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.
Scroll up and look.. This is about perception, and some have said that since the brain develops, our perception must, also. I disagree. We can still only use a certain amount of our brain at one time.. Since we can only use a small portion, the amount of development of the brain is directly proportionate to how we can perceive things. That is the only possible way a person can view perception as "developing"- but it sure doesnt "grow", or increase in capability, because our brains do not increase in capability.
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]
That is a nonsensical parody.. a funny one, though, lol (PS- our perceptive ability cannot disappear. If I believe that perception IS God, then in my belief system, God is essentially a brain function, and can never disappear completely, so you totally missed the point, and in the process threw in an ad hominem attack while you were at it. What was the purpose in doing that, anyways??)
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.
Which is not proof that it does, and the entire methodology is still backwards.
Prove that the molecules decay rate remains constant, by anything other than the ridiculous backwards mathematical computations using the current rate of decay, and applying it to the original rate of decay, and I promise, I will shut up, and probably even thank you for actually giving me something I can work with. =)
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.
We aren't really talking about gravity here- we are talking about half life dating methodology. And you have yet to show me a single piece of EVIDENCE that proves that there is any methodology beyond guesswork involved with the computations themselves. To challenge this, I do not need "proof"- Just the capacity to have a pulse and think laterally. I believe I have at least that much covered..
Sorry that you are having such a hard time digesting it.
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.
Ummm.. Subjective is not in your conceptual vocabulary.. And it is not subjective that science has already proven that many people do not have the perceptual capacity to see two different pictures in an image designed with two different pictures available to see. Do you deny this?
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.
Actually, in order to have a scientific method, it is necessary to be capable of thinking outside of the box, and creating hypotheses that are only, at the time constructed, theoretical in nature, and not yet set in stone as proven... obviously. Just because
you NEED to have everything proven and palpable, to believe it, does not mean that there is somehow not an alternate hypothesis that is scientifically testable.
To try to give you another example, and in a way that you will relate better to what I am trying to get at here- Take the idea that humans have a sort of out of body experience, in all that near death experience crap. That has found to be merely the release of certain chemicals in the brain, after the monitors have flatlined, and brain activity is at a supposed standstill. Clearly, the brain is still active, because the temporarily dead person is able to remember images from the time their brain was no longer "alive".. This is a prime example of how our tools of the trade are still not enough to give us all the answers. Brain DEAD is no longer TRULY brain death. We know this much now.. as fact.
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.
LOL!! You sure like to go for the jugular in your personal ad hominem attacks, dontcha??
I am not pointing a finger or saying that anyone is wrong in their beliefs. I am challenging the methodology of this half life dating research, based on the fact that it is assumed that since we cannot presently SEE something showing a change in decay,that no change in decay exists, and that the decay timeline is then calculated in a backwards direction. I have consistently held to this, and consistently asked you to prove the methodology to me. You have done a great job of showing me how they calculate it- but never once have you even attempted to show me how the absence of evidence of decay rate change counts as verifiable proof. I saw what you said about the signature- but even that had its own little problem- if you can take two brand new, atom filled isotopes, and see a change in decay signature present in one (caused by one event) and not another (caused by a different event)- then maybe, just maybe, there is not an ABSENCE of decay change, just an absence of tools required to DETECT that change..
Clearly I do not have nearly as much knowledge on this subject as you do- but if you have all this clear understanding of it, then why the hell can you NOT just explain that ONE LITTLE THING to me? Gee- could it be that you just CANT ADMIT that science is still A SCIENCE and being a science, it is always in progress, and not all set in stone??
For the love of Mike.
