XnForums

Crap on a Pancake!

Clean Sword, if there was a “Tree of Rotten Christian Apologist Arguments”—you fell out of it. And hit every branch on the way down.

Rather than answer my question, you decided to ask a question of your own (even common courtesy would have you answering my question first, as I asked it first. And Twice.) and attempt to turn my own tactic against me. You forum-chappie Apologists are so obvious.

Remember, YOU are the one who said, “atheists hold Christians to a standard they don’t follow themselves” [emphasis added] and I am trying to clarify what “standard” you meant. Now, apparently, you need my assistance to understand what you mean (if you need me to answer a question first!) Even YOU don’t understand what you mean!

Worse, in the sentence preceding the one about atheists/standards/Christians—you use the term “proof.” In the sentence following the one about atheists/standards/Christians—you use the term “proof.”

And now, days later, you finally realize you don’t understand what you mean by the word “proof” in addition to “standard”!! You don’t know what standard you are using; you don’t know what types of proofs you are using (Hint: we have been using evidences) and yet you are left wondering why we are completely unconvinced by your miserable performance thus far.

Another common branch in the “Tree of Rotten Christian Arguments” is to present an argument and when those opposing the position refute the argument—simply ignore it. A few days later, re-present the argument as if it is a brand new thought. You hit this branch, too.

We have already talked about Paley’s Watch. Now you bring up Mt. Everest (a larger version of Paley’s Watch) and specified complexity (a smaller version of Paley’s Watch.) Since you were unable to respond to my previous reply, there is no reason to repeat myself.

You mention consciousness. We do not remotely understand how the brain works—this is just more god-of-the-gaps. Already discussed.

You are getting this straight from Frank Turek, aren’t you?

As to reason and chemical process in the brain—explain how you can reason without using the chemical processes in your brain! Explain how “thoughts” work without any material component.



Why not? Can you prove this, or is this just more blather you don’t understand? After the debacle of the “standard” I am not even giving you multiple-choice on this one.



Er…isn’t a determination as to a theory’s accuracy of what a reaction? A response to something proposed? Again, we do not understand the chemical/neurological reactions taking place in the human brain. However, what we DO understand is that there is a definite correlation to the physical brain and ability to think. If you damage or remove part of the brain—the person’s ability to think changes. What we have not discovered are random thoughts floating about, unattached to anything physical.



What the heck is a “darwanian” [sic] world”? If you are referring to the theory of evolution, you clearly are way, WAY out of your league if you think the ability to reason is not possible in evolution. I’ll bet you haven’t read one study on the evolution of the brain by a scientist who holds to evolution.

I’ll bet your only source of information regarding evolution comes from Christian apologists. The same folks who gave you the lovely statement, “atheists hold Christians to a standard they don’t follow themselves” and we have ALL seen how well you understood THAT!

My time is done with you, Clean Sword. I have been accused (accurately) of driving off other Christians from this forum by my persistence and arguments. I will refrain in the hopes you will stick around and post some comments on other threads.

We sure could use the laugh about now…

Ok, you picked out the standard of proof that you judged christians by. That is,
"more likely than not".
But that is emperical proof. Only matter and energy can be proven by emperical proof.
You want to hold me to the confines of your definition. Because for you there is nothing
more than the material. Not so with me. To me there are spiritual things.

All you offer are theories.."we don't know why this happens, but one day we will. And just
wait, you'll see that we're right."

Yes, I have studied some articles from you evolution friends. Read some last night.
Still, not convinced. A materialist sees from one perspective, His.

You don't know many things because you reject what could be the answer to you
problem. That is, a spiritual being, not subject to matter and energy.

As a former calvenist, I'm surprised that you weren't aware of spiritual things.
Not really. If I were a calvanist, I would probably be an atheist by now too.

I didn't realize that there were faces of presidents on Mt. Everest too.
Maybe, if they hurry, they can slip one in of Barack Obama.

I'm a christian, and I don't just deal with the physical world. There is a spiritual realm
that you don't know about or don't want to acknowledge. The physical is all there is
in your little world. So, you're right, you probably could use a laugh once in a while.

clean'

Well crap, this piece of crap software will "not allow" the pdf file extension. Clean and HOR I wll pm the file to each of you and anybody else that might be interested. Whoever runs this forum should find some way to allow pdf files to be used.

Well even worse I was not allowed to edit my post just above and provide this link to the Dourley article I wrote about, so here it is: http://www.junginstitute.org/pdf_files/JungV8N1p43-54.pdf

Posts can be edited for ten minutes after the initial post.



