First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You have an Aura.
19028 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / F / Mid-Atlantic
Offline
Posted 2/8/13

moneygrip3030 wrote:

It may be real, but it may be bullshit. Take everything with a grain of salt. Healthy skepticism is a good thing to have!


Hear Hear!







2183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Behind you
Offline
Posted 2/8/13

mhibicke wrote:


netdisorder wrote:

Evolution can be seen within twenty years. Humans tested this by placing several species of birds into a foreign ecosystem, and tracking them closely. Within twenty years, they had evolved into completely separate species because it was what they needed to do in order to survive the new environment.


Good work, but your timing is a little off. The evolution of the finches' beak size was recorded by Dr Peter and Dr Rosemary Grant within one generation (a year), although it was fluctuating.
Strong selection against a prevalent trait (as in, suddenly nearly every animal/person with trait A dies young or struggles to reproduce) takes 20 generations to practically disappear from a population. A human generation takes about 20 years, and so in the case of strong selection against a trait (like being rendered sterile by a new, virulent disease), the trait will take about 400 years to disappear from a population. Minor selection against a trait can take much, much longer.


netdisorder wrote:
Also, when Nazi Germany invaded Poland, there was massive famine, and many starved to death. Due to this, it was observed that children born in that time had much lower metabolisms that enabled them to keep on weight without having to eat as much. It was immediate generational change of genetics caused by famine, that brought this rapid evolution of the human metabolism.


This is actually due to epigenetics and not evolution. Rather than having changing DNA composition in the population over generations (evolution), this is a phenomenon of expression of the regular genetic material in a population. The way that the chromosomes are wound up and packaged in their protein coating determines how often specific genes are expressed as proteins. When a man is malnourished during specific stages in puberty (12-15), his gametes develop epigenetic characteristics that he passes down to his offspring and grand-offspring, causing them to regulate their metabolism differently and express different levels of specific liver enzymes.

Anyway, the issue with this thread isn't so much what science can prove, but what it can disprove. I challenge every nen user, chi thrower, and super saiyan to charge up and use the dark side of the force to choke me with their minds. I will not die, hence nen, chi, and super saiyans are ineffective and likely imaginary.


Well if we scale the time the universe has been around to 100 years, we can say my estimations were off by maybe about an attosecond XD.

I haven't really looked into the finch experiment. I've just heard about it second hand from Richard Dawkins. Or perhaps that was a different experiment?
Posted 2/8/13
If I do have an aura.
Can it be rainbow?
34185 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Norway
Offline
Posted 2/8/13
Do we really need to know what this aura is and how to detect it? Call it whatever you want. love, atmosphere, affections, bad mood, good mood, bad situation, good situation, solitude, spirit etc. That is what I don't like with science. It is too straightforward and not everything is necessary needed to be explained. Some things are good to be unknown.
Posted 2/8/13 , edited 2/9/13

tehstud wrote:


marcel20 wrote:

Awesome post Vega...but ya gotta love people who post an scientific explanation for it all...they are soo funny and dumb. Anyways, having faith and believing in a positive outcome is another way too.



marcel20 wrote:

Nope...just people who use them to TRY to explain everything are dumb mindless drones who can't think for themselves
so they go only by what some other guy made up and did his best to make himself sound smarter than he really is...hmm kinda like you ;)


This is so hypocritical it's not even funny.

So the draconian, religious dogma of blind acceptance and absolute faith, belief is not being a 'dumb mindless drone who can't think for themselves'? Rather using consistent, testable, and founded explanations to establish an understanding of the universal fabric is, correct?


You now see what I was talking about we have the same roots from which our tree is grown...Scientist get a lot of their methods on teaching their idea's from the church ...all they do is put a big bright light on Christian beliefs when they preach the same way for what their belief's are and change the wording a little bit, but it is all the same.

EDIT: also tehstud what happened to my original post to this? did you have it erased?...I know it was a good response but good enough to have the mods erase it??
34058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Long Beach
Offline
Posted 2/8/13
Some things you can't measure with science.

Like pain, for example. You cannot measure pain within a unit measurement, as pain differs from person to person.

If science can't measure something as simple as pain, then why should it be able to prove spiritual/paranormal stuff?

24725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 2/8/13

TimSpano wrote:

Some things you can't measure with science.

Like pain, for example. You cannot measure pain within a unit measurement, as pain differs from person to person.

