"Our bodies have things that are affected by EM fields" does not magically equal "causes cancer."
Cancer is caused by genetic damage, not microtubles or kinesin being pointed this way or that. The research is faily conclusive: if it caused cancer, then we'd find more cancer in those with more exposure to the fields. We don't. We may not know exactly what effects large EM fields have on the body, but there is no tangible evidence that cancer is one of them.
Furthermore, tiny, carefully directed EM fields are nothing like large EM fields or even regular magnets. There's no reason to expect their effects to be related. Most consumer magnets are actually specifically designed to cancel out their fields at a range so close to the magnet's surface that it can't really even penetrate your skin.
Just because we can use colorful analogies like "factory" and "machines" and "traffic system" to help evoke understanding of some aspects of what's going on in the biological realm doesn't mean that all the same assumptions apply. Sure, cells are extremely complex systems that produce and fabricate all sorts of things. But that doesn't mean that because we can compare therm with factories, that they must have foremen, pay property tax, and have been designed by architects.
We've mated these two species in captivity. Therefore, this is not the "first ever" hybrid. The person who submitted and the person who accepted, the article writeup did not read the article.
"I am not missing the point. In fact you are. The fact that creatures with the ability to communicate are probably using names that we just dont recognize. In order to recognize the name, we have to somewhat understand the communication."
This bit is unintelligbile. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, in part because the third sentance seems like a fragment of a larger thought unwritten. The fact is, you claimed that dolphins being self-aware would invalidate much of biological science. But, in fact, biological science has gotten past the point where the self-awareness of dolphins, apes, and even some other animals is well established.
"While some species may have particular idiosyncracies socially, in general all species that are social share a foundation of similar social characteristics."
Like what? The way that lobsters are "social" is not like ants, which are not like naked mole rats, which are not like packs, which apparently are not like dolphins. Pack social animals don't seem to have distinct names for each other, just general expressive states that others interpret. They don't express any sort of grammar or reference each other: they just express, interpret, and re-express, regardless of what individuals are around. The article demonstrates that dolphins do more than this: they have distinct references for each individual, and they use them for that individual, and the usage is apparently indepedent of inflection, tone, and so forth.
"And I still dont see anything in that article that says the names are not environmental distinctions."
eh? Like the whole bit about how the references are distinct from the means of transmission, and are treated as such by creatures with a demonstrated self-awareness that respond to their name and not someone else's?
As another poster pointed out, you can call a cat not by it's name, but "Hey stuuuuupid!" in the right emotional tone and they'll still come. In fact, most ANY cat will come. That's because they are apparently just responding in a certain way to certain stimuli: particular sounds and expressive emotion. There's no extra "meaning" to the sounds. But with dolphins, there apparently is. They are abstracting something from the sounds, and they are equating it with references to themselves as particular individuals.
"Saying dolphins have names implies they are self aware. If this is true, then much of our biological science is in error."
Hunh? What biological science supports the position that dolphins are not self-aware? They seem to be as self-aware as apes, and are certainly much more self-aware than even human infants.
"Nevertheless, the equation that dolphins make noise + response to that noise = names, then any animal that makes a noise to communicate to other like animals probably is using names."
No, you missed the point. The point is that the noises are NOT the same. They can be reproduced back in all sorts of different tones and inflections that makes them different "noises," but there is a core structure of sorts, that apparently defines the meaning apart from the noise. That's not proof of any sort complex grammatical structure, sure, but it's far more like language than cats, dogs, parrots, and so forth, which respond to and repeat noises, without any particular regard to some subtle, abstract structure.
Furthermore, I'm not sure I know of any other social animal that acts like this: individuals called specifically as individuals by other members of the same species in the wild. That's pretty amazing.
"The problem is that you are not really thinking about the ramifications of a massive world-wide flood. "
Oh, I assure you that geologists have thought long and hard about the ramifications of it. The ramifications would be HUGE. Unfortunately, they are all either missing from the geological record, or totally inconsistent with it. That's one of the reasons geologists abandoned flood geology long ago.
"How can they possibly know that those bones do not belong to an already known species of dinosaur?"
As I noted above: if I found one of your teeth, I'd know instantly that you were an ape and more specifically probably a human being (if it was in good enough condition). Same with your knucklebone. So why would you think it's so crazy for a dino? You don't need to believe evolution, but you should at least understand it well enough to know that a system of nest heriarchical clades would allow one to roughly pinpoint something within a particular grouping pretty definitively.
