Why can't evolution be part of god's plan?

[JD_2B]

Let's say you were dating something that was, in reality, 150,000 years old.

I used to have a thing for older women but that's ridiculous!


Ahhh but it is up to the interpretation of the brain to determine what is evedince for what so again what makes my answer wrong and yours right?

Excellent response, and one that can go both ways in this debate- The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

Not really. Most of us perceive things in the same way because our brains operate in the same way. Some of us, people who suffer from schizophrenia for example, don't have the sort of perception that someone without an illness has.

Brain function proves nothing about God or not God. It may well be that we have evolved to have a brain that can conceive of a creator but then that could be a load of old tosh too, I don't think we know right now.

Little did you know, the perception portion of the brain is the only part of the brain that does not grow when we are babies. Nobody's does. And having a mental illness is not grounds for different people having different perceptions of things..

Like I said before- Perception is relative to the person perceiving.. If, for instance, someone from a village of 500 people goes to visit a place like, oh I dont know lets say Greenville NC, which has tens of thousands of people in it or hundreds of thousands, even - the villager will perceive that city to be likened to a big city, maybe even be in awe of what a metropolis it is.. compared to the "normalcy" of what the villager is used to- a village of very few people, and generally no buildings with more than two floors.
The person who is from Greenville, on the other hand, will not think Grenville is a big city- they will think Greenvile is probably kinda small, even though there may be some large structures and even possibly a skyline.. They will be more likely to think of a city with millions in it, as a "big city"..

So you see- there is no mental illness involved with perceptive differences in how people see things, or even relate to one another-

Another example- If one guy is 5'10", and weighs 170 pounds- he is likely to think that a person who is 5'10 and 240 pounds is "fat", and that a person who is 5'10" and 120 pounds is "skinny". There is no mental illness involved- it is just perception..

At the same time- A person who is 5'0" will see a person of 5'7" as being "tall", because relative to them, that other person IS tall. When I was in first grade, I thought my teacher was SO tall.. And then when I went to visit her as an adult, later in life- she was only about an inch or so taller than I am. In first grade- she might as well have been 8 feet tall.. How would I know? I was 6 years old and short for my age. LOL!!

Perception is different for everyone, in the fundamental sense, because everything is relative. Where you stand in the room, even, changes your perception from what another person stands and their viewpoint.. You notice things that others do not notice- and this counts not just from a visual level, but an emotional/ belief based one, also..

 

[HUGGY]

No- They don't "already know"- They actually measure the decay rate.. A half life is the decay rate of the sample, to put it in a nutshell.



Excellent response, and one that can go both ways in this debate- The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.


Wow. Stunning deductive prowess.

 

[gcomeau]

Excellent response, and one that can go both ways in this debate- The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

No, it is not an excellent response. There is nothing excellent about it. It is a cop-out. We are not arguing over whose girlfriend is prettier. We are not arguing over whether Van Gogh or Michelangelo was the better artist. What we are discussing is not a matter of subjective interpretation, it is a matter of objective evidence and hard data.

It is as much "up to the interpretation of the brain" as "rocks contains carbon molecules" is "up to the interpretation of the brain."

The phylogenetic analysis for example is a matter of pure math. So is the radiocarbon dating. Is "1+1=2" up to the interpretation of the brain also? And by that I do not mean "Does realizing it require that you HAVE a brain". I mean is the truth of the expression contingent on an individual's personal point of view? No, it is not. If you take one thing and add it to another thing you now have two damn things. Period. Your personal interpretation of the fact doesn't come into play. A person can deny "1+1=2" but that makes them wrong, not just possessed of a different entirely valid viewpoint or something. If your kid told you "My opinion is that 1+1=1,247" you wouldn't congratulate them on their unique and interesting perspective and encourage them to retain that position, you would educate them because they're wrong.

And I'm having difficulty even expressing what an absolutely insane statement "everyone's ability to perceive things is whacked" and "everyone sees it differently" being proof enough of God is. I can only hope that was a joke.

 

[JD_2B]

The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

Wow. Stunning deductive prowess.

.. and lack of imaginative ability on yours? Must someone sit there and spell every single belief out, for you to appreciate and/or respect it/them?

 

[JD_2B]

Excellent response, and one that can go both ways in this debate- The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

No, it is not an excellent response. There is nothing excellent about it. It is a cop-out. We are not arguing over whose girlfriend is prettier. We are not arguing over whether Van Gogh or Michelangelo was the better artist. What we are discussing is not a matter of subjective interpretation, it is a matter of objective evidence and hard data.

It is as much "up to the interpretation of the brain" as "rocks contains carbon molecules" is "up to the interpretation of the brain."

The phylogenetic analysis for example is a matter of pure math. So is the radiocarbon dating. Is "1+1=2" up to the interpretation of the brain also? And by that I do not mean "Does realizing it require that you HAVE a brain". I mean is the truth of the expression contingent on an individual's personal point of view? No, it is not. If you take one thing and add it to another thing you now have two damn things. Period. Your personal interpretation of the fact doesn't come into play. A person can deny "1+1=2" but that makes them wrong, not just possessed of a different entirely valid viewpoint or something. If your kid told you "My opinion is that 1+1=1,247" you wouldn't congratulate them on their unique and interesting perspective and encourage them to retain that position, you would educate them because they're wrong.

And I'm having difficulty even expressing what an absolutely insane statement "everyone's ability to perceive things is whacked" and "everyone sees it differently" being proof enough of God is. I can only hope that was a joke.

I think you missed the part when I agreed that radiometric carbon isotope dating is, in fact, valid- as long as certain criteria are also met, which I will go into in a second..

I did not congratulate anyone on their incorrect viewpoints pertaining to Radiometric dating. I congratulated them on an excellent discussion point- that everything is relative.

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever... But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested. We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate- and we can reasonably guess that the conditions may or may not have changed over time, also. We can also go a step further and consider those same isotopes and the feeding critters that were on and around it, which may have somehow altered the isotope in some way, or entirely changed it in some other way...

Therein lies the theory of relativity- If the isotopes atoms BEGAN decaying at a faster rate than they did at the time they were tested, there goes the entire validity of the dating process, as a whole. Lets say you figure that the half life of the isotope (through testing it, by measuring its current decay rate) is about 30,000 years. That means to YOU, that the isotope is 60,000 years old..

But- I happen to realize that the (ex: fossilized bone's) isotopes atoms may have been subjected to any number of events BEFORE it became a fossil- which may have SLOWED the decay rate dramatically, bringing the half life to a much longer number of years old than the actual age of the bone.
Mass-independent fractionation of oxygen isotopes during thermal decomposition of carbonates
Plant Litter


Also-
Fossils do not take hundreds of thousands of years to form, anyways, - A fossil imprint, which paleontologists count as fossilized remains- can be formed in a very short period of time, actually. Sooooooooo... Just because something is fossilized, doesnt make it ancient, even if the rock around it is possibly ancient. =) Since radiometric dating (the dating of rocks) is highly dependent on the arbitrary timelines that are set in place by half life dating, and those half lives are assumed to decay at a certain rate to begin with, then decay at half of that rate, then half of half of that rate, as well- etc- yet still applying the same exact number of years as the original half life had, it is still primarily theoretical and thus, believable but unprovable science. (The half life, whatever the decay rate might be for it- After that many years, half the atoms in the isotope will decay. After that many years again, half of that half (one quarter of the whole or two half-lives) will decay. After that many years again, half of the half of that half (one eighth of the whole or three half-lives) will decay. It will go on until the isotope decays to its daughter product. )

Fossils - Science Olympiad Student Center Event Wiki


Relativity, baby.. Gotta love it. And yes- perception plays well into this. I have a strong perception about alternate possibilities to everything- henceforth I am a Christian Agnostic, and always willing to debate both sides of any story. Its my nature.. Don't take it personally, ok? ;-)

Oh and also, just because two species are SHAPED the same way, relatively speaking, does not mean that they are the SAME species.. This is yet another assumption that evolutionists use to convince the world of the theory..

Anyways- I want to conclude this by saying (again) that I do believe in evolution- I just do not believe that species change from one to another.. And there is hardly enough evidence to prove otherwise, and yet plenty of unrefuted evidence to prove the same.. that species do NOT morph from one to another.

 

[Diuretic]

Let's say you were dating something that was, in reality, 150,000 years old.

I used to have a thing for older women but that's ridiculous!


