I’m not big on support groups or Prozac for doing that. This changes nothing about the experience. I was nowhere near death, I was perfectly healthy and fully in charge of my functions (including consciousness). The death in question was final and unequivocal. I’ve got the ashes on the mantle.

Duh... I know that if I can remember the ‘60s I can’t prove I was a hippie, but I do recall some of it. I know what a hallucination is, and no, I’m not enraptured.

Leszek Rzepecki - Monday, 02/01/99(#1122)

" I recommend reading the published studies by Jane Goodall and co-workers on chimps, and those on their cognitive abilities. If you do, you'll find out why I think your statement that chimps are more like dogs than humans pretty amusing :)"

Well, Leszek, I have certainly read the studies. I taught primate studies and behavior, among other anthro classes in a good university, attended meetings and forums, and as for Jane Goodall, I was privileged to meet and talk with her as a "colleague" (as well as her early mentor, Dr Leakey). And I was (am) always impressed by the abilities of chimps. But, you know, after all the best efforts, which included raising successive generations of chimps in the best of universities ( :-) !), none of them have ever proven capable of true language, art, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, chemistry, literature, spiritual or religious or moral or legal beliefs or systems, – or even anything that deserves the name of culture. Not to disparage them, but merely to be scientifically objective and admit that however much we might hope, chimps are orders of magnitude apart from the truly significant qualities of "humanness" that makes human beings human beings. Look at how we construct definitions of "species", either cladistically or biologically. We try to parse narrow percentages of genetics, or morphology, or behavior, to demark "species" lines within genera, and even between similar (close) genera. But the differences, outside biology, between chimp and man are orders of magnitude and hardly require fine distinctions, or debatable statistical arguments.

Now, your rhetorical "A lot of the battle between science and religion has been due to constant efforts on the part of religionists to find a compelling dividing line that sets man above the animals, and perhaps on par with the ang

Leszek part 2...

perhaps on par with the angels." might be an attempt to set up a straw man (Carl Sagan's Baloney Detector # 18?) or make some ad hominem (Sagan's Baloney Detector #1?) by associating me with a category of folks you don't like, but it has nothing to do with nothing here. While I referred to no angels, maybe I offended you by referring to dogs – when I compare the chimp to my dog. Maybe you should meet my dog. Which is nothing special, if you ever get around to reviewing some studies on dog behavior. My dog recognizes about a dozen words, has absorbed and followed a fair amount of the culture and laws and mores of our household, has a sensitivity to our emotions and thoughts that is almost frightening, etc. Further, dogs have shown excellent skills in cooperative social (pack) hunting that include planning, strategy, division of labor and roles, communication across distance that precludes mere visual cues, etc. These things compare very favorably with chimp behavioral capacity. But neither species will ever write books, practice rocket science, etc.

You say "We picked on intelligence, only to find that we just had more of it than other species". By any SCIENTIFIC measure, are we not orders of magnitude apart on any scales? Try IQ, SAT tests, – even using Rorschach, would you expect any meaningful response patterns from a chimp?

You say "we picked on self-awareness, only to find that we just had a more acute sense of it" Again, orders of magnitude. No signs of philosophy or literature, no evidence of metaphysical or religious pondering the meaning of ourselves, no makeup or fancy suits or concern about zits, no ... well, before we get into deeper issues of consciousness and cognition, I recommend you study the same a bit more before you make judgements. For some easy resources on the www, I recommend the Cogprint Archives site I've referred previously.

You say "we picked on tool manufacture and use, only to find that w

Curiousity killed the cat... Yes I read it. I think you meant it for me.:)

He does have valid points on the hypocrasy of A Strictly fundamnetalist view. I agree with him that all sins are equal to God, sin is sin. Just targeting one sin a person doesn't like personally, and not acknowedging their own brand of sin, as being just as sinful, Biblically is rather hypercritical. I hope you don't think I'm that rigid.

Leszek part 3...

You say "we picked on tool manufacture and use, only to find that we did just did it better" I find my simple car tool kit far beats the most exciting examples of termite fishing, box stacking, and button pushing that chimps exhibit in "tool use". My dog, in fact, can cleverly use ladders, open gate latches, "create" toys, and trick food (prey) into her reaches. Not far behind the chimp.

You say "we've picked on language, and though so far, this one seems to be holding, other animals are chipping away at our monopoly of the ability to abstract concepts and consciously plan for the future." Well, you are in very slippery territory when you think our cognitive and behavioral studies can enter the minds of other species (see the section on Cognitive Ethology in the Cogprints Archives) and ascertain they have "abstract concepts", and even "plan for the future", esp beyond the immediate. Does even a chimp know "tomorrow", or Y2K? Dogs can organize and execute a pack hunt. So can some chimps. So can some other primate species. So can lions, etc. But abstractly plan a tribal campaign against a neighboring tribe, for spoils or vengeance? Orders of magnitude, I submit. A gulf greater than any "species" boundary or gap.

Is this a "desperation to justify a gulf between man and the animals?". No. Just the result of being an anthropologist, and a few decades of multidisciplinary work and study. In my own teaching I certainly tried to convince young students, year after year, of exactly the position you are espousing. I was every bit as enthusiastic as Jane was. I thought the lab/home experiments raising successive generations of chimps (so that "culture" would take root and grow) were proving the case. But they weren't. Not eventually. Not in my scientific judgement (nothing to do with religion or such). In fact, mine was a stubborn will and desire to see it exactly as you do now, that got rev

Leszek concl...

that got reversed.

I put it to you that after many decades of research that those who have wanted to find that humans are merely other animals, who have specialized in cognitive and technical abilities, they simply have not made a case. Generations of chimps are still just chimps. Often now helpless pets. The specialties studying the brain, and neurology, and mind, and cognition, are discovering that the mind, and self concepts and self awareness, and cognition are far more difficult to locate and characterize and explain. Even the relevance of the brain, itself, is becoming a question. (Won't that cause a problem for the paleontologists and them that want to establish hominid evolutionary sequences!) That situation alone, the new frontiers in cognitive sciences and the tumbling paradigms there, may well put to death that tired old horse you are flogging!

No not specifically. I got in one of those discussions with my father in law again. He told me to stop asking questions about the scriptures. I think that I am finally getting to him!

No, Leszek, I think, you have the part about everything being created a millisecond ago,in error, I don't mean to give that impression.

I know I haven't been able to convince you, of the thought, that perhaps, all these natural processes, you see, are/or could be the design of a creator.

Evolution as a theory has always been steadfast in it's determination to prove itself out, therefore, is unable to look at the evidence in hand,( ie fossils, genetic similarities,) without having the presumption, that all those things: Prove evolution. Evolution has never been totally objective, in all respects, because when it can't empirically prove something;(like macro-evolution), it has to assume it. Evolution can't prove how life initially started. Evolution can't admit that maybe, there is a master designer. Evolution wants to prove everything evolved without a God, and doesn't want to deal with anything, that might suggest a God. You say the genetic similarity between chimps and man couldn't be random, yet Evolution itself is supposed to be a random process, without purpose or any special meaning. So why do evolutionists keep attempting to find a meaning to it all?

They keep tryng to find relationships between species, when they are dealing with a random, purposeless process.;)-

Joy Busey - Monday, 02/01/99,1:30:44am (#1116)

Russell, I'm heading for dreamland, but I understood that better than anything you've yet posted. And I think you just might be right!...

Joy

HELP! Cyberspace is so unreal... You responded to my 4 part post....just previous to yours! But now, today, I find it on my computer with a red message from our fathers in cnn telling me it has been pulled because I quoted too much from copyrighted material. That I need to limit quotes to a sentence or two (tho that certainly is totally unsubstantiated in copyright law!). But, I still "See" it. Is it still there in your world, or somehow cleverly removed from everyone elses' cyberworld but yet in mine??? If it is invisible, I might try rewriting with paraphrasing, etc, but if it is there and simply uninteresting to anyone, well, so forget it. Thanks. You are the only person I know saw it.

E.C. - Fathers-in-law (and even regular fathers) can make for a trying day as well. I used to be baffled by my Dad’s seemingly bizarre adherance to a fundamentalist sect that was completely at odds with who he was and what he did (theoretical mathematician, engineer and inventor).

He explained before he died that he’d so compartmentalized his life, everything in its proper place, that he needed a place to put "the other half" of himself. By then I understood him well enough to know what he meant, though I still think he went overboard. He was unpredictable like that though, so who am I to judge?

My "other half" was dominant, as I’m miserably right-brained by nature. I needed a place for the earthbound half, which no doubt explains a strange sojourn through life. I discovered early on that artists are like actors. Since I didn’t wish to wait tables or tend bar, I learned a useful (?) trade or two or three...

So why do evolutionists keep attempting to find a meaning to it all? - Marie M.

Evolutionists are scientists. No "meaning" is needed. Facts are accepted as they are being derived from verifyable discoveries.

Ah, yes, Our Fathers that be in cyberland. I was there when you posted, so I saw them and copied to my now-voluminous word processor's file specific to this board. I know naught from copyright law other than to send it in a registered letter to myself at my lawyer's office so it's there if anybody violates it. That's the Poor Man's Copyright.

The elves come through every 12 hours or so to mop up what the filters don't zap (those get cleaned at 12:30 a and p, meaning there's about half an hour of inaccessibility to the boards (all of 'em). Apparently they were having big trouble on the Ugly Board (Clinton Impeachment) with copyright violations they got threatening letters from lawyers about. So had to tighten up on all of us.

YOU CAN BEAT THE SYSTEM!!!! Go back and either shorten or paraphrase the material (provide a link if you like), then repost it again.

...and I am beginning to understand what you're saying! §:o)

How do you explain a lady declared "dead" on the operating table by a team of doctors who was able to repeat a conversation she heard down the hall at the hospital when she was "dead"? - Kath S.

On an operating table, they don't monitor brain activity. That would require very specialized equipment. In the OP room, it is the heart rate that is being monitored. If the heart stops, the brain can live on for awhile, albeit being supplied with less oxygen. This could have a dramatic effect on hallucinatory experiences.

Twighlight Zone, Bernhard? If you were for a moment to accept that hallucination is not a factor in my experience, where would you attribute the voodoo?

...never mind. I knew your answer when I saw the question on the 'edit' window.

Joy, I am going to tell you exactly the way I once told one of my sisters who insisted on testifying (and preaching) to me. Specifically, I told her that if believing as she did gave her comfort, then I wanted her to be comforted. But that I have a different point of view, based on my own study and my own experiences, that works for me. I understood that her experiences were meaningful to her, but I assured her that it is my own experiences that are meaningful to me.

In addition, Joy, I can assure you that I am sincere in the beliefs I express on this message board. I am not "pretending." And I am sorry to say this, but I really have grown weary of correcting your factual misrepresentations of my statements.

Are you saying that I and others of like mind on this board are "pretending" to disagree with you because we do not want to face the facts? This suggests dishonesty on our parts which I do not believe exists. Instead, I think you display arrogance and a lack of respect when you make such statements.

No, but I do not accept your interpretation. And I think you display arrogance by insisting that I should.

I said no such thing, Joy. I did not say that because hallucinations happen, then your experience "must BE" hallucination. Instead, I said: "it seems likely to me that this is the case."

This, by the way, is an example of what I mean by "correcting your factual misrepresentations."

On the contrary, it is you For example, it is you who said: "I never had any intention of bringing up the subject of near-death experiences. I have no intention of pursuing it. But I ‘know’ it is real. I ‘know’ this more fundamentally than I ‘know’ anything science tells me is real." (reference message #1079)

Another example of factual misrepresentation.

Oh, so now you are a psychologist! I could have sworn you said you were a physicist. Yes, a quick check confirms it. Previously, you said you were a physicist. But now you are a psychologist. Interesting :-)

Any explanation?

Hi All,

I'm moving. Will be away awhile.

Cheers!

Thanks for the intro to general relativity and also the info on the Higgs. I have to confess, the Higgs is a favourite subject of mine. Since I have been away from particle physics for a while, I no longer keep up with what the upper limits on the Higgs mass is any more. Obvioulsy greater than twice the mass of the top.

And the most recent value for lamda? Close to zero is my preference, but I guess I don't get to make that decision!

Hi, Bernard.

How do you explain a lady declared "dead" on the operating table by a team of doctors who was able to repeat a conversation she heard down the hall at the hospital when she was "dead"? - Kath S.

"On an operating table, they don't monitor brain activity."

Yes, they do, Bernard. This lady had been involved in a serious car accident. And her brain activity was being monitored.

"That would require very specialized equipment."

This is true. And this is exactly why we know she was "brain dead".

" In the OP room, it is the heart rate that is being monitored. If the heart stops, the brain can live on for awhile, albeit being supplied with less oxygen. "

The brain dies 5 minutes after the heart stops. In this instance, her heart had stopped for 9 minutes. I've seen the hospital documentation. Flatlined. Declared "dead". What she heard (by the way she was temporarily deaf following this accident, too. She heard the doctors say she would be deaf as well as blind)

"This could have a dramatic effect on hallucinatory experiences."

Hallucinations require operative brain function, which in this case was absent.

" Besides, your story could be just a re-hash from an episode of "The Twilight Zone."

Truth is stranger than fiction, Bernard. I have met this lady, and had lunch with her. She lives in Seattle. I have seen the hospital documents. Perfectly normal explanation.

But, that's okay. NDE'rs don't mind if you don't believe them. They know that they experience is real.

Bernhard Schopper - Monday, 02/01/99, 7:01:00pm (#1146)

Kath S. - Monday, 02/01/99, 8:09:00pm (#1154)

Oh poo, Bernhard!

You say –> "Ridiculous! There is a vast difference between being "near-dead," and being dead."

Bernhard! There you go again. How do you know this? Have you ever been dead?

How ‘vast’ a difference is there? No one can say this for certain. Kath S. is correct to ask this question.

Also you say –>"Being dead" is medically defined as a state where all brain activities have ceased (that does not occur even in the deepest comas.)"

This is a medical definition. You are confusing consciousness with brain activity. It is impossible as yet for anyone to locate consciousness exclusively in the brain. Even when we have brain activity, we cannot say what consciousness is.

Now here is the real problem –> "No one has ever proven that someone, whose brain activities have ceased, returned to life."

That is because the doctors would pull up the covers, pronounce the person dead, and bury the person.

