Evolution? How?

"It 's all magic, and we're the magician's puppets" - there - how's that?

0 Replies

Ok here is a question for theists... (BIBLICALLY) Is soul the same thing as spirit?

Scientists don't now the difference between formed, made and created to a relative proportion that theists amalgamate soul and spirit.

Soul and spirit are NOT the same thing... (According to my alternative view.)

Can someone define soul and spirit (Biblically)? Who has been listening?

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

"It 's all magic, and we're the magician's puppets" - there - how's that?

I had to be a puppet to learn this myself. You don't always get to pick the messenger. Messengers of my discipline are nearly non existent. I teach teachers. I expect that is why I have been called here. You are all teachers aren't you? If I can reach one with this message I have accomplished my mission.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

RL 1Its a matter that a lab follows protocols. If a specific environmental sample is submitted then its always good to know the approximate contents
1safety
2waste of sample
3time in preps
Also, as I said, and timber followed up with other physical labs,protocols are established that require ceratin steps be taken. A lab is not out playing 20 questions with a finite amount o sample. If the shroud of Turin contains blood, why did they spend so much time on diffraction and edax to see first? Because theyd destroy much of the spotted material unless they didnt do some nondestructive testing first'
Our protocols for geochron samples are such that we do a thin section of the material first and then give the labs the formation names or, failing that alone, we give a petrographic analysis by polarized light microscopy. We can tell whats in the rock, so if its all zirc. ons , we wont blow out the accelerator mass spec.

As far as Carbon 14 in coal. Theres a good book called "Trace elements in Coal" It can give a reasonable picture why coal has C14 and AMS science is now catching up.

Coal is a complex "Wax" with nitrogen , sulfur and a whole bunch of trace elements including radiaoactive ones U238-Th230-Th232-Ra226. ALthough the old chestnut that coal gets contaminated by bacteria is sorta true, that argument would account mostly for C12/C13 and a teeny small amount of C14. The real news is that some coals contain LOTS of C14 and some coals contain NONE. Howcome?

Well lets look at the trace elements and coals overall composition.
Q:How is C14 formed? ,A: by cosmic rays zooming on Nitrogen in the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are high energy gamma and neutrons. Coal contains plenty of Nitrogen , but not all coals contain radioactive elements(some do some dont). Thestatistical comparison shows that coals with lotsa U-Th will also have C14, while coals with low or no U-Th contain small amounts or none. The results, scientists have found is that coals Nitrogen is being converted to C14 by neutron or gamma radiation from the U/Th in the coal itself. This has been accidentally discovered by application looking for elusive cosmological particles by setting scintilometeres in deep coal mines. Sometimes Too much C14 was being found and it only made sense after the U-Th was analyzed in the coal. This kind of formation of radionuclides that shouldnt be there(like C14) is called de-novo alteration

even if you were right about C14 in coal being from a young earth (which youre not) youd have to settle for an earth that was at least 40000 years or so old, if you looked at C14 balances.
Yes I am the one who told you that we dont look for C14 when weve got gazillion year old samples. Coal is something else entirely. It can contain C14, but its own chemistry answers why, nothing magic is involved. If someones tying to date a coal, theyre usually looking at the U/Th or K/Ar, not C14. C14 is an artifact that just happens, "like **** often does". I hope this helps but if you need a good resource see

TRACE ELEMENTS IN COAL by Daleay Swayne. Es a good ole Ozzian rocknockah. My copy is 1996 ed.)It musta been a page turner toprint a 2nd ed)

Hi Farmerman,

That's kinda the point I was trying to make. You mention that some coal has lots of C14 and some has none.

If C14, as well as other elements that are used in various dating methods, does not decay at the same rate under all conditions (and there is no possible way to know all the different conditions a particular sample has been subject to, and for how long, etc) then the assumptions that support the various dating techniques being unreliable make the results from those methods unreliable as well, no?

The results may be consistent with themselves (relative reliability) and therefore of some use in your exploration work, etc -- but unreliable in providing absolute dating.