Asuming that you aren't joking, if you understand cladistics it's not that surprising at all.
For instance, if I found just one of your molars, I've know it was from an ape. Why? Only apes have that sort of molar, and all apes have it (and actually, I'd be able to be much more specific than ape, because the human variation on that molar is ALSO distinctive enough from the basic ape molar that it can be told apart, just barely). End stop. Particular clusters of particular structures are, in the animal kingdom, unique to particular branches of life. That's because evolution only works downwards: it you develop some new arrangement of structures that your relatives don't have, only your descendants will have it, and anyone that has it will be identifiable as your descendant (that's how DNA paternity testing works, after all, only on genetics instead of bone).
Of course I realize it. But the point is that we can experience volition regardless of having any conscious control. If that's so, then there's no longer any special reason needed to explain any mysterious linkage from conscious experience to choice. Conscious experience might still remain a mystery, but it's no longer a _necessary_ part of the choice mystery.
It's worth noting that not all the things I referenced involved the brain directly. Some involve distal stimulations that the brain then re-interprets as choice.
How would that falsify "it"? What is "it"? exactly? What is the alternative to someone's actions being determined by their nature or due to random causes out of their control? How does choosing work, and what part does the "free will" module play in the process that makes it different when it's in play? to even ASK these questions exposes the concept of free will as nonsense, because it relies on avoiding explanation or definition.
Regardless, God can supposedly predict everyone's actions despite the fact that they have free will. So much for the falisfication.
Using a word like "soul" is simply a means to avoid explaining anything. "Soul" is one of those anti-meaning words, because no one can really define what it is or how it works: not even if given complete leeway to imagine anything at all. What does a "soul" have to do with "free will"? You might as well just ask what a "sdfsdfs" has to do with "nshgfdsfh." None of these words actually have any functional meaning or get us any closer to understanding anything.
See this is what I'm talking about. None of your questions make even a tiny bit of sense. Why deliberate over choices? Because that is how one comes to the best choice. Uhduh. Why blame people for what they do? Because they are responsible. Why argue with you? Because a good argument can maybe convince you.
Were you really under the impression that you were asking stumpers? This is what I mean. You THINK that the concept of "free will" is adding some additional understanding to things, but in fact, it's completely empty.
"why should the mere presense of any of these representations in physical instantiation imply any diminishment of your capacity to will? I'd rather say the more representations on the dashboard, the more the driver is freely in control."
Again, see what you did? Now suddenly, there is this "driver" that is an abstraction of what's doing the choosing. But then the question simply becomes: how does the driver's choosing process work? All you've done is postponed the inevitable.
There have been many fascinating finds in this field over just the last couple of years, from the discovery that you can externally trigger feelings of volition to be associated with artificially stimulated actions (i.e. make you feel like you CHOSE to move your arm, when in fact it was the scientists stimulating your nerves), to the discovery that religious ecstasy can be likewise triggered.
In all of this, I've always been confused by those that suggest that human consciousness is better explained by a soul or free will. As far as I can tell, neither "Free Will" nor "soul" actually explain ANYTHING about conscious volition. Certainly, conscious experience is a philosophical mystery: what is it, and why is it? Nobody knows. But simply referencing some random word like "soul" and noting that it is supernatural doesn't explain anything. It's not that the rules of the natural world are too restrictive to allow "free will" or "conscious experience" to work. It's that we have no idea what they are or how they work at all. So positing some supernatural realm where anything is possible doesn't help, or advance our knowledge even a bit.
Free will is actually even more bizarre, because although many people claim we have it, no one seems able to actually define what it is or what difference having free will vs. not having it would make. In short, it appears that the concept is completely incoherent and self-contradictory. It's one thing to be free to make choices for yourself, according to your own volition. But that's not what the strong "Free Will" concept is: even computers can make choices for themselves. Strong Free Will posits that people somehow make choices independently of.... well what? Independently of their own natures? That makes no sense! If there isn't some underlying deterministic substrate to my choices, how can they be mine at all? How can I be responsible if you can't causally track my choices back to some "me."
