I find it rather interesting that NDE's pop up twice when asked for evidence for differing view's that have nothing to do with NDE's.

I_s_i_s, look's like you were right.

FlyersFan,

Your own thought on what evolution is or how it works has no lasting effect on how it really works. While you can have your own opinion's, if your going to try and push them as fact's however... you need abit of evidence that prove's your opinion's on it.

I've already provided a few link's on NDE's and how they're reproducible in the lab. Alot of this so called evidence for them is mostly heresay. Whenever a supernatural claim is studies under strict tightly controlled scientific standard's, no evidence for that supernatural claim can be found, nor ever has been found. All these NDE claim's, they happen either before clinical death or upon revival, and as we all know now (atleast some of us ), NDE's are produced within the brain. The exact process and what goes on while the brain is active durring an NDE isn't entirley understood as of yet, but given time enough we'll possibly come to understand how the process works. It's rather ignorant and niave just to write them off as supernatural afterlife event's. Especially given the fact that the view's of what the afterlife is has changed through out our history and from culture to culture. Even some of those who've had so called NDE's don't think they're actuall event's and fully believe they're just in the head, as all evidence we're discovering does indicate.

Before when I responded to your statement about ID I suggested you crack a dictionary. I can see that your actually trying to understand the term..."theory"... would probably not be time well spent.
I now withdraw that suggestion. I have decided that what might bebefit you before vocabulary training is not attention to your bad vocabulary, well that would benefit you ofcourse but there is something else that might first be indicated.
Your denial is advanced enough to warrant attention. I have decided, in my wisdom and for obvious reqasons, that you are not a candidate for psychoanalysis regarding denial but you might want to consult someone competent regarding denial and a couple of other manisfestations you exibit.
To disagree with any proven theory is an individual choice although I can't imagine a grenuine reason for ever doing so. But to them assume that your misconception is valid in spite of all verifiable information freely available to you borders upon delusion. I suppose you can figure out what comes next. Or?
skep

Critical or subjective?

Critical thinking:

Shows or requires careful analysis before judgment.

Subjective:

taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
Based on personal feeling or interpretation; not objective.

Objective:

undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena;

-------------------

IDism has the objective goal of trying to prove itself right, but all evidence for IDism is entirely subjective. IDist don't apply critical thought towards IDism, as they've already determined that an IDer exist's. They apply subjective thinking to the problem more so then critical thinking.

Originally posted by Produkt
While you can have your own opinion's,

Thank you for being so generous as to allow me to have one.

if your going to try and push them as fact's

Um ... show me where I tried to 'push' ?? I asked a question
to all who were discussing this subject. I was curious as to
what you all thought of NDEs and if they could be considered
field observation to prove that there is an etherial intelligence
that is involved in our lives. It was a simple question. I wasn't
'pushing' anything. AND I didn't push them as fact. I asked
how those who were discussing the topic here felt about them.
Now I know that you dismiss them. I think you are throwing the
baby out with the bath water ... but as you so generously said
to me 'you can have your own opinions'.

Power down.

you need abit of evidence that prove's your opinion's on it.

A bit of evidence? I brought up some. I talked about how people
know things while they are dead that are happening elsewhere,
or can describe objects and things that are out of sight of their
body. As far as other 'evidence' .. people have tried to scientifically
prove God exhists for thousands of years. If THEY couldn't then
I certainly can't. I only know the stirrings in my own soul. But of
course that can't be 'evidence' for a discussion like this.

Alot of this so called evidence for them is mostly heresay.

'so called' evidence? You are funny. (I mean that in a nice way)
Field studies in sociology is full of this kind of evidence. Science
is good at knowing something exhists but not being able to
see it yet. They can tell from the pulls on planets that another
planet exhists even when they can't see it.
They see effects, without seeing that which causes it.

I don't think having thousands of doctors report the same things
happening to their patients that have been revived from clinical
death is heresay. It's all collaberating.