Like Marie wrote here earlier, people do not publish all their experiences. The type of scenario you are presenting is a scenario where doctors would not even be present 99.9% of the time! It is unethical for doctors to induce this state. And doctors are not running around with EEG electrodes attached to people. It is something that can happen 99.9% of the time without detection!

You cannot assert this as a true fact –>"Consciousness is a product of specific sections of the brain, and when these sections die, so dies consciousness."

It is true that the brain is one location of consciousness. It is not true to dogmatically assert it is only there!

I believe there is a God who is conscious. All matter may have sentience for all we know.

Kath, with respect to your example, or other similar conjectures, I would think that the best way to establish such as you describe would be for the team of Doctors in this case, or a similar case, to publish their data in a peer reviewed publication.

I would agree that many people who claim NDE do not desire publication of their experience. However, I would think that a substantial number would allow it, and it would seem to me that if this truly is a prevailing phenomenon, as you indicate, that a scientific treatment of this would be done by someone. Do you know if something like this has been published in a peer reviewed scientific publication?

Ya! I had a near life experience once.

After overcoming a serious problem that had foiled my fellows for weeks and risking being fired for working overtime many hours without pay or documentation I solved the problem.

At 2 Am. as I walked out the back door and moved toward the front gate, I really felt alive and in tune with all the universe. Every move I made was effortless.

A later I thought "wait a min. I am a carbon based creature. They are not only not intelligent but not even alive."

Oh well! It sure seemed that I was.

Murgatroid, Heavens, to... Brain dead people live. You are reading this, are you not?

: )

Of course not Russell, and nothing I said would lead anyone to expect that chimps would. My point, which you've tried to dismiss by unwarranted exaggeration, is that we can find analogues to human abilities and feelings in chimps. And to a lesser extent in dogs and other non-primate mammals. And with all due respect to your amazing dog, it just doesn't come nearly as close to human sensibilities as a chimp. If you didn't learn that from your primate studies, perhaps it's because you were resistant to the idea from first principles, and prefer - for whatever reasons - to maintain the absolute separation between people and animals.

Of course people are highly specialized in what they do. I never said anything different. But the extent of our specialization in the cognitive field is not necessarily any more remarkable than than spider's ability to weave webs, or a bombadier beetle's ability to defend itself chemically... all "orders of magnitude" better than any other animal's abilities in those fields. The point is, Russell, that our cognitive abilities are simply (or complexly if you prefer, doesn't matter) more of the same that we already find in other mammals - orders of magnitudes, yes, but the scale is not in itself astonishing or unprecedented. We can find antecedents, if you will, for them in other species. In other words, while we aspire to be intellectual angels, our feet are firmly rooted in our animal nature. Does all this clarify the view I was trying to get across?

Marie, I know, all I meant was that when one argues that god created everything by, as Keith Fosberg once said, "zapping it into existence", then how could we possibly know it wasn't zapped an instant ago? We can't, for sure. But it's reasonable to assume that the appearance of age we have is a reality. And that's what evolutionists, geologists, and astronomers assume about the appearance of age in the earth and universe. I agree these are both assumptions, but I don't think either are out of place or remarkable. They both make sense.

I see we have touched raw nerves back and forth, so I guess that makes us even. I mean you no harm. But in answer to the selected quotes above, I’d like you to step back and suspend your disbelief for just long enough to consider my position in general.

First, you have an excellent mind. Had you not, I’d simply ignore what you have to say. So when I ‘hear’ the sound of your excellent mind slamming a door the size of Texas, I have to consider what I did to cause such a reaction. I know you are not the only person here to bandy the word "hallucination" about. And I’m sure you feel insulted that I would pick you out for my response. This is because I see your reaction in particular as something I should pay attention to.

I’m not sure what "interpretation" of mine you disagree with, but you are certainly free to do so. Your illogical response to my "interpretation" of an experience I honestly didn’t intend to present here surprised me. There are reasons for my concern, as there are reasons why I will not supply you with my professional resume.

Your reaction tells me that something about my experience frightened you. The implications ran right up against your belief system and said "Boo!" The very idea that I just might have the credentials to back it up frightened you even more. I have worn a number of hats in my life. That is all you need to know for purposes of this forum. You are not allowed to challenge my identity, and in this forum credentials amount to the same thing.

Wow, Carl! I'll bet it scared the tar out of you!!! <hehehe. I had one of those too once>

I guess you must have missed the point I tried to make by introducing the subject of Velikovsky’s experience. A great many such experiences have been documented by those who have experienced them. But medicine is a branch of science. Whatever subject(s) science determines not to examine are writ in stone on the gate barring peer review, and the gatekeepers are very strict. It is from science (medicine in this case) you get the terms "hallucination," "oxygen deprivation," etc. These are intended to explain away the phenomenon, not examine it.

Truth is, science - including medicine - has no way to test the validity of subjective experience. Publication in a journal complete with the medical data establishing death and later revival couldn’t explain the experience of the person who was dead, it would just prove he/she was dead for a period of time by definition of medicine. Medical records themselves establish that.

all

Someone yesterday stated that 15 million Americans have NDEs. I would like to see a reference to that. Is this, per year? How were the numbers accumulated? I find this number fishy at best.

Hi, Steve Hamilton. I am the one who said l5 million Americans have experienced an NDE.

The source of information for this statement comes from a Gallup poll. Mally Cox-Chapman, who has her Masters degree in Political Science from Yale (no new-age flake, she) wrote a fascinating book called The Case for Heaven as the dispassionate journalist she is. (I believe her latest book is about investment analysis) She found this figure astounding, and when she double-checked her source, she found herself talking to Mr. Gallup, himself (which she said in a lecture I attended, was for a journalist, like talking to God).

She made reference to the deloks of Tibet, near death visionaries little known to the West, but very familiar to Tibetans. The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying has pointed out deloks have a difficult time persuading people their story is true. Some just don't want to know. And that's their choice. There is no hidden agenda here, people are free to believe whatever they want. NDE'rs don't mind a bit. They know.

Greetings, Steve! I'm one of the few who checks in during the day, but I'm not the one who could answer your question. I am, however, very much interested in seeing some data. I was given a website to check out: www.iands.org

Data may be in there somewhere, but I didn't get past the implicit request for 'sharing' of experiences. As I mentioned, I've got no use for a support group, and my experience is something other than NDE by strict definition. Related, but different in significant ways.

Though if I were to decide to assault the gatekeepers, I'd have to include the statistical data in an appendix, I suppose. Maybe Jane or Marie can help out with this.

Sorry, Kath... You beat me to the punch! Hello to you as well!

Some reading you may find of interest concerning NDE research:

Adventures in Immortality George Gallup, Jr., with William Proctor New York, McGraw-Hill, 1982

Heading Towards Omega Dr. Kenneth Ring, New York: William Morrow 1984 and Life at Death Dr. Kenneth Ring, New York: Coward, McCann & Geoghegan, 1980

Closer to the Light, New York: Ivy Books, 1990 Dr. Melvin Morse (Seattle Pediatrician whose research concentrates on childrens'NDE's) and Transformed by the Light New York: Villard Books, 1992 Dr. Melvin Morse

The Culture of Disbelief Stephan L. Carter, New York: Basic Books, 1993

and of course, the person who coined the phrase Near Death Experience, Dr. Raymond Moody who wrote Life after Life Harrisburg, Pa.: Stackpole books, 1976 ; The Light Beyond New York: Bantam, 1988, and Reflections on Life after Life New York: Bantam, 1977.

Dr Moody's original research began when as a young psychiatrist his mandate was to counsel cardiac patients who had arrested and been revived. The similarities in their experiences prompted his research. His subjects included no common denominator of culture or prior religious affiliation. Their experiences contained all or part of the over 20 elements of an NDE.

BTW, for those who think anesthesia "causes" an NDE, you may be interested in Dr. Kenneth Ring's earliest findings that anesthesia actually reduces the probability of a patient remembering an NDE, since medications such as Valium are added to the anesthetic cocktail to create amnesia for the duration of the surgery.

Happy reading!

kath,

I wont even pretend that I am going to read all of those, as much as they are sure to be very intereseting books. I find it very curious that anesthetics reduce the probability of an NDE (or at least, remembering an NDE.) I don't see how this could even be an area of research since one can hardly do blind studies (ie placebos and the such!) Not to make fun at someone else's expense, but can you imagine: Here take this valium (placebo) and tell us about your NDE afterwards! Not.

I also have had an experience similar to that described by the pre-blind/post-sighted woman: (I had the url but now it is gone... A search under altavista.com for "Near Death Experience" produced a list, an item of which was a link to the near-death-experience-research-(something) and their web address contained "nderf")

However, my experience had nothing to do with death. It occured during a rugby match where I hit my head. Of course, I could see before hand, so I guess that makes it different.

I guess I am one of the 255 million who have not (yet) had the epihany of NDE.

steve

Jim,

You probably know this, but in case you don't... Eliade--or rather, his work--has, in recent years, come under quite a bit of attack from religion scholars. Seems he was quite the ardent fascist, or some such, and some folk are quite convinced that his political views shaped his scholarship in quite significant ways. He's not still around, is he?

The source of information for this statement comes from a Gallup poll. - Kath S.

Please, get your facts straight! Gallup only gives percentages, not numbers; i.e., for example, a Gallup survey would proclaim that "...it was found that 80% of the people polled believe that creationists are an inferior species."

Hi, again, Steve.

I find it very curious that anesthetics reduce the probability of an NDE (or at least, remembering an NDE.)

There is a difference. Between having and NDE and remembering one. A big difference.

I don't see how this could even be an area of research since one can hardly do blind studies (ie placebos and the such!) Not to make fun at someone else's expense, but can you imagine: Here take this valium (placebo) and tell us about your NDE afterwards! Not.

The research conducted studied the effects of Valium on brain function, specifically, memory. No need for placebos.

Anyway, you asked for resource material, and I provided a tiny bit of what's been done on this subject. Obtain all the information & research data before summarily dismissing something, or not. Nobody minds!

Lots of things have been derided and ridiculed: electricity, radio, telephones (for three minor examples). Doesn't make them any less real.

One more, before I go: Madelaine Lawrence, RN, PhD., Director of Nursing Research at Hartford Hospital, reported some preliminary findings in the Journal of Near Death Studies, the scholarly publication of the International Association of Near Death Studies (IANDS).

The patient cited in the article describes floating up over her body, viewing resusctation efforts being done on her. She finds herself above the roof of the hospital, enjoying the view of the night skyline, when she sees a red object. A shoe. In the gutter, northeast corner of the hospital roof. When revived, she told her story to a medical resident, who laughed at her. The resident took his skepticism right upstairs to the janitor, got a ladder, and found a red shoe in the gutter in the roof, right where the patient had said she'd seen it. When her consciousness left her physical body. When she was having a Near Death Experience. (Journal of Near Death Studies

Bernard: I suggest you contact Mally Cox-Chapman, the author of The Case for Heaven, who spoke to George Gallup. She will be able to confirm to you what he said. And that is what he said.

You can contact her through her publisher: The Berkley Publishing Group, 200 Madison Avenue, N.Y. 10016

I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it.

oops, reference for Madelaine Lawrence's article got cut off. Should read: Journal of Near Death Studies 11, no 4:227. Madelaine Lawrence and Dr. Kenneth Ring.

p.s. Steve: By the way, the woman who was blind who saw people, things, when her consciousness left her body? You seem to be under the impression she is now sighted.

Her sight was only restored when she was out of her body. She was born blind, and is still blind. Just wanted to clear that up, too.

It is impossible as yet for anyone to locate consciousness exclusively in the brain. Even when we have brain activity, we cannot say what consciousness is. - Jane Patrick

I equate "consciousness" with "awareness." That is, being conscious of pain, of fear, of fun, of the passing of time, of my surroundings, etc.

It has been shown that if certain parts of the brain shut down (e.g. after a stroke), the victim no longer has "consciousness" of certain stimuli.

I'm not saying that the totality of man's consciousness is isolated in one part of his brain, but if the brain is dead, there surely cannot be consciousness...

If you were for a moment to accept that hallucination is not a factor in my experience, where would you attribute the voodoo? - Joy Busey

Perhaps you vacation too often in Haiti.

I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it. - Kath S.

Of course not.

Perhaps this NDExperienced lady friend of yours desires a handsome stipendium from "The National Enquirer" for her (unabridged) story.

Bernard, there is really no need to insult what you don't understand.

You have made a very derisory comment about someone you have never met, know nothing about and don't "want" to know what doesn't conform to your way of thinking. You have done her an unkind disservice.

If she is the fraud you say she is, she would have approached one of your trash tabloids for a large sum of money. Instead, she is raising her children as a blind single parent, living a quiet life and allowing her experience to be used in scientific research.

Shame on you.

It has been shown that if certain parts of the brain shut down (e.g. after a stroke), the victim no longer has "consciousness" of certain stimuli.(Bernard)

"It" has also been shown that comatose patients following a stroke have complete consciousness of everything going on around them. What is being said, who has been there, what has been done to them.

To paraphrase what you said to me, Bernard: Get your fact straight!

What?! Are you admitting that there might be something that you can't explain?:)

Kath S. is correct. It's well known by medical people to not say anything you wouldn't want repeated in the presence of a comatose or unconscious person. They often remember it, and it's also well-known that hearing is the last sense to go before death. Kath has supplied several good references. The people are actually dead for several minutes, it's witnessed, by others, that they are dead. So it's not a product of dying neurons.

Got me, grouch! I was laying odds on "X-Files!"

And thanks for the good information, Kath.

Well, I spent some time downloading and reviewing the information about NDEs available on the web so I’d know something more about it than I’ve allowed myself to know in the last 7 years while integrating the experience itself. As I have long suspected, the established criteria describing what is currently under examination out there are pretty much inapplicable to me.

Of all the indicators, only 3 of them relate to my experience. (1) My son was ‘there’ (wherever ‘there’ was), as were others. (2) I was told I couldn’t stay. Actually, the word was "come" as in I couldn’t come. (3) I am still alive.

No tunnels, lights, barriers, life reviews, libraries, epiphanies of knowledge, emotions, etc. The whole thing happened in between moments of time, so nothing happened in time while I was ‘gone’. Only one person in the room (an EMT) reacted at all. I have no idea what he saw or perceived.

So I am still of the opinion that what I experienced was another thing than what my son might have experienced on his way out, or what I might have experienced if it had been me who was doing the dying. I skipped the process many people would have us believe leads to this common hallucination.

I was what I’d term an "eyewitness" in legal parlance. The ‘being’ who spoke to me was non-threatening, but I did not see wings or halos. He seemed quite surprised to see me, but was not angry. If there’s a wall between life and death (apparently a common aspect of NDEs), I never saw it. But, as I said, my son did not come back. I went straight to where he was, though it was apparent he was being taken somewhere else.

Maybe I was in the transporter room? (That’s a joke) §:o)

So my sincere question to you, Kath, since you are very knowledgable in this area, is what do you make of that? (above info)

There is, of course, volumes more, even without the appendices I'd have to generate if I chose to present this experience. But what I've listed is the basic outline. Your thoughts would be useful to me.

Hi, Marie! Hi, Joy!

I was just checking again, for the last time or so I thought, because I want no part of some forum that accomplishes nothing but insults to opposing points of view...then I saw your posts...so here I still am.

Joy, would you mind outlining what happened to you? I've tried to find a previous post, but admittedly gave up.

A book I omitted is Final Gifts by Maggie Callanan, Poseidon Press 1992, Bantam reprint, 1993. Maggie has been a hospice nurse for 23 years. This book was given to us all as new hospice workers and is highly recommended for anyone interested in the subject of consciousness separate from the physical body.

I am a hospice worker and have been present at the moments leading up to and including death. Too often the dying are dismissed as 'delusional', 'hallucinating', 'spaced out on drugs', when, in fact when we listen to what they're saying, what they're saying is worth listening to. These are very privileged moments.

I'm here on this board to listen to and try and understand other points of view. Not to get involved in some slanging match about who is "right".

Bernhard Schopper #1171:...evolutionists are scientists. No "meaning" is needed. Facts are accepted as they are being derived from verifyable discoveries. Ask yourself: Has anyone found Noah's ark? Is there any scientific evidencein regard to the biblical flood? Is there any evidence that any of those strange biblical fantasies (like people having turned into salt pillars at Sodom & Gomorrah) have actually occured?

Here's two URL's on theArk:

http://mypage.direct.ca/g/gcramer/ark.html

http://churchnet.ucsm.ac.uk/news/files2/news125.htm

Some acheological evidence has been found for Sodom & Gomorrah. The pillar of salt must have succombed to the winds of time. But no, for the most part there is no empirical, or hard evidence for most of the Bibles miracles and accounts of events. I do think the geological strata is evidence of the flood, not eons of time passage.

How is the wooly mammoth explained by evolutionists? The one which was frozen so quickly, that it still had green plants in it's mouth. Finding sea life on the top of mountains, also speaks of a flood.

And the most astounding proof of the Ark on Mt. Ararat.... Why would Disney offer millions of $$$$ to the Turkish Government?:)

But, I really don't require any proof, and I know that what proof I can offer isn't adequate for you, or a lot of people. It's faith.

Hi, Joy!

Snap!!! I've just read your post, but am unclear about what happened to you? Thank you for your kind words, I'm not all that knoweldgeable, it was my husband who had an NDE in l974. We told nobody about it (for fear of ridicule) and read Dr. Moody's book in l976. Validating the whole experience.

Since then I've made it a concern to find out as much as I can about this phenomenon. Through my husband, I've met lots of NDE'rs, none of whom mind whether they're believed or not.

Prior to my husband's nde, his hero was a man with pointed ears named Spock - Mr. Logical, incarnate. He says after he had his nde he lost all his faith, which was replaced with absolute certainty. The experience had an impact on our lives, priorities change, things are different. The divorce rate for couples in which one has had an nde is four times the national average. I must admit, at times it's been difficult to keep pace with the change of direction. But we're still standing!

Of all the indicators, only 3 of them relate to my experience. (1) My son was ‘there’ (wherever ‘there’ was), as were others.

Joy, is your son dead? It is very common in nde's to see loved ones.

(2) I was told I couldn’t stay. Actually, the word was "come" as in I couldn’t come.

Another common feature of an nde. My husband was told it wasn't his time and he had to return. He says it was so incredible where he was he didn't want to, but he was told it wasn't his time yet to be there. He had been in incredible pain, then found himself in place he says words can't describe - aware that he was free from pain. The doctors had no explanation for that one!

(3) I am still alive.

In my view, you are always "alive". It's the physical body that gives out after threescore years and ten (ish).

No tunnels, lights, barriers, life reviews, libraries, epiphanies of knowledge, emotions, etc.

In Life After Life, Dr. Moody outlines the 20-odd stages of an nde. Each experience is as unique as the person having it. Some, all stages can be experienced. Or not.

The whole thing happened in between moments of time, so nothing happened in time while I was ‘gone’.

My husband felt he'd been "out" for about 20 minutes. In fact it was no more than 5. I was there and saw the whole thing.

I don't know if any of this answers your question?

I'll give you as much as I've previously posted here, Kath. I have been debating something else here that is only informationally related to the experience I still don't know if I want to present in its entirety at all. I am trying to avoid having to do so, because I don't think I'm altruistic enough to take the abuse. Of course, I'm not getting very far with my warning about approaching Alpha with half of us left 'undone' so to speak. Quite a conundrum.

In addition to the description above, the circumstance was the death of my son. It was a surprise for him as well as for me... we did not know it was coming. I was told by the EMT to look into his eyes to determine "if he's still with us" (the EMTs were having trouble getting past the blood and I was holding him). When I did so, the above described event took place.

I was concerned, but not emotionally distraught. We'd been through this 3 times previously (hemorrhage). I was fully conscious, completely in charge of myself in all other ways, and not looking to 'go' anywhere at all. I have an empirical mindset concerning things in general, and am a good observer with a background in science (physics), journalism, psychology and investigations.

That's pretty much it. I wasn't hallucinating. I wasn't even dying. It happened exactly as it happened.

Hi, Joy. What a terrible trauma for you that must have been.

Have you heard of an O.O.B.E.? (out of body experience)

At moments of extreme trauma - physical or emotional - there are documented cases of the consciousness energy "popping out". Sounds to me as though the bond that was so strong caused you to go with him, temporarily.

I witnessed something similar when my brother died. He was in excruciating pain from bone cancer and watching him suffer was the worst. Do you know how he consoled me? He said he'd been "in and out" of his body when the pain became too great. And then he proved his point by telling me about a conversation I'd had with his daughter down the hall in a waiting room, where he could never have overheard what we said.

My impression of your experience is that of an out of body experience. Extreme trauma and the love for your son, a powerful combination. And don't worry about the naysayers. It's easy to take potshots at what you don't want to understand.

How are you doing now?

Joy: if you would like to email us at [email protected] I can probably give you some links that may help. So as not to take over this board with the subject!

<sigh> Oh, I've been fine all along apart from the life adjustments associated with a death in the family, Kath. "Trauma" is a term I see bandied about a lot (like "hallucination"), and there wasn't time to get traumatized by the event. As I said, it simply occurred.

So I don't think it's valid in my circumstance to attribute the experience to trauma, either. I've met death before along my road, and came to terms with it long, long ago. I think my love for my son, and his for me, facilitated the experience, that's all.

Had I had time to consider what was happening, my first concern would have been that he not be afraid. Not be all alone. But that outside concern I might have considered if there were time to do so is implicit in the mother-son relationship itself. I wasn't out of body in the sense you mean. I was between time.

I hear you, Kath! §:o)

Joy, I am quite willing to listen to what you say and will consider whether, in my opinion, it might be valid. If I decide to do so, I will comment. However, I will not suspend my belief system.

Understand that there may come a time when I may change my belief system in view of evidence that is meaningful to me. But any change in my belief system will be due to evidence that is meaningful to me and only me.

You made a statement with no supporting evidence and insisted that I accept it based on the supposition that you could not be in error. You insisted that you could "distinguish" between your experience and a hallucination, and accused me and others of "pretending" to disagree because we did not want to face the facts of what you were saying.

Sorry. I mean no insult, but I was not pretending to disagree and I strongly suspect that what you experienced was a hallucination. I am not saying that what you experienced "must be" a hallucination. I admit the possibility that you are correct in your analysis. . But I am not convinced that you or anyone else can necessarily distinguish between a NDE and a hallucination.

On the contrary, I do not mind being singled out at all. However, I prefer your comments reflect what I said, not what I did not say. If you disagree with something I say, put it up there and explain why you disagree. I am delighted when someone forces me to think. (What I reject is someone attempting to think for me.)

Joy, you either have credentials or you do not. I can believe or doubt as I wish. If it is important to you that I believe that you have them, I assume that you will find a way to establish them with me. That assumes, of course, that you actually do have them.

Well, I would think that Velikovsky is an exceedingly poor example to use if you wish to have any credibility within the scientific community at all.

Hey, Joy, I didn't say it would be easy. But it is up to you and others like you to establish the connection between the subjective experience you describe and death--if you wish to and if you can. I would guess it would be very unlikely that you could establish anything based on your own experience, but I would think that if there are 15 million people who have had such experiences, you might find an angle that would allow you to gather convincing evidence for a peer reviewed paper on the subject.

That is the spirit. (Just don't mention Velikovsky.)

Specifically in what way is she allowing her experience to be use in scientific research. I don't think you mentioned this, Kath. Could you elaborate please?

I do not know what you experienced, Joy, but I do not think you can avoid the possibility that you may have had a hallucination. The alternative is that it was real. Whether it was real or not, you appear to be unable to develop any convincing evidence to support the supposition that it was real. But assuming it was real, it probably is not unique. I think, therefore, there might be a strong chance that someone else will have a similar experience which might be more closely examined, and more convincingly presented.

Okay, I give up. Why?

Interesting!

I do not need your sympathy or your analysis, Kath. Thanks for offering.

Well... (deep subject)... It appears we all now know far more than we ever cared to know about what I never should have asked. My fault. I took the bait. My experience has now been publicly diagnosed as "hallucinations and/or oxygen deprivation" by the skeptics and "OOBE due to extreme emotional trauma" by the supposed expert(s). That leaves only one dissenter... Me. Luckily, I do have some experience as a dissident.

For those who might have missed it, the point of the digression was to establish that I do not know what is real in my own experience, thus cannot possibly know what is real anywhere else. I hope I have defended my sanity sufficiently to continue our interrupted discussions. Thank you.

I can assure you that you will suffer no abuse from me for revealing whatever you may or may not wish to reveal about your experience. However, if you insist that I believe it before I am myself prepared to believe it, because you feel compelled to "warn me about the approaching Alpha with half of us left 'undone' so to speak," I will give you a piece of my mind :-)

Sounds to me that you ought to have been stressed enough to explain a hallucination.

In any case, why don't you write a book. Perhaps you could force additional study. But I would suggest that mention of the "approaching Alpha" might be counter productive to that purpose. But it depends on your "real" objective.

Joy: You asked me for an opinion. I gave you one. I was not offering sympathy, nor was I offering an "analysis". If this has caused offense, I'm sorry. I was offering you the opinion you asked me for.

My earlier thought to leave this board was a better one than to stick around and have a discussion.

See you.

E.C. - Please do me a favor and introduce a couple of dimensions here, would you? And explain - in English, please - Higgs. When I left it was W and Z. Is it now a single, symmetry-dependent(mass) variable particle?

I'll follow.

BTW, Joy, I think the "approaching Alpha" is your real objective. The "experience" that led you to a belief in the "approaching Alpha" was only supposed to be a side issue, was it not?

Tell you what. If you will get off your pulpit and just explain what you mean by the "approaching Alpha," I think I might be interested in understanding what you believe.

Understand that if I wanted a sermon, I would go to church. But do feel free to discuss any experiences you need to discuss in order to explain your motivation and how you arrived at your beliefs.

Cheers,

Cliff Beall: the blind lady's experience I have told you about. You want me to "elaborate". Well, she has agreed to make available to doctors and scientists her hospital and medical records. She has been interviewed, examined, questioned and in some instances, held up to ridicule every time she tells her story, because there will always be closed minds who cannot "accept" what happened to her.

And nobody, can explain what "happened" to a blind lady who was able to repeat in great detail, who worked on her, what was done, and what was said. What she saw. What she heard. When her body was blind and deaf.

And it is not some "miracle" story. She is still blind. And lives a life of very great hardship.

The red shoe story is another of countless others, carefully documented in hospital records. For anyone who isn't afraid of opening their mind to read all the facts before forming an opinion.

I don't mind whether or not you, or anyone else "believes" stories like these. Pick away at the details and find other "explanations", all you like. Makes no difference.

Greater minds than mine have been ridiculed!

Thanks for seeing, Kath.

Kath, I asked for information only. Nothing more. I did not ask for a lecture and insults. I think what you did was uncalled for. I have not ridiculed the woman, nor have I ridiculed you. I only asked for information about her. So why would you speak to me in that manner?

You gave me no information of any use whatever in making a value judgement. You gave me nothing that was convincing. Surely you could have done better than that.

Finding sea life on the top of mountains, also speaks of a flood. - Marie M.

If the flood supposedly had destroyed all life (remember, the only life existed was on Noah's Ark), how could sea life be found on mountain tops?

Ah, yes, here goes "The National Enquirer" again.

Cliff, I'm sure I don't know what you're talking about. What's with everyone around here?

Geesh. Joy asks me for an opinion and then refers to me as a so-called expert when I give her one. You ask me to elaborate, and I do. I'm only trying to say I have no agenda to try and convince anyone to believe anything.

Sor-ree.

See you.

Cliff:

p.s. Cliff. I did not say you had ridiculed this lady. I said she has opened herself up to ridicule every time she repeats her story. Which she is doing, willingly, to try and shed some light on what happened, and why.

I rest my case.

Ever put some meat in a freezer? It freezes within an hour or two. Similarly with animals killed in a natural deep freeze - say an avalanche, or a fall into a crack in a glacier or ice field - there's no mystery here :)

Nope. It speaks of tectonic upheavals. A flood would have mixed fossils from land and aquatic species together in the same strata, with no temporal sequence at all. We never see that. Proves there was never a world-wide flood. QED.

Did they? I rather doubt it. If anyone had actually found the Ark, it would have made headline news in more than just the Enquirer - which reports this amazing find every year or two as if it had never happened before :)

I don't know of any proof of evolution you'd accept either, and heaven knows we've offered plenty.