Thanks for the book tip, I'll see if I can find a copy.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I thought you were all being silent because you understood and did not care. Now I see this whole view has sailed right overhead.

This leaves me with the quandary as to should I push until it is clearly understood or wonder if it can be comprehended at all in light of such blinding contradiction...

Maybe some have comprehended and don't care but the message I seem to be getting is you have not for the most part even understood what I have said.

This is both wondrous but puzzling.

We understand what you're saying Rex (at least I do), but we don't agree with it because it's too abstract and lacks any link to known factual evidence (the real world).

To even begin to convince us of your ideas, you have to communicate in our language. We are detail oriented, fact based and logical, so you need to start with a simple concept you want to get across and then build support for your assumptions step by step. It's the same process science follows, you're just not used to following it, and many of us are too skeptical to be convinced of anything which isn't detailed to the level science requires.

0 Replies

Curious, rl - are you what typically might be considered a short person? I mean, so much apparently goes right over your head ...

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I thought you were all being silent because you understood and did not care. Now I see this whole view has sailed right overhead.

This leaves me with the quandary as to should I push until it is clearly understood or wonder if it can be comprehended at all in light of such blinding contradiction...

Maybe some have comprehended and don't care but the message I seem to be getting is you have not for the most part even understood what I have said.

This is both wondrous but puzzling.

We understand what you're saying Rex (at least I do), but we don't agree with it because it's too abstract and lacks any link to known factual evidence (the real world).

To even begin to convince us of your ideas, you have to communicate in our language. We are detail oriented, fact based and logical, so you need to start with a simple concept you want to get across and then build support for your assumptions step by step. It's the same process science follows, you're just not used to following it, and many of us are too skeptical to be convinced of anything which isn't detailed to the level science requires.

You say you understand but if you understood you could explain it back. I don't think you could explain this view back.

It does not take details to understand it take simple unbiased thought.

It takes an aggressive mind to perceive amidst such altered and deeply rooted imperception.

I have the spirit thing down because I have learned exactly WHAT the spirit is...

You all have the materials of existence confused and misconstrued. since you (theists, scientists) do not understand the basic theoretical materials you certainly cannot understand the drama each of the material play a part in.

I am not saying you have to believe these constructs but you should consider them when trying to understand the entire picture of existence. Understand why they are used to draw lines or boundaries between what is "theoretically" and logically "possible".

Why is there a debate? Because you are drawing lines in each other's territories. I am appalled the lack of understanding and I don't know how else to say it.

You wouldn't constantly be drawing lines in each other's boundaries if you understood the precepts.

And yes you are at each other's throats when I leave. Though there are more evolutionists here in this particular chat (I acknowledge that) what few theists are available you use each other in this manner of discourse.

All because of a simple lack of understanding...

0 Replies

rexred,

You seem to be a "mystic". Only a small number of theists can be considered "mystics". You may not get any loyal readers.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Scientists don't now the difference between formed, made and created to a relative proportion that theists amalgamate soul and spirit.

I don't know about you other guys, but I have serious difficulties understanding what the hell RexRed is talking about here. I've tried the Google Translator method of translating it first into one foreign language, then another, then back into English again and all I come up with is meaningless gobbledy-gook.

I mean, everything up to the word created, makes sense. Even if I modify RexRed's sentence so it reads:

"Scientists don't know the difference between formed, made and created, compared to a relative proportion of theists that amalgamate soul and spirit."

Which makes a lot more sense but seems like a baseless statement.

What I don't understand is what the hell soul and spirit has got to do with anything.

Furthermore, how can you understand what the basic theoretical materials are if scientists don't?

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

rexred,

You seem to be a "mystic". Only a small number of theists can be considered "mystics". You may not get any loyal readers.

Wandel, You are very perceptive, I have always known this about you. If I can get the words to just pass through their brains I am assured that one day they will remember it... Smile

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

RexRed wrote:
Scientists don't now the difference between formed, made and created to a relative proportion that theists amalgamate soul and spirit.

I don't know about you other guys, but I have serious difficulties understanding what the hell RexRed is talking about here. I've tried the Google Translator method of translating it first into one foreign language, then another, then back into English again and all I come up with is meaningless gobbledy-gook.

I mean, everything up to the word created, makes sense. Even if I modify RexRed's sentence so it reads:

"Scientists don't know the difference between formed, made and created, compared to a relative proportion of theists that amalgamate soul and spirit."

Which makes a lot more sense but seems like a baseless statement.

What I don't understand is what the hell soul and spirit has got to do with anything.

Furthermore, how can you understand what the basic theoretical materials are if scientists don't?

Not all materials can be measured by science but they can still be measured.

We measure some things by contrast and by exponential reckoning.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Not all materials can be measured by science but they can still be measured.

We measure some things by contrast and by exponential reckoning.

Yeah, I asked you a question of how, not why.

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

Furthermore, how can you understand what the basic theoretical materials are if scientists don't?

You see there? That word in bold and italics? It doesn't begin with a W. In fact, it ends with a W.

Your answer is the answer to a why question.

Q. Why is it possible?
A. Because (insert the reason you gave).

I asked a how question, as in how did you find it out. What was the method? What was the result? What did you do to check that the result you gained from the method wasn't spurious?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

You say you understand but if you understood you could explain it back. I don't think you could explain this view back.

Ok, I agree. I spoke too soon. Your way of looking at things is too chaotic and ungrounded for me to follow.

I understand what people mean when they say you have to view some things with your feelings and your heart, but it all depends on what you're trying to view and how you're trying to understand things.

Personal viewpoints have a certain reality to them all by themselves, in that perception *is* reality to a certain extent. But multiple realities and views are only interesting to me as a way to appreciate other people's ideas. They don't impress me as effective measurements of our common reality; nature.

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

You all have the materials of existence confused and misconstrued. since you (theists, scientists) do not understand the basic theoretical materials you certainly cannot understand the drama each of the material play a part in.

Or you are the one who has it all confused and misconstued. How do you know you're not insane? I ask this seriously. How do you validate your own stance in reason?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

If C14, as well as other elements that are used in various dating methods, does not decay at the same rate under all conditions (and there is no possible way to know all the different conditions a particular sample has been subject to, and for how long, etc) then the assumptions that support the various dating techniques being unreliable make the results from those methods unreliable as well, no?

The results may be consistent with themselves (relative reliability) and therefore of some use in your exploration work, etc -- but unreliable in providing absolute dating.

Thanks for the book tip, I'll see if I can find a copy.

Here we run head-on into the wall of your absolutism. You believe the bobble to be absolutely inerrant--science doesn't work that way. If something is found which falsifies a theorem, the theorem is either abandoned, or revised to coherently cover all the data available.

Radiocarbon 14 is an excellent example. This page about bristlecone pine tree dendrochronology discusses a revolutionary find which resulted from studying the rings of living bristlecone pines (the oldest is nearly 5,000 years old, is the oldest known living thing on earth, and is called Methuselah), and correlating them to now dead but extant britstlecones to determine the radiocarbon 14 present in the atmosphere in any given year in the tree ring sequence.

The evidence was that the amount of radiocarbon 14 in the atmosphere is not a constant, and that it has varied over time. Before you get too excited, the weight of the evidence is that on average, there was less radiocarbon 14 available in the atmosphere than was previously thought, making objects much older than had been previously thought. The dendrochronological studies alone shoot the hell out of a 6,000 year old earth. Furthermore, dendochronology on trees preserved in Irish bogs, and of fossil trees in northern Iraq, all served to validate the bristlecone studies, and to provide valuable new data on the meaning of isotope decay in radiocarbon 14.

Scripture cannot change, and it is heresy to question it, and apostasy to deny it. But science funtions, and functions well, because new data will serve to refine the quality of what science can demonstrate.

*******************************

Leaving all of that aside, you popped your little trick question in the course of avoiding an answer to my question.