Ahhh but it is up to the interpretation of the brain to determine what is evedince for what so again what makes my answer wrong and yours right?

Excellent response, and one that can go both ways in this debate- The brain's ability to perceive things is completely whacked.. Everyone sees it differently. That alone is proof enough of God for me.

Not really. Most of us perceive things in the same way because our brains operate in the same way. Some of us, people who suffer from schizophrenia for example, don't have the sort of perception that someone without an illness has.

Brain function proves nothing about God or not God. It may well be that we have evolved to have a brain that can conceive of a creator but then that could be a load of old tosh too, I don't think we know right now.

Little did you know, the perception portion of the brain is the only part of the brain that does not grow when we are babies. Nobody's does. And having a mental illness is not grounds for different people having different perceptions of things..

Like I said before- Perception is relative to the person perceiving.. If, for instance, someone from a village of 500 people goes to visit a place like, oh I dont know lets say Greenville NC, which has tens of thousands of people in it or hundreds of thousands, even - the villager will perceive that city to be likened to a big city, maybe even be in awe of what a metropolis it is.. compared to the "normalcy" of what the villager is used to- a village of very few people, and generally no buildings with more than two floors.
The person who is from Greenville, on the other hand, will not think Grenville is a big city- they will think Greenvile is probably kinda small, even though there may be some large structures and even possibly a skyline.. They will be more likely to think of a city with millions in it, as a "big city"..

So you see- there is no mental illness involved with perceptive differences in how people see things, or even relate to one another-

Another example- If one guy is 5'10", and weighs 170 pounds- he is likely to think that a person who is 5'10 and 240 pounds is "fat", and that a person who is 5'10" and 120 pounds is "skinny". There is no mental illness involved- it is just perception..

At the same time- A person who is 5'0" will see a person of 5'7" as being "tall", because relative to them, that other person IS tall. When I was in first grade, I thought my teacher was SO tall.. And then when I went to visit her as an adult, later in life- she was only about an inch or so taller than I am. In first grade- she might as well have been 8 feet tall.. How would I know? I was 6 years old and short for my age. LOL!!

Perception is different for everyone, in the fundamental sense, because everything is relative. Where you stand in the room, even, changes your perception from what another person stands and their viewpoint.. You notice things that others do not notice- and this counts not just from a visual level, but an emotional/ belief based one, also..

'm not up with the absolute latest on brain function. From memory it wavers between generalised function to location-specific function although I think some cortical areas have been identified with specific functions. So what is the “perception” part of the brain? Pre-frontal cortex or is it more generalised as a function?

Mental illness and perception. Have you spoken to someone who is suffering schizophrenia? Their perception – depending on the severity of the affliction – is different from someone who is not suffering the disease. Anyway that's just a personal view.
But I can see my words weren't specific enough. I should have said “sense-perception.” I can see from your illustrations that you mean a sort of cognitive perception based on learned experience. Actually those are very useful examples, if I may say so without appearing boorish or patronising. In the sense that you've used perception it seems to me to be, as I said, based very much on cognition and experience.

When we look at "belief" that to me is a manifestation of learning as well, I find it particularly interesting.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No hard data exists to "magic" God out of existence.

No hard data exists to make evolution disappear.

 

[gcomeau]

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever.. But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested.

OR... rather than just presuming it we could test for it and verify that. Which has been done.

We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate- and we can reasonably guess that the conditions may or may not have changed over time, also.

No environmental condition can multiply decay rates by sustained factors of thousands or millions, which is what creationists usually require for their arguments to come anywhere near holding up. Not without sterilizing the entire planet.

We can also go a step further and consider those same isotopes and the feeding critters that were on and around it, which may have somehow altered the isotope in some way, or entirely changed it in some other way...

Therein lies the theory of relativity-

WHAT? Nothing you just said had the first thing to do with the theory of relativity.

If the isotopes atoms BEGAN decaying at a faster rate than they did at the time they were tested, there goes the entire validity of the dating process, as a whole.

Yes.... IF that had happened. And IF we had no way of knowing it had happened. But we do have ways of knowing. And it didn't happen.

And I would find it less annoying to have to explain that to you if I hadn't ALREADY explained it in this thread. AND in the first of the posts I earlier linked you to in the other thread that you gave me the impression you had actually read. And then proceeded to point out to people who also neglected to read them that those explanations existed like I've already done half a dozen times in the last few pages of this thread.

It's getting old now.

And as for the two articles you linked following this... the first doesn't say one single thing about altering decay rates of anything we'd use for radiometric dating.

The second "Plant litter" one won't load.

Fossils do not take hundreds of thousands of years to form, anyways, - A fossil imprint, which paleontologists count as fossilized remains- can be formed in a very short period of time, actually. Sooooooooo... Just because something is fossilized, doesnt make it ancient...

Which nobody thought in the first place...

Since radiometric dating (the dating of rocks) is highly dependent on the arbitrary timelines that are set in place by half life dating, and those half lives are assumed to decay at a certain rate to begin with, then decay at half of that rate, then half of half of that rate, as well- etc- yet still applying the same exact number of years as the original half life had, it is still primarily theoretical and thus, believable but unprovable science. (The half life, whatever the decay rate might be for it- After that many years, half the atoms in the isotope will decay. After that many years again, half of that half (one quarter of the whole or two half-lives) will decay. After that many years again, half of the half of that half (one eighth of the whole or three half-lives) will decay. It will go on until the isotope decays to its daughter product. )

Fossils - Science Olympiad Student Center Event Wiki

Relativity, baby..

You're still haven't said ANYTHING about the theory of relativity! You clearly have no idea what the theory of relativity entails. Neither special nor general relativity have anything to do with anything you've said. The only thing that the theory of relativity has in common with what you've been posting is that they both use the word "relative" in them.

Gotta love it. And yes- perception plays well into this. I have a strong perception about alternate possibilities to everything- henceforth I am a Christian Agnostic, and always willing to debate both sides of any story. Its my nature.. Don't take it personally, ok? ;-)

Oh and also, just because two species are SHAPED the same way, relatively speaking, does not mean that they are the SAME species.. This is yet another assumption that evolutionists use to convince the world of the theory..

Did I, or did I not, JUST finish telling you that the skeletal similarities are low on the list of evidence and it is the GENETIC evidence that is primary? And that the GENETIC evidence is overwhelming and unambiguous?

Anyways- I want to conclude this by saying (again) that I do believe in evolution- I just do not believe that species change from one to another..

What?

You might as well have just said that you believe in gravity - you just don't believe that objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

 

[JD_2B]

'm not up with the absolute latest on brain function. From memory it wavers between generalised function to location-specific function although I think some cortical areas have been identified with specific functions. So what is the “perception” part of the brain? Pre-frontal cortex or is it more generalised as a function?

I am not sure.. I have absolutely no training specific to neurology, so I probably could not say for sure, but apparently it is a portion of the brain that is not exactly cortex.. and apparently it has been measured and found to be a non-growing portion.. In any event (Sorry- I truly do not have a source for this, lol) perception is real and always differs between any two people in existence, even if only based on where they stand in a room, relative to how they might see that room and the images that they perceive from that position.. (Someone by the door, looking in- obviously perceives the room in the sense of being "from the doorway"- and "outside looking in"- and say the other person is in the room- then the person seeing it from the doorway looking in, also sees it as having a person inside, or being occupied. The person already in the room would quite probably see it as the inside of a room, and void of another person other than herself, and may consider the room to be unoccupied.. And just seeing things visually differently- seeing a couch from the back, versus the front, etc.. It is not that the lack of adequate perceptive ability we humans have necessarily changes significantly anything we see as normal or mundane- but there are always going to be fundamental differences in how we see those things, therefore we have a lacking in ability to be able to broadly imagine or perceive something that we have not yet had the capacity to picture..
You could imagine what the front of the couch looks like, seeing it from the back, if you have seen any couch before, or if you have (better yet) seen the front of this particular couch before. But, say the front of the couch has a cat laying on it.. You cant see the cat from behind the couch.. You have to change your perception to do that. Its is not possible to perceive a cat on the couch, if you do not know what a cat is, or a couch is.. You would certainly see the couch and the cat, even if it was for the first time ever in your life seeing such things as couches or cats- lol- and you would see and perceive its color and dimensions and everything that a person who has had plenty of experiences with couches and cats can perceive seeing- the same dimensions, and the same cat tail flicking back and forth, lol.. But you just cant imagine a cat you have never heard of, or seen, without being properly introduced to it in concept, at least- and you would never know it was even a cat at all, without seeing a photo of it, or being able to have some way of connecting it to whatever you were told a cat IS.. And the best verbal description of a dog, without describing a cat, can still lead a person who has never before seen a...uh.. cat OR a dog, to believe that the animal on the couch is actually a dog- with the furry ears, tail, and furry body- four legs, etc..
OK So when I am describing these events in perception, I am referring to God as a belief that can be perceived in ways that do not always coincide with other's beliefs of who or what God is, also.. And I am just saying.. That's perfectly okay and normal.

Mental illness and perception. Have you spoken to someone who is suffering schizophrenia? Their perception – depending on the severity of the affliction – is different from someone who is not suffering the disease. Anyway that's just a personal view.

My ex-boyfriend's little sister is a schizophrenic. She doesnt exactly perceive things differently- she has delusions. Schizophrenics hallucinate, and hallucinations are quite different than the concept of perception, with the exception of the mental illness that they have which makes them (perceive it as real and then) believe that the hallucination is real.

OOH I have a better explanation now: <YAY>Have you ever done the left brain / right brain test? Theres a dancing girl shadow, and you are supposed to watch her twirl in circles.. And everyone who watches it has a different response- Some say she is turning clockwise and some say she is turning counter clockwise.. And some say she is doing both- she starts in one direction and then changes direction. Thats because each side of your brain (left and right) thinks in a different way. One side (for example) controls spacial organization or recognition and the other side controls color recognition, artistic ability, creativity.. So both sides of the brain are trying to perceive something that an entire room full of people (my critical thinking course this past summer) will inevitable be capable of disagreeing on which way she was "definitely" twirling in.. It is awesome.

There are also "hidden picture" images that can only be seen if you have a higher functioning right brain than you do left.. And certain tasks that come naturally to a person with a higher functioning left brain than right.

Of course, I have no doubt that you already know all this- it is very late and I am trying to illustrate a point, that perception can be (and generally is) different for everyone.. Just to bring home the idea that if we are even this evolved, then why do some of us have such a high usage of one side of the brain, and yet others have the opposite thing going on with the other? Why is it that when we see things with our eyes, we see a perception of images, and not necessarily something that even truly exists? Did you know that when your eyes look at something, it actually takes a picture of it, upside down, and then your brain flips it back over, to make it a rational image for you? Why the hell would everything even BE upside down the first time we view it? Why not just see the stuff exactly as it is.
This whole phenomena occurs with all of our senses, also- the brain is simply sent messages from the nerves and the other organs, and must decipher and translate those messages, in order for us to understand what we see/touch/smell/taste/hear.. For those 5 senses to work properly, or exactly, we need our sense of perception to be far more developed than it currently is. (Seeing as though ::scuse the pun, lol:: we SEE things upside down as they are..)

I could even venture a guess that the whole world may possibly be literally upside down, in reality, for all we know- (as long as our eyes see things upside down) and our brain just adjusts to comfort us- because that perception portion of our brain could possibly be the essence of God.. That we have to build things upside down to make them stand up straight, or that, in consideration of relativity, ANYTHING is possible- parallel universes, levitation, etc.. Who knows? It is difficult to think about stuff like that as a possible alternate reality that we are just not ready to perceive.. I don't know all the hows and whys of it all- but I have decided to open my mind to infinite possibilities. It is all very very fascinating stuff, theoretically speaking of course. ;-)

But I can see my words weren't specific enough. I should have said “sense-perception.” I can see from your illustrations that you mean a sort of cognitive perception based on learned experience. Actually those are very useful examples, if I may say so without appearing boorish or patronising. In the sense that you've used perception it seems to me to be, as I said, based very much on cognition and experience.

When we look at "belief" that to me is a manifestation of learning as well, I find it particularly interesting.

I actually totally agree with the last two sentences.. Those things definitely can affect perception, as I illustrated before! =)
You have been very fun to talk to in this thread.. I am sure that you can understand now that I do not really mean a sense perception, at least not in a narrow conceptual way. I think that perception is so all encompassing, and that it is definitely something that people who do not yet believe in God should consider.. Seeing as though it is testable and all that. lol! =) You're a good sport- I like your attitude, and really enjoyed your post.

 

[JD_2B]

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever.. But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested.

OR... rather than just presuming it we could test for it and verify that. Which has been done.

Based on wild-card time assumptions regarding half life dating, which as of yet- do not have any method of actually VERIFYING as accurate. There is nothing MODERN that these scientists compare this dating system to- Let them create a fossil in some rock, and then date the fossil, all in the same lifetime. An imprint doesn't take too long.. Betcha that when they "date" it, using the current methods, they will find that even IT is millions of years old..

We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate- and we can reasonably guess that the conditions may or may not have changed over time, also.

No environmental condition can multiply decay rates by sustained factors of thousands or millions, which is what creationists usually require for their arguments to come anywhere near holding up. Not without sterilizing the entire planet.

Again, this is an assumption that these things are that old based on the decay rate it was given, which is based also on assumptions of time in between varying decay rates of the isotope over the years.

You're still haven't said ANYTHING about the theory of relativity! You clearly have no idea what the theory of relativity entails. Neither special nor general relativity have anything to do with anything you've said. The only thing that the theory of relativity has in common with what you've been posting is that they both use the word "relative" in them.

<sigh> ok lol

Did I, or did I not, JUST finish telling you that the skeletal similarities are low on the list of evidence and it is the GENETIC evidence that is primary? And that the GENETIC evidence is overwhelming and unambiguous?

I don't believe you did say anything about that, to me anyways. If there is genetic DNA evidence, I would like a link to it, if possible.. Only if that is possible, of course.. That sounds like useful information!! =)

Anyways- I want to conclude this by saying (again) that I do believe in evolution- I just do not believe that species change from one to another..

What?

You might as well have just said that you believe in gravity - you just don't believe that objects with mass exert an attractive force on each other.

[/quote]

Actually, Gravity being real is now being found to be a possible "law" of science that was incorrect at inception- I like space shows and discovery channel, and enjoy a good book.. But for now, yuh, guess yur right- I believe I am stuck to the Earth, and if someone wants to call that gravity,then sure I'm down with it, at least until they find another, better explanation.. if there is such a thing, lol..

PS- Not that this is a debate topic here, but Pluto is not a real planet, anymore, either.[/quote]

 

[gcomeau]

Based on wild-card time assumptions regarding half life dating, which as of yet- do not have any method of actually VERIFYING as accurate. There is nothing MODERN that these scientists compare this dating system to- Let them create a fossil in some rock, and then date the fossil, all in the same lifetime. An imprint doesn't take too long.. Betcha that when they "date" it, using the current methods, they will find that even IT is millions of years old..

For the love of...

First of all, there are no "wild card assumptions" involved in radiometric dating and verification processes. Unless you consider "our understanding of the laws of physics isn't COMPLETELY WRONG" to be a "wild card assumption".

First of all, I obviously need to explain what the Oklo reactor is and what it means since you refuse to take a hint and perhaps look it up yourself...

Basically what happened is during a uranium mining operation in Gabon they found a uranium deposit which had a far lower concentrations of U-235 than should normally be found naturally. On closer examination it also had a very unusual isotopic signature associated with it. Naturally occurring Neodymium has the following isotopic signature:

On the other hand, Neodymium that is a byproduct of the fission of uranium-235 has this signature:

&#8230;which is significantly different. The deposit they discovered at Oklo on the other hand had this signature:

The presence of a small amount of the 142 isotope indicates there was at least some naturally occurring neodymium at the site (the 142 isotope isn't a product of U-235 fission)&#8230; when the signature is corrected to account for the amount of naturally occurring neodymium indicated by the amount of 142 present the Oklo deposit has this signature:

Which is a perfect match for the byproducts of a U-235 fission reaction, the only thing that produces a signature like this. So, at some point in the past a deposit of U-235 actually reached localized concentrations such that it underwent a fission reaction similar to what occurs in modern nuclear reactors.

Now, that lets us verify some things.