In short, "Free Will" makes no sense as a concept, and offers no explanatory value for anything. It's SOLE purpose seems to be in theological arguments, a bit of handwaving to avoid having a designer be responsible for the nature of his own designs.
Re:The problem of nerve impulse conduction
on
An Alternate Human
·
· Score: 1
You're simply assuming that we take the modern brain and place it in the chest. That is NOT what the TFA is about. It's about what life would be like if life took a different direction way back in the evolutionary path. That's simply not the same thing as imagining the current brain in a different place. All the things you note are adaptations that took place in RESPONSE to the brain's location over millions of years of it being where it was. But taking those into account and NOT taking into account any other possible adaptations that might arise under a different schema isn't a fair comparison.
I think a lot of the poo-pooers here have missed the point. They are defending the present situation of the human body as the "best" by simply ignoring the possibility that other adaptations could and would take place to make the best of the position of things like the brain. They are simply envisioning moving the brain we have NOW into the chest, with no other real changes. Of COURSE that wouldn't be good. But that's not what Myers is talking about. He's talking about a branching point way way way back in evolutionary history. From there, all sorts of other adaptations would evolve to take advantage of the changes (for instance, maybe the brain would not evolve to NEED any extra cooling. Maybe a bony shell around the brain would form in the chest. Maybe the visual senses wouldn't be so head-centered in the first place.
So applying the problems of imagining the modern brain, moved, to a hypothetical different direction hundreds of millions of years ago just makes no sense. That's just not what was being discussed! RTFA!
The problem is that you are talking as if no further adaptations would happen to take advantage of changes, in the way that things evolved to make the best of the brain being where it is. Sure, if you took the brain and plopped it down in the chest, that wouldn't be too good. But if that's how things evolved, all sorts of adaptations would have made the best of a chest brain: perhaps even plenty of bone and fluid protection there too. And alternate ways of keeping the brain at the right temperature. And so on.
Ok. Go and read the part about the virgin birth again. First of all, it isn't a virgin: Matthew used the wrong word. Second of all, it refers to a woman that actually has a kid right there in the same book: the prophecy was about something that already happened, not about any later figure (Jesus or otherwise). And, amusingly, the thing that it was supposed to be a sign of doesn't actually happen (some squabble over warring kings). All of the supposed grand prophecy in that part of the Scripture is actually about events and things happening in that time period: it isn't about Jesus at all. And that's just for starters.
And, ever wonder why Jesus rides on two asses in Matthew? Seems bizarre, right? It's because the author of Matthew misunderstood poetisicism in the Jewish Scriptures referring to a single animal: an ass, the foal of an ass (which he seems to have thought was "he rode upon an ass AND the foal of an ass). So he embellishes the story to make it fit what turns out to be his own misunderstanding of the text.
Or how about Emmanuel? Where's the one and only place that Jesus is called Emmanuel? The Gospel narrator, trying to fulfill what they think is the prophecy! No one called Jesus Emmanuel, and he certainly wasn't named Emmanuel!
Coelacanth is a family name, not a species of fish (like "ape" rather than "homo sapien"). There are members of the family coelacanth around today, but they are not "primitive" members of the family: they are the modern members of it.
"We Have seen event thoughout history that we belive to be true but cannot place the scientific theory inot effect. "
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. For things in the distant past that were singular events that leave few traces, we generally can apply the scientific method to evaluating the evidence, but we often have to note that the findings are tenative and speculative about a lot of the details. It's still certainly worthwhile though: what else are we going to do? The only alternative is just making things up about the past that we don't actually know to be true or not.
"We also discount things we don't understand but are very real to those who witness it. Look at the anymosity towards those researching aliens or UFO sightings/abductions."
I think subjects like this are more complicated though. While people that assert the existence of UFOs definately feel strongly about the subject, I think there are clearly a lot places where their claims are problematic and unconvincing. Again, if we don't apply science, what is the alternative? People who believe can believe, and people who don't won't, and there will be no way to resolve the debate objectively. Science is the only method anyone can think of that ultimately promises to be able to do that.
"So in essence while the scientific way is important, there needs to be a companion proccess that can co-exist that allows for untestable processes to be valid until a means to disprove it comes around."
