ElanJo said:pauldominic said:I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit
How do you know?
pauldominic said:ElanJo said:pauldominic said:I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit
How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.
tonea2003 said:pauldominic said:ElanJo said:How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.
i've got to give to you paul, you have the ability to say loads of things without saying anything at all.
that takes a lot of doing and for that i applaude you
pauldominic said:tonea2003 said:pauldominic said:[
How do you know?
i've got to give to you paul, you have the ability to say loads of things without saying anything at all.
that takes a lot of doing and for that i applaude you
Why thank you.
Thats why we've been having these debates over hundreds of pages because you haven't had the experience and nothing I can say or do will change that.
Damocles said:BulgarianPride said:Damocles said:I'm not sure if you think these are unanswerable questions or not, but they aren't. Hell, I've posted the answer to two of them on this forum myself
No i know they are answerable. And yes i know you've posted the hypothesis about 1 and 2, but at the end of the day it is not the only answer ( other answers may as well exists and still be correct).
I am more interested in what ElanJo and SWP have to say about the subject. They are the only two posting with authority about the subject of evolution so i assume they know a lot more than the rest of us.
I post with authority on the subject of evolution all the time.
I want you to mention these "holes in evolution", because I'm not sure what you are talking about. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution, but the process did start up then. Your search for a "unified theory" is daft. You are asking for a theory on how life evolves without life.
No evolution should cover every step of a lifeform, including how it became a lifeform.
I don't think you've thought this through properly. The earliest formations were chemical reactions that are a natural byproduct of mixing together certain elements and providing the correct charge.
You can say this about anything in the universe.
This has gotten to me aswell:
Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned. The process is there, but a theory is supposed to explain the process.
The theory fully explains the process. Evolution has more direct evidence for it than nearly every scientific theory I can think of (apart from the plain obvious ones such as the Earth rotating round the Sun and stuff like that). There is no need to consider alternative theories simply because nothing comes close to the absolute mountain of evidence that we have for it.
So the formation of the eyes has only one hypothesis? The formation of the first muscles cell, the lyrics ( to give us speech) in the human body? Our Intelligence? All these fall under evolution do they not? Different hypothesis about the same thing under one theory? This is my point.
BP; you and Ducado, with the greatest respect, have been watching too many Discovery Channel documentaries. Do we need to consider an alternative hypothesis about the correlation between standing in water and getting wet?
Haven't watch the Discovery Channel in well over a month. Why do you assume you are the only one interested in the sciences?
I am not arguing that evolution does not happen. Evolution is the process, but could something else be linked to evolution? could the brain somehow send signals to the reproductive organs to "develop" DNA that is suited for the environment it lives in?
Do we need to reexamine our position on breathing air? This is essentially what you are asking. This is how much evidence we have to support the theory.
We may yet see tweaks and small alterations aas new discoveries are found, but we have pretty much cracked this one.
A theory that is supposed to explain 4 billion years of history can't be perfect.
Science does not care about what you think should and shouldn't be perfect. It doesn't care about what you think is logical, or your ability to understand. It cares about direct evidence, and we have mountains of it.
I could care less what i think... Tell me have i ever argued against Evolution? I may argue about specific processes and if they are "wrong", what happens then? Evolution would simply absorb the correct hypothesis.
The daft assumption that we' pretty much cracked this one in science is very backward and it has occurred many times before.
I've had many such experiences such as this when I used to take ecstacypauldominic said:ElanJo said:pauldominic said:I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit
How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.
pauldominic said:ElanJo said:pauldominic said:I'm simply a lifelong Catholic who had a conversion experience involving the Holy Spirit
How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.
When both lobes are stimulated, Persinger claims, the left side of the brain responds with a burst of activity, and it's at this point that a visitor experience is most likely to appear. In a few oft-mentioned cases from Persinger's lab, the visitor experience has been one of God, but much more often, it's a simple sense of a presence, or a vision of an angel, a deceased being known to the subject, or a group of beings of some kind. A feeling of meaningfulness can occur as the left limbic system is abruptly activated by the change in the stimulation,[22] so that the subject might feel it "means something", infusing the experience with a sense of importance. This kind of meaningfulness is a component of what Persinger calls "The God Experience".[33] The transient above-normal left hemispheric activity also enhances positive affect,[34] a term that embraces bliss and ecstasy, one of the most common features of the "God Experience".
In December 2004 Nature reported that a group of Swedish researchers led by Pehr Granqvist, a psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, had attempted to replicate Persinger's experiments under double-blind conditions, and were not able to reproduce the effect.[8] The study was published in Neuroscience Letters in 2005.[7] Granqvist et al concluded that the presence or absence of the magnetic field had no relationship with any religious or spiritual experience reported by the participants, but was predicted entirely by their suggestibility and personality traits. Persinger, however, takes issue with the Swedish attempts to replicate his work. "They didn't replicate it, not even close," he says.[8] He argues that the Swedish group did not expose the subjects to magnetic fields for long enough to produce an effect. He also stresses that many of his studies were indeed double blinded[38] The Swedish group disagree.[10]
tonea2003 said:pauldominic said:tonea2003 said:i've got to give to you paul, you have the ability to say loads of things without saying anything at all.
that takes a lot of doing and for that i applaude you
Why thank you.