If the decay rates had been different when that fission reaction was occurring the fission products would have had a different signature. The ratios of the isotopes produced by the reaction would be different if you changed the conditions governing decay rates while that reaction was occurring. The fact that the signature is identical to that of U-235 fission today establishes with high certainty that the decay rates are unchanged between now and when that reaction occurred. To be precise, they are identical to within

That established, multiple radiometric tests of the date of that reaction were performed, establishing that it occurred approximately 1.8 billion years ago&#8230; meaning decay rates haven&#8217;t changed in the last 1.8 billion years.

That is not a guess. That is not an assumption.

And that is not the only way we have of checking.

To pile on, different isotopes decay in different ways. you have alpha decay, beta decay, etc... and these would react DIFFERENTLY to a change in the conditions that govern rates of decay. If the conditions had changed in such a way that decay rates were altered at some point in the past We WOULd SEE THAT in the damn isotopic signatures of decay products of past reactions. and it isn't there.

On top of THAT we also know no universal physical constant has just globally shifted the curve for everything across the board. THAT would produce changes in the spectral output of stars for one thing. And we can look DIRECTLY AT stars all through the history of most of the universe due to the fact that we're seeing light that was emitted by them thousands and millions and billions of years ago depending on their distance from us. People who say we can't see what was happening in the universe a million or a billion years ago are quite wrong. You do it every time you look up at night. And guess what? NONE of those stars show such a spectral shift. Ever.

And that's dealing with changes of a few percent.... not even THAT has happened. But people who question evolution don't need changes of a few percent. they need changes of like a million times. Never mind that doing that would destroy all life in the solar system instantly...

Bottom line... Decay. Rates. Have. Not. Changed.

Get it?

<sigh> ok lol

I fail to see the funny.

I don't believe you did say anything about that, to me anyways.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...n-was-part-of-creationism-10.html#post1583366

To quote myself, speaking to you:

"No, we do not. The skeletal similarities are rather low on the list of compelling evidence of the relation. The genetic evidence is primary, and completely overwhelming. You may want to refer to my latest post in that other thread, I've added yet another entry on that genetic evidence there in the chromosome fusion section. There is no ambiguity here."

If there is genetic DNA evidence, I would like a link to it, if possible.. Only if that is possible, of course.. That sounds like useful information!! =)

Yes, it is. If only I had told you about it to begin with! Oh wait...

"Try browsing through this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/89647-the-damnable-doctrine-of-charles-darwin.html

I've made a series of posts in it that should cover what you're looking for. First one is at post 19, then they continue in a series over the course of the rest of the thread. There have been 6 so far, a seventh will be on it's way in the next day or so."

That's a quote of me... again... in my FIRST RESPONSE to you, several days ago, telling you the evidence you were looking for was in a series of posts I had made in another thread, linking you to it and suggesting you go read it to get your answers. This time let's try links directly to three of the most relevant of those posts to the issue of genetic evidence of common human/primate ancestry and see if we can't get you to actually go look at them:

Chromosome Fusions:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...octrine-of-charles-darwin-10.html#post1583088

Phylogenetic analysis:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...doctrine-of-charles-darwin-9.html#post1579603

Endogenous Retroviral Insertions and Vestigial Genetic Sequences:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...doctrine-of-charles-darwin-8.html#post1575492

Actually, Gravity being real is now being found to be a possible "law" of science that was incorrect at inception-

No, it is not. I can only assume you're talking about the conflict between Einsteinian and Newtonian expressions of the law of gravitation and the higher accuracy of Einstein's treatments of gravity at sub-atomic scales. That is a refinement of the principle to increase it's accuracy, not a statement that the original formulation was "wrong". It was just very slightly less accurate than the more refined one we have available now.

I like space shows and discovery channel, and enjoy a good book.. But for now, yuh, guess yur right- I believe I am stuck to the Earth, and if someone wants to call that gravity,then sure I'm down with it, at least until they find another, better explanation.. if there is such a thing, lol..

PS- Not that this is a debate topic here, but Pluto is not a real planet, anymore, either.

That's simply a matter of classification. Completely different issue.

 

[Diuretic]

'm not up with the absolute latest on brain function. From memory it wavers between generalised function to location-specific function although I think some cortical areas have been identified with specific functions. So what is the &#8220;perception&#8221; part of the brain? Pre-frontal cortex or is it more generalised as a function?

I am not sure.. I have absolutely no training specific to neurology, so I probably could not say for sure, but apparently it is a portion of the brain that is not exactly cortex.. and apparently it has been measured and found to be a non-growing portion.. In any event (Sorry- I truly do not have a source for this, lol) perception is real and always differs between any two people in existence, even if only based on where they stand in a room, relative to how they might see that room and the images that they perceive from that position.. (Someone by the door, looking in- obviously perceives the room in the sense of being "from the doorway"- and "outside looking in"- and say the other person is in the room- then the person seeing it from the doorway looking in, also sees it as having a person inside, or being occupied. The person already in the room would quite probably see it as the inside of a room, and void of another person other than herself, and may consider the room to be unoccupied.. And just seeing things visually differently- seeing a couch from the back, versus the front, etc.. It is not that the lack of adequate perceptive ability we humans have necessarily changes significantly anything we see as normal or mundane- but there are always going to be fundamental differences in how we see those things, therefore we have a lacking in ability to be able to broadly imagine or perceive something that we have not yet had the capacity to picture..
You could imagine what the front of the couch looks like, seeing it from the back, if you have seen any couch before, or if you have (better yet) seen the front of this particular couch before. But, say the front of the couch has a cat laying on it.. You cant see the cat from behind the couch.. You have to change your perception to do that. Its is not possible to perceive a cat on the couch, if you do not know what a cat is, or a couch is.. You would certainly see the couch and the cat, even if it was for the first time ever in your life seeing such things as couches or cats- lol- and you would see and perceive its color and dimensions and everything that a person who has had plenty of experiences with couches and cats can perceive seeing- the same dimensions, and the same cat tail flicking back and forth, lol.. But you just cant imagine a cat you have never heard of, or seen, without being properly introduced to it in concept, at least- and you would never know it was even a cat at all, without seeing a photo of it, or being able to have some way of connecting it to whatever you were told a cat IS.. And the best verbal description of a dog, without describing a cat, can still lead a person who has never before seen a...uh.. cat OR a dog, to believe that the animal on the couch is actually a dog- with the furry ears, tail, and furry body- four legs, etc..
OK So when I am describing these events in perception, I am referring to God as a belief that can be perceived in ways that do not always coincide with other's beliefs of who or what God is, also.. And I am just saying.. That's perfectly okay and normal.

Mental illness and perception. Have you spoken to someone who is suffering schizophrenia? Their perception &#8211; depending on the severity of the affliction &#8211; is different from someone who is not suffering the disease. Anyway that's just a personal view.

My ex-boyfriend's little sister is a schizophrenic. She doesnt exactly perceive things differently- she has delusions. Schizophrenics hallucinate, and hallucinations are quite different than the concept of perception, with the exception of the mental illness that they have which makes them (perceive it as real and then) believe that the hallucination is real.

OOH I have a better explanation now: <YAY>Have you ever done the left brain / right brain test? Theres a dancing girl shadow, and you are supposed to watch her twirl in circles.. And everyone who watches it has a different response- Some say she is turning clockwise and some say she is turning counter clockwise.. And some say she is doing both- she starts in one direction and then changes direction. Thats because each side of your brain (left and right) thinks in a different way. One side (for example) controls spacial organization or recognition and the other side controls color recognition, artistic ability, creativity.. So both sides of the brain are trying to perceive something that an entire room full of people (my critical thinking course this past summer) will inevitable be capable of disagreeing on which way she was "definitely" twirling in.. It is awesome.

There are also "hidden picture" images that can only be seen if you have a higher functioning right brain than you do left.. And certain tasks that come naturally to a person with a higher functioning left brain than right.

Of course, I have no doubt that you already know all this- it is very late and I am trying to illustrate a point, that perception can be (and generally is) different for everyone.. Just to bring home the idea that if we are even this evolved, then why do some of us have such a high usage of one side of the brain, and yet others have the opposite thing going on with the other? Why is it that when we see things with our eyes, we see a perception of images, and not necessarily something that even truly exists? Did you know that when your eyes look at something, it actually takes a picture of it, upside down, and then your brain flips it back over, to make it a rational image for you? Why the hell would everything even BE upside down the first time we view it? Why not just see the stuff exactly as it is.
This whole phenomena occurs with all of our senses, also- the brain is simply sent messages from the nerves and the other organs, and must decipher and translate those messages, in order for us to understand what we see/touch/smell/taste/hear.. For those 5 senses to work properly, or exactly, we need our sense of perception to be far more developed than it currently is. (Seeing as though ::scuse the pun, lol:: we SEE things upside down as they are..)