I suspect pdf files are not allowed in order to prevent viruses from being spread to this board, but I could be wrong. The board owner has set the main settings the way he wants them, so I don't mess with 'em.

Earlier, HoR said: "What we have not discovered are random thoughts floating about, unattached to anything physical."

Perhaps the reason we have not yet discovered 'floating thoughts' may have something to do with not fully understanding what thoughts are, and the absence of the needed technology which can detect and interpret such 'floating thoughts'?

What we do know, however, is that each and every cell in the body has certain protein molocules embedded within their membrane which are sensitive to certain electromagnetic (EM) wavelengths.

When those proteins are exposed to a specific EM wavelength, their morphology is altered in such a way as to activate a biochemical cascade within the cell so it can respond appropriately to the signal it has received.

What this says, is that cells have the ability to react, not just to chemical stimuli but to EM stimuli as well, and thoughts have been shown to have an EM component, which is why we can pick up additional EEG signals from a thinking brain, although we have yet to pick up and interpret the thought(s) which generated those EM signals via technology.

And while it may be true that a carrier wave is needed to transport a thought, (much like how information is piggy-backed on a radio signal), it could be that thoughts themselves are small specific packets of EM energy which are comprised of a specific wavelengths and amplitudes that renders meaning to those receptor sites within cellular membranes when those 'packets' are received.

On the other hand, cells create and release certain chemicals, often in response to an environmental EM stimulus, which then cause adjacent cells to act or react in certain ways, and this can lead to a chemical cascade effect that can affect the physiology of the entire organism. But the main point is that the human body has a means to detect and respond to energies other than chemical, eventhough its reponses are often chemical in nature.

Still, we are 'hard wired' to receive 'signals' which are not chemical or material in nature, being EM in nature. Our eyes and ears prove this to be true on the macro level, while the cellular membrane proteins show this to be true on the micro level.

What this means, is that we have the ability to receive and interpret EM signals, signals which are not only interpreted by the usual five senses but are received and interpreted at the cellular level as well, which may account for our gut feelings and intuition when we find ourselves in certain situations.

Furthermore, there are studies (which I unfortunately cannot produce at this time) which indicate that the concavities and convexities of our skeletal system, such as the dish shape of the pelvis, and the rounded shapes of the thorax and skull, for example, act as 'parabolic dishes' which can collect and focus certain EM wavelengths. (I'll try to find those resources if anyone is interested.)

The question this raises is: "Then what are the frequencies of those wavelengths, and do they contain information which is or can be interpreted and utilized by the mind and body in some way?"

I do not know, but I do submit that those wavelengths do contain some kind of information, unless the wavelength itself is the information, and that its reception and interpretation may be dependant upon those parabolic morphological skeletal features in conjunction with certain posturing, such as kneeling, full flexion, full extension, or yoga positions, etc., all along with the ability to 'hear' and 'see' the meaning of that information as we actively meditate in that regard.

But the reality is that our bodies have the ability to detect and respond to EM signals, and who's to say that the source of some of those signals are not that of pure consciousness itself, a consciousness which has no doubt been given the definition and classification of 'God'?

Keep in mind that those receptor proteins which respond to EM energy have been in human cells long before EM technology came into existence. So could it be we have always had the means to know and understand that which we cannot see and hear with our usual senses, but nonetheless exists?

That said, HoR is right that we have not yet discovered any random thoughts floating about, unattached to anything physical, but at the same time it seems our bodies are created to receive and to respond to certain energies without the use of our five senses, with thought being one of those energies.

doc

Doc,

I’ll give you a confession to something that utterly fascinates me.

Think about the course of evolution. We had the development of sponges, etc. and eventually a worm having clusters of nerves near its head that functioned as eyes—all they could do was differentiate light.

Yet before that, there was light. And color. And sounds and taste and smells. This worm knew none of those things, having just two (2) senses—sight (barely) and feel. Over time, creatures developed sight that can differentiate colors. And the ability to hear sounds. And taste. And smell.

Sounds, tastes and smells existed all along, mind you. Creatures had yet to develop the ability to find out they existed! Even now we realize there are spectrums of light we cannot see unaided. Or sounds occurring we cannot hear unaided.

While I cannot possibly fathom what it could be—is there another sense that descendants of current creatures develop millions of years from now? A worm with poor eyes could never understand the concept of smell; what sense can I not remotely even conceive--yet is existing all about me?