If science can't measure something as simple as pain, then why should it be able to prove spiritual/paranormal stuff?



Pain is an emotional response to strong stimuli, and emotions are not quantifiable. However, there are plenty of tests to measure a the response to strong stimuli, and at no point has the existence of pain ever been disproved. Science is awesome in that we never really prove anything, and we never reject a model until it has been disproved. So the model of pain, despite being unquantifiable, still stands firm.

On the other hand, the new age spiritualist crap that is being passed off as pseudoscience has been repeatedly disproved. I will repeat my earlier challenge to all super saiyans and sith wannabes: go for broke, because I won't die. Bullshit will be disproved again, and we won't have to discuss injecting pregnant women with horse urine anymore.
34058 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M / Long Beach
Offline
Posted 2/8/13 , edited 2/8/13

mhibicke wrote:


TimSpano wrote:

Some things you can't measure with science.

Like pain, for example. You cannot measure pain within a unit measurement, as pain differs from person to person.

If science can't measure something as simple as pain, then why should it be able to prove spiritual/paranormal stuff?



Pain is an emotional response to strong stimuli, and emotions are not quantifiable. However, there are plenty of tests to measure a the response to strong stimuli, and at no point has the existence of pain ever been disproved. Science is awesome in that we never really prove anything, and we never reject a model until it has been disproved. So the model of pain, despite being unquantifiable, still stands firm.

On the other hand, the new age spiritualist crap that is being passed off as pseudoscience has been repeatedly disproved. I will repeat my earlier challenge to all super saiyans and sith wannabes: go for broke, because I won't die. Bullshit will be disproved again, and we won't have to discuss injecting pregnant women with horse urine anymore.



Wow, you've explained this better than I could have imagined. I do agree with you, even in that pseudoscience is a bunch of crap that's been disproved countless times.

As with "and we never reject a model until it has been disproved", I'm not so sure I agree with that. The existence of a God seems to be one of the most scientifically rejected ideas... well... ever. Yet, I don't think it has been scientifically disproved.

However, I don't want this debate to get into a huge religious argument. They rarely go anywhere.

I've experienced spiritual things many times. They weren't big -- mostly just noticing the mood change of a city/town just by driving within the general vicinity of it. The thing I am troubled with most, is that I've experienced that spiritual stuff, yet it's been disproved by science. Surely that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? Because if it didn't exist, I wouldn't have experienced it in the first place.
2183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Behind you
Offline
Posted 2/8/13 , edited 2/8/13

mhibicke wrote:


netdisorder wrote:

I haven't really looked into the finch experiment. I've just heard about it second hand from Richard Dawkins. Or perhaps that was a different experiment?

I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Beak-Finch-Story-Evolution-Time/dp/067973337X

Also, Dawkins is an ass. You can't use science to disprove the existence of God, just like you can't use faith to disprove scientific facts. Plus he doesn't take seriously the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, in which we are called to dress as pirates and meet for drinks and pasta every Friday.
Click for epic pasta propaganda.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ1LgAm7ipo
Hey, it's no crazier than any other religion, and less creepy than zombie Jesus.


Well I've heard Richard mention that The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is on amazon and that it's said to be very good. So he may not take it seriously, but he doesn't necessarily dislike it as he threw in the promotion.

I will check out everything you linked me!
Posted 2/9/13
24725 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Urban South
Offline
Posted 2/9/13

TimSpano wrote:

Wow, you've explained this better than I could have imagined. I do agree with you, even in that pseudoscience is a bunch of crap that's been disproved countless times.

As with "and we never reject a model until it has been disproved", I'm not so sure I agree with that. The existence of a God seems to be one of the most scientifically rejected ideas... well... ever. Yet, I don't think it has been scientifically disproved.

However, I don't want this debate to get into a huge religious argument. They rarely go anywhere.

I've experienced spiritual things many times. They weren't big -- mostly just noticing the mood change of a city/town just by driving within the general vicinity of it. The thing I am troubled with most, is that I've experienced that spiritual stuff, yet it's been disproved by science. Surely that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, does it? Because if it didn't exist, I wouldn't have experienced it in the first place.


Thank you, I'm glad to help. The thing is, science has not rejected the existence of God, as it is not possible to test the existence of God (which is why I called Richard Dawkins an ass earlier). Many scientists adhere to some kind of religion, and many are athiests, and some (like myself) really just don't care either way as long as we can party in a pirate costume. There is no evidence against God, so therefore God has yet to be disproved.