I could even venture a guess that the whole world may possibly be literally upside down, in reality, for all we know- (as long as our eyes see things upside down) and our brain just adjusts to comfort us- because that perception portion of our brain could possibly be the essence of God.. That we have to build things upside down to make them stand up straight, or that, in consideration of relativity, ANYTHING is possible- parallel universes, levitation, etc.. Who knows? It is difficult to think about stuff like that as a possible alternate reality that we are just not ready to perceive.. I don't know all the hows and whys of it all- but I have decided to open my mind to infinite possibilities. It is all very very fascinating stuff, theoretically speaking of course. ;-)

But I can see my words weren't specific enough. I should have said &#8220;sense-perception.&#8221; I can see from your illustrations that you mean a sort of cognitive perception based on learned experience. Actually those are very useful examples, if I may say so without appearing boorish or patronising. In the sense that you've used perception it seems to me to be, as I said, based very much on cognition and experience.

When we look at "belief" that to me is a manifestation of learning as well, I find it particularly interesting.

I actually totally agree with the last two sentences.. Those things definitely can affect perception, as I illustrated before! =)
You have been very fun to talk to in this thread.. I am sure that you can understand now that I do not really mean a sense perception, at least not in a narrow conceptual way. I think that perception is so all encompassing, and that it is definitely something that people who do not yet believe in God should consider.. Seeing as though it is testable and all that. lol! =) You're a good sport- I like your attitude, and really enjoyed your post.

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond at length, it certainly has cleared up many points and I can see my errors.

On brain function, perception and God - that makes perfect sense to me, I see the point now.

On the point about schizophrenia. That's one of my mistakes, I was thinking of perception in terms of interpretation of stimuli rather than as a purely mental process. But I was also thinking that there is a difference between hallucinations (and here I was again thinking of interpretation of stimuli) rather than delusions. For me a delusion is an erroneous (have to be careful with that) state of mind, so in a broader sense it is a form of perception, self-perception perhaps?

And finally, yes, on the perceptions tests, I found them really interesting. I'm right-hemisphere dominant apparently (unless that theory has been overturned recently!) and I can "see" in my own experience how that affects my perception of just about everything (eg I'm hopeless at mathematics).

Good discussion indeed, thank you for it.

 

[JD_2B]

Based on wild-card time assumptions regarding half life dating, which as of yet- do not have any method of actually VERIFYING as accurate. There is nothing MODERN that these scientists compare this dating system to- Let them create a fossil in some rock, and then date the fossil, all in the same lifetime. An imprint doesn't take too long.. Betcha that when they "date" it, using the current methods, they will find that even IT is millions of years old..

For the love of...

First of all, there are no "wild card assumptions" involved in radiometric dating and verification processes. Unless you consider "our understanding of the laws of physics isn't COMPLETELY WRONG" to be a "wild card assumption".

First of all, I obviously need to explain what the Oklo reactor is and what it means since you refuse to take a hint and perhaps look it up yourself...

Basically what happened is during a uranium mining operation in Gabon they found a uranium deposit which had a far lower concentrations of U-235 than should normally be found naturally. On closer examination it also had a very unusual isotopic signature associated with it. Naturally occurring Neodymium has the following isotopic signature:

On the other hand, Neodymium that is a byproduct of the fission of uranium-235 has this signature:

&#8230;which is significantly different. The deposit they discovered at Oklo on the other hand had this signature:

The presence of a small amount of the 142 isotope indicates there was at least some naturally occurring neodymium at the site (the 142 isotope isn't a product of U-235 fission)&#8230; when the signature is corrected to account for the amount of naturally occurring neodymium indicated by the amount of 142 present the Oklo deposit has this signature:

Which is a perfect match for the byproducts of a U-235 fission reaction, the only thing that produces a signature like this. So, at some point in the past a deposit of U-235 actually reached localized concentrations such that it underwent a fission reaction similar to what occurs in modern nuclear reactors.

Now, that lets us verify some things.

Nuclear isotopes- maybe- but not all isotopes are nuclear.. lol And anyways- your explanation is vague at best saying that "at some point" it reacted.. and yes, that is an assumption of time..

If the decay rates had been different when that fission reaction was occurring the fission products would have had a different signature. The ratios of the isotopes produced by the reaction would be different if you changed the conditions governing decay rates while that reaction was occurring. The fact that the signature is identical to that of U-235 fission today establishes with high certainty that the decay rates are unchanged between now and when that reaction occurred. To be precise, they are identical to within

Within what timeline? I see you didn't even finish your own sentence here.. And furthermore, just because the decay rates are the same DURING the fission in the labs now, as they are ASSUMED to be at the time the ORIGINAL fission process happened, does not mean that they are DECAYING at the same rate throughout a time period that IS based on a STRICT clock of timework-
This is the assumption:
One half life of what we measure the decay to be TODAY (very slow- VERY VERY SLOW, because there is less far matter involved now than there was originally, in this highly decayed isotope) PLUS another quarter life (which for all we know was decaying faster, since there was probably more matter involved) that we are going to add the ORIGINAL timeline of the isotopes CURRENT VERY SLOW DECAY RATE to, and then we do it again, two more times. Basically what we do is just measure a current decay rate (slowwwww decay of an old and almost entirely decayed isotope- which was, at one time, useful- and must have been decaying at a far more rapid rate when it was useful) and take our current measurement and multiply that number of years by 4 (or 5 whatever) and voila! That is the answer we get, and it is SCIENCE.. UNTESTABLE because we cannot go back a billion years and actually test this decayed isotope against one that is truly identical that also was new and not nearly as decayed... So we just assume certain things and call them fact..

That established, multiple radiometric tests of the date of that reaction were performed, establishing that it occurred approximately 1.8 billion years ago&#8230; meaning decay rates haven&#8217;t changed in the last 1.8 billion years.

That is not a guess. That is not an assumption.

You established nothing- you did not even finish the sentence. This dating system is a theoretical probability, not a scientific fact.

And that is not the only way we have of checking.

To pile on, different isotopes decay in different ways. you have alpha decay, beta decay, etc... and these would react DIFFERENTLY to a change in the conditions that govern rates of decay. If the conditions had changed in such a way that decay rates were altered at some point in the past We WOULd SEE THAT in the damn isotopic signatures of decay products of past reactions. and it isn't there.

Not necessarily. This statement also assumes that we can see everything through a lens that is available to be seen. I personally choose not to give science the benefit of the doubt in this hypothetical situation that also assumes such nonsense. You are saying that a lack of evidence is evidential proof, and that is not scientific- that is assumption based.

On top of THAT we also know no universal physical constant has just globally shifted the curve for everything across the board. THAT would produce changes in the spectral output of stars for one thing. And we can look DIRECTLY AT stars all through the history of most of the universe due to the fact that we're seeing light that was emitted by them thousands and millions and billions of years ago depending on their distance from us. People who say we can't see what was happening in the universe a million or a billion years ago are quite wrong. You do it every time you look up at night. And guess what? NONE of those stars show such a spectral shift. Ever.

The speed of light is not what we are debating here.. But that is a very good point.. It just does not prove that the light even took billions of years to get HERE, because the universe is made up of quadrants and all kinds of wondrous little shortcuts to get from one space to another. In quantum physics, there are theories about warp- which is not a speed, but a method of folding matter and empty space to transport from one space to another in the blink of an eye. The assumption that warp/ wormholes/ etc, are not a constant event in our universe, based on a lack of knowledge in the matter, and therefore deciding that light REALLY DOES take billions of years to go from point A to point B, is illogical and without merit. It is a BELIEF. Thats all.

And that's dealing with changes of a few percent.... not even THAT has happened. But people who question evolution don't need changes of a few percent. they need changes of like a million times. Never mind that doing that would destroy all life in the solar system instantly...

Bottom line... Decay. Rates. Have. Not. Changed.

Get it?

And a lack of evidence is not proof of such. Get it??

<sigh> ok lol

I fail to see the funny.

Sorry to hear that..

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...n-was-part-of-creationism-10.html#post1583366

To quote myself, speaking to you:

"No, we do not. The skeletal similarities are rather low on the list of compelling evidence of the relation. The genetic evidence is primary, and completely overwhelming. You may want to refer to my latest post in that other thread, I've added yet another entry on that genetic evidence there in the chromosome fusion section. There is no ambiguity here."



Yes, it is. If only I had told you about it to begin with! Oh wait...

"Try browsing through this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/89647-the-damnable-doctrine-of-charles-darwin.html

I've made a series of posts in it that should cover what you're looking for. First one is at post 19, then they continue in a series over the course of the rest of the thread. There have been 6 so far, a seventh will be on it's way in the next day or so."

That's a quote of me... again... in my FIRST RESPONSE to you, several days ago, telling you the evidence you were looking for was in a series of posts I had made in another thread, linking you to it and suggesting you go read it to get your answers. This time let's try links directly to three of the most relevant of those posts to the issue of genetic evidence of common human/primate ancestry and see if we can't get you to actually go look at them:

Chromosome Fusions:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...octrine-of-charles-darwin-10.html#post1583088

Phylogenetic analysis:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...doctrine-of-charles-darwin-9.html#post1579603

Endogenous Retroviral Insertions and Vestigial Genetic Sequences:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/relig...doctrine-of-charles-darwin-8.html#post1575492

Thank you for the links- That thread does have about a thousand posts in it, and although I did check out the post you directed me to, after skimming through several pages more, I did not find any other posts that were useful.. or any that were without some modern photo of an animal as a sort of comparison image to the skeletal changes. I will check out your chromosomal changes posts, and get back to you.. =)

Actually, Gravity being real is now being found to be a possible "law" of science that was incorrect at inception-

No, it is not. I can only assume you're talking about the conflict between Einsteinian and Newtonian expressions of the law of gravitation and the higher accuracy of Einstein's treatments of gravity at sub-atomic scales. That is a refinement of the principle to increase it's accuracy, not a statement that the original formulation was "wrong". It was just very slightly less accurate than the more refined one we have available now.

I can accept that- Newton's calculations just do not account for speed.. only weight and size. The point I have is that these "laws" that have been widely accepted (much the same way the Earth's flatness was widely accepted until just a few hundred years ago) are also still being figured out, and in a process of gaining knowledge and understanding about.

I like space shows and discovery channel, and enjoy a good book.. But for now, yuh, guess yur right- I believe I am stuck to the Earth, and if someone wants to call that gravity,then sure I'm down with it, at least until they find another, better explanation.. if there is such a thing, lol..

PS- Not that this is a debate topic here, but Pluto is not a real planet, anymore, either.

That's simply a matter of classification. Completely different issue.

How so? To be a true scientist, one must be open to alternate, fact based explanations.. You seem to not be open to any alternative to the things that you believe in to be true.
If gravity was found to be a facade, and the fact that we stick to the ground as a result of some other phenomena, you would have to open yourself up to that possibility, at least if you want to gain respect in the scientific community.. No offense intended, either.

 

[JD_2B]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond at length, it certainly has cleared up many points and I can see my errors.

On brain function, perception and God - that makes perfect sense to me, I see the point now.

On the point about schizophrenia. That's one of my mistakes, I was thinking of perception in terms of interpretation of stimuli rather than as a purely mental process. But I was also thinking that there is a difference between hallucinations (and here I was again thinking of interpretation of stimuli) rather than delusions. For me a delusion is an erroneous (have to be careful with that) state of mind, so in a broader sense it is a form of perception, self-perception perhaps?

And finally, yes, on the perceptions tests, I found them really interesting. I'm right-hemisphere dominant apparently (unless that theory has been overturned recently!) and I can "see" in my own experience how that affects my perception of just about everything (eg I'm hopeless at mathematics).

Good discussion indeed, thank you for it.

Oh yes, I am having a great time!! =) You are very insightful, too. Interesting, the schizophrenia topic, also- self perception! I like that.. That makes a lot of sense, too.. Or maybe a self inflicted hallucination (delusion) is a better way of putting it, lol..

I have been thinking about other conceptual things lately, too- I saw this crazy website on "quantum jumping", which was discussing the possibility of mentally "changing channels" and going to a parallel universe (in your own home, I mean- it seemed to just be a meditative type of exercise, anyways) and being able to see things that you wouldn't be able to see in your current state of mind.. I believe that this is a means of accessing portions of your brain that you do not commonly use, and being able to alter and enhance your perceptive ability for a certain period of time, during the meditative process, anyways.. Check it out- it looks really neat, and although it seems extremely wacky, I have actually considered buying the program. (especially now that I think I really understand that it is a perceptive skills training regimen using meditation or some other relaxation techniques to get you there.. ) I "get" now, what the program is trying to sell- What do you think of it?

Quantum Jumping - The Inter-dimensional Quest for a Better You

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Little did you know, the perception portion of the brain is the only part of the brain that does not grow when we are babies. Nobody's does.

False. Every part of the brain grows from birth. Furthermore, even IF a piece of brain does not physically grow, it can still develop. Case in point: you can continue to store new memories even though the physical storage space of your brain is not growing.

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever... But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested. We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate-

Also false. We are not talking about decay as in rotting vegetables, whereas leaving them in the sun makes them decay faster than putting them in the fridge. Half life equations are constant. Not only is the general graph of half life decay constant for any given material, but it looks the same for every single half-life decay:

[quoteJD_2B]Therein lies the theory of relativity- If the isotopes atoms BEGAN decaying at a faster rate than they did at the time they were tested[/quote]You come here claiming that everyone else doesn't have enough support to what they say, and yet you blatantly fabricate things without ANY support whatsoever.

I am not sure.. I have absolutely no training specific to neurology, so I probably could not say for sure, but apparently it is a portion of the brain that is not exactly cortex.. and apparently it has been measured and found to be a non-growing portion.. In any event (Sorry- I truly do not have a source for this, lol) perception is real and always differs between any two people in existence, even if only based on where they stand in a room, relative to how they might see that room and the images that they perceive from that position.. (Someone by the door, looking in- obviously perceives the room in the sense of being "from the doorway"- and "outside looking in"- and say the other person is in the room- then the person seeing it from the doorway looking in, also sees it as having a person inside, or being occupied. The person already in the room would quite probably see it as the inside of a room, and void of another person other than herself, and may consider the room to be unoccupied.. And just seeing things visually differently- seeing a couch from the back, versus the front, etc.. It is not that the lack of adequate perceptive ability we humans have necessarily changes significantly anything we see as normal or mundane- but there are always going to be fundamental differences in how we see those things, therefore we have a lacking in ability to be able to broadly imagine or perceive something that we have not yet had the capacity to picture..
You could imagine what the front of the couch looks like, seeing it from the back, if you have seen any couch before, or if you have (better yet) seen the front of this particular couch before. But, say the front of the couch has a cat laying on it.. You cant see the cat from behind the couch.. You have to change your perception to do that. Its is not possible to perceive a cat on the couch, if you do not know what a cat is, or a couch is.. You would certainly see the couch and the cat, even if it was for the first time ever in your life seeing such things as couches or cats- lol- and you would see and perceive its color and dimensions and everything that a person who has had plenty of experiences with couches and cats can perceive seeing- the same dimensions, and the same cat tail flicking back and forth, lol.. But you just cant imagine a cat you have never heard of, or seen, without being properly introduced to it in concept, at least- and you would never know it was even a cat at all, without seeing a photo of it, or being able to have some way of connecting it to whatever you were told a cat IS.. And the best verbal description of a dog, without describing a cat, can still lead a person who has never before seen a...uh.. cat OR a dog, to believe that the animal on the couch is actually a dog- with the furry ears, tail, and furry body- four legs, etc..
OK So when I am describing these events in perception, I am referring to God as a belief that can be perceived in ways that do not always coincide with other's beliefs of who or what God is, also.. And I am just saying.. That's perfectly okay and normal.

Fact exists regardless of perception. If all humans were wiped from the face of the earth, photosynthesis would still occur. We don't need to perceive it for it to be true. Furthermore, pointing out specific computer graphics or illusions that were made specifically with the purpose of having multiple interpretations does not by default mean that all data has multiple interpretations based on the person. You are poorly trying to equate a topic which is purposely trying for a subjective experience and projecting that onto objective fact. Furthermore, upon making such a poor attempt at discrediting fact, you do not revert to the next most logical conclusion, but default to a supernatural explanation.



OK so what have we learned from your feedback?