I don't know what you mean by process though. The process by which things can be valid even if we can't prove them true or false is belief. I don't think anyone advocates forcing people to stop believing in things they can't prove: nothing can stop them, and they are free to do so. Science only comes into play when people with all sorts of different views on a subject like UFOs want to try and justify this or that position with evidence. Science can't replace belief, and there's no need to try and make it do so.
"Some "scientist" though are using this evidence as a means to prove religions are myths or crutches for the weak. I would imagine that if religion fails the scientific test then science has no right claiming thier research disproves a religion."
The divide isn't as neat as that though. If a religion makes a falsifiable claim about, for instance, the age of the earth, then its going to bump up against science, because that's something science CAN tell us about. If the religion is talking about God and the supernatural however, then that doesn't really affect science and science doesn't really affect it.
"It isn't as much the scientist I am using to make a point though, It is the "followers" of those scientists. Even in this thread, you will find someone making the statment "Evolution and the knowledge accumulated about the many extinct species says that the Christian creation myth doesn't hold any water". This shows exaclty my point in its essence. It is almost the same as a religion."
I'm not sure that it follows that just because something challenges a claim made by a religion, that the challenge is itself a religion. I do agree that some atheists will use scientific findings to challenge religious claims. But given that religious people make claims in order to promote and argue for their beliefs, I'm not sure this is really particularly unfair. Again, if a religion is going to hang its hat on a claim that is scientifically testible, then it just is exposing itself to being proved wrong.
"The funny thing is that according to UN human rights charter, they recognize that freedom of religion includes the religion of not believing in a religion. This means that Even the UN has determined that atheism is a religion now."
How can not believing in a religion be, itself, a religion?:)
"Now don't take cult as a bad thing, the only thing seperating a cult from a religion is the legal standing of the religion. In other words they are the same thign outs
Hey, what do you expect from the internet? Arguing over religion and so forth is the hottest sort of controvresy available, and people primarily comment in order to debate.
Well, if you really mean "fish-like thing" then there were already plenty of insects on land: insects were never fish like in the first place. Of course, calling them insects at the time isn't really good nomenclature either. They were the mighty protosomes!
Slashdot Mirror
"Our bodies have things that are affected by EM fields" does not magically equal "causes cancer."
Cancer is caused by genetic damage, not microtubles or kinesin being pointed this way or that. The research is faily conclusive: if it caused cancer, then we'd find more cancer in those with more exposure to the fields. We don't. We may not know exactly what effects large EM fields have on the body, but there is no tangible evidence that cancer is one of them.
Furthermore, tiny, carefully directed EM fields are nothing like large EM fields or even regular magnets. There's no reason to expect their effects to be related. Most consumer magnets are actually specifically designed to cancel out their fields at a range so close to the magnet's surface that it can't really even penetrate your skin.
Just because we can use colorful analogies like "factory" and "machines" and "traffic system" to help evoke understanding of some aspects of what's going on in the biological realm doesn't mean that all the same assumptions apply. Sure, cells are extremely complex systems that produce and fabricate all sorts of things. But that doesn't mean that because we can compare therm with factories, that they must have foremen, pay property tax, and have been designed by architects.
We've mated these two species in captivity. Therefore, this is not the "first ever" hybrid. The person who submitted and the person who accepted, the article writeup did not read the article.
We've mated camels with llamas. Are they now the same species?
"I am not missing the point. In fact you are. The fact that creatures with the ability to communicate are probably using names that we just dont recognize. In order to recognize the name, we have to somewhat understand the communication."
This bit is unintelligbile. I have no idea what point you are trying to make, in part because the third sentance seems like a fragment of a larger thought unwritten. The fact is, you claimed that dolphins being self-aware would invalidate much of biological science. But, in fact, biological science has gotten past the point where the self-awareness of dolphins, apes, and even some other animals is well established.
"While some species may have particular idiosyncracies socially, in general all species that are social share a foundation of similar social characteristics."
Like what? The way that lobsters are "social" is not like ants, which are not like naked mole rats, which are not like packs, which apparently are not like dolphins. Pack social animals don't seem to have distinct names for each other, just general expressive states that others interpret. They don't express any sort of grammar or reference each other: they just express, interpret, and re-express, regardless of what individuals are around. The article demonstrates that dolphins do more than this: they have distinct references for each individual, and they use them for that individual, and the usage is apparently indepedent of inflection, tone, and so forth.