However, there is much evidence against the explanation for the universe described by religious texts, and so those explanations have been disproved. For example, the earth is not 6,000 years old, and the first woman was not fashioned from a man's rib. These things are patently ridiculous with the knowledge and technology we have now, but probably made a lot of sense to the primitive screwheads that thought it up in the first place. Disproving flawed explanations from hundreds (or thousands) of years ago isn't a bad thing if one can acknowledge that our species has an innate need to explain things, even when we can't, and that we are constantly learning. In the next millennium we will be considered primitive screwheads, and I'm okay with that.

Ultimately, science is just a way to understand how things work by testing predictions based upon conceptual models. Conceptual models are constructed to explain and predict observed phenomena. If the conceptual model is rejected, the phenomenon still exists, it just needs a different explanation.

The problem I have with this aura crap and other pseudoscience is that people are trying to use stuff that sounds like science as justification for their beliefs. Someone perceives auras? Great, sure, why not? There is a neurological condition known as synesthesia that is present in up to 4% of people in which some sensory input is processed in a non-related part of the brain, resulting in the perception of "seen" sound, or "felt" colors, etc. Unsurprisingly, many synesthetics are artists and musicians. However, what a synesthetic perceives is unquantifiable, so it cannot be captured and measured by a camera, computer, echo location, Geiger counter, or whatever. The best we can do is observe their brain with an fMRI and quantify the activity in certain areas during different tasks. If we're lucky they'll give it to "science" after they die and we can chop that mofo up and compare it to "normal" brains.
Posted 2/9/13
I looked that first initial picture and thought they had discovered a way to make themselves bigger by pinching themselves.

now that wouldve been a good read.
25259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / Where is here? Wh...
Offline
Posted 2/9/13

netdisorder wrote:

Well it's been completely proven that humans glow. We radiate a little bit of light off of our bodies that cannot be seen with the naked eye.


But what if some people can? See the aura with the naked eye, that is.

2183 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / Behind you
Offline
Posted 2/9/13 , edited 2/9/13

chris1976 wrote:


netdisorder wrote:

Well it's been completely proven that humans glow. We radiate a little bit of light off of our bodies that cannot be seen with the naked eye.


But what if some people can? See the aura with the naked eye, that is.



Then they've been watching too much Initial D. Or they have a brain disorder that allows them to see heat emitting off of people. The 'soul' aspect of this thread is based on the ability to photograph images of electrical discharge. I have issues with thinking of electricity as being a soul. I have even more issues with considering it a soul when we know very little about how the process itself works.

It sounds to me like humans are yet again attaching mystical answers to problems that have yet to be solved. I'm fairly certain that the phenomenon will one day be solved, and we will look at the truth of the matter in the same ways that we look at computers and cellphones without thinking they are magic, when people hundreds of years ago would have killed you for using some sort of 'sorcery'.

The closest I come to pseudo-science is that I believe it may be possible to have out of body experiences when on the brink of death due to the dynamic nature of electrons in the brain, and that the electrons may not have to be exclusively bound inside the brain, as it can pass through objects. Even so, I am cautiously skeptical of it.
25259 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / Where is here? Wh...
Offline
Posted 2/9/13

netdisorder wrote:


chris1976 wrote:


netdisorder wrote:

Well it's been completely proven that humans glow. We radiate a little bit of light off of our bodies that cannot be seen with the naked eye.


But what if some people can? See the aura with the naked eye, that is.



Then they've been watching too much Initial D. Or they have a brain disorder that allows them to see heat emitting off of people. The 'soul' aspect of this thread is based on the ability to photograph images of electrical discharge. I have issues with thinking of electricity as being a soul. I have even more issues with considering it a soul when we know very little about how the process itself works.

It sounds to me like humans are yet again attaching mystical answers to problems that have yet to be solved. I'm fairly certain that the phenomenon will one day be solved, and we will look at the truth of the matter in the same ways that we look at computers and cellphones without thinking they are magic, when people hundreds of years ago would have killed you for using some sort of 'sorcery'.

The closest I come to pseudo-science is that I believe it may be possible to have out of body experiences when on the brink of death. Even so, I am cautiously skeptical of it.


I guess I have a mental disorder then.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.