T
Thing
Guest
The evidence for the supernatural is the existance of the natural - aliens inc.
- Status
V
vince70
Guest
If UFO’s, and any creature contained within them, are entities bound by the same laws in the universe that we are, then they are not of supernatural origin. The supernatural that is being discussed is an occurrence that is not bound by these laws and that defies the laws of nature (i.e. the spiritual)
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Amen!
S
SFTor
Guest
I supposed UFOs should be catalogued under “paranormal”. And you would probably like to categorize the supernatural under the “normal” rubric.
The only problem is that it opens for an amazing number of demons, spirits, and full- and semi-deities all over the world.
But you will of course tell me that the only supernatural being that exists is the god defined by the Catholic Church, and everyone else is wrong?
Well, “the only supernatural being”, meaning him in addition to a few hundred thousand angels and demons that fit under the Christian umbrella.
Best,
Tor
E
edwest2
Guest
UFOs have been tracked on radar and observed by military pilots as structured, metallic craft. They would fall under the “natural” label.
The supernatural includes miracles as described by the Catholic Church.
Peace,
Ed
The supernatural includes miracles as described by the Catholic Church.
Peace,
Ed
S
SFTor
Guest
Fair enough. I don’t mean to be quarrelsome.
But we’ll just disagree on the availability of evidence for miracles.
Best,
Tor
R
reggieM
Guest
Science cannot validate the effects of religious belief versus atheism?
‘Faith in God can relieve pain’
LONDON: “Religion is the opiate of the people” - Karl Marx had famously said. But can one’s faith in God really ease pain? “Yes”, say scientists.
A team at Oxford University has based its findings on an experiment in which 12 Roman Catholics and 12 atheists were “tortured” with electric shocks as they studied two paintings - Virgin Mary and Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady With An Ermine.
The subjects spent half-an-hour inside an MRI scanner, receiving a series of 20 electric shocks in four sessions and each time they had to rate how much it hurt on a scale of 0 to 100 as they looked at the paintings.
The researchers hoped that the face of the Virgin Mary would induce a religious state of mind in the believers, while da Vinci’s painting was chosen because it did not look dissimilar and would be calming.
The scientists found that the Catholics seemed to be able to block out much of the pain.
And, using the latest brain-scanning techniques, they also discovered that the Catholics were able to activate part of the brain associated with conditioning experience of pain, the Daily Mail reported.
However, there was no such brain activity among the atheists whose pain and anxiety levels stayed roughly the same.
The Catholics said that looking at the painting of the Virgin Mary made them feel “safe”, “taken care of” and “calmed down and peaceful”.
More significantly, they reported feeling 12% less pain after viewing the religious image than after looking at the Leonardo.
The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, welcomed the research, saying: “The practice of faith should, and in many cases does, alter the person you are. It can affect the patterns of your brain and your emotions. So it comes as no surprise to me that this experiment has reached such conclusions.”
‘Faith in God can relieve pain’
LONDON: “Religion is the opiate of the people” - Karl Marx had famously said. But can one’s faith in God really ease pain? “Yes”, say scientists.
A team at Oxford University has based its findings on an experiment in which 12 Roman Catholics and 12 atheists were “tortured” with electric shocks as they studied two paintings - Virgin Mary and Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady With An Ermine.
The subjects spent half-an-hour inside an MRI scanner, receiving a series of 20 electric shocks in four sessions and each time they had to rate how much it hurt on a scale of 0 to 100 as they looked at the paintings.
The researchers hoped that the face of the Virgin Mary would induce a religious state of mind in the believers, while da Vinci’s painting was chosen because it did not look dissimilar and would be calming.
The scientists found that the Catholics seemed to be able to block out much of the pain.
And, using the latest brain-scanning techniques, they also discovered that the Catholics were able to activate part of the brain associated with conditioning experience of pain, the Daily Mail reported.
However, there was no such brain activity among the atheists whose pain and anxiety levels stayed roughly the same.
The Catholics said that looking at the painting of the Virgin Mary made them feel “safe”, “taken care of” and “calmed down and peaceful”.
More significantly, they reported feeling 12% less pain after viewing the religious image than after looking at the Leonardo.
The Rt Rev Tom Wright, the Anglican Bishop of Durham, welcomed the research, saying: “The practice of faith should, and in many cases does, alter the person you are. It can affect the patterns of your brain and your emotions. So it comes as no surprise to me that this experiment has reached such conclusions.”
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Awesome - really shows how powerful faith is!!
R
reggieM
Guest
Indeed it does. It shows that science can evaluate matters of religion also.
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Not a matter of religion. It merely measured the way that belief can be a comfort to humans. Nothing supernatural about that; even false beliefs can be comforting.
Now, if they had attempted to show that God or the Blessed Virgin was sending comfort to people, that would be an attempt to test religion.
But of course, they have no way of doing that by scientific methodology.