"And I still dont see anything in that article that says the names are not environmental distinctions."
eh? Like the whole bit about how the references are distinct from the means of transmission, and are treated as such by creatures with a demonstrated self-awareness that respond to their name and not someone else's?
As another poster pointed out, you can call a cat not by it's name, but "Hey stuuuuupid!" in the right emotional tone and they'll still come. In fact, most ANY cat will come. That's because they are apparently just responding in a certain way to certain stimuli: particular sounds and expressive emotion. There's no extra "meaning" to the sounds. But with dolphins, there apparently is. They are abstracting something from the sounds, and they are equating it with references to themselves as particular individuals.
"Saying dolphins have names implies they are self aware. If this is true, then much of our biological science is in error."
Hunh? What biological science supports the position that dolphins are not self-aware? They seem to be as self-aware as apes, and are certainly much more self-aware than even human infants.
"Nevertheless, the equation that dolphins make noise + response to that noise = names, then any animal that makes a noise to communicate to other like animals probably is using names."
No, you missed the point. The point is that the noises are NOT the same. They can be reproduced back in all sorts of different tones and inflections that makes them different "noises," but there is a core structure of sorts, that apparently defines the meaning apart from the noise. That's not proof of any sort complex grammatical structure, sure, but it's far more like language than cats, dogs, parrots, and so forth, which respond to and repeat noises, without any particular regard to some subtle, abstract structure.
Furthermore, I'm not sure I know of any other social animal that acts like this: individuals called specifically as individuals by other members of the same species in the wild. That's pretty amazing.
I wonder what dinosaur scientist Jorn Hurum has been doing all this time before the discovery of the bone? Playing Solitare? :)
"The problem is that you are not really thinking about the ramifications of a massive world-wide flood. "
Oh, I assure you that geologists have thought long and hard about the ramifications of it. The ramifications would be HUGE. Unfortunately, they are all either missing from the geological record, or totally inconsistent with it. That's one of the reasons geologists abandoned flood geology long ago.
"How can they possibly know that those bones do not belong to an already known species of dinosaur?"
As I noted above: if I found one of your teeth, I'd know instantly that you were an ape and more specifically probably a human being (if it was in good enough condition). Same with your knucklebone. So why would you think it's so crazy for a dino? You don't need to believe evolution, but you should at least understand it well enough to know that a system of nest heriarchical clades would allow one to roughly pinpoint something within a particular grouping pretty definitively.
Asuming that you aren't joking, if you understand cladistics it's not that surprising at all.
For instance, if I found just one of your molars, I've know it was from an ape. Why? Only apes have that sort of molar, and all apes have it (and actually, I'd be able to be much more specific than ape, because the human variation on that molar is ALSO distinctive enough from the basic ape molar that it can be told apart, just barely). End stop. Particular clusters of particular structures are, in the animal kingdom, unique to particular branches of life. That's because evolution only works downwards: it you develop some new arrangement of structures that your relatives don't have, only your descendants will have it, and anyone that has it will be identifiable as your descendant (that's how DNA paternity testing works, after all, only on genetics instead of bone).
Of course I realize it. But the point is that we can experience volition regardless of having any conscious control. If that's so, then there's no longer any special reason needed to explain any mysterious linkage from conscious experience to choice. Conscious experience might still remain a mystery, but it's no longer a _necessary_ part of the choice mystery.
It's worth noting that not all the things I referenced involved the brain directly. Some involve distal stimulations that the brain then re-interprets as choice.
It's a demonstration that volition can just as easily be an experience you have, not itself the ultimate cause of an action.
How would that falsify "it"? What is "it"? exactly? What is the alternative to someone's actions being determined by their nature or due to random causes out of their control? How does choosing work, and what part does the "free will" module play in the process that makes it different when it's in play? to even ASK these questions exposes the concept of free will as nonsense, because it relies on avoiding explanation or definition.
Regardless, God can supposedly predict everyone's actions despite the fact that they have free will. So much for the falisfication.
Using a word like "soul" is simply a means to avoid explaining anything. "Soul" is one of those anti-meaning words, because no one can really define what it is or how it works: not even if given complete leeway to imagine anything at all. What does a "soul" have to do with "free will"? You might as well just ask what a "sdfsdfs" has to do with "nshgfdsfh." None of these words actually have any functional meaning or get us any closer to understanding anything.