Just explain to me this. You are as determined not to believe in evolution as I am to disbelieve in god. However, one belief doesn't necessarily exclude the other, and if I chose to believe in god, I wouldn't stop accepting the reality that evolution is god's instrument. Bear with me for a minute, and just imagine that you accepted the reality of evolution - how would that impact your your faith?

kath
You said that marriages are four times more likely than the national average to fail if the couple contains someone who has had an NDE? Is that correct?

Since the national average is bout 50% (right?), then they have a 400% chance of having their marriage fail? Huh?

Sorry, but I am a bit of a stickler for following the numbers.

steve

At the end of the Permian Period which lasted up to 250 million years ago, a catastrophic extinction nearly wiped out all live on Earth. It was far greater in scope than the corresponding events which lead to the extinction of dinosaur life 65 million years ago. Interestingly, at the end of the Permian, vast ocean covered what would become the great plains of the United States and sea life dwelt quite happily on the ground which would eventually form the great North American mountain chains - the Rockies and the Appalachians. One of the leading theories which accounts for the Permian extinction relates to what are called the "Siberian Traps", a massive volcanic basin located in what would eventually become Siberia. It is estimated that at the height of volcanic activity, the overflowing lava would cover the Earth's surface with a 100 meter layer if spread out evenly, and enough greenhouse gases were generated to allow tropical conditions at the Earth's poles. Below is an abstract from a recent publication which examines the impact of this proposed mechanism of mass extinction

Michael Eisner, chairman and CEO of Disney is a stupid idiot. Disney is like Microsoft except that they hide behind Mickey Mouse. OK, I'll stop the ad hominem attacks but there is something about Disney that ticks me off.

Steve. I'm not exactly sure how serious you are in your "stickler"-iness for details, or if you're just trying to discredit what I say? No problem.

When I say the divorce rate for couples in whom one member has had an nde is 4 times the national average, that's what I mean. Figure it out, Steve. It's really not too difficult.

I'm out of here. There seems to be very little interest in having a friendly difference of opinion, too much emphasis on being "right". An insult or two thrown in for good measure when the opportunity arises doesn't seem to go astray, either. And when presented with a point of view you can't intelligently discuss, invoke the National Enquirer. Or imply your fellow debater resembles Monica Lewinsky in character.

See you.

Link should lead to:

U/Pb zircon geochronology and tempo of the end-Permian mass extinction

Bowring SA, Erwin DH, Jin YG, Martin MW, Davidek K, Wang W

SCIENCE

280: (5366) 1039-1045 MAY 15 1998

Abstract: The mass extinction at the end of the Permian was the most profound in the history of life. Fundamental to understanding its cause is determining the tempo and duration of the extinction. Uranium/lead zircon data from Late Permian and Early Triassic rocks from south China place the Permian-Triassic boundary at 251.4 +/- 0.3 million years ago. Biostratigraphic controls from strata intercalated with ash beds below the boundary indicate that the Changhsingian pulse of the end-Permian extinction, corresponding to the disappearance of about 85 percent of marine species, lasted less than 1 million years. At Meishan, a negative excursion in delta(13)C at the boundary had a duration of 165,000 years or less, suggesting a catastrophic addition of light carbon.

look it up before it gets erased. Sorry CNN elves.

Marie M. - Sunday, 01/31/99, 10:08:14pm (#1106)

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Marie it is so true as you stated –>"Most people don't publish their experiences."

It is so important to appreciate this. It is vital to understand that when it comes to stories about God or near death or prayers being answered that we are dealing with journal type stories, or ab best with help, like patient narratives when physicians or nurses interview patients. It is important to bear in mind that most people do not really publish all their private experiences. They just do not. It is one way of saying that we do not know the full base of ‘data’ that we are dealing with. We stand in a deep and profound lack of knowledge and it is so important to have some humility about these experiences as we also have what Joy calls the ‘innate distrust’ and test our experiences. It is such a delicate balance to stay humble and still to distrust enough to keep testing experiences for error. It is true that most people do not publish their experiences and so we cannot know how others test their experiences or if they do.

Cliff Beall - Monday, 02/01/99, 2:13:32am (#1120)

Yes Cliff. You understood what I meant. It is true that science has earned our faith. It is not true that we can now go to sleep because of it. What is important to me in this is the admission that science is based on faith. I also mean this to include that science cannot fully justify all of its own methods. It is a simple fact that we have faith in our ability to reason and come up with the methods of science. Faith is an irreducible fact.

Oh. I was not trying to cut off your questioning about near death experience! Not at all. Cliff, please understand. I am here because this is a science board. I am here because if my facts or opinions are wrong, I expect them challenged. No. Your questions were right in line all the way. It is very important, like you say, for us to be reminded that we are only speculation, as in my case, when that is what we are doing! Absolutely.

I feel like a part of science cannot be explained by method. Science depends on intuition and insights. I could be very wrong about psychomatter and the union of matter and sentience or feeling, but even if I am wrong, science still depends on insight and intuitions that are not our because of method. That is where the transition happens between insight and proof.

Cliff Beall - Monday, 02/01/99, 2:10:40am (#1119)

Joy Busey - Monday, 02/01/99, 11:23:04am (#1125)

Bernhard Schopper - Monday, 02/01/99, 7:30:11pm (#1152)

Cliff, what Joy says is true. I am not a NDE expert either, but I would say more than Joy. I do not care if Penfield shows up, or if a researcher shows me that my experiences of God qualify for what medicine diagnosis as a hallucination.

First, I would stay open and re-examine my experience. I am not closed minded.

Second, the phenomena of hallucination alone and nothing more does not mean there is no God, or that God did not cause it! When science says there is no God, science goes too far!

Bernhard, if you put LSD in my martini, how could you rule out that God spoke to me somehow within that experience? You can add hallucination to hallucination and still not get to the point!!! You cannot do it this way. I am all for distrusting my experiences and examining them. All we ever really need is just one misleading experience for us to know we need to distrust our experiences.

I am all for saying, "I was wrong about my dream. It was not God at all last night, but the LSD Bernhard slipped into my martini!" I am all for that. It does not settle anything finally.

deleted

Mr. Beall - I presume you have received a proper warning on the subject of your demands that I identify myself by providing my ‘credentials’ for your perusal. I trust they have also reminded you of the rules of the Community which forbid personal attacks on other participants. I ask that you refrain from engaging me. I will show you the same courtesy.

Aside to the paying audience - The past few days’ worth of one-sided warfare has nothing to do with what occurred 7 years ago. It has to do with what occurred 20 years ago - or maybe 2,000 or 20 billion years ago (simple exponentials) - and what Beall has so aptly termed my "real objective."

Some may wonder why it would be deemed unacceptable by anyone for me to have an objective in mind - a larger point I wish to make if I can - in order to ‘qualify’ for participation in this forum, entitled "Science and Religion." Some may also wonder what is so threatening about my perceived objective that I should be attacked so vehemently on a purely subjective level.

Objections to my participation in this discussion may be addressed to Sandee Myers over on the complaint board, or to her via e-mail. No one is free to deny me my right to participate simply because he or she dislikes what I have to say, or is afraid of what I might say. I hope everyone is clear on that. If not, please take it up with our hosts at CNN rather than with me.

Joy:

Thanks, E.C.

§:o)

Kath,
Sorry if I offended, but 200% did not make any sense to me. I don't know what that means in terms of a divorce rate.

Wow, E.C. They’ve come theoretical light years over the past 20, but they’re still stuck on W and Z, I see. We’re close, though.

Higgs (the field, not the boson) is the electroweak symmetry machine, the determinate of mass. At x GeV (boson, not field), this represents a great deal of the overall energy (thus also mass) of the universe. The confusion of supersymmetry is related to the mass/energy gap in the electromagnetic field and its subsymmetries. Higgs is a stubbornly elusive critter.

I wouldn’t venure a wild guess as to whether or not CERN will be able to blast the bugger out from under its very heavy rock in the next few years. I’ve got no idea what they’re using for ammunition. What I would like to see considered in the theoretical realm is the long-ago made connection between mass and gravity.

I’ll work more on this, E.C., and try to translate some concepts. In that, I’ll toss some dimensions. Keep an open mind!

EC:

Great links. I knew you would beat me to it.

The Higgs mechanism is really spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) applied to particle physics. One of the neatest things is to see the same formalism applied to the interaction between the e-m field and Cooper pairs in a superconductor. The e-m field (photons) gain a mass. The same thing happens with the W and Z. They interact with this background Higgs field, gaining a large mass.

Since the predictions of the electroweak theory are so spot-on, there has to be something like the Higgs out there. But its over-all general features are quite unknown. In fact, they are not too important. EXCEPT the Higgs' mass.

The Higgs mass is very important in cosmology. It plays a key role in understanding the nature of the vacuum. Also, if the mass were known, then one could construct an accelerator, create a bunch and observe them decay. That might lead to the discovery of new particles (ahh, those elusive sparticles, perhaps?) Who knows what Higgs physics would reveal. Whatever, it would be mighty interesting, that is for sure.

steve

joy,

Hi there. I think the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) has a com (center of mass) energy something like 10 to 20 TeV. I'm not too sure. SSC was to be 20TeV, if I recall. So LHC has to be less, but more than FermiLab which has com energy of 1.8TeV.

Hi, Steve! You do a darned good description in English. I would postulate for opinion from you and E.C. that the nature of the vacuum (or the proverbial 'void at the center of the core') is a lot like looking to Not-Time for a definition of time. We may be on to something!!!

In the meantime, the "doesn't matter" part of how ugly Higgs turns out to be when we do find it, is the nature of gravity, I suspect. Found also in the opposing concept. Antigravity, as is its popular science-fiction title. Am I completely off base?

Bernhard, not all life, only two of every kind, and seven of each "clean" according to Hebrew custom.

I am beginning to wonder about how you know so much about the "National Inquirer" :) I only read an issue maybe once a year, when I'm realllly bored, for something to laugh about.

A very thoughtful question, and I'll try to explain myself as best I can. Many people, including many Christians, can and do incorporate both belief systems together. So, yes, If you decided to believe in God, you could also retain evolution. ( I used to be able to do that.) I believed God must have used evolution as His tool in creating. The 6 days could be any time span, because... since God is eternal, it wouldn't be expected that his "Day" would be the same as our time as we measure it now.

Now I still don't necessarily go along with the 6-24 hour days, as ICR, but I do have faith, God could have done that, If he choose to. But is that what the Genesis account really means? I think we mortals often misunderstand God's true meaning and intent. I think, in part, because of Science's findings and age of the earth, that it most likely took much longer than a week. Exactly how long, I don't know, except, I don't think our earth is as old as Evolutionists specify.

I won't get too lengthy, here. How would finding out Evolution was true? If Evolution is completely, true, and everything is totally natural, without a creator, obviously, I would have no foundation to put my faith in, and may as well, be an animal, that dies, and has no spirit, which is eternal, that can live after death. It would mean that death is the end. c'est tu fini!(That's all folks!) But I know that is not the case.:)

Kath, I am sorry you misunderstood my request. I requested information in response to your suggestion that the woman was "living a quiet life and allowing her experience to be used in scientific research." I was interested in the nature of the research being performed and hopefully the names of the scientists who are doing the research. My wildest hope was a Internet link so I could follow the progress, it any.

The part of your post that upset me was:

I just want it understood by all that I made no statement that might provide justification for this response from you. (If you disagree, please indicate the specific statement that you think provided the justification.)

Amazing is it not?

deleted

Joy, it is real simple. If you wish for me to quit asking for your credentials, stop bringing up the subject or otherwise indicating that you have them.

(By the way, I am surprised you indicated to CNN that your credentials might serve to identify you. According to CNN rules, you are supposed to use your real name. I would assume that your real name would identify you.)

Bet you get hammered for that, Steve. Kath don't seem to want to take no prisoners :-)

I do not believe I have ever heard you say anything untowards, E.C. Civil discourse does not require agreement with anyone nor does it mean the limiting of your freedom of speech. My suggestion is to be true to yourself.

I think that was said pretty will, Jane. When I saw your name, I was expecting to see something to disagree with :-)

I can not find anything here to disagree with.

When are you going to say something I can disagree with? I'm with you on that. If it were my experience, I would first suspect a hallucination. Of course I would. And if I did not find any physical evidence to support it, I might tell my experience to some friends as something interesting. On the other hand, If I found physical evidence in it's support, I would begin to suspect that other people might ought to inspect the evidence to see if it makes good sense to them also.

deleted

Absolutely right! And BTW, if you have read this board for some time, you will have noticed that I have railed against acceptance of "evolutionary" abiogenesis until it is proven. I have noted that it has not yet been proven and indeed there is no evidence to support it. Note also that I identify myself as an agnostic, not of an atheist. That is one of the reasons.

No, Joy, I can not say that I have been warned by CNN. I just checked my e-mail again just before posting to make sure. Also, I have checked to make sure that none of my posts have been deleted, and, as of now, they have not. I believe that I have posted within the guidelines.

However, I remain surprised that you told CNN that your credentials might serve to identify you since, according to CNN rules, you are supposed to use your real name, and I would assume that your name would serve to identify you.

I shall continue to reserve the right to comment on any statement by anyone provided I remain within CNN standards for civil discourse. This means I may or may not comment on your posts as I desire.

deleted

No problem with that. But if I disagree, I reserve the right to say so if I choose.

Said perfectly. And that goes for me too. Hum. Finally, you said something I agree with :-)

The documentation of NDE is available, for those who would wish to read it. As for the Net, I haven't searched on line, yet, I'll see what I can find. I do know that medical journals publish articles on NDE's frequently, and I have one from Jan 1999, that had some other interesting new findings. One is that researchers in this field feel that the soul, or spirit, or consciousness leaves the body near the head. I'll look up the specifics, if interested, as I'm sure that magazine is online.:)

From CNN Interactive Community:

All posts on our topical message boards must represent a clear and direct relationship with the listed topic. When no clear and direct relationship with the topic "Science & Religion" exists, the post will be removed without further comment.

Greetings, Marie! Very appropos. I limit no one. Nor do I wish to be limited. But it matters not at all to the validity of my positions who I am outside of cyberlife. The name above is "real" enough. It's not "Cyberspook" or "Godzilla." It's a perfectly good name, I think.