Now, if they had attempted to show that God or the Blessed Virgin was sending comfort to people, that would be an attempt to test religion.
But of course, they have no way of doing that by scientific methodology.
F
FreedomLiberal6
Guest
When you say “scientists may think they have evidence for evolution, but ultimately, how can it truly be proven without actually going back and seeing it?”
Well couldn’t you say the same thing about the biblical stories?especially Noah’s ark that story is extremely impossible.There are millions(literally) species of plants animals fungus, and bacteria that would all need to fit on the Ark. How would he go to places like South America and keep all the species from drowning in the great flood which supposedly covered the earth. and how would he collect bacteria that could not survive in water?
E
edwest2
Guest
“extremely impossible” as opposed to slightly impossible? 
Honestly, if you don’t accept miracles, that’s fine, but don’t expect Catholics to reject them. Miracles happen today, but the secular media ignores most of them or belittles them.
Civilizations throughout hisory have understood there is something beyond themselves and this life. Burial of the dead is one example. I have friends who are atheist and agnostic, so I understand your worldview. In the meantime, it is apparent that humans are more then ambulatory reproduction factories programmed by our genes.
Peace,
Ed
Honestly, if you don’t accept miracles, that’s fine, but don’t expect Catholics to reject them. Miracles happen today, but the secular media ignores most of them or belittles them.Civilizations throughout hisory have understood there is something beyond themselves and this life. Burial of the dead is one example. I have friends who are atheist and agnostic, so I understand your worldview. In the meantime, it is apparent that humans are more then ambulatory reproduction factories programmed by our genes.
Peace,
Ed
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Hi Rossum,
My parents weren’t apes and I’m not an ape.
EVOLUTION by Eric J. Chaisson, Wright Center for Science Education (1) summed it up best for me, especially the terminology used by adults today. Here’s an excerpt from PATHS TOWORD HUMANITY:Take chimps, for example. Studies of selected genes from our closest relative have consistently found that ~98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees (and >99.9% identical to the person next to you). That means there are fewer genetic differences between chimps and humans than between horses and zebras or between dolphins and porpoises. Only a small part of the human genome is responsible for the traits that make us human—including our ability to walk, talk, write, build complex things, and enact moral imperatives. That said, chimps look and act like us only to an extent; their anatomy and behavior do distinctly differ from ours. (Admittedly, a 2% difference among an estimated billion base pairs does still allow for millions of variations among strings of nucleotides that govern protein manufacture.) So, what comprises those 2% biochemical differences and can we trace them back to their genetic origins—to look back in time to infer evolutionary insight? If recent studies are correct, it’s not only the number of gene differences that’s telling, but also the relative activity (or “expression” by which they produce proteins) of certain genes. Evidently, gene expression in human brains differs greatly from that in chimps, implying faster rates of neural evolution for our ancestors while on the road to humanity.(2)
- tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html - tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
Of course they already know what I’ve just presented, we have a heck of a lot of chimp in us. )Perhaps a tad more information from the American Psychological Association may be helpful:
**What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. **Boesch, Christophe
Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2007 Aug Vol 121(3) 227-240
Abstract: Two major theoretical approaches have dominated the quest for uniquely human cognitive abilities: a developmentalist approach stressing the importance of environmental and social conditions, and a predominant approach in experimental and comparative psychology, the deterministic approach suggesting the effect of environmental and social conditions to be minimal. As a consequence, most claims of human cognitive uniqueness are based on comparisons of White middle class Westerner humans (Homo sapiens) with captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). However, humans are much more than only White middle class Westerners, and chimpanzees are much more than only captives. A review of some data available on different populations of humans and chimpanzees reveals that only the predictions of the developmentalist approach are supported. In addition, systematic biases are too often introduced in experiment protocols when comparing humans with apes that further cast doubts on cross-species comparisons. The author argues that only with consideration of within-species population differences in the cognitive domains and the use of well-matched cross-species experimental procedures will an objective understanding of the different cognitive abilities between species emerge. This will require a shift in the theoretical approach adopted by many in experimental and comparative psychology.
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
The shift is strictly based on terminolgy. Today we call ourselves human beings and chimps chimps and apes apes.
I think it wise to read the entire links I’ve presented. In no way does evolution deny Charles Darwin.
NOPE. I don’t think so.
R
reggieM
Guest
Apparently, you’ve decided to reject Darwinian theory.Hi Rossum,
My parents weren’t apes and I’m not an ape.
W
Wirraway
Guest
except that they were flares dropped by an air national guard unit on a training mission. I remember a phoenix TV station duplicated that famous nighttime shot superimposed over a daytime shot taken from the same place/angle, and the flares disappeared one by one, as they fell behind a ridge line that wasn’t visible at night.
W
wildleafblower
Guest
Please note added information highlighted in blue.
rossum;4180676:
In scientific terms humans are apes - we are members of the Hominidae. My parents were apes and I am an ape. Apes do give birth to humans every time a human is born.
rossum
Hi Rossum,
My parents weren’t apes and I’m not an ape.
