[_ Old Earth _] Scientfic Evidence for the Soul?

[ikester7579]

If you believe the source is bad, bring it to their attention. And a comparison is not changing the subject. Unless you are bias about using such things in discussions because they conflict with your scientific view that science is never wrong, and has never lied.

If not, then what's the problem with the comparison?

I don't believe the source is bad, I believe the sources are good because it provided an unbiased review of why it should be taken with a grain of salt that this shows anything regarding the existence of a soul.

It was a bad experiment, ikester, that had many flaws.

So what makes it worse than the Miller experiment which left out any real world conditions. And used scientific cheats to achieve the results. But yet it is held as a hero of proven tests where not even one flaw, or one problem is ever mentioned. Which makes evolution look as easy as baking a cake. And if it's that easy, it would not take billions of years.

Then we have the Haeckel drawings. Science is now pushing that nothing was ever wrong with them, and plans on re-printing this in all new text books. First it will be tried in one. And when not that much flak is received, then they will print it in the rest.

What's next? Piltdown man?

And the test I show had problems?

Let's take the Oort cloud for example. Has anyone seen it? Nope? But yet the test for the soul was not only a weight change that was see-able, but repeatable as well. But yet the unseeable Oort cloud exist, and the weight change was some type of hoax?

Like I said before and I'll keep repeating. If anyone thinks the evidence is false, e-mail snopes and convince of this so they will quit using it. And if all who disagree can't put your words into action. Then it shows me that you don't think your argument about this is good enough to change their mind. Which is totally laughable from my end. :

Why is it laughable? Because I am sure these people are not creationists. Therefore there should be not much problem with changing their mind. But it would be a big blow to someones ego to be rejected by someone who is of their own peers. So what is everyone afraid of that disagrees with this? That an out side source might make you actually have to prove them wrong?

 

[ikester7579]

I have been pondering myself on how the weight can be lost regardless of the person's size. And unlike the ones that disagree, I am looking for truth in this. Which has lead me to ponder this:

The only thing I can think of, that would be a physical change that might do this. Is the person's magnetic field vanishing upon death.

You see, every person emits a magnetic field because of their nervous system. This is because the nervous system is like an electrical conduit. And electrical charge produces a frequency (electronics 101). And because this field would basically be the same strength in every person, regardless of size. Would mean that when we die. The same magnetic field would be lost in each person as our nervous system shuts down upon death.

The magnetic field not being that strong would also explain why the loss in weight was very small as well. To prove this either way, a test where the electrical brain waves should be conducted to make sure the electrical part of our nervous system is shut down exactly at moment of death. Which would mean our magnetic field would dissipate as well.

And to prove this even further is to conduct such tests on non-soul subjects such as animals. If it were the soul we are seeing leave the body with weight. Then when an animal dies, there should be no change. Because animals have a nervous system like we do, which means they also have a magnetic field. And if it is just the magnetic field, then they will lose weight proving it is physical and not spiritual.

 

[maranatha_man]

But yet the test for the soul was not only a weight change that was see-able, but repeatable as well.

Theoretically it may be repeatable, but NO REFERENCES OR ACCOUNTS OF ANYONE REPEATING IT SINCE 1907-1911 HAVE BEEN GIVEN.

Like I said before and I'll keep repeating. If anyone thinks the evidence is false, e-mail snopes and convince of this so they will quit using it.

Snopes.com themselves give the MacDougall findings little or no credibility - from the snopes.com website itself, read the following:


"What to make of all this? MacDougall's results were flawed because the methodology used to harvest them was suspect, the sample size far too small, and the ability to measure changes in weight imprecise. For this reason, credence should not be given to the idea his experiments proved something, let alone that they measured the weight of the soul as 21 grams. His postulations on this topic are a curiousity, but nothing more."

 

[maranatha_man]

The only thing I can think of, that would be a physical change that might do this. Is the person's magnetic field vanishing upon death.

You see, every person emits a magnetic field because of their nervous system. This is because the nervous system is like an electrical conduit. And electrical charge produces a frequency (electronics 101).

"Magnetic Electronic fields" of this size do not have physical weight.

And because this field would basically be the same strength in every person, regardless of size.

How in the world did you determine this? :o

The magnetic field not being that strong would also explain why the loss in weight was very small as well.

uh...20-plus grams could be considered a substantial amount, depending. ...and once again, an electromagnetic "field" of this size would not possess a measurable weight .

To prove this either way, a test where the electrical brain waves should be conducted to make sure the electrical part of our nervous system is shut down exactly at moment of death. Which would mean our magnetic field would dissipate as well.

I am not aware of individuals having "magnetism" or "magnetic fields".
...and "a test where the electrical waves should be conducted" makes little sense.



<LOL!> Ikester supposedly has me on "IGNORE" & it may be easy to see why - but I'm quite sure others will be reading this as well :bday:

 

[maranatha_man]

:o Yikes let's hope this is'nt the New Age copper bracelet stuff he's trying to use..

 

[maranatha_man]

...but in spite of the fact that Professor Ikester can't seem to get His basic units straight....(Electromagnetic flux / gram weight)

...Wait a minute...He has a sure-fire method to PROVE Hamite theory - that EDIT do not possess a soul!!

Being a Staunch Fundamentalist I'm sure He'd Leap at the chance to support this belief!!

Just take a dying Edited, and compare it to a dying, uprighteous Bible-believing Edited person, and you'd certainly see the Editedperson weighed LESS upon death!!

How about it, Ikester?? Here's your chance!!! :P

All Edits made by Atonement 9/10/06 @ 3:13pm PT

 

[Slevin]

So what makes it worse than the Miller experiment which left out any real world conditions. And used scientific cheats to achieve the results. But yet it is held as a hero of proven tests where not even one flaw, or one problem is ever mentioned. Which makes evolution look as easy as baking a cake. And if it's that easy, it would not take billions of years.

Red herring.

Then we have the Haeckel drawings. Science is now pushing that nothing was ever wrong with them, and plans on re-printing this in all new text books. First it will be tried in one. And when not that much flak is received, then they will print it in the rest.

Red Herring.

What's next? Piltdown man?

Red herring.

Let's take the Oort cloud for example. Has anyone seen it? Nope? But yet the test for the soul was not only a weight change that was see-able, but repeatable as well. But yet the unseeable Oort cloud exist, and the weight change was some type of hoax?

And yet we have a source that YOU provided which showed the problems with the mechanisms of the test. What does the oort cloud have to do with this test? Where did I say anything about the Oort cloud or evolution?

Like I said before and I'll keep repeating. If anyone thinks the evidence is false, e-mail snopes and convince of this so they will quit using it. And if all who disagree can't put your words into action. Then it shows me that you don't think your argument about this is good enough to change their mind. Which is totally laughable from my end. :

Snopes is not in disagreement with me, buddy. Why don't you actually read your sources?

Why is it laughable? Because I am sure these people are not creationists. Therefore there should be not much problem with changing their mind. But it would be a big blow to someones ego to be rejected by someone who is of their own peers. So what is everyone afraid of that disagrees with this? That an out side source might make you actually have to prove them wrong?

What are you talking about?

 

[ikester7579]

What are you talking about?

Minds that think a like usually will agree, even when wrong.

And about the rest of your post. Your hate for God shows through your red herrings. :

And I guess I have my answer to whether someone will e-mail snopes about this. Which tells a lot more than supposed red herrings will do.

 

[Slevin]

Minds that think a like usually will agree, even when wrong.

And about the rest of your post. Your hate for God shows through your red herrings. :

And I guess I have my answer to whether someone will e-mail snopes about this. Which tells a lot more than supposed red herrings will do.

Wow...