Does bob b believe supernatural/paranormal events occur today?

[bob b]

There's no comporaneous observations of this event from anyone else, either.

Check this one out for starters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_papyrus

 

[Real Sorceror]

The theme of this work has previously been taken either as a lament inspired by the supposed chaos of the Second Intermediate Period, or as historical fiction depicting the fall of the Old Kingdom several centuries earlier, or possibly a combination of these.

Rohl's chronology has been convincingly rejected by major Egyptological authorities.[6]. Moreover, the association of Ipuwer with the Exodus is generally rejected by Egyptologists, who if they interpret the Exodus as a historical event at all generally place it later, in the reign of Ramses II. Some have alternatively interpreted the poem's references to disturbances in nature as relating to the Thera eruption, which according to vulcanologists occurred ca. 1600 BC.

Recently the poem has instead been interpreted as an essentially ahistorical, timeless consideration of the theme of 'order vs. chaos'. On this reading, the references in Ipuwer to rivers of blood, and to slaves revolting, may be schematic 'world turned upside down' laments rather than reports of specific historical reports.

Ok, that proved nothing.

 

[GuySmiley]

Ok, that proved nothing.

It qualifies as a hint or suggestion, which makes you wrong.

 

[bob b]

Ok, that proved nothing.

There is no such thing as "proof" when dealing with ancient history, because people can always chalk up any evidence that doesn't fit with their previous opinion as "historical fiction".

In addition, the consensus is always subject to change.

Nevertheless, the evidence itself is interesting.

 

[Real Sorceror]

There is no such thing as "proof" when dealing with ancient history, because people can always chalk up any evidence that doesn't fit with their previous opinion as "historical fiction".

In addition, the consensus is always subject to change.

Very true. However, this peom would really only support another, stronger piece of evidence. At this point, that piece is either missing or nonexistant.

Nevertheless, the evidence itself is interesting.

Actually, it was interesting. Sorry for my blunt response earlier, I was kinda in a hurry.

 

[Gerald]

Another example, a person is told about God's love, starts headed down a hard road, all those who told him or her about God's love see the evidence of the "plagues" that happen to that person for ignoring the warnings, while that person does not. THEN, when they finally wake up, they profess they see the path that God allowed them to walk in order to bring them to HIM.

What this has to do with whether or not supernatural/paranormal/divine events occur today eludes me...

Of course those who have not accepted God will not see his hand, but those who do know him see it clearly. The problem for you Gerald, is you do not believe, so you are blinded by that unbelief, those of us who do "Clearly see".

Yet, when pressed for concrete examples, those who "clearly see" clam up.

 

[Gerald]

Bump.

Looks like the woo-woo believers clammed up again... :chuckle:

 

[noguru]

Sounds just like evolution!

Natural evolution does not appeal to supernatural miracles for an explanation. This is exactly what you YECs seem to find most offensive about natural evolution.

 

[Real Sorceror]

I just visited a really great exhibit on Egyption statues and writing yesterday. The artifacts where from various time periods throughout Egypt's history. They kinda left out the whole Moses deal, though.

 

[noguru]

What conclusion is obvious derives from two things that you failed to mention: the universe did not create itself and, after reading the thread "Cell Trends Too", that life did not arise "naturally". There are more things, but these two should suffice as a starter.

According to cosmologists and astrophysicists the matter/energy in the universe always existed, so it did not need to create itself. And your "Cell Trends Too" thread was a sham that did not demonstrate that life did not arise "naturally". So can you bring out the other evidence of the supernatural that you claim you have?

 

[Gerald]

So can you bring out the other evidence of the supernatural that you claim you have?

I hope you aren't holding your breath waiting.

Press these folks for evidence and they always say something to the effect of "What, the fact that we exist isn't supernatural enough for you?" before running away...

 

[bob b]

According to cosmologists and astrophysicists the matter/energy in the universe always existed,

You probably just made that up.

Let's see a survey if you have one. I would guess that fewer than 10% of cosmologists and astrophysicists would say that the matter/energy in the universe always existed. So what's your guess?

... your "Cell Trends Too" thread was a sham

You call showing articles from journals which describe what is going on in cells a "sham"?

 

[Real Sorceror]

You call showing articles from journals which describe what is going on in cells a "sham"?

Cell Trends Too is a sham because no one is allowed to respond to it.
What you are doing is identical to what IDers and other creationist scientists do.
They don't allow their work to be reviewed by their peers.
Until they do this, we have no reason to pay them any mind. I feel much the same way about your thread.
And don't go ranting about how biased you think scientists are these days. If a YEC scientists brings forward a convincing and concise theory, backed by hard evidence, his work will be will be seriously concidered and studied. I garuantee.
If he continued to produce results, he would have a full blown competing theory.

 

[noguru]

Cell Trends Too is a sham because no one is allowed to respond to it.
What you are doing is identical to what IDers and other creationist scientists do.
They don't allow their work to be reviewed by their peers.
Until they do this, we have no reason to pay them any mind. I feel much the same way about your thread.
And don't go ranting about how biased you think scientists are these days. If a YEC scientists brings forward a convincing and concise theory, backed by hard evidence, his work will be will be seriously concidered and studied. I garuantee.
If he continued to produce results, he would have a full blown competing theory.

Exactly.

 

[noguru]

You probably just made that up.

Let's see a survey if you have one. I would guess that fewer than 10% of cosmologists and astrophysicists would say that the matter/energy in the universe always existed. So what's your guess?