The recent problem with Cliff arose from his demands for 'credentials.' No one here need know who I am outside of cyberlife or interaction on this board. Anyone who has a problem with that is free to disregard all that I say. They may not demand "proof" of my credentials to be here, which in this forum is the same thing as actual identity. Nor may they challenge my motherhood, my love for my children (and grandchildren), because they do not like what I say about my experience in that context. That is a personal attack I will not tolerate. If anyone here has a problem with my use of a pseudonym, I suggest they speak with Sandee about that.

Those who would like to discuss issues pertinent to science and religion have my attention. You fall into that category!

Deleted, reinstated and then deleted again

Absolutely right! And BTW, if you have read this board for some time, you will have noticed that I have railed against acceptance of "evolutionary" abiogenesis until it is proven. I have noted that it has not yet been proven and indeed there is no evidence to support it. Note also that I identify myself as an agnostic, not of an atheist. That is one of the reasons.

To all:

Any further discussion of others, as opposed to the topic at hand, will be removed without further comment, and if it continues, the staff will remove access to the board.

Please limit your posts to the topic on the board header and refrain from personal attacks, direct or indirect.

Thank you for your contribution to our Community.

You sound as if you'd read Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea :) I think you have the correct insight there, about the effect of eolvution on religious belief, it does corrode it and in Darwin's case as in mine corroded it completely.

However, that's just me, and I have a generally skeptical outlook with more than evolutionary reasons to abandon faith. Many theologies, including Catholic and several non-fundamentalist protestant ones, have managed to adjust to the idea of evolution. I don't think there is anything fundamentally incompatible between evolution and theologies of spirit or soul... one just needs a more sophisticated theology than "humans have souls, animals don't". I'll have to leave it there as I find the idea of "soul" completely unconvincing, so I can't make the argument well, but I think there's plenty of room to accept god and the realities that science shows us. Because really, the arguments set out by the creationist organizations are all pretty much invalid - they're either factually wrong, or have logical flaws, or are not completely relevant. Plus, there is always the idea of god as the prime mover (a Catholic stance, and a pretty wise one).

So I wouldn't give up hope, but I'd recommend treating the claims of the creationist preachers with the same laudable skepticism you apply to science.

I am guessing it would be a good idea to have a sort of baseline agreement on the subjects under discussion. That way none of us gets deleted (you aren’t the only one, Cliff!). Science, and the scientific method, is built on observations, hypotheses and testing if testing can be done. In many areas of scientific endeavor, there are no ways to test "physical evidence," so theory is all there is. The theories are invested with faith.

Religion is built on a foundation of consciousness. The various theories (they do call it theology, after all) that define religion as a political institution are also invested with faith. The psychological branch of medicine, the study of consciousness, is looking for answers just like astrophysicists and geneticists are. It is a branch of theoretical science. It is theoretical because there is no "physical evidence" to examine. This doesn’t mean consciousness is not ‘real.’

Discussion of human consciousness falls within the topics here. It’s a subject I’d like to explore if we can do so without getting completely lost in belief systems. Cognition, intuition, insight, emotion, dreams, NDEs, bilocation (remote viewing) and even "visions." These are worthy subjects, most under active investigation right now.

But challenges should be rational. I got too upset at Cliff when his challenge became irrational. I apologize. As with the experience of ‘deja vu’ or synchronicities, it is nonsensical to demand "physical proof" of the experience. All the credentials in the world prove nothing other than identity. If we can agree to at least keep it above the belt, everything will be hunky dory. Okay?

I wonder if you or E.C. could tell me the current state of magnetic monopoles. That would be the quanta of magnetism. I’ve always been a bit suspicious of GUTs incorporating such a thing, but there are electrons and protons, so you never know.

A monopole would have to display itself as either positive or negative - presuming they exist, we could expect to find both - yet because of the way magnetism works, each monopole would have to be ‘physically’ connected to its opposite. Quantum mechanics tells us the opposites cannot exist within the same particle in the same time-space. The string theory (Dirac) has the monopole configured like a string with one end interacting here in time-space, and the other somewhere out in infinity. This is just a mathematical device handy to allow the double nature of magnetism could be accomodated in the equations. Which means the theorists can safely ignore the infinity in order to draft a magnetic symmetry. Ignoring the infinities, however, doesn’t do much to tidy up the supersymmetry and will have to be dealt with eventually.

This ‘string’ with its ends in both infinity and time-space sounds nice until you realize that we’re talking a very, very short distance scale. The infinity must coexist with time-space, so to speak. All around us. In order to be theoretically valid, the monopole model must incorporate more than 4 dimensions.

Anything recent on that?

Boy, introducing multiple dimensionalities isn’t going to be as easy as I thought. Here we get into the problem of taking our understanding of supersymmetry (or the unification of fields, known as Grand Unification Theories or GUTs) into the realm of circular logic.

I expect that no matter how bad a machine we build (and 10-20 TeV is pretty bad), we’re going to keep coming up with newer, more bizarre particles of matter to confuse ourselves with. Simply put, the more energy we pour into the target, the more kinds of matter will pop out. It probably goes on forever, so represents nothing more meaningful than our ability to confuse ourselves with our power to transmute energy into matter. Which addresses Steve’s point about "doesn’t matter."

There’s got to be an easier way. I once visited NASA and did the tour of rockets, those gigantic, muscle-bound monsters of sheer force that power humans into space. These machines are certainly impressive, and no doubt necessary to our level of development, but make about as much sense as smashing atoms to boil water. (To Be Continued...)

I also once saw a large stone floating in the air. I was driving along in a rural section of Virginia minding my own business, when it caught my attention. It was springtime, and the field had just been plowed for planting. The stone was obviously part of the landscape of the field, disturbed from its place by the plow. I do not know the mineral composition, or whether it was sedimentary, metamorphic or igneous. I do know where it was, so I could probably look up the geological data.

I pulled over, climbed the fence, and walked right up to it. I did not automatically tell my flip-flopping mind that this is impossible, so was "suspending my disbelief" so as to examine the phenomenon. I kept my eyes on it, circled it, and even ran my arm between it and the ground, then between it and the sky (it was about 4 feet over the field). Nothing happened. It didn’t wobble or fall. When I touched the stone, it fell and almost got my foot.

My mind, being the analytical beast it is, came up with the solution that it was a field-based phenomenon (and I don’t mean corn field, though it was that too). Interference of my body with the parameters of the field (above, around, below) didn’t effect it. Interference with the object itself did effect it. Hmmm....

I offer this experience to illustrate a point, not to beg judgments on my relative sanity for having encountered such a thing. It will help me out with those other dimensions I’m working on...

joy

Right off the top of my head, I could not say what is up or not in the world of magnetic monopoles. Dirac monopoles are neat on paper, but it looks like there are no such things.

steve

Thank you for the links, Steve. I'm going there in just a minute. I know these things were invented just to renormalize a symmetry for purposes of a GUT, but theoretically there 'ought' to be a quantum of magnetism as there are quanta of electricity. Otherwise, we'll have to define magnetism as a property of electricity itself, which it may well be.

For informational purposes on the floating stone, it was non-metallic, so probably not meteoric. I'll check the geology, but this was near-ridge hills (piedmont) of the Appalachians. The stone was weathered (round, not sharp), so had been around for awhile, probably in water at one time. I was alone, couldn't lift it, and had no hammer and chisel handy or I'd have brought it home.

P.S. That's a granite gneiss (quartzite), according to my daughter the geologist. Igneous or semi-metamorphic (a crystalline analysis would say, but that stone's still growing corn for all I know).

Now, this is a considerable beastie if it exists, is it not?

Okay. Now I’m stumped. What’s the difference between a "real" photon and a regular, ordinary photon? Help!!

Leszek Rzepecki - Tuesday, 02/02/99(#1185)

A busy life, and stormy weather (cutting phone lines) do make me a bit slower than most folks here, but ... in response to your remarks:

The reason I said that "after all the best efforts, which included raising successive generations of chimps in the best of universities ( :-) !), none of them have ever proven capable of true language, art, mathematics, philosophy, metaphysics, physics, chemistry, literature, spiritual or religious or moral or legal beliefs or systems" is that, indeed at least I thought that " (something) you said would lead anyone to expect that chimps would (eventually be able to do just that, ie, manifest or perform such cultural and intellectual functions)." I wouldn't have so responded, at great length, had I not gotten that impression. However, since you have now clarified your point, saying that your merely meant to point out "that we can find analogues to human abilities and feelings in chimps. And to a lesser extent in dogs and other non-primate mammals.", I am ready to walk a little further down your path to see where it is leading. "Analogues" are, according to my dictionary, "organs (or things like behavioral or mental qualities, I'll accept) similar in function to organs of another plant or animal but different in structure and origin". I certainly do think that those mental/cultural things I listed are very different in structure and origin. Some birds "use a tool" to get insects out of their concealment in order to eat them. Some chimps have use exactly the same type of device and technique to get insects out of their nest in order to eat them. That is a bit of an analogous behavior with human hunting, and in the (extreme) abstract, analogous to "tool making" and "tool using" behavior of humans. I don't know the profit of paying attention to such analogues, howev

Leszek part 2....

however. We might better compare chest beating (thumping) between chimps (and gorillas, too) and human football fans. I'm serious! And I assure you, you can find laboratory and field studies, and prestigiously published papers studying such analogues. And I once paid close attention to those studies, and considered acceptable hypotheses that that behavior (and others that might be discovered or investigated) were more than mere analogues, that they were patently similar in structure and origins! In other words, I considered such behaviors, along with those observed rudimentary "tool using" behaviors, and abilities to recognize some words, and cleverly use anthropomorphic behaviors to solve problems, like getting food from boxes, or bananas from human "friends", evidence of common biological inheritance (evolution, that is). Now that kind of thinking, believing, and research, on my part, belies the silliness of your repeated charge, "If you didn't learn that from your primate studies, perhaps it's because you were resistant to the idea from first principles, and prefer - for whatever reasons - to maintain the absolute separation between people and animals."

My friend, you have ignored my bit of personal testimony, included only so you might not use such an opinion to disregard my argument. I repeat, I was in favor of, and making a living by, and in some small way pioneering in, trying to prove that there is NO absolute separation.... I was a full-fledged believer in evolution. I was there before you, and probably further down the path than you (at least in works, if not in fervor). But the evidence, in my best scientific appraisal, was not there for me. I reluctantly had to retreat and consider other possibilities.

Now you accused me of "unwarranted exaggeration", and I presume you must mean that in reference to my assertion that the distance in scale between those "analogues" in questi

Leszek concl....

"analogues" in question, (tool using, cognitive and intellectual and cultural manifestations, etc) is not a matter of Chimp=14, Human=99, but is a difference in orders of magnitude, and hence cross the line from quantitative differences into qualitative differences. I would score Chimp=7, Human=8,900,222 in, say, tool using. Why? A count of tools used, and using behaviors might be fair. I would score Chimp=60, Human=300,000 in language, say, by counting lexicons. I would score Chimp=2, Human=2,000,000 in self awareness and concepts, etc. I would score Chimp=0, Human=1000's in religious/spiritual ideas and concepts. In fact, if you should check out the references on Cognitive Ethology, and Cognition, I think you'd see how the authorities in those disciplines would question we even have any reason to assume we can score the chimps at all.

In physics, and various of the "hard" sciences, it is not uncommon to use great differences in score of scalable quantities as evidence of discrete, qualitatively different, entities. How else do we detect and define and lead ourselves to "discover" or hypothesize the particles and forces of matter, and energy? We use such discontinuities, esp when orders of magnitude, to define atomic, nuclear, and subatomic, etc, boundaries and orbitals and particles etc. That's another whole BIG essay if you want to dispute it, so lets try to leave that to E.C., etc., who so enjoy that playpen. I just hope you understand and agree, if I am correct, or at least close, in my characterization of the differences between chimp, etc, and humans, in these behavioral categories, my position is reasonable, not merely foolish or prejudicial.

Finally, as best we can tell, the "spider's ability to weave webs, or a bombadier beetle's ability to defend itself chemically..." have no basis in which we can compare such with human cognition! They are genetically, not learned, hard wired behaviors and f

Leszek REAL conclusion to... :)

They are genetically, not learned, hard wired behaviors and facilities (ie the chemical and organs using it, of the beetle, or spider's web, are organically built in. One remarkable aspect to human behavior is that our tools, and weapons, and the stuff which we use to make snares and houses, are all appropriated arbitrarily from outside our organisms. A VERY QUALITATIVE difference. While they may not amaze you, they do most humans, and most scientists. Few would compare the empire state building with a spider web.

Whether you consider us "intellectual angels" or "devils", I believe our feet are remarkable in that they really do an incredible job of getting "unrooted" from our animal nature. If you cannot see the works of Plato, or DaVinci or NASA as a total flight of stairs above the next highest animal on the ladder, I cannot even begin to argue with you, here. We're too far apart!

Exponentials indeed, Russell! All those factors of 10 that simply don't account for the difference between us and our closest relatives. I hear you, and agree it is more than an evolutionary miscalculation on the number of neurons available to think up trouble with. Getting Leszek to agree may be more difficult...

§:o)

I wouldn't compare chimp tool use to tool use by birds, but rather to tool use by early humans - not nearly as sophisticated, of course, but with evidence of planning and forethought. The chimp doesn't *just* use a piece of grass to go fishing for termites, he prepares several such tools in advance, because he knows they'll get bent and broken. Goodall was unable to prepare a grass stalk that worked. Of course, you could argue that this preparation is just a hard-wired response too, but then I could do the same for much human activity :) They also press many other objects into tool use when they need to obtain food or impress mating rivals. Quite complex behavior for a brute beast.

I've never claimed that humans aren't a "flight of stairs" separated from other animals on the cognitive scale. That's obvious. But it's equally obvious to me that this is simply a matter of scale. When I see behaviors in chimps that I find analogous to behaviors in people, I apply Occam's razor and assume that they originate in similar neural wiring.

Also, I'm not impressed with your factors of ten. You're neglecting threshhold phenomena, where additional increments of [whatever it is that makes animals intelligent] start having disproportionately large effects. (IOW, I'd expect to see geometric increments in cognitive sophistication from additional neural complexity, not arithmetic.) We just don't know enough about neurology to know why the human brain is so much more effective than the chimp brain, but let's do some more research before assuming that people have something (a soul?) that animals don't.

