Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Isnt there a link that shows why we would drown before the first rain drop fell? Im looking for that link. Thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 06:55 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists?

I don't need to deny it. No theist who has asserted it has proven it. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant,

What do you mean?


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design),

Based on what? There are a lot of unanswered questions about the "beginning" of the universe. You seem to be jumping ahead of yourself in terms of what we actually can know about this.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all.

That "evidence" is all ad hoc and presuppositional. It's like looking at a puddle in a hole thinking how miraculous it is that the hole was designed to be the same shape as the puddle. If you don't make that a prioi assumption, that reasoning looks absurd.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?

Not that I know of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
26-10-2015, 07:02 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 06:06 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello! Big Grin

(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  That did answer a lot of questions. However, there still exists the possibility of Theistic evolution due to irreducible complexity. Anyhow, the Human heart is something that I think might falsify Darwin's theory.

The heart, like the brain, generates a powerful electromagnetic field. The heart generates the largest electromagnetic field in the body. The electrical field as measured in an electrocardiogram (ECG) is about 60 times greater in amplitude than the brain waves recorded in an electroencephalogram (EEG). The results of The Electricity of Touch experiment were positive: The data showed “when people touch or are in proximity, transference of the electromagnetic energy produced by the heart occurs.

The heart’s electromagnetic field contains certain information or coding, which researchers are trying to understand, that is transmitted throughout and outside of the body. One of the most significant findings of this research related to this field is that intentionally generated positive emotions can change this information/coding.

That discovery raises the question whether the cardio electromagnetic field information transmitted from an individual who is angry, fearful, depressed or experiencing some other negative emotion, takes on beneficial properties when it is influenced by positive emotions. Also, is the care, compassion, love or other positive emotion not only transmitted throughout an individual’s body as the cardio electromagnetic field radiates through it, but transferred externally as well to people in close proximity or even, perhaps, over long distances?

Researchers were able to show that the mother’s brainwaves synchronized to that of her baby’s heartbeat. In this experiment, the baby was laying in the mother’s lap with a blanket placed in between mother and baby. In the summary of their findings, the study’s authors wrote, “This preliminary data elucidates the intriguing finding that the electromagnetic signals generated by the heart have the capacity to affect others around us. It appears that when the mother placed her attention on the baby that she became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic signals generated by the infant’s heart. These findings have intriguing implications, suggesting that a mother in a psycho physiologically coherent state became more sensitive to the subtle electromagnetic information encoded in the electromagnetic signals of her infant.”

Charles Darwin may be best known for popularizing the notion that nature is red in tooth and claw, however, he used the word love 95 times in The Descent of Man, while his most famous phrase, survival of the fittest, appears only twice.
Charles Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."

How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

Blink

Um.. what now?

Okay.. does the article you've cut and paste that from actually give any figures? Like, just how much more electrical energy the heart generates compared to the brain? Or... is the article measuring the whole heart and the whole brain? Because.. I'm pretty sure there's more grey matter in our heads than muscle mass in our hearts (Comparatively)

So... when people touch. The power of heart electrocutes each other.... Consider

That.. does not sound right. Even remotely, closely right.

The heart's electromagnetic field produces coding... What? How? Where? It (The article) then goes on to say that this strange coding can thence be transmitted. Dafaq?

Then the article (Again, I'm assuming you're actually quoting from some where else. Since it certainly reads like it) throws in some bits from Darwin's book. Which is great and all... but science and the study of things has moved on in the hundred and fifty years since it was published.

In all.. a very strange post. I can understand people's "Woo" meters going off.

(26-10-2015 05:44 PM)Valaista Wrote:  How does Darwin’s theory account for a mechanism by which this observed energy exchange between individuals takes place?

What energy? How is this 'energy' measured? What evidence is there even of such 'energy' transferring between people? (Also, why doesn't it also transfer between people and other animals? Or between people and door knobs? Or people and fence posts?

If the heart is some how generating enough energy that it's actually 'washing' through out the entire body... Why isn't every one in a constant state of epileptic type fits as said 'energy field' interacts/interferes with the very impulses that operate the rest of our body? Our ability to walk? Our ability to move limbs? Heck.. how does this filed which the article says is washing through the body not interfere with our muscles which control our breathing?

I am hoping you're learning lots from the other people's great posts in relation to your questions. Smile

http://www.ssporer.com/downloads/Energetic_Heart.pdf
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 07:07 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 06:55 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  QUESTION #1: Religion aside(and all the baggage that comes with it), what reason do atheists have to deny that a creator exists?

I don't need to deny it. No theist who has asserted it has proven it. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  Knowing that (1) We know that there is a fine structure constant,

What do you mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk

(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (2) we know that there are only 2 possible explanations (Multiverse or Design),

Based on what? There are a lot of unanswered questions about the "beginning" of the universe. You seem to be jumping ahead of yourself in terms of what we actually can know about this.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  (3) both cannot be observed or tested, however, there exists enormous amounts of logic to support design (godel ontological proof,The First Cause Argument, the Argument from Consciousness, etc), but no logic to support the multiverse, rather the math that a multiverse would require makes no sense at all.

That "evidence" is all ad hoc and presuppositional. It's like looking at a puddle in a hole thinking how miraculous it is that the hole was designed to be the same shape as the puddle. If you don't make that a prioi assumption, that reasoning looks absurd.


(26-10-2015 02:52 PM)Valaista Wrote:  QUESTION #2: Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?

Not that I know of.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:20 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Valaista - Did you see my post about Kitzmiller v. Dover? If you didn't, it's on the previous page, or else I can post it again for you. I think if you don't read that case, and the supporting info, to learn why Intelligent Design got lambasted even by one of the most conservative judges on the federal circuits, you're going to have a very hard time at your debate.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:33 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 07:02 PM)Valaista Wrote:  http://www.ssporer.com/downloads/Energetic_Heart.pdf

*Nods*

yes, I went to the web page and looked around.

What I would rather do is engage yourself in conversation.

So.. just think about the claims you previously posted.

1) The heart generates more electrical energy than the brain.

Really? How is this measured? (Or, how as this measurement arrived at?)

2) Some how, this electricity referred to on the web page becomes 'energy' and it is then postulated that this 'energy' can effect feeling/emotion/etc.

Again, really? Since we know electricity doesn't effect emotions (Other than the neuron in the brain) the web page has to change the wording from electricity to 'energy'. Which is then used rather nebulously so as to promote the rest of the ideas.

I find the ideas strange and bordering on the laughable. What are your thoughts Valaista?

Again, best of luck with your debating! Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
27-10-2015, 05:39 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Valaista, you seemed to have botched the quote tags in your reply to me. The only new things I see in there was a YouTube video. Did you mean to reply to the other points?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-10-2015, 09:59 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(27-10-2015 05:39 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Valaista, you seemed to have botched the quote tags in your reply to me. The only new things I see in there was a YouTube video. Did you mean to reply to the other points?

ok I'm starting to wonder where these people keep coming from ?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2015, 04:26 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
No wonder the whole story stinks.

What do you mean Life is short. It's the longest thing you're going to do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes stevec's post
30-10-2015, 05:07 PM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(27-10-2015 09:59 AM)Ace Wrote:  
(27-10-2015 05:39 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Valaista, you seemed to have botched the quote tags in your reply to me. The only new things I see in there was a YouTube video. Did you mean to reply to the other points?

ok I'm starting to wonder where these people keep coming from ?

They are clearly not finishing the internet classes first.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: