U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-14-2015, 10:49 AM
 
39,400 posts, read 10,979,347 times
Reputation: 5114

Advertisements

I am just trying to work out why you freak at 'nothingness'. If you don't enjoy the opportunity to freak and look for some excuse to do it, then say so and I'll accept that. Jesus, the hair -trigger touchines I have to deal with
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-14-2015, 02:39 PM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,040,557 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I am just trying to work out why you freak at 'nothingness'. If you don't enjoy the opportunity to freak and look for some excuse to do it, then say so and I'll accept that. Jesus, the hair -trigger touchines I have to deal with
Err, still irrational. I mean calling me a touchinebag is ok, you are half right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 04:50 PM
 
40,286 posts, read 26,858,718 times
Reputation: 6068
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am somewhat amused by this discussion that you are having about me, my views and our intellectual impasse, Arq. It provides a vehicle for your interlocutor indirectly to violate his ban on responding to or talking about me or my views. It provides a means of denigrating me and my views without having to respond to my posts directly or fear being confronted on the baseless assertions made against me. But I do not see any display of genuine knowledge or "persuasive" arguments coming from that quarter. They are transparently nonsense assertions to anyone who actually DOES understand the areas that are being consistently misunderstood by such people. They display NO actual knowledge of their own . . . but repeatedly claim that my knowledge is wrong. It is very tiresome. I write less to have people be influenced by my arguments than to educate those who do not see "one shred of evidence or reason to believe" ANYTHING to do with God.
Moderator cut: deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by monumentus View Post
I asked you already - why not simply present your case without the analogies. Given how badly you misuse analogies - and you have been called on - and schooled on - your massive errors in this on many threads now - I think we would actually prefer you attempt the "rigorous explanations" for once. No really. Go for it. We are all ears. Drop the misleading analogies and rigorously provide us the basis for your claims about god and your idea that the universe itself is concious - that Jesus was something more than human - and that human consciousness and experience survives the death of the brain.
I have been asking you for months now - give us this rigorous explanation. Do not hide behind the claim that the reason you are not giving it is you fear it will be incomprehensible. That is not for you to judge - as I feel you underestimate us.
I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them. You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem. The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics. So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues. As is typical of your harangues, you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them. I will ignore such obvious distraction from the scientific rebuttal and deal with the bold in your post.

To observe or measure anything . . . we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of awareness from which we "measure" time . . . but are they? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe . . . establishes the parameters of the field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure . . . especially the speed of light and Planck length . . . which are what cause all the confusion about classical (measured) "time."

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem . . . (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) . . . adds to your current "confusion." One of the few relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of timespace should start to break down at the Planck length . . . which should be the shortest "measurable" length . . . analogous to the shortest "measurable" time interval . . . right? For example . . . in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Any bells going off yet?

All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" . . . (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds . . . which coincidentally, is the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . (no quibbling about units and other issues. I will deal with them shortly). This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as energy at the square of the speed of light and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as energy (E=hf) . . . a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal.

I reiterate for my analogy impaired critics: The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying reality substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration ("molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as vibratory energy (E=hf). I hope this quells any further nonsense about inappropriate use of the "speed" and "acceleration" analogies in my Synthesis.

OK . . . quibble time . . . about the "order of magnitude" of the formation of consciousness in "quantum time." The brain isn't a vacuum . . . so the speed of light will not be the same. Despite an apparently "warm, wet, and noisy'' intracellular milieu, this suggests that microtubules avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach threshold for "self-collapse'' (objective reduction) by a quantum gravity mechanism put forth by Penrose. Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only 10^-13 s (10^-26 sec^2). The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model would lengthen the decoherence time to approx 10^-5 s (10^-10 sec^2).

We would need to recalculate the appropriately scaled decoherence time after correcting for differences between the mechanisms likely to dominate the speed of light in a biological setting. Also, we would need to account for incoherent metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence . . . (which would counter decoherence effects in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). This would make the incident "order of magnitude" sufficiently comparable to the posited square of the speed of light (if not precise) . . . but probably way too technical for conversational purposes in a forum, IMO.

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time" as a composite at the square of the speed of light . . . it can be seen as essentially manifesting as a form of energy. Energy is eternal (barring the existence of anything that can transform consciousness energy into something else and I know of nothing) . . . ergo consciousness is also.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,753 posts, read 5,563,036 times
Reputation: 5409
MysticPhd,

Can you site some sources for those claims?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 12:37 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there.
6,884 posts, read 3,808,126 times
Reputation: 4632
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them. You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem. The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics. So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues. As is typical of your harangues, you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them. I will ignore such obvious distraction from the scientific rebuttal and deal with the bold in your post.