(Btw, I have had several years of published research myself, so I'm not exactly ignorant of science :)

Leszek Rzepecki - Thursday, 02/04/99(#1267)

Re Marie M. 2/3/99 9:24pm

How would finding out Evolution was true? If Evolution is completely, true, and everything is totally natural, without a creator, obviously, I would have no foundation to put my faith in, and may as well, be an animal, that dies, and has no spirit, which is eternal, that can live after death. It would mean that death is the end. c'est tu fini!(That's all folks!) But I know that is not the case.:)

and Re your own: "I think you have the correct insight there, about the effect of evolution on religious belief (may I assume "Christian" beliefs, Leszek???) it does corrode it...." (#1)

and: "I don't think there is anything fundamentally incompatible between evolution and theologies of spirit or soul... one just needs a more sophisticated theology than "humans have souls, animals don't"(or perhaps a more sophisticated definition of "soul" versus "spirit"????)." (#2)

and finally: "but I think there's plenty of room to accept god and the realities that science shows us." (#3)

When Marie uses "Evolution" in caps, I think she is fairly revealing her understanding of the "religion" of evolutionism, to wit: It is the all encompassing, only possible, and true explanation of all things, and is acceptably applied as an a priori explanation of all that we see and discover and learn as we search our present and past world. And if THAT Evolution is completely true, well, it obviously vanquishes, abolishes, and leaves no room for any other "religion", no less the Christian which believes in a Creator God as the complete Author and Finisher of the world. Yes it does "corrode". But I submit, and have been trying to make the point here that before we announce a wi

Leszek part 2...

before we announce a winner, we ought to look with as much desire to ascertain "just the facts, maam", of what the foundational text of Christianity, the Bible, says about creation, and the Creator's claims. We ought to take no one else's words, or reporting second hand (esp when the reporter most often read was, however sincere, limited to a 1611 AD cultural/scientific basis of reportage.) We might find the creation account is of tougher metal, less corroded, (maybe even "insulated" as aluminum) by true science and scientific findings than the Evolutionist protagonists want you to think.

About your remark #2. Can I shift the focus? I think, in my translating of Genesis, there is no requisite fundamental incompatibility between evolution (small e) and the creation account. Now I admit, I had to reassure myself by going back and reviewing the latest on claims of observed and documented cases of speciation. I used the FAQs in Talk.Origins. (Lazy, but acceptable, I expect, to you.). So I am confident of that conclusion. First, Genesis would not fall if evolution occurred, esp at only a species level, and only at lower levels of life. Why? Because, first, "evolution" is not prohibited (ie there is no fixity of species asserted for the lower levels of both the animal and plant kingdoms)! Second, while I currently would not (because I do not think it is clear in the Hebrew) make the case, one could make a case that the fixity of created life forms described in Genesis is not even at the species level of higher life forms, but at approximately the genera level (I say approximately, because genera are man-made classifications). A case could be made. And, as you noted, there is also a reasonable case to be made for God as the "prime mover" and as the Author of evolutionary processes, using them to accomplish much of His work. Thus, I agree with your #3. And indeed, if you had been/were only more open to what I've been trying to get yo

Leszek conclusion... (#3)

if you had been/were only more open to what I've been trying to get you to listen to, you'd see that I am making a very strong case (at least in the complete step by step study and manuscript) that there is a remarkable, unflinching comparison and match between the creation account and what science (minus the Evolutionism, capital e) is telling us is the reality of the history of the creation!

It doesn't really matter to me if one can make interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolutionary origins of existing and extinct species, and many Christian faiths do make such interpretations. It's only the literal account that one can't square with observed data. So basically I have no argument with much what you say in those recent posts.

The problem is that the Genesis account does not give us a history of creation... for one thing, it's far too short and vague, for another there isn't actually a point by point correspondence. And where you do seem to get some correspondence, what do you do if that particular scientific theory is proven false in the fullness of time?

So occasional similarities between the Genesis account and evolutionary theory, or astrophysical theory are probably coincidental and similar coincidences are found in other creation myths. To be honest, I can't think of any Genesis stories off-hand with convincing correspondence to the scientific account - I mean, woman coming from Adam's rib? I don't think so.

Perhaps you could jog my memory and list briefly a couple of examples where you think there is a congruence between Genesis and the scientific accounts, in case I'm misconstruing what you mean.

Leszek Rzepecki - Thursday, 02/04/99(#1283)

First, let me thank you for at least conceding the "flight of stairs". Shows there might be some common ground between us, eh??

Now, you say "I wouldn't compare chimp tool use to tool use by birds,.... why not? It is identical! A bird finding a correct stick and fishing out insects! Is it because it exposes you to have to be consistent and stretch your hypothesis (evolutionary theory, mere continuity on a scale - of genetic inscription, of course)?

Now, your "The chimp doesn't *just* use a piece of grass to go fishing for termites, he prepares several such tools in advance, because he knows they'll get bent and broken" is absolutely ungrounded, unverifiable, untestable speculation, steeped in anthropomorphicizing. No certified Cognitive Ethologist would get away with that kind of teleological reasoning, though (I'm sorry to admit) many an anthropologist (including Jane) has been allowed to within that rather lax "science" (and again, I is, or was, one!!). This so-called "evidence of planning and forethought" is purely teleological, a priori reasoning and interpretation. The "hard wiring" is just as good, and less presumptive, and much more of an "Occam's Razor" description (the "explanation" is that very teleological BS that infuriates ANYONE, not just religionists or creationists, who disagrees with Evolutionist works!!). Indeed, the very fact a bright girl like Jane "was unable to prepare a grass stalk that worked." is, as you fairly admit, a VERY GOOD argument for "hard wired"! To be fair, you gotta do more than "admit", you have to apply those standards of Occam and testability of hypothesis too! But, your smile aside, just what of all those categories of "qualitatively different" behaviors, like law, writing, philosophy, even making the current human tool Kit (all the way to the Rover on Mars, and your computer), would you argue i

Leszek, part 2...

would you argue is mere biologically hard-wired behavior by humans?

I'm puzzled, here: "Also, I'm not impressed with your factors of ten. You're neglecting threshhold phenomena..." The exact point is, that in almost every natural phenomena (including the Heisenberg Uncertainties) is discerned and/or defined by "thresholds" that consist of those many powers-of-ten breaks in scales!!!

Finally: "We just don't know enough about neurology to know why the human brain is so much more effective than the chimp brain..." Indeed, we are in fact beginning to wonder if the brain is really all that associated, or underlying HUMAN cognition!!! We certainly cannot verify that it is the seat, or even a partner to, all those remarkable cognitive and mental skills humans exhibit! (Consider, for example, the stochastic nature of the "neurological wiring", ie, that the brain is in no way precise, or determinate in its neurological connectivity, like a computer is.) And that gives a good reason for starting out at the other end of the equation, the very reverse of what you want/assume is the more "logical" thing we should do!

BTW, as for "(Btw, I have had several years of published research myself, so I'm not exactly ignorant of science :)", I know that, can tell that, and never have suggested it, I hope. But, I am only challenging you in areas where I feel you are either off base, or out of your best competency, and biasing the case we are supposedly debating here! I wouldn't answer you if I thought you not worthy of it!

No, I never heard of the book. I can see how the belief system of Evolution would corrode, belief in God.;) I think that Christians who do say that they believe in both concepts together, must, compartmentalize, to do this. They check their faith in when agreeing that's everything occurred naturally, and then go to church, and check their brains in at the door. In other words many have not thought through, what they say they believe in, to take that belief to it's logical end point.

...but I think there's plenty of room to accept god and the realities that science shows us. Because really, the arguments set out by the creationist organizations are all pretty much invalid - they're either factually wrong, or have logical flaws, or are not completely relevant.

Whether their logic is flawed would depend on one's world view. They seem to do a service in many ways by keeping Evolutionists on their toes. I think they do bring out a lot of factors, such as assumption as fact, which evolutionists must do, since many times, they have no way of testing many assumptions. I understand that paradigms used by scientists, can be flawed also.:)

Leszek Rzepecki - Thursday, 02/04/99(#1287)

Whew. You're wearing me out. Do you even stop for a glass of water???

OK. Selective responses:

"It doesn't really matter to me if one can make interpretations of Genesis that are compatible with evolutionary origins of existing and extinct species" Well, it should! After all, the book was first recorded over 3500 years ago! Sure beat Darwin, and Wallace, to the publishers!

"many Christian faiths do make such interpretations." Really? Like which? And what? And the point is you are absolutely A-- B--------s, here. The Literal Account, the Hebrew original DOES square with OBSERVED DATA, but doesn't agree with the usual Evolutionist (capital e) interpretations of the bare-bones data. My point has been that it is the less-than "literal account (like all the translations I've seen, so far) that one can't square with observed data.

You say "The problem is that the Genesis account does not give us a history of creation... for one thing, it's far too short and vague, for another there isn't actually a point by point correspondence." Again, my assertions are that it is precisely as a "History" that Genesis' creation account is astoundingly matching up with the comparable science picture. Yes, it is brief. It would take a very huge book, indeed, to cover it all. It is, instead a few headlines, extraordinarily few, and major. But those few are precisely in the proper order, they do exhibit a point by point correspondence, contrary to nearly every assertion by the anti Bible folks. And they get away with their claims because no one ever translated the original precisely, to see what it really says (ie, about grass or not grass, dinosaur or no dinosaur, etc.) "And where you do seem to get some correspondence, what do you do if that particular scientific theory is proven false in the fullness of time?" Well, look aga

Russel Husted # 1284:...When Marie uses "Evolution" in caps, I think she is fairly revealing her understanding of the "religion" of evolutionism, to wit: It is the all encompassing, only possible, and true explanation of all things, and is acceptably applied as an a priori explanation of all that we see and discover and learn as we search our present and past world. And if THAT Evolution is completely true, well, it obviously vanquishes, abolishes, and leaves no room for any other "religion",

Exactly. :) I also don't wish to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. In regards to science, I feel it has accomplished much, and many findings by evolutionists are accurate, but is their interpretaion... accurate? The Bible and Genesis account are factual, but God certainly didn't give us any details. He left it for us to find it out.

Leszek again, part 2...

Well, look again, and perhaps stand corrected. But the point is, and this is why I have the trust in the scientific picture (sans the theoretical explanations), the picture keeps firming up. Only the evolutionary theory keeps slip-sliding away.

About jogging your memory. I wrote a book, with almost 2 years work put into it. And a headline, or piecemeal presentation accomplishes nothing except piecemeal argumentation and rejection and more "show me's" as we keep seeing here. You need a thorough, documented, step by step, presentation, and then, IF you are open minded, I believe you will agree – or at least be impressed and think about the alternative theory. So, I try to just deal with the falsehoods I see stated here, in hopes of opening minds, or resisting falsely closed doors. (And enjoy, and profit from the many viewpoints, arguments, and frequently new bits of science adduced, here) I don't try to go any further than that, not in this spotty, piecemeal medium of a forum...on the Science-Religion topic that it is supposed to address. BTW, I don't agree with the Adam's Rib story either. And, believe there is a far more consistent translation. But I will not give it here, because it is a real "sacred cow" to some folks, both for and against the Bible, and must have the full case presented for any reasonable response by a reader. But I openly invite anyone to attempt another translation. I think everyone who considers themselves objective, or scientific, should get or do a new translating of the original!!! Its only fair. You can't criticize or critique the 1611 scholarship.

Me too, friend. Are we engaged in attempting the impossible? Human minds are funny things...

I think they said it was okay to repost this message. We shall see:

Absolutely right! And BTW, if you have read this board for some time, you will have noticed that I have railed against acceptance of "evolutionary" abiogenesis until it is proven. I have noted that it has not yet been proven and indeed there is no evidence to support it. Note also that I identify myself as an agnostic, not of an atheist. That is one of the reasons.

I know Joy. Actually, I ought to thank you for introducing me to the Suggestion Box, but this is off topic so far--so must hurry to the argument.

I agree the scientific method is built on observations, hypothesis and testing. A theory may be tested mathematically as well as with "physical" evidence. The evidence for the "Big Bang" is a combination of observation and mathematical evidence. The evidence for evolution is comprised mostly of the fossil record. DNA, blood protein and the like support the fossil record in evolutionary theory. Both are scientific theories.

But if a hypothesis can not be tested in some manner, the scientific method has nothing to do Science is built on the scientific method and the testing of ideas. Thus, if a supposition is not testable, the scientific method can not be utilized, and there is no science. That is the rule.

Without evidence, a theory can not exist. A theory must have evidence in it's support. Otherwise, all you have is a guess or a supposition. You can call it an educated guess, if you wish, but until it is tested, it is not a theory.

A scientific theory must have evidence. Thus, unlike religion, there is good justification for "scientific faith."

I think religion is basically a form of philosophy, usually invested in a moral code. Some components of religion, like science, relies on observation, however. For example, the Jewish dietary laws probably has something to do with an observation by a tribal leader that eating pig meat (cooked not well done on an open camp fire) made people sick. Thus God said, do not eat pork.

Another example is the Hindu prohibition against killing a cow. That was probably the result of a wise man or sage observing that if the cow is killed, the meat is quickly gone, whereas if the cow's life is spared, the cow will provide milk and cream for years. To enforce this law more surely, it were made part of the religion. Thus the Gods wept for the cow when it was killed.

Of course there is physical evidence to examine with respect to consciousness. Consciousness is physical. Freud was a scientist of the first rank.

Consciousness is on topic in my opinion since it is a subject of science. Also, the unconscious is a subject of science. Many aspects of human consciousness can be tested. The same applies with the unconscious.

The "paranormal," in my opinion, is neither science nor religion and is therefore "technically" off topic. However, if the study of the "paranormal" is approached in a scientific manner, then this study is a subject of science and is on topic.

I believe my responses to your posts have been reasonably rational. It seems to me that you have been upset most when you postulated a supernatural event and, in response to the claim, I chose a possible physical explanation as the most plausible. I assume that this is what you mean by "irrational." If you disagree, please provide a specific example that you find "irrational."

Also, Joy, please note that I have never discounted the possibility of supernatural events. I have never said they were impossible. Just improbable.

In other words, I really am an agnostic. I become very upset when I am called an atheist.