What circumstantial evidence do you have that a theistic creation has taken place?

Asserting the fossil record or stratigraphy without futher comment doesn't make it, because then the questions just multiply.

What is it about the existence of fossils which you assert constitutes circumstantial evidence for a theistic creation?

What is it about stratigraphy which you assert constittues circumstantial evidence for a theistic creation?

0 Replies

Waking up to a good cup of coffee to see RR still running off at the brain. What a way to start the day. His idea of physics is one that is induced by an enema in the head.

0 Replies

Ros,

I am saying the world has confused terms. You may BARELY understand but that is not enough when I am one of the few people who understands in a functional manner.

Spiritualist will be spiritual and scientists will be scientific but they could still understand the REAL language that divides the disciplines.

BUT THEY DON'T NEITHER OF THEM. (Nor do you really.)

WHY have they allowed simple constructs to become so broken as to be stepping all over each other's feet.

Scientist claim they can manipulate life. They cannot manipulate life they can only manipulate the body that holds the life. Science does not even know what life is.

The theist does not know what life is either.

They think animals don't have a soul. They are oblivious to the concept that we share the EXACT same "life" with the animal, plant, physical kingdom.

They are confused between life (temporal) and spirit (eternal).

Life is itself a thing and spirit is a different thing. Life is between the physical and the spiritual. Life is like a big blank to the world, they know it exists but they either deny it or confuse it with something else. Why?

The Bible only in a few choice places lays out the teaching of "body, soul and spirit". It is just expected to be understood. Where the scriptures do lay out the concept it is remarkably clear and literal. Because these were firmly understood concepts in the ancient cultures. Yet in our culture it is as if we are born with the concepts broken so we cannot draw reasonable boundaries on specific points of logical understanding. As if some force has culturally confused the logic for the sake of chaos alone.

I don't expect science to recognize life or the spirit because they cannot observe them scientifically. Makes sense to me because I know the distinctions. But since science can only observe one distinction "THE BODY" or "earth" they cannot see when they are making sometimes erroneous assumption that affect the life or spirit realms... These realms are better left for those respective of the disciplines. Those who can "play" those disciplines fluently. Those disciplines should not be decided by someone who cannot "see" the discipline in the first place.

This is why all discipline are important for a well rounded intellect.

All of the gripes come from people who have one or multiple deficiencies in this basic logic. So see how many replies are "revealing" to me?

Because I can see the spirit in things...

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Scientist claim they can manipulate life. They cannot manipulate life they can only manipulate the body that holds the life. Science does not even know what life is.

That does not mean they cannot manipulate life. You don't have to know how gravity works in order to be able to use it. In fact, no one knows for sure how gravity works, only that it does and it follows set rules.

The body is alive. Every cell is alive. Therefore, they manipulate life.

Furthermore, even if the body is not the life but holds it, by manipulating the body they manipulate the container of said life. You can then manipulate the life indirectly through the body.

I'm not going to quote and argue against the rest, because it all assertion without proof. You say we are wrong, yet you do not prove that we are wrong.

You avoid my question of how you came about to know the true nature of things by giving the answer to a completely different question, you state that you are the one of the only people who know the truth, but you do not prove that what you know *is* the truth and you fail consistently to demonstrate objective logic.

0 Replies

RR's scientific and theological claptrap is enough to make one wonder how man every evolved on this Earth. His multiple posts are examples of how his head doesn't work normally -- he's on some form of speed but is it just coffee or are we reading the ravings of a meth addict?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

Ros,

I am saying the world has confused terms. You may BARELY understand but that is not enough when I am one of the few people who understands in a functional manner.

Spiritualist will be spiritual and scientists will be scientific but they could still understand the REAL language that divides the disciplines.

BUT THEY DON'T NEITHER OF THEM. (Nor do you really.)

Sorry Rex, but until you can convince people that you're playing with a full deck, nothing you have to say matters much. And so far you have demonstrated exactly the opposite. I'm sorry if *you* don't understand *that*.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know