• You have no knowledge of neurology but speak about things you make up as if they were factual.
• You have no knowledge of the scientific process yet attempt to discredit it.
• You have no knowledge of radiometric dating or the reasons it is valid, and yet you try to claim it's invalid.

Are you starting to see a theme here?

 

[JD_2B]

Little did you know, the perception portion of the brain is the only part of the brain that does not grow when we are babies. Nobody's does.

False. Every part of the brain grows from birth. Furthermore, even IF a piece of brain does not physically grow, it can still develop. Case in point: you can continue to store new memories even though the physical storage space of your brain is not growing.

Except for the perception portion, and no a brain actually stops growing in physical capacity at a certain point. Yes a person can develop all parts of their brain, but the essence of the brain's stunted capacity is PROVEN already, in that science has shown that one can only think with 5% of it at any given time. No matter how much information a brain can be capable of storing (new memories or learned information included) we are inhibited by the lack of CAPACITY in which it can be used. I am not talking about storage capacity, and I think you are getting frustrated because my arguments are very much about the metaphysical- clearly something that you just do not happen to BELIEVE IN- coinciding with palpable physical. Youre problem is this- if you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, etc, etc- to you it does not exist. We could be having this conversation hundreds of years ago regarding the existence of oxygen, and the possibility that it exists, and if no scientist has found physical proof of AIR (a biblical term, by the way) then you would also not believe it exists, based on the fact that it is an unseen entity. Question- why is air clear? Air should not be clear, if it exists, right? Oh wait- now that there is a microscope you can see it- and GERMS as well. You would not believe in GERMS before the microscope was invented. You would call us "troofers" for even considering such a thing, right? Because in your little world, the absence of proof equates somehow to empirical evidence. I read your whole post before responding, and I don't like your apparent tone. This is a debate forum, and having a different view based on the fact that there is a LACK of empirical evidence to back a claim up with, and therefore challenging that claim, does not at all mean that a person is without knowledge on an issue in question, so try to cut me some slack please. I do not like it when people get uncivil.. and in this paragraph, I am only giving you a dose of your own..

Case in point- radiometric dating. It is valid, and by the method we use, we can SUPPOSE that the degradation of the isotope's half life is the same now as it was, say a thousand years ago, or a million years ago- whatever... But that is, still, only proven based on the PRESUMPTION that the decay rate started out, and remained AS CONSTANT as it is at the time it is tested. We all know that certain environmental conditions can affect decay rate-

Also false. We are not talking about decay as in rotting vegetables, whereas leaving them in the sun makes them decay faster than putting them in the fridge. Half life equations are constant. Not only is the general graph of half life decay constant for any given material, but it looks the same for every single half-life decay:

Oh so now a GRAPHIC of the assumption makes the assumption to somehow suddenly be based on fact? Hmmmm...

[quoteJD_2B]Therein lies the theory of relativity- If the isotopes atoms BEGAN decaying at a faster rate than they did at the time they were tested

You come here claiming that everyone else doesn't have enough support to what they say, and yet you blatantly fabricate things without ANY support whatsoever.[/QUOTE]

What support do you suggest I give for my contention that your lack of evidence is not proof??

I am not sure.. I have absolutely no training specific to neurology, so I probably could not say for sure, but apparently it is a portion of the brain that is not exactly cortex.. and apparently it has been measured and found to be a non-growing portion.. In any event (Sorry- I truly do not have a source for this, lol) perception is real and always differs between any two people in existence, even if only based on where they stand in a room, relative to how they might see that room and the images that they perceive from that position.. (Someone by the door, looking in- obviously perceives the room in the sense of being "from the doorway"- and "outside looking in"- and say the other person is in the room- then the person seeing it from the doorway looking in, also sees it as having a person inside, or being occupied. The person already in the room would quite probably see it as the inside of a room, and void of another person other than herself, and may consider the room to be unoccupied.. And just seeing things visually differently- seeing a couch from the back, versus the front, etc.. It is not that the lack of adequate perceptive ability we humans have necessarily changes significantly anything we see as normal or mundane- but there are always going to be fundamental differences in how we see those things, therefore we have a lacking in ability to be able to broadly imagine or perceive something that we have not yet had the capacity to picture..
You could imagine what the front of the couch looks like, seeing it from the back, if you have seen any couch before, or if you have (better yet) seen the front of this particular couch before. But, say the front of the couch has a cat laying on it.. You cant see the cat from behind the couch.. You have to change your perception to do that. Its is not possible to perceive a cat on the couch, if you do not know what a cat is, or a couch is.. You would certainly see the couch and the cat, even if it was for the first time ever in your life seeing such things as couches or cats- lol- and you would see and perceive its color and dimensions and everything that a person who has had plenty of experiences with couches and cats can perceive seeing- the same dimensions, and the same cat tail flicking back and forth, lol.. But you just cant imagine a cat you have never heard of, or seen, without being properly introduced to it in concept, at least- and you would never know it was even a cat at all, without seeing a photo of it, or being able to have some way of connecting it to whatever you were told a cat IS.. And the best verbal description of a dog, without describing a cat, can still lead a person who has never before seen a...uh.. cat OR a dog, to believe that the animal on the couch is actually a dog- with the furry ears, tail, and furry body- four legs, etc..
OK So when I am describing these events in perception, I am referring to God as a belief that can be perceived in ways that do not always coincide with other's beliefs of who or what God is, also.. And I am just saying.. That's perfectly okay and normal.

Fact exists regardless of perception. If all humans were wiped from the face of the earth, photosynthesis would still occur. We don't need to perceive it for it to be true. Furthermore, pointing out specific computer graphics or illusions that were made specifically with the purpose of having multiple interpretations does not by default mean that all data has multiple interpretations based on the person. You are poorly trying to equate a topic which is purposely trying for a subjective experience and projecting that onto objective fact. Furthermore, upon making such a poor attempt at discrediting fact, you do not revert to the next most logical conclusion, but default to a supernatural explanation.

Oh bullshit. YOU are trying to equate something like photosynthesis or computer programming to the lack of ability to perceive a freaking CAT on a couch, when looking at the back of it. You cant SEE the cat, you don't hear the cat, and you will NOT, in fact, know it is there, until you move to a different part of the room, and are able to see the front of the couch, where the cat sits. Also, NOT EVERYONE can see all of the hidden pictures in Salvador Dali's paintings- that takes a right brained thinker, or someone with a solid right brained perception to see.. And it is not JUST in images that are designed to have multiple meanings- It is in everyday life. Some people are very black and white thinkers (left brained thinkers like you, apparently) and some people see a lot of gray area in life. This IS perception. That is a FACT. I am SO sorry that you have SUCH a hard time dealing with this, but that is NOT my problem, and it is NOT supernatural, its metaphysical.... There is a difference.

OK so what have we learned from your feedback?

• You have no knowledge of neurology but speak about things you make up as if they were factual.
• You have no knowledge of the scientific process yet attempt to discredit it.
• You have no knowledge of radiometric dating or the reasons it is valid, and yet you try to claim it's invalid.

Are you starting to see a theme here?

LOL.. I reckon you somehow feel like a winner now, all because you showed me a GRAPH that shows nothing but the timeline of assumption?

I also reckon that you are, as stated before, a black and white thinker who cannot even begin to see anything that is not absolutely hard set.

I further reckon that since you yourself use a graphed timeline to somehow prove that the assumed timeline is proven, somehow and testable- that you think of yourself as some sort of expert in the scientific field, when in reality, you are a puppet of the scientific system, incapable of thinking for yourself..

Way to go.. LOL!! You sure showed me!!

 

[Setarcos]

JD bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the rate of decay for a given isotope can and does change and all tests with samples of varying ages have failed to detect it.

JD also bears the burden of proof in showing that the area of the brain in question does not begin developing until later in life.

 

[JD_2B]

JD bears the burden of proof and must demonstrate that the rate of decay for a given isotope can and does change and all tests with samples of varying ages have failed to detect it.

JD also bears the burden of proof in showing that the area of the brain in question does not begin developing until later in life.

OK First off- I do not have the burden of proof on anything concerning radiometric dating- this is not MY contention that radiometric dating is accurate and not based on assumptions. My proof that it is based on assumptions is in the way the timeline is backwards, and that the scientists may not have the adequate tools to actually prove that the rate of decay has changed. I am not contesting any specific rate of change, I am contesting the methodology, because it is based on educated guesswork. It is valid, as I have said before- to the best of our ability to measure at present time- but it is still just (very good) educated guesswork.