I think I will leave that alone for now :-)

Russell, are you talking about evolution or abiogenesis. If you are talking about evolution, I do not understand your assumption that "without a creator" is "obvious. If you mean, abiogenesis, why don't you say abiogenesis.

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different things. I believe in evolution since the evidence for evolution is so strong. I will believe in abiogenesis when evidence for it is found. Until then, I simply have to say that I do not know how life originated on this planet. Once it originated, I think I know how it evolved. I think a creator is at least as credible as spontaneous generation. (But actually, neither seems very credible to me.)

Okay, I guess I am an evolutionist, but not an Evolutionist.

Cliff Beall - Friday, 02/05/99(#1299)

Uh, Cliff, I hope I never said that, -- you've misquoted or mis-attributed, or the cnn elves are cnn devils!!!!! :) (How would finding out Evolution was true? If Evolution is completely, true, and everything is totally natural, without a creator, obviously, I would have no foundation to put my faith in, and may as well, be an animal, that dies, and has no spirit, which is eternal, that can live after death. )

Now, I will say no more than this about Joy's story (summarized in your clip): " Joy Busey said: I also once saw a large stone floating in the air." It seems a little "airy fairie" to me, too....because it defies all my normal and recollected experience. BUT. My father worked in the AEC at Sandia Base and Almogordo much of his career. He was so top secret he never talked to even us, at home. But, on one occasion, after his retirement, and a day of reconciliation between us (we were never close until that day, the "Top Secret" thing was probably a reason), he told me this: "One of the things we were working on was an anti-gravity drive, and I must tell you that we were successful in creating an anti-gravity device." I have never forgotten that, never come across a confirmation of that, and never doubted he believed, at least, that. Maybe that's why I am more skeptical and truly open-minded than many in science.

Cliff Beall part 2...

If you do, you are exceptionally uneducated or naive about those "believers". And esp the Christian faith which is instructed a thousand times in its scriptures to test and try and believe their own observations, and that scorns (even in its scriptures) "blind faith". Who do you suppose said "The truth shall set you free."? And were you deceived, as I was in my college and grad studies, that the "fall" came because Adam and Eve ate of the "Tree of Knowledge"? I was told that and it really turned me against Christianity. After all, I worshipped knowledge. It was several decades later, I discovered the rest of the name... "Tree of knowledge of good and evil". And later, it took much reflection to come to the belief that the tree was deliberately set in temptation's way because (according to the Bible) God wanted man to have true free will, and ability to think independently, and to choose to love, none of which could happen until Adam and Eve DID eat...did exercise the only real choice yet available. Until then they were more like robots, or very obedient children, unable to manifest those qualities.

Cliff Beall concluded

Russell, if I misquoted you, I am truly sorry. I never intend to do that since it bothers me so much to be misquoted. I am very tired tonight, but I will investigate to find the reason and will try to make sure it never happens again. I assume I must have quoted a quote, but I will find out.

The story about your father was very interesting. Do I believe it? Well, just let me say I do not disbelieve it. I would certainly accept that your father was sincere. I might suppose he was mistaken, but I would not insist upon it. And there are new things under the sun, so who am I to disallow it?

I did not intend to get into this, but I will say the same for Joy's stone. I do not disbelieve it. I would tend to look for a natural explantion, rather than a supernatural explantion, I guess, because that is my nature. What can I say? I am what I am.

Best Regard and cheers, friend.

It's a shame you were told that. It's even more of a shame that you believed it.

The Fall came from Man's disobedience to God. Both Adam and Eve were equally guilty, as both ignored God's command.

While knowledge makes for good after-dinner conversions, it's a lousy god.

Why was disobeying God the only "real" choice? They had two choices: obey, disobey. Both were equally real.

Furthermore, man had free will the moment he was created. Exercise of a gift is not a requirement for its possession.

That Adam and Even knew love before the fall is a given: Eve was created to be Adam's companion!

Amen! We don't even come close to following the Levitical standard of hygene in our country. If we did, there's a lot of things we wouldn't have: STD's, AIDS, and most other major illnesses.

Many Worlds...from EMBRACED BY THE LIGHT... My memory was opened further than before, reaching back beyond the creation of our earth into eternities past...As I traveled , I always felt the comforting presence of God's love. I sensed I that I was "back" in my native enviorment....The love we share as mortals may be imperfect,but it still has great power to heal and sustain.... Even after interviewing over one thousand near-death experiences, B. Eddie's account remains the most detailed and spellbounding near-death experience.

From this book I found comfort but still struggle with the idea that we have a God of un-conditional love...we are all unique and the message from her book reveals what Christ said "Love one another as I have loved you" Do not judge one another or you shall be judged in the same measure...simple and basic...we need to make it our goal to love ourselves and thus we can love one another...God is not vengeful...he is pure love..something that it is difficult to understand on this planet..as written above Our love that we share as mortals may be imperfect but it still has the great power to heal and sustain.

You are correct. You were quoting Marie in message #1284. I missed the "Re Marie M. 2/3/99 9:24pm" above it and I thought you were replying to Leszek and was making a statement prior to quoting Leszek. It was certainly not something Leszek would say, you do not indent or change type when quoting, it was late and I got confused. Sorry, friend.

Well of course they can be. Scientists rigorously criticise the work of other scientists, even if they tend to be a softer on their own ideas! :) But creationists don't, they have a very different mindset, and approach the issues with the "correct" answers already in mind. They are frequently dishonest in their scientific arguments, and this has been exhaustively documented. I've looked at their web sites, and they are full of factual error, misreading of the scientific literature, removal of scientific finding from their original context, and, yes, even plain lies presented as truth.

That's the reason no scientist takes them seriously, I'm afraid. It's not their ideas that are the real problem, the validity of those can be tested scientifically, and often has been (not to their advantage), it's their basic assumption that no matter what facts we find, they cannot be valid unless they match Genesis literally (which they never, ever do, you always have to interpret and reinterpret to force the match), and because their methods of debate are simply dishonest and unscientific.

If you can look at the behavior of a chimp, and find only evidence for hard-wired responses (essentially automatism), I give up. I don't think I have the problem with Occam's razor, and I don't think I have a problem with anthropomorphism... I think you have the problem with deomorphism (to coin a word) as applied to people :)

Where did I say all human behavior is hard-wired? All I'm saying is that the simplest assumption is that brain meat is brain meat, and the more brain meat you have relative to body size, the more sophisticated your cognitive response will be, and the increment will be geometric, not arithmetic. That accounts for the orders of magnitude difference in cognition you think is so inexplicable. Exactly why is still a scientific problem awaiting resolution.

Well, let's be objective. You want to demonstrate that Genesis provides an accurate summary, consistent with the modern scientific synthesis, of the events necessary to the formation of the universe. Correct? First, why Genesis? Why not other creation myths? What is the objective rationale for choosing that one to examine? I hope it's not because it happens to be the dominant creation myth of the present culture :)

Second, how do you propose to get around the "Nostradamus Problem"? The problem that large chunks of the Genesis story are so vague (Let there be light) they can be taken to represent just about any scientific account you'd care to come up with. When a story can be made to fit almost every conceivable version of reality, it explains nothing at all :)

I won't get too lengthy, here. How would finding out Evolution was true? If Evolution is completely, true, and everything is totally natural, without a creator, obviously, I would have no foundation to put my faith in, and may as well, be an animal, that dies, and has no spirit, which is eternal, that can live after death. It would mean that death is the end. c'est tu fini!(That's all folks!) But I know that is not the case.:)

Marie,
Why? Is God only God if God creates in the way we tell him to?

I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology, particle physics or supply-side economics that can provide a foundation to refute faith. (well... maybe the last one! :) )

Could it even be that God, himself, is the ultimate culmination of the evolution of the universe; A life-form so advanced as to have cut free of space-time cuasuality and created the entire process in which he was produced?

(Part I)

What I have seen here has been excellent debate between excellent minds representing a dichotomy of opinion between science and religion. I have also seen a surprising resistance to the possibility that human consciousness figures into the equation directly. This resistance comes from the realm of science, which also happens to be the location of the largest threat to the continued existence of life on this planet.

I have seen established by credible theorists that there are certain exponential factors at work in both time-space (Alpha) and in ourselves (Omega) that science would prefer to ignore. We all agree that both theory and hypothesis are products of human consciousness, thus the avoidance and/or resistance to consciousness leaves a glaring hole in the discussion.

(Part II)

We cannot unify the forces, fields and relativities of the universe until and unless we take into consideration the missing factors. We can, however, destroy ourselves without bothering to unify anything at all. I don’t know about anybody else, but I think this requires a bit more humility in our approach than either science or religion have thus far been willing to assume. This is what I call ‘overweaning pride,’ which also happens to be the sin identified in Genesis as precipitating the fall of humanity from its original (created) state... "You Will Be Like Unto God."

We do not yet ‘know’ the nature of good and evil. Religion sees everything in absolutes, then expends huge energies and lots of blood attempting to force its interpretations on all, in the name of whatever god of the cultural moment fosters their pride... "You Will Be Like Unto God."

Science sees everything as relative, so considers such concepts irrelevant or even nonexistent. An equally monumental but far more dangerous pride... "You Will Be Like Unto God."

(Part III)

I could probably provide a couple of the missing pieces to the puzzle of existence, but I have decided I will not. To do so would be to tip the balance of power too far in one direction or the other, and that would violate the ‘Prime Directive’ so to speak. We’re not ready yet. For E.C. and Steve, who have considered my position with a good deal of open-mindedness, I’m sorry. There are no subdivisions of light, there is only relative darkness. A photon is a photon.

What does this mean? It means humanity is once again faced with a Choice. Interference by either Infinity or coincident creation would alter the element of free will that humanity alone must exercise in this Choice. Earth is one planet of many. It ‘belongs’ to humans. If humans destroy it and themselves, the fabric of the universe will remain. But it will break the heart of Infinity.

Interpret that however you like. I’ve caused more than enough trouble here already just by small allusion to a message I was given 7 years ago to pass along if I could find a way to do so. I have now done so, as best I know how. (Finis)

Joy,
Concsience is the essence of existance, but --

The assumption that human conscience is the omega is religios hubris. We are far more than 'nothing' yet stiff very far from 'everything.'

If a galactic core sized black hole passed through this arm of the Milkyway and pulled a thousands stars (including ours) off into oblivion I would not anticipate that the universe at large, nor certainly not God's plan for it, would miss a beat.

They are one in the same. However, if you are curious about the difference between a real photon and a virtual photon then you need some insight into the historical development of quantum mechanics. One of the first steps in the development of quantum mechanics was Max Planck's idea that a harmonic oscillator (classically, anything that wiggles like a mass bobbing on the end of an ideal spring) cannot have just any energy. Its possible energies come in a discrete set of equally spaced levels such that

En=h omega (n+1/2)

where n designates a discete energy level, omega is the frequency of oscillation, h is the Planck constant, and En is the total energy of the harmonic oscillator.

Since EM fields result from the wiggly of charged particles which can mimick harmonic oscillator behavior, these energy levels are what we usually identify as different numbers of photons. The higher the energy level of a vibrational mode, the more photons there are. In this way, an electromagnetic wave acts as if it were made of particles. The electromagnetic field is a quantum field.

Electromagnetic fields can do things other than vibration. For instance, the electric field produces an attractive or repulsive force between charged objects, which varies as the inverse square of distance. The force can change the momenta of the objects.

We can say that the particles exchange "virtual photons" which carry the transferred momentum. Here is a picture (a "Feynman diagram") of the exchange of one virtual photon.

.\............................../

(continued)

.\............................../

...\......<- p........../

.....>~~~~......./

...../....~~~~../

.../.........~~<

. /....................\

/..........................\

The lines on the left and right represent two charged particles, and the wavy line (jagged because of the limitations of ASCII) is a virtual photon, which transfers momentum from one to the other. The particle that emits the virtual photon loses momentum p in the recoil, and the other particle gets the momentum.

E=mc2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light times the speed of light...

God said, "Let There Be Light" and it was So... From an infinity where light is multiplied by exponentials of itself, creation occurred in a time-space where light is limited to itself alone.

I once took my baby sister on a mushroom hunt. As we strolled through the dappled light of the forest, I found a good many varieties of tasty ‘shrooms to add to lasagne that night. When we stopped along the trail to rest and I explained the details of identification, she was overcome by frustration.

"You have found so many mushrooms," she whined with a petulant lip. "I haven’t found even one all day."

"You are looking in the wrong place," I told her. "Mushrooms do not grow in the light, they grow in the relative absence of light. Look in the shadows cast by the forest to modify the light."

Cliff Beall - Friday, 02/05/99 (#1303)

"Russell, if I misquoted you, I am truly sorry." NO PROBLEM. I was not offended, just wanted to get it straight so we could move ahead correctly/accurately. And you're right. I have been too lazy to figure out the unwritten html rules of this place. They need a better set of instructions.

Cliff Beall part 2...

"Anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is either crazy or a liar!". Surely, that says something about how we are willing to say we "know"something, and treat it as "natural", and how loath we are today to admit its really a "mystery" that we could as easily call "supernatural". I can converse with you about the "singularity" and the "Big Bang" and about 11 dimensions of space-time and black holes and the infinite universe... but I can't say I "understand" them enough that I "know" them, and I have to accept them as articles of "faith". I posted earlier about the Higgs boson, and there anyone can see that "faith" in things unseen, and beyond our "natural" is much a part of science. So what is so foolish, or different, or objectionable about God as an explanation? I submit that for most, esp non-scientists, the resistance to "God" is that which Bertrand Russell admitted: if God is a sentient being and comes with moral authority, then there is a true morality that interferes with my own licentious lifestyle, and I'll have to pay the consequences.

Joy Busey - Friday, 02/05/99 (#1312)

A lot about your post is good and pleasant reading. You so often wax poetic, and just a bit grandiosely! But I think you've waxed a bit too "generalizationally" (like that word?) here:

> "We do not yet ‘know' the nature of good and evil. Religion sees everything in absolutes, then expends huge energies and lots of blood attempting to force its interpretations on all, in the name of whatever god of the cultural moment fosters their pride... "You Will Be Like Unto God."

Joy Busey, concl...

Russell - Au contraire, mon ami! You have understood and interpreted my reference to the (previously) identified political and cultural institution of religion very well. The absolutes are in us, but they colored by our existence in a relative creation.