Imagine our worm, with two senses—sight and feel, encountering another creature that had sight, feel, hearing and smell. Our worm would be amazed and stunned at how the other creature could know the worm was coming, even when its back was turned. We understand the other creature is hearing the worm. Or smelling it. The worm—with only the understanding of light—would think it supernatural how the creature could “divine” its presence without seeing it!

Yet we realize the ability to smell and hear is natural. Nothing divine or supernatural about it.

Not that this has anything, really, to do with consciousness—these random thoughts pace my mind and I figure you—of all people—in your cloud of butterflies (*grin*) would appreciate it.

What senses…sixth or otherwise…are there for the development; you and I in our lifetime will never know?

The technology of which I speak is that of actually retrieving/interpreting the thoughts as presentable information. For example, if I am thinking of a train, we do not have the technology that will detect and interpret that thought and present it as a train on a computer screen, or vocalize the word 'train' via a speaker, or print that train on a sheet of paper.

So sure, we can map the brain and see the activity as one thinks of trains, but we cannot yet process that activity with technology into a representative facsimile.


Sure it has, just as we have long known that those processes can be influenced by applying external energy sources to the body. What we are discovering, though, is that thought waves can also be considered as an external energy force, especially if that thought energy is received by a cell's 'protein antennae' which extends outside of the cell membrane.


Not on hand, no. But I'm sure you can do a google search if you're interested...


It is both, but when we discuss thoughts, do the thoughts create the chemicals or do the chemicals create the thoughts? The best we can tell so far is that the thinking/chemical-formation process is simultaneous, each seeming to lend to the other in the same instant. So at this point it is like the chicken or the egg paradox. However, it seems likely that thoughts preceed the formation of the neuropeptides associated with thought, perhaps by as little as a thousandth of a second or so. IOW, as soon as we have a thought, the body instantly creates a neuropeptide in response to that thought.


To initiate a physiological response in the body using EM energy, one must utilize a wavelength that will affect the morphology of the protein in question in order to gain that response. So there wouldn't/shouldn't be much of a difference between what the body produces and what the environment offers.

For example, there are proteins in the cell membranes of mitochindria which, when stimulated by a specific wave length of light, will cause that mitochondria to step up production of ATP. From this knowledge, we have created a laser using that specific wavelength to promote healing of damaged tissues when its energy is applied to that tissue. In addition, there are several other EM physiotherapeutic modalities which are designed to create a physiological response in the body, such as infared, ultrasound, and magnets.

We are also finding that the body can be affected by many frequencies within the EM spectrum that were previously thought non-effectual but do in fact create a physiological response, with some of those responses being negative, such as the EM fields around telephone wires and cell phones.

So any data you might require would be found in all these areas.


I wouldn't use 'controlled', per se, leaning more towards 'influenced'. As to your big toe receiving and interpreting cell phone calls, that's a bit of a stretch. But I will say that the possibility exists whereby the collective energies received by the body may be channeled and/or focused towards certain neuronal clusters or ganglions that may indeed respond to those energies in some way, thus creating a physiological response in the body, whether it be in the form of altered function or thought patterns.

For example, if you stand in front of the large speakers at a concert, you will feel the vibrations in your gut as the sound rebounds off your pelvis and thoracic cage as it travels through your tissues. Static electricity, microwaves, and even ulta high or ultra low frequencies of light and sound can cause similar effects, each having the ability to create a physiological effect within the body.


I'm looking for them...It's been more than a few years since I read them and I'll be damned if I can remember the name of the study...(re: studies on the confluence of energies via the parabolic morphology of skeletal structures.)


Not sure I'm understanding the intent of your question here. Can you restate it?


True...But what I was alluding to is man's ability to sense more than what is perceived with the five senses. IOW, we are often able to discern and interpret stimuli from sources external to the body which cannot be perceived via the five senses, and we can often do this without technological aid.

Cool thoughts, Ham... and you aren't alone in thinking them...

Ever wonder why it is that the same thoughts can be shared by so many, even if those thoughts were never converyed in any manner to anyone else?

Seems to me to be too much of a coincidence, and that we must share those thoughts on a different plane of reality, or that we have collectively 'tapped' into the same source of information.

This is something that is understood in the scientific realm: That if one group of scientists are studying something in total secrecy and isolation, you can bet that there is another group of scientists studying the same exact thing in the same way somewhere else on the planet...and so it becomes a race to get one's work published before someone else gets their same work published...

And if there is something else to be sensed, you can bet life will find a way to sense it...