To observe or measure anything . . . we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of awareness from which we "measure" time . . . but are they? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe . . . establishes the parameters of the field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure . . . especially the speed of light and Planck length . . . which are what cause all the confusion about classical (measured) "time."

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem . . . (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) . . . adds to your current "confusion." One of the few relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of timespace should start to break down at the Planck length . . . which should be the shortest "measurable" length . . . analogous to the shortest "measurable" time interval . . . right? For example . . . in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Any bells going off yet?

All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" . . . (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds . . . which coincidentally, is the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . (no quibbling about units and other issues. I will deal with them shortly). This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as energy at the square of the speed of light and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as energy (E=hf) . . . a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal.

I reiterate for my analogy impaired critics: The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying reality substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration ("molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as vibratory energy (E=hf). I hope this quells any further nonsense about inappropriate use of the "speed" and "acceleration" analogies in my Synthesis.

OK . . . quibble time . . . about the "order of magnitude" of the formation of consciousness in "quantum time." The brain isn't a vacuum . . . so the speed of light will not be the same. Despite an apparently "warm, wet, and noisy'' intracellular milieu, this suggests that microtubules avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach threshold for "self-collapse'' (objective reduction) by a quantum gravity mechanism put forth by Penrose. Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only 10^-13 s (10^-26 sec^2). The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model would lengthen the decoherence time to approx 10^-5 s (10^-10 sec^2).

We would need to recalculate the appropriately scaled decoherence time after correcting for differences between the mechanisms likely to dominate the speed of light in a biological setting. Also, we would need to account for incoherent metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence . . . (which would counter decoherence effects in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). This would make the incident "order of magnitude" sufficiently comparable to the posited square of the speed of light (if not precise) . . . but probably way too technical for conversational purposes in a forum, IMO.

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time" as a composite at the square of the speed of light . . . it can be seen as essentially manifesting as a form of energy. Energy is eternal (barring the existence of anything that can transform consciousness energy into something else and I know of nothing) . . . ergo consciousness is also.
Hmm...I see you have now started quoting the Penrose and Hameroff OR reduction model. Glad you've been doing some reading up on Penrose since I introduced you to him about a year ago.
This is altogether different from your original 'synthesis' isn't it, since this is the first time you've mentioned them. (By the way who uses the word 'synthesis' for this sort of thing? Every PhD I've ever met refers to their work as a thesis. Maybe this is an American version I have not come across.)

For the umpteenth time though you are still getting your explanation of these equations wrong. I don't care how many times you try to justify it or dress it up, NOTHING 'EXISTS' AT THE SQUARE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT! There is no such thing. Please for the love of sanity please stop describing it in those terms. The C^2 in the equation simply tells you how much energy is released by converting a given mass to energy. There is no such thing as the square of the speed of light.

And in physics we refer to Einsteins model of space and time as 'spacetime' not 'timespace'.

Last edited by Cruithne; 01-15-2015 at 12:48 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 05:45 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,040,557 times
Reputation: 1369
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them. You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem. The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics. So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues. As is typical of your harangues, you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them. I will ignore such obvious distraction from the scientific rebuttal and deal with the bold in your post.

To observe or measure anything . . . we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of awareness from which we "measure" time . . . but are they? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe . . . establishes the parameters of the field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure . . . especially the speed of light and Planck length . . . which are what cause all the confusion about classical (measured) "time."

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem . . . (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) . . . adds to your current "confusion." One of the few relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of timespace should start to break down at the Planck length . . . which should be the shortest "measurable" length . . . analogous to the shortest "measurable" time interval . . . right? For example . . . in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Any bells going off yet?

All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" . . . (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds . . . which coincidentally, is the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . (no quibbling about units and other issues. I will deal with them shortly). This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as energy at the square of the speed of light and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as energy (E=hf) . . . a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal.

I reiterate for my analogy impaired critics: The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying reality substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration ("molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as vibratory energy (E=hf). I hope this quells any further nonsense about inappropriate use of the "speed" and "acceleration" analogies in my Synthesis.

OK . . . quibble time . . . about the "order of magnitude" of the formation of consciousness in "quantum time." The brain isn't a vacuum . . . so the speed of light will not be the same. Despite an apparently "warm, wet, and noisy'' intracellular milieu, this suggests that microtubules avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach threshold for "self-collapse'' (objective reduction) by a quantum gravity mechanism put forth by Penrose. Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only 10^-13 s (10^-26 sec^2). The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model would lengthen the decoherence time to approx 10^-5 s (10^-10 sec^2).