How many astrophysicists and cosmologist do you know that deny that Einstien's theory of relativity is inaccurate? This is exactly what his theory says. "Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed." I don't think your proclamations override the careful study and formulations of Einstein.

 

[bob b]

Cell Trends Too is a sham because no one is allowed to respond to it.

The original thread "Cell Trends" was rapidly highjacked before I could post much about the trends. So I started a new thread and locked it. Remember, the thread presents data over the years 2000-2006 and continuing. The intent was to support my contention that as time goes on understanding about the cell is leading to more and more complexity being revealed. Most people have already conceded this point, but for newcomers the thread will remain so they can become convinced as well. Discussion can use a separate thread if so desired.

What you are doing is identical to what IDers and other creationist scientists do.
They don't allow their work to be reviewed by their peers.
Until they do this, we have no reason to pay them any mind. I feel much the same way about your thread.

All of the material on the thread comes from mainline journals. You apparently have failed to read the thread. Perhaps some of the "editorial" comments have turned you off. Feel free to ignore these and concentrate solely on the quotations from the journal articles themselves.

And don't go ranting about how biased you think scientists are these days. If a YEC scientists brings forward a convincing and concise theory, backed by hard evidence, his work will be will be seriously concidered and studied. I garuantee.

Your guarantee is not worth the space it takes up. Many years ago Dr. Thomas Barnes used historical investigations into the strength of the Earth's magnetic field to show that it has declined 10% over the past 150 years. His work was not only widely ignored, but the few who paid attention ridiculed it, particularly those who write articles at talk.origins. Recently it was announced in a mainline journal that an analysis of historical documents which reported measurements of the Earth's magnetic field showed that it has declined 10% in the past 150 years. This is now accepted in the scientific community. (Barnes' prior work which came up with the same numbers was never mentioned).

If he continued to produce results, he would have a full blown competing theory.

I could show you many comparable cases similar to the Barnes one, but it's not worth arguing with a dogmatist on this point.

I will simply say you have been deceived and let it go at that.

 

[noguru]

The original thread "Cell Trends" was rapidly highjacked before I could post much about the trends. So I started a new thread and locked it. Remember, the thread presents data over the years 2000-2006 and continuing. The intent was to support my contention that as time goes on understanding about the cell is leading to more and more complexity being revealed. Most people have already conceded this point, but for newcomers the thread will remain so they can become convinced as well. Discussion can use a separate thread if so desired.



All of the material on the thread comes from mainline journals. You apparently have failed to read the thread. Perhaps some of the "editorial" comments have turned you off. Feel free to ignore these and concentrate solely on the quotations from the journal articles themselves.



Your guarantee is not worth the space it takes up. Many years ago Dr. Thomas Barnes used historical investigations into the strength of the Earth's magnetic field to show that it has declined 10% over the past 150 years. His work was not only widely ignored, but the few who paid attention ridiculed it, particularly those who write articles at talk.origins. Recently it was announced in a mainline journal that an analysis of historical documents which reported measurements of the Earth's magnetic field showed that it has declined 10% in the past 150 years. This is now accepted in the scientific community. (Barnes' prior work which came up with the same numbers was never mentioned).



I could show you many comparable cases similar to the Barnes one, but it's not worth arguing with a dogmatist on this point.

I will simply say you have been deceived and let it go at that.

The decline in the past 150 years of the earth's magnetic field has been recognized for as long as I can remember. Most people in that field believe that it declines for a while and then increase again for a while. I thought you would have known this.

So can we respond to your "Cell Trend Too" thread now?

 

[bob b]

How many astrophysicists and cosmologist do you know that deny that Einstien's theory of relativity is inaccurate? This is exactly what his theory says. "Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed." I don't think your proclamations override the careful study and formulations of Einstein.

I think you are confusing relativity with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

BTW Lorentzian Relativity seems to be superior to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and gives identical results in the tests by which Einstein's theory was validated. It uses slightly different basic assumptions, among which is that velocity is not limited by the speed of light.

At least among one group of physicists, it is deemed to be the superior concept.

 

[noguru]

I think you are confusing relativity with the Laws of Thermodynamics.

BTW Lorentzian Relativity seems to be superior to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and gives identical results in the tests by which Einstein's theory was validated. It uses slightly different basic assumptions, among which is that velocity is not limited by the speed of light.

At least among one group of physicists, it is deemed to be the superior concept.

No I am not. Relativity is the first law of thermodynamics at an atomic level. It deals with a more fundamental level of energy. Are you denying that the ToR says that "matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

 

[Johnny]

BTW Lorentzian Relativity seems to be superior to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and gives identical results in the tests by which Einstein's theory was validated. It uses slightly different basic assumptions...

One of which is "Luminiferous aether" -- the hypothetical undetectable medium in which light waves traveled. Around the early 20th century, we discovered that light also behaves as a particle and thus does not need a medium to propagate. Einstein also came along and derived the same thing as Lorentz did but without the assumption of ether.

Since ether is undetectable, unmeasurable, and unnecessary, why keep it around? For someone who I've seen quote Occam's razor before, you sure are selective in it's application.

(To be fair I am entirely certain why you want to keep it around, but it has nothing to do with your science and everything to do with your faith. You should think about this quote: "Any faith that cannot live in the world as it is, is defective, and not to be considered by a rational thinker, on pain of self-contradiction")