NDE's are produced within the brain.

Yes some are. I said that. Some are produced from lack of oxygen.
But that doesn't explain the knowledge of events far away, of
conversations happening elsewhere in the house or hospital, of
knowing things .... Some, not all, NDE's are within the brain.

It's rather ignorant and niave just to write them off as
supernatural afterlife event's.

I didn't write them ALL off as supernatural so you can spare me
the ignorant and niave comments. I said that some of them
are from lack of oxygen, but some appear NOT to be.

given the fact that the view's of what the afterlife is
has changed through out our history and from culture to culture.

Sure the views of the afterlife have changed. Have the NDE's
changed with that cultural change? We don't know because
NDE's are relatively new. Some happened previously we know
because even the poet Poe talks of the silver cord that an
OBE produces and the bible talks of 'cutting the cord' that holds
the soul in the body. But the vast majority of NDEs being discussed
are very recent due to medical advances being able to bring
people back from the dead. Literally.

as all evidence we're discovering does indicate.

I think 'ALL' is premature.

Produkt and Isis have made their positions very clear on NDE
and they don't believe that any of them could be evidence of an
intelligent being who is interested in our lives.

It's too bad. I think you have thrown the baby out with the
bath water. There could be something there. Oh well. It's
your choice to look at it without bias, or not to.



[edit on 3/9/2006 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by Produkt
Furthur more, science isn't a religion.

Science isn't a religion. However, there are people who do use
science as a religion. ALL religons are 'cults'. Science has become
a cult for many. I'm not saying that's wrong or right. It's just a fact.

What some people do with science is exactly what some Christian
Fundamentalists do with the bible. If it isn't found in the bible it
doesn't and can't exhist.

Science before all things. If it can't be found within science then
it must not exhist. Metaphysics be damned. Sounds like a
fundamentalist-scientist, doesn't it? I'll have to break out
my DSM-IV and see what it has to say.

There's no absolute truth claimed, nor does it dismiss out
right the possibility of there being a god.

Those aren't requirements for a religion.

One also can't hold faith in a system that's under a
constant state of flux.

ALL western faiths are in a constant state of flux. Even the Catholic
Church is. Example - Birth Control. Until the early 1900s artificial
birth control was preached as evil by ALL Christian faiths in America.
Today it is allowed, practiced, and even pushed by many Christian
groups in America.

But I do agree with you - something under constant flux can't be
held onto. That's why church attendance and those who believe
in any religion (in the west) are falling in numbers. That's why
people claim to be catholic, and yet only 5% follow church teaching
on birth control. That's why people claim to be protestant, and yet
have abortions. That's why there is a gay bishop in the episcopalian
church - which is absolutely against the episcopalian faith. It's all
constantly fluxing and the people can't wrap their heads or hearts
around it. So it's all failing because of flux in the basics.

You'd no longer think the false belief was true anymore,
thusly negating any religous concept of faith.

Happens in religion all the time. See previous comment.



[edit on 3/9/2006 by FlyersFan]

Science before all things. If it can't be found within science then
it must not exhist. Metaphysics be damned. Sounds like a
fundamentalist-scientist, doesn't it? I'll have to break out
my DSM-IV and see what it has to say.

Evidence before acceptance as fact. Not science before all thing's. All thing's are studied by science, it's only when there's evidence for a theory or claim that it get's accepted. What has metaphysics given us? Nothing. We're not any more advanced from metaphysics. Metaphysics is more of a philosophy then a science. We have no new advancment's from asking what is the universe or why are we here. That's philosophy.

ALL western faiths are in a constant state of flux. Even the Catholic
Church is. Example - Birth Control. Until the early 1900s artificial
birth control was preached as evil by ALL Christian faiths in America.
Today it is allowed, practiced, and even pushed by many Christian
groups in America.

Exactly why none of these religion's are true and why all are false. Evolution of religion.