We would need to recalculate the appropriately scaled decoherence time after correcting for differences between the mechanisms likely to dominate the speed of light in a biological setting. Also, we would need to account for incoherent metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence . . . (which would counter decoherence effects in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). This would make the incident "order of magnitude" sufficiently comparable to the posited square of the speed of light (if not precise) . . . but probably way too technical for conversational purposes in a forum, IMO.

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time" as a composite at the square of the speed of light . . . it can be seen as essentially manifesting as a form of energy. Energy is eternal (barring the existence of anything that can transform consciousness energy into something else and I know of nothing) . . . ergo consciousness is also.
I am down with "plausible or "less plausible". And nothing we say is set in stone.

Your last part is based on us not knowing what "awareness" is so why would you know how it changes? "time" rates change based on what space it doing at that point. simple enough. "time" is not a thing it is a human construct so that we can compare the states changes between different regions of space. When you say "between quantum time" are you saying consciousness formz in the "gaps" between times' quanta
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 11:45 PM
 
40,286 posts, read 26,858,718 times
Reputation: 6068
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I am the only one here who has provided a detailed Synthesis of my views and the reasons for them. You have done nothing but carp and denigrate me . . . called ad hominem. The deliberate misrepresentation of my analogies has been at the forefront of your tactics. So perhaps it IS time to engage at a different level on these issues. As is typical of your harangues, you deliberately conflate my faith/belief views with the scientific and then call for me to defend them. I will ignore such obvious distraction from the scientific rebuttal and deal with the bold in your post.

To observe or measure anything . . . we must have an "instance" of consciousness with which to do so. We experience these "instances" conjoined as a continuous stream of awareness from which we "measure" time . . . but are they? Penrose thinks not and I agree. The "quantum time" that our consciousness uses to acquire our "instantaneous" awareness and enable us to measure and observe . . . establishes the parameters of the field within which our measures are created, "gauged" and standardized. The various constants we repeatedly "measure" reflect that underlying structure . . . especially the speed of light and Planck length . . . which are what cause all the confusion about classical (measured) "time."

The fact that you know so little about the quantum gravity problem . . . (and Penrose's quantum explanation of consciousness) . . . adds to your current "confusion." One of the few relatively robust hints that we have about quantum gravity is that our conventional description of timespace should start to break down at the Planck length . . . which should be the shortest "measurable" length . . . analogous to the shortest "measurable" time interval . . . right? For example . . . in processes involving two "particle events" the magnitude of the new effects would be set by some power of the ratio between the Planck length and the characteristic wavelength of the process. Why do you think that is? Any bells going off yet?

All our measurement constants reveal the underlying structure of our "observed reality" . . . (one that is comprehended by an emergent consciousness which itself takes "quantum time" to emerge!). Their "constancy" is derivative of the "quantum time" it takes to form our emergent "instances" of the consciousness we use to "measure" anything. Penrose's quantum decoherence "signal" for consciousness acquisition takes 10^-13 seconds . . . which coincidentally, is the same order of magnitude as the inverse of the square of the speed of light in a vacuum . . . (no quibbling about units and other issues. I will deal with them shortly). This tends to support my claim that our consciousness is forming as energy at the square of the speed of light and existing at a vibrational level of manifestation as energy (E=hf) . . . a point I belabor repeatedly as the basis for claiming our consciousness is eternal.

I reiterate for my analogy impaired critics: The equations E =MC^2 and E=hf . . . when viewed as indicators of the underlying reality substrate for these "measured field manifestations we call energy" . . . should reveal that my reference to C^2 was never meant as a "speed" in the typical sense. It is a parallel measurement of something existing at a specific frequency of internal vibration ("molecular" vibration) in what we consider the range of energy (E=hf). This means that whatever can be represented as existing at the square of the speed of light (E=MC^2) can be seen as existing as vibratory energy (E=hf). I hope this quells any further nonsense about inappropriate use of the "speed" and "acceleration" analogies in my Synthesis.

OK . . . quibble time . . . about the "order of magnitude" of the formation of consciousness in "quantum time." The brain isn't a vacuum . . . so the speed of light will not be the same. Despite an apparently "warm, wet, and noisy'' intracellular milieu, this suggests that microtubules avoid environmental decoherence long enough to reach threshold for "self-collapse'' (objective reduction) by a quantum gravity mechanism put forth by Penrose. Tegmark finds that microtubules can maintain quantum coherence for only 10^-13 s (10^-26 sec^2). The Penrose-Hameroff orchestrated objective reduction model would lengthen the decoherence time to approx 10^-5 s (10^-10 sec^2).