Take chimps, for example. Studies of selected genes from our closest relative have consistently found that ~98% of human DNA is identical to that of chimpanzees (and >99.9% identical to the person next to you). That means there are fewer genetic differences between chimps and humans than between horses and zebras or between dolphins and porpoises. Only a small part of the human genome is responsible for the traits that make us human—including our ability to walk, talk, write, build complex things, and enact moral imperatives. That said, chimps look and act like us only to an extent; their anatomy and behavior do distinctly differ from ours. (Admittedly, a 2% difference among an estimated billion base pairs does still allow for millions of variations among strings of nucleotides that govern protein manufacture.) So, what comprises those 2% biochemical differences and can we trace them back to their genetic origins—to look back in time to infer evolutionary insight? If recent studies are correct, it’s not only the number of gene differences that’s telling, but also the relative activity (or “expression” by which they produce proteins) of certain genes. Evidently, gene expression in human brains differs greatly from that in chimps, implying faster rates of neural evolution for our ancestors while on the road to humanity.(2)
(It’s a standing joke with me and the neighorhood kids. We got a tad of chimp in us all.
- tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html- tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/fr_1/fr_1_bio.html
Perhaps a tad more information from the American Psychological Association may be helpful:
**What makes us human (Homo sapiens)? The challenge of cognitive cross-species comparison. **Boesch, Christophe
Journal of Comparative Psychology. 2007 Aug Vol 121(3) 227-240
Abstract: Two major theoretical approaches have dominated the quest for uniquely human cognitive abilities: a developmentalist approach stressing the importance of environmental and social conditions, and a predominant approach in experimental and comparative psychology, the deterministic approach suggesting the effect of environmental and social conditions to be minimal. As a consequence, most claims of human cognitive uniqueness are based on comparisons of White middle class Westerner humans (Homo sapiens) with captive chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). However, humans are much more than only White middle class Westerners, and chimpanzees are much more than only captives. A review of some data available on different populations of humans and chimpanzees reveals that only the predictions of the developmentalist approach are supported. In addition, systematic biases are too often introduced in experiment protocols when comparing humans with apes that further cast doubts on cross-species comparisons. The author argues that only with consideration of within-species population differences in the cognitive domains and the use of well-matched cross-species experimental procedures will an objective understanding of the different cognitive abilities between species emerge. This will require a shift in the theoretical approach adopted by many in experimental and comparative psychology.
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=search.displayRecord&uid=2007-11961-001
The shift is strictly based on terminolgy. Today we call ourselves human beings and chimps chimps and apes apes.* The best way for me to explain this is by presenting an example:
**Great Apes & Humans: The Ethics of Coexistence **Tara S. Stoinski, J91, Benjamin B. Beck et al., editors
Smithsonian institution press
The great apes—gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans—are known to be our closest living relatives. The relation of apes to humans raises important ethical questions. Are they better protected in the wild or in zoos? Should they be used in biomedical research? Should they be afforded the same legal protections as humans? The editors, including Stoinski, a coordinator at the primate research tech lab at the Atlanta Zoo, present a spectrum of viewpoints on human responsibilities toward great apes. They discuss the declining numbers of wild apes and explore the role of apes in the educational missions of zoos as well as the need for sanctuaries for wild ape orphans and former research subjects
tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2003/departments/bookshelf.html
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/spring2003/departments/bookshelf.html
I think it wise to read the entire links I’ve presented. In no way does evolution deny Charles Darwin.
NOPE. I don’t think so.
R
rossum
Guest
In my post I used the word Hominidae to qualify “ape”. That indicated that I was using “ape” in the scientific sense of “a member of the Hominidae”. In common usage “ape” means “a non-human member of the Hominidae”.
In scientific terms we match the criteria for membership of the Hominidae:* our tail is reduced to an internal stub,
- our teeth have a particular conformation only shared with other Hominidae,
- we share the increased mobility of our shoulder joint - a dog cannot clap its paws above its head, chimps can,
- we have relatively large brains,
- we have a tendancy towards bipedal walking.
rossum
T
Thing
Guest
…I often wonder about mushrooms, I wonder whether they are plants or animals?:dts:
E
edwest2
Guest
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
they are neither:
What is a mushroom? Mushrooms are not plants! It is the fruit (like an apple) of the mushroom “body” and contain mushroom “seeds” called spores. The body of the mushroom in called mycelium and its individual parts are microscopic. Since the body of the mushroom is usually dispersed over a relatively large area it is rarely noticed. In nature some species of mushrooms may have a body that spreads over hundreds of square miles!
Mushrooms are fungi, and are usually placed in a Kingdom of there own apart from plants and animals. Mushrooms contain no chlorophyll and most are considered saprophytes. That is, they obtain their nutrition from metabolizing non living organic matter. This means they break down and “eat” dead plants, like your compost pile does.
- Status