Animism -> shamanism -> (sun/moon worship?) -> polytheism (atenism) -> monotheism -> New age (wicca/voodoo etc.) -> ET cult's (scientology/Urantia)

Religion has evolved over the course of human history and changed with new discoveries. We no longer believe the earth is on the back of a turtle, as religous beliefs used to teach. We no longer believe an angry god used lightning when PO'ed, as religous beliefs used to teach. Etc etc etc. You can even see monotheism evolving within itself. Monotheism never taught god used evolution, yet now many are changing their belief's to fit with current discoveries. Now it's, well maybe he did it this way and not as it's taught in the biblical text's. Or, well ... maybe noah's flood didn't happen, but so what, it taught a moral story. etc etc etc. There is no one true god and no one true historical account of a god or gods. They've ALL changed through out history, culture's, and discoveries. You, yourself is living prood here on ATS how religous belief's evolved with newer discoveries.

[edit on 9-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by FlyersFan
MY OWN thought is that evolution was intelligently designed.

I agree with that.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Computer programs are now being designed by us lowly humans
to teach themselves and to get smarter and smarter. So why can't
an intelligent designer program life to get better and better?

Good point.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The computer programs are not aware of their designer (programmer).
They have to operate within their designed functions. However,
the designer does exhist and is able to operate outside the design
functions because the designer is outside the design.

True.

Exactly what evidence is there of an intelligent designer?

Originally posted by FlyersFan
A while back someone here, I don't remember who, observantly said
that if you look at all the problems the human body has and all the
breakdowns, it sure doesn't look like the body was designed intelligently.

Can't argue with that, can we??

UNLESS you get into metaphysics, which tell us that everything that
happens is an opportunity for the greater good, or for the purification
of that person's karma. Someone born without sight may appear to
be less intelligently designed than others, but then as life goes on that
person can be a source of learning for others, an example of fortitude,
an opportunity for others to practice charity ... etc .... all of which have
higher purpose than being able to see at this moment in our lives.

Well said.

You are limiting yourself only to the traditional scientific paradigm. You do not entertain the idea that there are higher dimensions that do not operate off of the theories and equations that you are furthering.

I'm tired of rewriting the same sentance over and over.

Evidence.

But there was time in the Spirit prior to The Big Bang. Got an equation for that? You probably won't find one because The Light in the discarnate dimensions operates off of an entirely different set of principles.

Evidence.

Physically-based energies only and not discarnate energies and not discarnate consciousness

Evidence.

Wrong again pinhead

Funny... The definition term of evolutionism doesn't imply religous belief. You've yet to provide anything that show's evolution as a theory or those who follow the evidence in support of the theory, have a religous faith in the theory. Your need to fling insult's is rather childish, and most likely a defensive mechanism for your own short commings.

You call him wrong and a pinhead acting as if you've got it right, yet you can't provide one single shred of evidence for what your claiming when directly asked countless times.

And just incase you haven't looked it up in the dictionary yet, or not sure what evidence mean's. Here ya go

your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling"

[edit on 10-3-2006 by Produkt]

Originally posted by Produkt
So, the energy alway's existed, but out of our inability to exist at that moment in time (self-centered egotism) this IDer was able to come into existence, but ONLY if there was a pre-existing consciousness to have directed it to happen?

IDK... maybe I'm just not following you on this one.

Self-centered egotism had nothing to do with it.

There had to be an effort of will from The Original Creator - and an arduous process - in order to come into existence in the discarnate dimensions. The Original Creator was the first to be successful to learn to exist; there were other possible Creators but they didn't make it, as they were not conscientious enough to learn how to exist in The Light.

The energy which permitted the emergence was The Light Of The God Force. A pre-existing consciousness was not necessary for discarnate consciousness to emerge in The Light. However, for matter to emerge, a consciousness has to direct it into manifestation. The energy for that manifestation is once again The Light, which The Original Creator used to a high degree in order to initiate The Big Bang.