We would need to recalculate the appropriately scaled decoherence time after correcting for differences between the mechanisms likely to dominate the speed of light in a biological setting. Also, we would need to account for incoherent metabolic energy supplied to the collective dynamics ordering water in the vicinity of microtubules at a rate exceeding that of decoherence . . . (which would counter decoherence effects in the same way that lasers avoid decoherence at room temperature). This would make the incident "order of magnitude" sufficiently comparable to the posited square of the speed of light (if not precise) . . . but probably way too technical for conversational purposes in a forum, IMO.

Nevertheless, as there IS a scientifically plausible reason to believe consciousness forms in "quantum time" as a composite at the square of the speed of light . . . it can be seen as essentially manifesting as a form of energy. Energy is eternal (barring the existence of anything that can transform consciousness energy into something else and I know of nothing) . . . ergo consciousness is also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne View Post
Hmm...I see you have now started quoting the Penrose and Hameroff OR reduction model. Glad you've been doing some reading up on Penrose since I introduced you to him about a year ago.
This is altogether different from your original 'synthesis' isn't it, since this is the first time you've mentioned them. (By the way who uses the word 'synthesis' for this sort of thing? Every PhD I've ever met refers to their work as a thesis. Maybe this is an American version I have not come across.)
Don't flatter yourself. Penrose's works have been central to my understanding of consciousness from early on. I use Synthesis because it is NOT a purely scientific work. It is an effort to summarize my views in easy to understand terms for a friend who wanted more details about why I believe as I do. It encompasses my knowledge AND my beliefs. I compartmentalize the science knowledge supporting my hypotheses away from the spiritual, faith and belief aspects based on my personal experiences and study of the "spiritual fossil record." Most of my critics seem not to understand that and conflate them.
Quote:
For the umpteenth time though you are still getting your explanation of these equations wrong. I don't care how many times you try to justify it or dress it up, NOTHING 'EXISTS' AT THE SQUARE OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT! There is no such thing. Please for the love of sanity please stop describing it in those terms. The C^2 in the equation simply tells you how much energy is released by converting a given mass to energy. There is no such thing as the square of the speed of light.
For the umpteenth and one time anything measured EXISTS in our reality. Energy is measured and it EXISTS in the state the component measurements indicate. The two sets of indices give a clear indication of the underlying state of the phenomenon we call energy . . . MC^2=hf. Once something is converted to energy whatever it was is transformed and EXISTS as substances at a higher frequency of "molecular vibration." You are used to thinking that whatever it was converted from is destroyed. I see it as merely converted to different forms and still existing within the universe in states as indicated by the component measures. You are not used to thinking of energy as substance because you are not using a perspective of the entire universe taken as the system within which it exists. You are not used to using the math measures as indices of the underlying structure and state of the reality you are measuring and manipulating. That is for philosophers whose agenda differs from the physicists. My critics routinely do not seem to comprehend this . . . as you do not.
Quote:
And in physics we refer to Einsteins model of space and time as 'spacetime' not 'timespace'.
Except that the ONLY attribute of our sensory experience that directly corresponds to reality is time.. Everything else we sense is indirect. In Helmholtz's words,

. . . Events, like our perceptions of them, take place in time, so that the time relations of the latter can furnish a true copy of those of the former.

According to Helmholtz, time is the only feature which is shared by both physical reality and our consciousness. (This is extremely important to understand and think about its implications.) In all other things, perception is only symbolical and the dissimilarity of the stimulus and its conscious registration is striking. For example, the impact of photons is translated into visual qualities, the impact of air waves into auditory qualities, molecular impacts as touch, taste, scent, cold, warmth, etc. Only time has a structural equivalence in the physical world and in our consciousness. That is why I refer to it as timespace . . . NOT spacetime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2015, 11:57 PM
 
Location: Western Washington
9,079 posts, read 8,476,658 times
Reputation: 15725
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
April ... not so new anymore.

I call this notion "seeding". We reproduce using proteins. All life uses proteins. The earth will probably reproduce using proteins. What does that tell us?
The earth?

You know that earth us a planet, right? We know how planets are formed. It has nothing to do with reproduction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 05:49 AM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,949,818 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80 View Post
MysticPhd,

Can you site some sources for those claims?
He saw things in a vision once, and it was really convincing.

No, I'm not joking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2015, 06:03 AM
 
39,400 posts, read 10,979,347 times
Reputation: 5114
Surely things have moved on from Heimholtz and his psychology of time. It's like using Einstein when talking about quantum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top