See this is what I'm talking about. None of your questions make even a tiny bit of sense. Why deliberate over choices? Because that is how one comes to the best choice. Uhduh. Why blame people for what they do? Because they are responsible. Why argue with you? Because a good argument can maybe convince you.
Were you really under the impression that you were asking stumpers? This is what I mean. You THINK that the concept of "free will" is adding some additional understanding to things, but in fact, it's completely empty.
"why should the mere presense of any of these representations in physical instantiation imply any diminishment of your capacity to will? I'd rather say the more representations on the dashboard, the more the driver is freely in control."
Again, see what you did? Now suddenly, there is this "driver" that is an abstraction of what's doing the choosing. But then the question simply becomes: how does the driver's choosing process work? All you've done is postponed the inevitable.
There have been many fascinating finds in this field over just the last couple of years, from the discovery that you can externally trigger feelings of volition to be associated with artificially stimulated actions (i.e. make you feel like you CHOSE to move your arm, when in fact it was the scientists stimulating your nerves), to the discovery that religious ecstasy can be likewise triggered.
In all of this, I've always been confused by those that suggest that human consciousness is better explained by a soul or free will. As far as I can tell, neither "Free Will" nor "soul" actually explain ANYTHING about conscious volition. Certainly, conscious experience is a philosophical mystery: what is it, and why is it? Nobody knows. But simply referencing some random word like "soul" and noting that it is supernatural doesn't explain anything. It's not that the rules of the natural world are too restrictive to allow "free will" or "conscious experience" to work. It's that we have no idea what they are or how they work at all. So positing some supernatural realm where anything is possible doesn't help, or advance our knowledge even a bit.
Free will is actually even more bizarre, because although many people claim we have it, no one seems able to actually define what it is or what difference having free will vs. not having it would make. In short, it appears that the concept is completely incoherent and self-contradictory. It's one thing to be free to make choices for yourself, according to your own volition. But that's not what the strong "Free Will" concept is: even computers can make choices for themselves. Strong Free Will posits that people somehow make choices independently of.... well what? Independently of their own natures? That makes no sense! If there isn't some underlying deterministic substrate to my choices, how can they be mine at all? How can I be responsible if you can't causally track my choices back to some "me."
In short, "Free Will" makes no sense as a concept, and offers no explanatory value for anything. It's SOLE purpose seems to be in theological arguments, a bit of handwaving to avoid having a designer be responsible for the nature of his own designs.
You're simply assuming that we take the modern brain and place it in the chest. That is NOT what the TFA is about. It's about what life would be like if life took a different direction way back in the evolutionary path. That's simply not the same thing as imagining the current brain in a different place. All the things you note are adaptations that took place in RESPONSE to the brain's location over millions of years of it being where it was. But taking those into account and NOT taking into account any other possible adaptations that might arise under a different schema isn't a fair comparison.
I think a lot of the poo-pooers here have missed the point. They are defending the present situation of the human body as the "best" by simply ignoring the possibility that other adaptations could and would take place to make the best of the position of things like the brain. They are simply envisioning moving the brain we have NOW into the chest, with no other real changes. Of COURSE that wouldn't be good. But that's not what Myers is talking about. He's talking about a branching point way way way back in evolutionary history. From there, all sorts of other adaptations would evolve to take advantage of the changes (for instance, maybe the brain would not evolve to NEED any extra cooling. Maybe a bony shell around the brain would form in the chest. Maybe the visual senses wouldn't be so head-centered in the first place.
So applying the problems of imagining the modern brain, moved, to a hypothetical different direction hundreds of millions of years ago just makes no sense. That's just not what was being discussed! RTFA!
The problem is that you are talking as if no further adaptations would happen to take advantage of changes, in the way that things evolved to make the best of the brain being where it is. Sure, if you took the brain and plopped it down in the chest, that wouldn't be too good. But if that's how things evolved, all sorts of adaptations would have made the best of a chest brain: perhaps even plenty of bone and fluid protection there too. And alternate ways of keeping the brain at the right temperature. And so on.
And no more fragile neck.
Ok. Go and read the part about the virgin birth again. First of all, it isn't a virgin: Matthew used the wrong word. Second of all, it refers to a woman that actually has a kid right there in the same book: the prophecy was about something that already happened, not about any later figure (Jesus or otherwise). And, amusingly, the thing that it was supposed to be a sign of doesn't actually happen (some squabble over warring kings). All of the supposed grand prophecy in that part of the Scripture is actually about events and things happening in that time period: it isn't about Jesus at all. And that's just for starters.
