Myth and Meaning

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Quantum postulates that you cant have proper scientific experiments without including the observer (scientist).
Since the observer needs to be present in all equations it follows that there is a "mind" which interacts with all things all the time. While this may be the mind of the scientist, it is only part of the greater mind, and understood in this c ...[text shortened]... ary to Jungs collective unconciouss.
Quantum extends/compliments Jungs work in a lot of ways.

There is also the work of Rupert Sheldrake - "one of the world’s most innovative biologists and writers is best known for his theory of morphic fields and morphic resonance, which leads to a vision of a living, developing universe with its own inherent memory." (quote from Sheldrake site). He evidences communicative/learning ability of species that appear to be immediate and outside of known communicative means.
Ties in with the underlying field stuff.

Cheers.

Originally posted by vishvahetu
You make the statement that you want spiritual truth, but you will not enquire sincerly into the teachings of Vedanta, because you got burnt out by christianity, and now you you think there is no spiritual truth anywhere.

But you do not invest any time into studying Vedanta, but it will be Vedanta that will give you the spiritual truth you so desire....so you are your own worst enemy.

All you are now is a bitter confused man.

Again you hubristically assume that you know that which you cannot, a characteristic I have never before encountered in a serious student of Eastern mysticism. However, I find myself monumentally disinclined to attempt to discuss matters with you that are apparently beyond your capacity to understand, and neither will I lower myself to an exchange of insults with you.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Again you hubristically assume that you know that which you cannot, a characteristic I have never before encountered in a serious student of Eastern mysticism. However, I find myself monumentally disinclined to attempt to discuss matters with you that are apparently beyond your capacity to understand, and neither will I lower myself to an exchange of insults with you.

He does keep on, doesn't he? You have a good turn of phrase, sir.

Originally posted by Taoman
He does keep on, doesn't he? You have a good turn of phrase, sir.

I assumed you were male. If I am wrong, my apologies ma'am.

Originally posted by Taoman
I assumed you were male. If I am wrong, my apologies ma'am.

Hey there fellow tool! I'm a geezer, and so's the cat, although he's lacking some significant geezer parts - he's just had his 20th birthday you know.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Hey there fellow tool! I'm a geezer, and so's the cat, although he's lacking some significant geezer parts - he's just had his 20th birthday you know.

Greetings fellow tool. That's quite old for a cat. Hope he keeps reasonable health. Give him a pat for me.

02 Oct '10 01:40
Originally posted by josephw
"Now what science are you talking about?"

Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


"There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


"mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn' ...[text shortened]... h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.


Hey it's one thing to say that there are holes in Scientific and Archeaology that leave many questions unanswered. It is quite another to claim that they prove that the bible is factual. That is a level arrogance that is just beyond belief. Joseph you are demonstrating the meaning of willful ignorance.
ReplyReply & Quote

Agerg
nomad, vagabond

Location : wherever I may roam
Joined : 21 Aug '06
Moves : 8589 02 Oct '10 01:57
Originally posted by josephw
"Now what science are you talking about?"

Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


"There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


"mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn't s ...[text shortened]... h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.


Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.
I'm all ears...what is this "Real science"?

What does fossil evidence have to do with time?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating - pay particular attention to the Computation of ages and dates section.

Doesn't show much does it?
Mentioning a small number pertinent of things the evidence doesn't show does not imply there is only a small number of things it does show.

Yes there is. But your almighty scientists "who hold the truth in unrighteousness;.." Rom. 1:b, are covering it up. And all you can do is walk in lockstep with them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.
Right...tell you what, why don't you present us this evidence and I'll have a look see on google to see if it's been refuted.
ReplyReply & Quote

Taoman

Location : Melbourne, Australia
Joined : 24 May '10
Moves : 846 02 Oct '10 05:03
"Yours is an anal post. And that's a fact."

Oh good! I've saved thousands of dollars in Freudian psychoanalysis! Never could work out why my office is always so messy.

Seems like you are doing a Custer, mate, along with all your "Bible is Science" platoon. Very courageous if nothing else.

Update is respectfully suggested.

Cheers.
ReplyReply & Quote

avalanchethecat
Ignavus Cattus

Location : Comfy Chair
Joined : 09 Apr '10
Moves : 4091 02 Oct '10 14:39
Originally posted by vishvahetu
... man [has] been around for millions of years.


Where do you get these "facts" from?
ReplyReply & Quote

FabianFnas

Location : Göteborg
Joined : 11 Nov '05
Moves : 40651 02 Oct '10 17:17 :: 1 edit
Originally posted by josephw
"Now what science are you talking about?"

Real science. Not the twittering kind you listen to.


"There is substantial fossil evidence to indicate we have been around a lot longer than 6,000yrs."

What does fossil evidence have to do with time?


"mtDNA and Y-Chromosone doesn't show we came from two people 6,000yrs ago, it doesn' h them. You haven't done anything but believe them without really looking into it.


Joseph, if you want to have opinions about science, then you actually have to learn something about science. If not, you look just stupid.

If you object about science methodology, then you actually have to know something about this methodology. If not, you look just stupid.

And you just don't like to look stupid, do you?

If you try to mix religion and science, then you will fail. Don't try.


[b]Atheists[b] 🙄 Show me just one piece of "scientific" evidence that proves one thing the Bible is wrong about.

Atheists[b] 🙄 Show me just one piece of "scientific" evidence that proves one thing the Bible is wrong about.

[/b]Oh I don't know, I filled my car up with some fossils this morning. It was early and the stars were still out, as far as I could tell Jesus still had the stars fixed firmly in the firmanent.

It's quite amusing that you are as convinced of athiest delusion as they are of yours. I particularly enjoy the easy comfort with which you dismiss every logical/scientific argument by expanding your fantasy to encompass "plausible" reasons for why you can't possibly be wrong. You crack me up.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
Oh I don't know, I filled my car up with some fossils this morning. It was early and the stars were still out, as far as I could tell Jesus still had the stars fixed firmly in the firmanent.

It's quite amusing that you are as convinced of athiest delusion as they are of yours. I particularly enjoy the easy comfort with which you dismiss every ...[text shortened]... asy to encompass "plausible" reasons for why you can't possibly be wrong. You crack me up.[/b]

"Oh I don't know, I filled my car up with some fossils this morning. It was early and the stars were still out, as far as I could tell Jesus still had the stars fixed firmly in the firmanent."

Oh you don't know what? Thanks for telling me about your early morning adventure, but I don't see the relevance.

"It's quite amusing that you are as convinced of atheist delusion as they are of yours."

Again, I don't see the relevance. And when you say 'they' don't you mean 'we'?

"I particularly enjoy the easy comfort with which you dismiss every logical/scientific argument by expanding your fantasy to encompass "plausible" reasons for why you can't possibly be wrong."

What logical/scientific argument? It's just talk. So-and-so says, 'the fossil record shows...' and you call that evidence? It's all pure speculation.

"You crack me up."

I'm glad you're so entertained. Tell me, why do you chime in? Are you the one that deflects the argument away from the issue so the others can run and hind?

It's a typical tactic employed in this forum by the naysayers. As soon as they are backed against the wall they come out with the insults and personal attacks because they know it's a straw man they believe in, and in their hearts they know it doesn't stand up to real scrutiny.


If you are walking along and step into a hole in the ground and brake your leg, can you tell whether or not the hole was dug by an animal or a man?

And by the way. Don't make the mistake of underestimating how much I know about anything.