Thats why we've been having these debates over hundreds of pages because you haven't had the experience and nothing I can say or do will change that.
I take it you are talking about your holy ghost experience that you haven't explained thus far or
Are we talking experiences of a catholic? Then I certainly have
BulgarianPride said:Damocles said:BulgarianPride said:No i know they are answerable. And yes i know you've posted the hypothesis about 1 and 2, but at the end of the day it is not the only answer ( other answers may as well exists and still be correct).
I am more interested in what ElanJo and SWP have to say about the subject. They are the only two posting with authority about the subject of evolution so i assume they know a lot more than the rest of us.
I post with authority on the subject of evolution all the time.
I want you to mention these "holes in evolution", because I'm not sure what you are talking about. Also, abiogenesis isn't evolution, but the process did start up then. Your search for a "unified theory" is daft. You are asking for a theory on how life evolves without life.
No evolution should cover every step of a lifeform, including how it became a lifeform.
I don't think you've thought this through properly. The earliest formations were chemical reactions that are a natural byproduct of mixing together certain elements and providing the correct charge.
You can say this about anything in the universe.
This has gotten to me aswell:
Ducado was right about one thing. When you read an Evolution journal or book, it sounds like the theory presented is the only one and the correct theory. No alternatives are mentioned. The process is there, but a theory is supposed to explain the process.
The theory fully explains the process. Evolution has more direct evidence for it than nearly every scientific theory I can think of (apart from the plain obvious ones such as the Earth rotating round the Sun and stuff like that). There is no need to consider alternative theories simply because nothing comes close to the absolute mountain of evidence that we have for it.
So the formation of the eyes has only one hypothesis? The formation of the first muscles cell, the lyrics ( to give us speech) in the human body? Our Intelligence? All these fall under evolution do they not? Different hypothesis about the same thing under one theory? This is my point.
BP; you and Ducado, with the greatest respect, have been watching too many Discovery Channel documentaries. Do we need to consider an alternative hypothesis about the correlation between standing in water and getting wet?
Haven't watch the Discovery Channel in well over a month. Why do you assume you are the only one interested in the sciences?
I am not arguing that evolution does not happen. Evolution is the process, but could something else be linked to evolution? could the brain somehow send signals to the reproductive organs to "develop" DNA that is suited for the environment it lives in?
Do we need to reexamine our position on breathing air? This is essentially what you are asking. This is how much evidence we have to support the theory.
We may yet see tweaks and small alterations aas new discoveries are found, but we have pretty much cracked this one.
A theory that is supposed to explain 4 billion years of history can't be perfect.
Science does not care about what you think should and shouldn't be perfect. It doesn't care about what you think is logical, or your ability to understand. It cares about direct evidence, and we have mountains of it.
I could care less what i think... Tell me have i ever argued against Evolution? I may argue about specific processes and if they are "wrong", what happens then? Evolution would simply absorb the correct hypothesis.
The daft assumption that we' pretty much cracked this one in science is very backward and it has occurred many times before.
BulgarianPride said:pauldominic said:ElanJo said:How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.
Just saw your post thanks to SWP. What you describe perfectly matches this
<a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet</a>
When both lobes are stimulated, Persinger claims, the left side of the brain responds with a burst of activity, and it's at this point that a visitor experience is most likely to appear. In a few oft-mentioned cases from Persinger's lab, the visitor experience has been one of God, but much more often, it's a simple sense of a presence, or a vision of an angel, a deceased being known to the subject, or a group of beings of some kind. A feeling of meaningfulness can occur as the left limbic system is abruptly activated by the change in the stimulation,[22] so that the subject might feel it "means something", infusing the experience with a sense of importance. This kind of meaningfulness is a component of what Persinger calls "The God Experience".[33] The transient above-normal left hemispheric activity also enhances positive affect,[34] a term that embraces bliss and ecstasy, one of the most common features of the "God Experience".
In December 2004 Nature reported that a group of Swedish researchers led by Pehr Granqvist, a psychologist at Uppsala University in Sweden, had attempted to replicate Persinger's experiments under double-blind conditions, and were not able to reproduce the effect.[8] The study was published in Neuroscience Letters in 2005.[7] Granqvist et al concluded that the presence or absence of the magnetic field had no relationship with any religious or spiritual experience reported by the participants, but was predicted entirely by their suggestibility and personality traits. Persinger, however, takes issue with the Swedish attempts to replicate his work. "They didn't replicate it, not even close," he says.[8] He argues that the Swedish group did not expose the subjects to magnetic fields for long enough to produce an effect. He also stresses that many of his studies were indeed double blinded[38] The Swedish group disagree.[10]
SWP's back said:I've had many such experiences such as this when I used to take ecstacypauldominic said:ElanJo said:How do you know?
Very good question.
We have these things called the head and the heart.
Biologically I'm not talking about about the pump. Both reside within the Brain.
It isn't the kind of experience that is easily put into words but there's an intense warmth and enormous feelings of peacefulness and acceptance.
You also begin to relate to the historical accounts and experiences in the Bible.