And, ever wonder why Jesus rides on two asses in Matthew? Seems bizarre, right? It's because the author of Matthew misunderstood poetisicism in the Jewish Scriptures referring to a single animal: an ass, the foal of an ass (which he seems to have thought was "he rode upon an ass AND the foal of an ass). So he embellishes the story to make it fit what turns out to be his own misunderstanding of the text.
Or how about Emmanuel? Where's the one and only place that Jesus is called Emmanuel? The Gospel narrator, trying to fulfill what they think is the prophecy! No one called Jesus Emmanuel, and he certainly wasn't named Emmanuel!
Coelacanth is a family name, not a species of fish (like "ape" rather than "homo sapien"). There are members of the family coelacanth around today, but they are not "primitive" members of the family: they are the modern members of it.
"We Have seen event thoughout history that we belive to be true but cannot place the scientific theory inot effect. "
:)
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this. For things in the distant past that were singular events that leave few traces, we generally can apply the scientific method to evaluating the evidence, but we often have to note that the findings are tenative and speculative about a lot of the details. It's still certainly worthwhile though: what else are we going to do? The only alternative is just making things up about the past that we don't actually know to be true or not.
"We also discount things we don't understand but are very real to those who witness it. Look at the anymosity towards those researching aliens or UFO sightings/abductions."
I think subjects like this are more complicated though. While people that assert the existence of UFOs definately feel strongly about the subject, I think there are clearly a lot places where their claims are problematic and unconvincing. Again, if we don't apply science, what is the alternative? People who believe can believe, and people who don't won't, and there will be no way to resolve the debate objectively. Science is the only method anyone can think of that ultimately promises to be able to do that.
"So in essence while the scientific way is important, there needs to be a companion proccess that can co-exist that allows for untestable processes to be valid until a means to disprove it comes around."
I don't know what you mean by process though. The process by which things can be valid even if we can't prove them true or false is belief. I don't think anyone advocates forcing people to stop believing in things they can't prove: nothing can stop them, and they are free to do so. Science only comes into play when people with all sorts of different views on a subject like UFOs want to try and justify this or that position with evidence. Science can't replace belief, and there's no need to try and make it do so.
"Some "scientist" though are using this evidence as a means to prove religions are myths or crutches for the weak. I would imagine that if religion fails the scientific test then science has no right claiming thier research disproves a religion."
The divide isn't as neat as that though. If a religion makes a falsifiable claim about, for instance, the age of the earth, then its going to bump up against science, because that's something science CAN tell us about. If the religion is talking about God and the supernatural however, then that doesn't really affect science and science doesn't really affect it.
"It isn't as much the scientist I am using to make a point though, It is the "followers" of those scientists. Even in this thread, you will find someone making the statment "Evolution and the knowledge accumulated about the many extinct species says that the Christian creation myth doesn't hold any water". This shows exaclty my point in its essence. It is almost the same as a religion."
I'm not sure that it follows that just because something challenges a claim made by a religion, that the challenge is itself a religion. I do agree that some atheists will use scientific findings to challenge religious claims. But given that religious people make claims in order to promote and argue for their beliefs, I'm not sure this is really particularly unfair. Again, if a religion is going to hang its hat on a claim that is scientifically testible, then it just is exposing itself to being proved wrong.
"The funny thing is that according to UN human rights charter, they recognize that freedom of religion includes the religion of not believing in a religion. This means that Even the UN has determined that atheism is a religion now."
How can not believing in a religion be, itself, a religion?
"Now don't take cult as a bad thing, the only thing seperating a cult from a religion is the legal standing of the religion. In other words they are the same thign outs
Yes, they did.
Hey, what do you expect from the internet? Arguing over religion and so forth is the hottest sort of controvresy available, and people primarily comment in order to debate.
Please add your insight to the wikipedia article on eel catfish, BEFORE ITS TOO LATE.
Well, if you really mean "fish-like thing" then there were already plenty of insects on land: insects were never fish like in the first place. Of course, calling them insects at the time isn't really good nomenclature either. They were the mighty protosomes!