Universal Law in the Spirit dictates that someone can emerge from non-existence from its own probability with the help of The Light. That Light is channeled today by many who have various Gifts of the Spirit. The spontaneous healings of many people throughout history is an example of that energy being used constructively. The Light Of The God Force transcends physical law and it predates The Big Bang. It always existed and always will exist for it is the ONLY way that reality can manifest itself in the first place

Originally posted by Produkt
Evidence.

Inductive reasoning, observation, intuition, and spiritual correspondence.



[edit on 10-3-2006 by Paul_Richard]

The main point was that Evolutionism is indeed a word. How it is used is a side issue but I certainly don't object to its use among proponents of Intelligent Design.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
Self-centered egotism had nothing to do with it.

There had to be an effort of will from The Original Creator - and an arduous process - in order to come into existence in the discarnate dimensions. The Original Creator was the first to be successful to learn to exist; there were other possible Creators but they didn't make it, as they were not conscientious enough to learn how to exist in The Light.

The energy which permitted the emergence was The Light Of The God Force. A pre-existing consciousness was not necessary for discarnate consciousness to emerge in The Light. However, for matter to emerge, a consciousness has to direct it into manifestation. The energy for that manifestation is once again The Light, which The Original Creator used to a high degree in order to initiate The Big Bang.

Universal Law in the Spirit dictates that someone can emerge from non-existence from its own probability with the help of The Light. That Light is channeled today by many who have various Gifts of the Spirit. The spontaneous healings of many people throughout history is an example of that energy being used constructively. The Light Of The God Force transcends physical law and it predates The Big Bang. It always existed and always will exist for it is the ONLY way that reality can manifest itself in the first place

Jesus fing christ ... so many claims, yet literally no evidence. Have you seen back in time before the big bang and seen the 'original creator'? Have you ANY evidence at all for your claims. And please, for the love of whatever god may exist, stop saying your using reasoning and logic, because your not. Nor are you observing any of this. If you feel your intuition is telling you this, it's out of your own ignorance. People used to think lightning came from an angry god. People used to believe the earth was flat. This was out of the same, reasoning, observation, intuition, and logic, you display here on ATS.

Something cannot be created from nothing. There has to be a "something" - even if that "something" is in the Spirit - for matter and for The Big Bang to come into existence.

And yet this is exactly what your suggesting! Something from nothing. Where'd the god force come from? Where'd the original creator come from? How'd the first 'consiousness' come to be? What existed before your 'god force'?

Something from nothing.

How can you say you cannot get something from nothing, then turn around and claim something from nothing? You have no idea what existed prior to the big bang, if anything even did. Who's to know what happened that started the big bang? No one. Metaphysics has proved jack. You know it. I know it. Tome Jones know's it. Puff Daddy know's it. Metaphysics has not given us a greater understanding of anything. It's nothing more then a philosophy.

But without a God concept of some kind, there can not be a reality of ANY kind.

Evidence? What evidence do you have that proves beyond any doubt that there can be no reality without a concept of god? You've yet to provide any.

There is going to be alot of typing here so be forwarned, but it will be proved useful.
I have alot going through my mind and i just got in on this discussion so i will just say things as they come to me. First of all, I want to ask you to think about this, is nothing something? There has to be some greater force to create a form of nothingness or it wouldn't be there. Just think about that.
I also would like to say that it is foolish if anyone here believes that the fact that evolution could possibly be real does not explain a thing to us about how "information" came into hand. information could not just become out of particles or atoms. An intelligent design or designer would have to have created this "information". the fact of that right there throws a big part of believing evolution out of my mind right there.
I would also like to say that there is a line that is drawn between science and religion. there is a point to where science can't explain, hence you would need religion. I have religion, i am a christian. The bible if any of you have read it (i haven't read the whole thing) explains quite a bit. I will not even diverge into what can be learned from this.
I will also like to put in that recently a fossil of a miners helmet has been found. this fossil was found underground buried. The helmet that made this fossil could have been no more than 50 years old, which proves that all you need to get a fossil is something pressed against something for a period of time underground. It wouldn't take the millions or even billions of years that evolutionists would like you to think.

Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You are limiting yourself only to the traditional scientific paradigm. You do not entertain the idea that there are higher dimensions that do not operate off of the theories and equations that you are furthering.

So on the basis of YOUR imagination you are expecting others to ignore the basics of science, despite your assertion that creationism is a science? It's also worth noting that you completely ignored the evidence I gave you.. [AGAIN] even though you requested it. Seems when you don't understand it or it contradicts your beliefs you just throw it out or ignore it.

I agree that the Universe had a beginning billions of years ago. But there was time in the Spirit prior to The Big Bang. Got an equation for that?

Have you? Have you got ANY evidence? An equation that disproves both Einstein and Hawking's [scientific] theories? Again.. you completely ignored ALL of the evidence and provided no valid counter argument. You are right and those scientists [did you even read that paper?] are wrong? How about actually answering my questions and not avoiding them?

Originally posted by riley
The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

Physically-based energies only and not discarnate energies and not discarnate consciousness

Babbeling reasons why I should start believing in the tooth fairy wouldn't disprove what I have said either. You will notice I have not claimed things come from nothing.. you have. I have explained why this is not possible. Care to explain how it is?

Yes, Evolutionism is a secular religion among many Darwinists.

Evolution is not a belief in a deity AGAIN it is a science [didn't I say that before?].

The definition you provided for 'evolutionism' only validates what Isis said [thanks Isis ] as it was from Webster's 1913 Dictionary. If you look up the current one it comes up 'evolution' instead. Why? Because it's an obsolete word used the last time religion attacked science with a vengence. It is a 'word' born in propganda and has been revived for those same purposes. They did not want to hear monkeys and humans were related either.

Wrong again pinhead

Namecalling? A sign of a desperate man who cannot win a debate and so resorts to insults and 'so theres'. I have asked you not to do this before. Not only is it disrespectful but you do yourself a disservice as it underminds your own integrity.. something you cannot afford to do given you're failure to back your claims with any credible evidence.

[edit on 10-3-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by cody jones
I will also like to put in that recently a fossil of a miners helmet has been found. this fossil was found underground buried. The helmet that made this fossil could have been no more than 50 years old,

because it is not a fossil.. just an old helmet.
Where on earth did you get this from?

Originally posted by cody jones
First of all, I want to ask you to think about this, is nothing something? There has to be some greater force to create a form of nothingness or it wouldn't be there. Just think about that.

Agreed.

Originally posted by cody jones
I also would like to say that it is foolish if anyone here believes that the fact that evolution could possibly be real does not explain a thing to us about how "information" came into hand. Information could not just become out of particles or atoms. An intelligent design or designer would have to have created this "information." The fact of that right there throws a big part of believing evolution out of my mind right there.

Yes, it is illogical that the correct chemical arrangements and environment for life to exist occurred simply through accident. There must have been an Intelligent Designer behind it all initially. Pure logic.

Originally posted by cody jones
I would also like to say that there is a line that is drawn between science and religion. There is a point to where science can't explain, hence you would need religion...

There are indeed some things which science cannot explain, much less prove. In which case, religion, philosophy, metaphysics, personal experience, credible testimony, logic and reasoning come into play

Originally posted by cody jones
I will also like to put in that recently a fossil of a miners helmet has been found. This fossil was found underground buried. The helmet that made this fossil could have been no more than 50 years old, which proves that all you need to get a fossil is something pressed against something for a period of time underground. It wouldn't take the millions or even billions of years that evolutionists would like you to think.

Yes, carbon dating and the other methods of gauging the age of an artifact that archaeologists use, are all an inexact science. A classic example of that is the Shroud of Turin, the age of which was revised a number of times by scientists.