I think you have a good handle on what is real. I have outlived my usefulness here by being entirely too honest. If at this point I attempted to say I once tasted water from a spring rather than a tap, I would be villified as delusional for believing I had experienced such a bizarre thing. Water comes from pipes under the street, it does not bubble up from the depths of the earth.

Nothing I have mentioned is "supernatural." It's as real as shooting stars. Science just can't explain it, so they claim, as they claimed until just a few short years ago, that we're just "imagining things," because stones do not fall from the sky. No one out in the real world where stones do in fact fall from the sky believed them, they only believed themselves.

I'm not one, who is telling God how he creates.:) I'm merely believing what Genesis and the Bible states about God, that He did Create. I also admit that if Science is telling me something that appears to conflict with Truth(Bible) that I must submit that particular statement of science to tough scrutiny. Also just because someone says they found a scientific evidence that God really parted the Red Sea , doesn't mean ,I'll just believe them, because I know God parted the Red Sea, miracles don't require evidence after the fact. Though, it would be nice.:)

I have not seen one single shred of evidence in the theory of evolution, big bang cosmology, particle physics or supply-side economics that can provide a foundation to refute faith. (well... maybe the last one! :) )

Keith Fosberg:...I don't accept "souls" (as in the "body of light" variety) by the way. I think "eternal souls" are an exercise in special hubris, deriven from a literary device used in scripture. One "lives forever" when one has contributed to the societies growth.

Keith, not to negate or diminish, the importance of making one's life count, and have value, to others and oneself, legacies can, and do outlive us, for the good or the bad. The concept of having a soul takes faith, and many intelligent people believe in that concept. As, I'm sure you are aware of. The NDE's which have been documented and studied, do show, us that we have a part of our consciousness, which is intangible. I found several articles on PUB MED on Near Death Experiences, from New England Jounal of Medicine, JAMA, Lancet. I can't give URL, since one can't read the article on line, unless, you subscribe. I do have URL's on Web sites documenting this experience.:

Can you give an example?

That's the reason no scientist takes them seriously, I'm afraid. It's not their ideas that are the real problem, the validity of those can be tested scientifically, and often has been (not to their advantage), it's their basic assumption that no matter what facts we find, they cannot be valid unless they match Genesis literally (which they never, ever do, you always have to interpret and reinterpret to force the match), and because their methods of debate are simply dishonest and unscientific.

The definition of scientific, from what I've read: must have natural interpretation. Must be a naturalistic view, not to relate findings to anything that can't be explained naturally. I think that is correct, as established by scientists.

So it only stands to reason, that any view which attributes or has a mindset of miracles or supernatural view must be looked at as non-scientific. So Now I understand, if what I wrote here is accurate, of why mainstream science must reject the Creation scientists views.

Can I give you an example of misrepresentation of evolutionary theory by creationists? Sure, and without even accessing their websites, though I'll be delighted to do so and pull out some more for you if you want :)

I was at a debate once between Duane Gish and some scientist (who was way outclassed as a debater, but at least he had his facts straight). Gish pulled out this series of slides caricaturing the evolution of whales... he was saying in effect, that because evolutionists claimed that the fossil record indicated that whales and cows had common ancestry, then that meant that evolutionists were saying that whales had to have evolved from cows. He illustrated this straw man argument with a cartoon of a cow taking to water and evolving into a whale, to the vast amusement of the assembled faithful (and the one or two scientists who had turned out for the show).

Not very impressive, however, to anyone who knew anything of science... in fact, it was an exercise in pure deception. If Duane Gish told me the sky was blue, I'd rush to a window to check whether it had changed :(

Fair question. Not at all, because I've nothing invested in evolution as a dogma, it's just a theory... I'm interested in a scientific account of the development of life. If a better theory than evolution comes along to explain the facts, fine, I have no problem with that. There have been scientific theories in my own field that I've held, and sometimes held quite dearly, but which I've had to abandon as a result of contrary data. This is true of every scientist.

Now individual scientists can be so enamored of individual theories they can't let them go - we call this pathological science... it's a case where the scientific method has not been used correctly, for very human reasons. In such cases, the scientst can go to his grave believing in his mistaken theory, but the rest of science marches on regardless. Einstein is a case in point.

Mistaken theories don't shake the foundation of science the way they shake the foundation of religion. In fact, science is built on a foundation of the corpses of failed theories. That's just business as usual.

Just another example, off the top of my head, of misrepresentation of science by creationists... the infamous 2nd law of thermodynamics. This chestnut is constantly trotted out as if it were proof positive that evolution is impossible from first principles. Never mind that it has been shown to be an absolutely flawed argument, resulting from a lack of knowledge of physics and chemistry; they just reveal it with a flourish in front of those who don't know any better, and presto! evolution is disproved! *sigh*

Scientists and creationists just do not think along the same wavelengths. Scientists hold honesty at a premium, and the punishment for fraud is severe. Science would be impossible otherwise. Fraudulent argument among the creationists is commonplace... it's their stock-in-trade.

Marie, this language I'm using is strong, and I do not include you in it - I am absolutely sure you honestly believe what you believe and that there isn't a dishonest bone in your body. But your sources of information on evolutionary science are so fundamentally flawed that you risk being caught in the shrapnel when this or that creationist misrepresentation gets exploded.

I think that, sometimes, changes in a person's attitudes and perspective that may occur over an extended time may, in their minds, be compressed into a short period of time.

I must be careful here because I do not believe, and do not wish to insinuate, that there was a lack of sincerity in the case I am about to describe. But when I was around 12 or 13, there was a gentleman in our church who spoke quite eloquently about a conversion experience of his that sounded very profound and involved a profound change in his character, desires etc. This led me to expect a similar experience when I went forward to kneel and pray, seek forgiveness and receive my new spirit--which failed to materialize, and caused me some distress.

I am now of the opinion that much of the changes in this gentleman's attitudes, as he described them, probably occurred gradually, over the course of his life, much as I recognized that my attitudes have changed, but that he somehow, projected the changes that had occurred to him to a moment of conversion when he was about 15. At least, that in my opinion.

I believe memories are essentially recollections of emotions and thus are generally not as reliable as physical evidence. I think, by and large, that I have a reasonably good memory. But given a choice of physical evidence and my memory, I will choose the physical evidence every time. I am well aware that it is far more reliable. In this sense, I believe that scientific evidence it more worthy of faith than those aspects of religion for which there is no known evidence other than personal experience.

Russell, I know you will be amazed in my lack of insight, but I really see no significant difference. I have respect for your belief in the fall as a physical reality. I accept that this is your sincere belief. But I find no evidence to lead me to similarly believe it, and I do not.

Russell, I do not understand why you would continue to insinuate that I dismiss the wisdom in the Bible. I have repeatedly pointed out that I do indeed recognize it. The Bible was written by sages. But if your purpose is to say that The Bible was dictated to man by God, word for word, and thus can not contain error, I can tell you that many people much smarter than me have had a problem with that concept.

Leszek, I am not sure you can say it is all that plausible. I know that the talking snake doesn't come in until the next chapter, but I ask you, how plausible is that talking snake?

Joy, I don't think you have cause any trouble. Except for a very brief altercation, I have enjoyed my conversations with you, and I am interested in the nature of the message you received 7 years ago. I do think I understand why you might hesitate to put it on a public message board such as this one, but I think you might consider publishing it on the web and providing a link.

Alternately, you could send it to each of us who desire it by e-mail. If you were to send it to me, for example, I would agree not to discuss it publicly, without your authorization, and I would discuss it with you by e-mail only if you desired.

Please give this some consideration.

How can you be certain? How can you be certain Joy is not right. Hey, I agree with you, basically. I do not believe in a personal God. But how do you know for certain that Joy is not right? (Just asking, of course. I basically agree with you. But how can you know for sure?)

Put a "greater than" sign immediately in front of a paragraph (no space) to cause it to be indented and have a different typeface. Alternately, to indent only, as I prefer, use the following:

(lessthansign)ul(greaterthansign) causes all following text to be indented. (lessthansign)/ul(greaterthansign) causes all following text to be unindented.

Excellent point. You are absolutely right that most of science was once considered to be in the realm of the supernatural.

It has, I understand, mathematical relevance.

Cliff I do admire your patience with creationist websites and arguments, but I have to admit mine is wearing thin and my exasperation with their insouciant efforts to paper over the cracks and chasms in their thesis boils over now and then. This particular site seems not to have entered the 20th century... I did a search for "DNA", and was directed to a (predictably negative and pretty funny) review of the movie The Full Monty - they were kind enough to tell me the search string didn't actually occur there, but I'd guessed that :) So molecular biology is evidently not their forte. And it is a little much to take seriously people who talk about, and I kid you not, "Newton's second law of thermodynamics" (sic).

They do misrepresent the scientific account, probably because they don't understand it rather than out of dishonesty - unlike charlatans like Duane Gish whom I was fulminating against earlier. For example, they say:

Apart from the fact that the bible never mentions "planets" or differentiates them from stars (a curious omission for an infallible document), the scientific account never claims that the stars and planets were created before the earth.

And I'll give them a better idea for a flood theory than they put forward... the earth contracted, forcing the land masses towards the center, and thus causing a rush of water towards the mountaintops, driving marine life there where it promptly fossilized.

*sigh*

Must not have checked their reference. (Or maybe that is what their references said"?) :-)

Yes, Dr. Gish does appear to be a rather slippery character. But I think you will find characters such as he in any business, and the business of religion is really no different from any other business. In that sense, I think it is well to be watchful, but, basically, I think the people at that site, thought relatively unsophisticated scientifically, are good sincere people, and I think their message of right living is right on. I know many people like these people, and I have respect for their sincerity and their basic goodness.

Oh, I don't tar the creationists who post here with the dishonesty brush at all, I have no doubt of their sincerity... but they do use problematic sources for their scientific facts. Generally, when one wants to know a fact or interpretation in evolution or astrophysics, one goes to a biologist or astrophysicist. It seems many, however, prefer to go to solely to the critics to get their information. It's like basing one's opinion on race relations by listening only to the John Birch Society and KKK.

The related issue of scientific fraud is also a pressing and interesting one... it does seem to have been on the increase in recent years, as the surplus of scientists competes for dwindling grant funds. The case of cold fusion which embarrassed Utah and Brigham Young University so much is still one of the more entertaining gems in the genre of pathological science, where people's desires got them seeing things that weren't there.

Bernhard Schopper - Saturday, 01/30/99, 10:10:27pm (#1033)

Well, again, it is not my place to speculate on additions to the bible since the last book was added. Are there any bible students in this board who can examine this question?

About your question –> "I'm also familiar with Hitler's "Mein Kampf," and I am asking you why this work should not considered to be an addition to the Bible."

I am guessing at what is behind your question. Again, please do not hold me to bible expertise on this one. I am a believer in God. I am not a Christian. I can only speculate about Hitler and "Mein Kampf" being in the bible if the bible were written today.

First of all, the bible is a gruesome book. The bible is full of all kinds of heinous acts. When I read the bible for inspiration, it is only one source of many sources that I use for inspiration and insight. There are so many other better sources, much better than the bible. It is very obvious to me that the bible contains horribly graphic details about very grievous behaviors. It is surely possible that were the bible written today it would make mention of Hitler. I am sure that something like Mien Kampf would be made reference to in the bible were the bible written today.

So my answer to you is that my own collection of writings from which I draw wisdom is a collection that must make reference to Hitler’s "Mein Kampf."

I personally see no problem incorporating Hitler’s actions and his autobiography into a collection of wisdom texts so as to stand as examples of utter wicked atrocity.

Bernhard Schopper - Saturday, 01/30/99, 10:23:58pm (#1036)

We are certain that some reciprocal relation of causation exists between the matter of our physical bodies and our mind. Mind influences matter. Matter influences mind.

No one is clear about the absolute last word truth about the full scope or priority of this mutual relationship.

So when you say –>"From what I have deduced from earlier statements of yours is that man's mind can alter the structure of matter. A mind's influence on the workings of matter would not fall into such classification you have posted."

I am not sure what you mean by this. Bernhard honestly, it is not my conclusion that the hypothesis of psychomatter means the mind can "alter the structure of matter." I am sorry that I am being unclear about that. Psychomatter means that matter at all levels is sentient in some manner, and that consciousness is a fundamental ingredient of matter.

This has the potential for giving us great insights into the nature of religion.

Energy has perfect memory. The "structure of matter" that you mention is a structure that certainly is influenced. We say today that matter is influenced by strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism, and gravity. There is no question that the structure of matter is influenced. Chemical and electrical interactions in the brain altar the morphological structure of the brain.

batting cleanup:

batting cleanup part 2...

and win points, and straw man and half truths .... Yet I will listen to each with respect (at least to start) and not accuse all of the sins of many. And I will respectfully listen to any evolutionist (small e) without accusing them of any sin worse than misunderstanding or poor interpretation of data.

batting cleanup part 3...

would you not need, if you were perfectly honest and just, to exercise the punishment? Now, I'll quit here. To go further requires a lot more "theology" about the punishment, and consequences; about why the temptation was right there all but unavoidable; about the purpose of the "fall" and what sort of relationship was thus effected with God, etc. But, one last thing: I wouldn't say I believe in the "fall as a physical reality". Though I do accept it as a reality.

As to your point to Leszek, "I think that in some cases, some creationists criticize other creationists. I don't think you will find them to be one big happy family." Thanks. I am one. Hugh Ross is one. There are MANY others. In fact, one of the greatest difficulties I have in getting heard is the (erroneous) association with, and label of "Creation science" and "Scientific Creationist", etc. You will find, usually, a dividing line between the "young earth/old earth" paradigms. There are others. But, while some good science can be done by "creationists" (indeed belief in creation is irrelevant to most of science), in the direct contest between creation versus evolution (and I represent a blend!), insistence on young earth creates a great hurdle to cross to give any credence to the rest of science.

batting cleanup part 4....

There are many who believe in spirits. There are even some anthropologists whom I know who have seen and talked with spirits in other cultures. So they sincerely testify. There are people who believe they can communicate with animals, and vice versa. Some believe the Bible says that such communication was possible then (before the fall) and will be when God returns and restores the earth to its former (like Paradise) fullness and beauty. The "talking snake" needn't be all that big a stumbling block!!