Second- I didnt say it doesn't develop, in fact, I said the brain DOES develop- if you care to actually read my post, you would see that. The brain is well documented to only be capable of using a bare minimum of its resources, thereby inhibiting our ability to perceive things to the fullest extent that we would be CAPABLE of doing, if our brains worked in the fullest capacity- that being 100%.

Maybe we cannot use our full brains, like the way, say, a GOD could (assuming that God could be human and capable of using this much of his brain- which would really explain a lot) because it would make it hard for us to dedicate and enslave ourselves to worship the maker.

I am not the kind of Christian agnostic that you think I am. I probably have really weird and unusual ideas about God and life, and how things work.. and why they came to be, etc., but they are not pulled from thin air- they are well thought out theories that are based both on scientific and biblical notions that are already agreed upon.

Examples:
The bible says the earth is a sphere- science agrees (but scientists did not agree before they could prove it- they all thought it was flat, too)
The bible does not have an incredibly specific timeline on how everything was made, even though it uses the "6 days" conceptually.. - science does not have a specific timeline either
The bible says man was formed- science agrees. Man wasnt just made, he was definitely formed
The bible says that female came from the roots of male- science shows that this is possible, too- XY to XX is easy enough to understand
The bible says that we must breathe air to be alive- science agrees completely with the concept of air, now that microscopes are available, anyways
The bible says that there would be a flood- and science agrees that there was a localized flood in the area
The bible discussed rainbows after it rained- science shows that to be truth and not supernatural
The bible discusses karma, and sociological science proves that this is a inevitable given
The bible discusses healing with the hands- Although science used to consider this a form of witchcraft, nowadays massage therapists, and physical therapists are often USED by members of the scientific community to heal their physical troubles..
ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC.........

Why is absence of proof somehow empirical evidence of something, Setarcos? I HAVE given you my fair share- I am only asking for the other member to open his mind.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Except for the perception portion, and no a brain actually stops growing in physical capacity at a certain point.

Clearly our heads do not continue to grow. No one has debated this. At all.

Youre problem is this- if you cannot see it, touch it, smell it, hear it, etc, etc- to you it does not exist. We could be having this conversation hundreds of years ago regarding the existence of oxygen, and the possibility that it exists, and if no scientist has found physical proof of AIR (a biblical term, by the way) then you would also not believe it exists, based on the fact that it is an unseen entity. Question- why is air clear? Air should not be clear, if it exists, right? Oh wait- now that there is a microscope you can see it- and GERMS as well. You would not believe in GERMS before the microscope was invented.

False. Scientists have not relied on 5 human senses to make any great discoveries in a long long while. We use tools to examine and discover that allow us to explore depths unreachable with our own senses. You point to things you can't see as proof that I am wrong? Here's a lil thought experiment: remove those things from your environment and notice if there is any change. If you remove oxygen, does anything change? How about germs? Well, yes. People asphyxiate, and stop getting infected, respectively.

So let's do the thought experiment of what happens if your theory on what's really there suddenly disappeared:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkCuc34hvD4]YouTube - What If God Disappeared?[/ame]

Oh so now a GRAPHIC of the assumption makes the assumption to somehow suddenly be based on fact? Hmmmm...

False. You completely misunderstood the reason for that graph, which was to show that all decay happens in the exact same manner for all half-life decay molecules.

What support do you suggest I give for my contention that your lack of evidence is not proof??

The proof is there. Making wild accusations with no supporting evidence as to why scientific theory is wrong demands proof. If you want to claim gravity doesn't really exist because we're just assuming the earth has mass, you need to provide some reasoning to your belief. We have provided all the evidence that shows beyond any doubt that what we say is true. You have not refuted a single piece of it. You only sit and hand waive, claiming it's not right, but not saying why.

Oh bullshit. YOU are trying to equate something like photosynthesis or computer programming to the lack of ability to perceive a freaking CAT on a couch, when looking at the back of it. You cant SEE the cat, you don't hear the cat, and you will NOT, in fact, know it is there, until you move to a different part of the room, and are able to see the front of the couch, where the cat sits. Also, NOT EVERYONE can see all of the hidden pictures in Salvador Dali's paintings- that takes a right brained thinker, or someone with a solid right brained perception to see.. And it is not JUST in images that are designed to have multiple meanings- It is in everyday life. Some people are very black and white thinkers (left brained thinkers like you, apparently) and some people see a lot of gray area in life. This IS perception. That is a FACT. I am SO sorry that you have SUCH a hard time dealing with this, but that is NOT my problem, and it is NOT supernatural, its metaphysical.... There is a difference.

Except we're not talking about a cat, we're not talking about Dali's paintings, and we're not talking about things which are specifically designed to be subjective experiences. We're talking about fact which is true regardless of perception. Again, you are trying to equate subjective experience with objective fact.

I also reckon that you are, as stated before, a black and white thinker who cannot even begin to see anything that is not absolutely hard set.

This returns to my previous point about your inability to understand the scientific method, yet attempting to discredit it. I recommend you read up on the null hypothesis, as it is the foundation behind research. This topic has been thoroughly proven, and all other proposed possibilities have been discredited. Just because you don't believe that doesn't mean it's suddenly changed.

I further reckon that since you yourself use a graphed timeline to somehow prove that the assumed timeline is proven, somehow and testable- that you think of yourself as some sort of expert in the scientific field, when in reality, you are a puppet of the scientific system, incapable of thinking for yourself..

And I "further reckon" that since you focus on your misinterpretation of a single image across posts of several people proving you wrong with supporting evidence in the form of images, text, and outside sources as the sole reason you can pretend none of the overwhelming evidence exists, combined with the fact that you have consistently shown yourself to be completely incompetent with respect to scientific reasoning, along with the clear bias of creating your conclusion first and then coercing information to match your own mislead pre-conceived notions, that you are incapable of rational thought. You want to point the finger at people who examined all avenues and came up with a solid conclusion based on factual evidence as not thinking freely, when you have only ONE answer to all of this which revolves around supernatural superstitious mythology?

I encourage you to support a SINGLE argument that you have failed to make thus far. Then perhaps someone might take you a bit more seriously.

 

[Setarcos]

OK First off- I do not have the burden of proof on anything concerning radiometric dating- this is not MY contention that radiometric dating is accurate and not based on assumptions.

You implied that the rate of decay is not constant. You bear the burden of proof for that claim. The burden of proof for the reliability of the technique was already met and it is on you to discredit it if you wish to go the route you're going.

My proof that it is based on assumptions is in the way the timeline is backwards, and that the scientists may not have the adequate tools to actually prove that the rate of decay has changed.

Such things can be measured, and have been.

I am not contesting any specific rate of change, I am contesting the methodology, because it is based on educated guesswork

That's pretty much all science. It's an educated guess that gravity will be in effect ten seconds from now- do you challenge that prediction?

The predictions made using the technique have all been correct.

The burden of proof is on you.

Second- I didnt say it doesn't develop, in fact, I said the brain DOES develop- if you care to actually read my post, you would see that. The brain is well documented to only be capable of using a bare minimum of its resources, thereby inhibiting our ability to perceive things to the fullest extent that we would be CAPABLE of doing, if our brains worked in the fullest capacity- that being 100%.

Your evidence?

Are you going to pull that 10% bs out?

The bible does not have an incredibly specific timeline on how everything was made, even though it uses the "6 days" conceptually.. - science does not have a specific timeline either

define:specific

The bible says man was formed- science agrees. Man wasnt just made, he was definitely formed

?

The bible says that female came from the roots of male- science shows that this is possible, too- XY to XX is easy enough to understand

The bible calims adam and eve lived at the same time. It's a known fact that genetic adam and genetic eve did not live at the same time.

The bible says that we must breathe air to be alive- science agrees completely with the concept of air, now that microscopes are available, anyways

Are you saying that observing the fact that we suffocate and drown proves your god?

The bible says that there would be a flood- and science agrees that there was a localized flood in the area

The bible claims a worldwide flood

try again

The bible discussed rainbows after it rained- science shows that to be truth and not supernatural

And? Anyone around during a rainbow can see it. What's your point?

The bible discusses karma, and sociological science proves that this is a inevitable given

YOu need the bible to know about revenge?

Are you serious, are are you pulling a Poe?