Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

MellyJae61595 wrote:All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

Did you know man designed both a fork and spork?
Though I've heard that a spork is a mixed breed of fork and spoon.

Please elabourate on the philosophical / religious implications

Kurieuo wrote:

MellyJae61595 wrote:All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

Did you know man designed both a fork and spork?
Though I've heard that a spork is a mixed breed of fork and spoon.

A spork is a transitional species between spoon and fork. It proves evolution of utensils.

RickD wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

MellyJae61595 wrote:All these things may or may not be true about evolution but what about wolly mammoths?Which are extinct but the elephant sure does look a lot like them. Is the elephant just a mixed breed of some other animal as well? Everything comes from somewhere rather man-made or through "God". Everything has a purpose scientifically speaking or religiously speaking.

Did you know man designed both a fork and spork?
Though I've heard that a spork is a mixed breed of fork and spoon.

A spork is a transitional species between spoon and fork. It proves evolution of utensils.

Evolution by design !!!

* drops mike and kicks dog out of way*

Just line up a series of one model from ford over 100 years and it wouldn't look that different from the whake transition are chart . How does this prove Darwinian evolution ?
It doesn't

Here we have it folks , sure looks like an evolutionary transitional chart to me

Hugh said ""The interview you cite certainly petered out in a way which appeared to embarrass Patricia Churchland, but it hardly discredited her. For a more complete idea of her views try her interview with Susan Blackmore""

Hugh your using one non expert to validate the other non expert .
Susan Blackmore was interviews on skeptiko and she doesn't even keep up with current Nde research , if you were unbiased and honest in your research on this you would have known that .

Susan Blackmore is No longer relevant in Nde research and she says so herself .
You are very good at putting a positive spin on all this Hugh .

And your delusional if you believe it hardly discredited her . She knew she was caught in a lie and this is why she reported to her antics .

Did she or did she not say in her book that dr lommel agreed with her stance on ndes being brain based .

It is this distortion of the facts Hugh that tells me you are extremely close minded .

""Is any of this true? I think "the scientific community" and its intransigence is often unjustly raised as a bogeyman to explain why para-scientific ideas have not gained more credence. In search of some "massive press", I Googled "late brain surge", only to receive the message that my search "did not match any documents." Massive press indeed. Then, tracking down the 'debunked' acceptance of anoxia, I find that it has never been supported as the only cause of NDEs, and that a variety of other causes have also been investigated. And who has investigated them? The very "scientific community" bippy is convinced is so hostile!
They are not doing this only because it pushes hard against their materialistic paradigm but it also pushed against their religion of atheism dogmatic views because then they will be forced to look at the bent if ought seen by a majority of Nde experiencers across the globe that dr Jeff long found in his Nde research.""

Hugh that's convenient you did a search for late brain surge saw that nothing came up and assumed that there was no press for the study lol

Why have I found many like this . Notice that I pulled this from a respectable mainstream science site .

http://www.livescience.com/38817-electr ... brain.html

And yet when you search live science there is no mention of the aware study in which a veridical Nde was timed as happening for a full 3 minutes into cardiac arrest which debunks the 30 second surge .

This is just one search I did from a mainstream science site .
Even though the researcher of the study when interviewed on skeptiko backtracked completely from
The sensationalist claim being made here .

Search the site and see if you can find anything on dr Sam Parnia unless it has nothing to do with his aware study even though parnias study was published in a very respectable peer reviewed uk medical journal .

Hugh like I said mInstream has a clear bias here .

I gave an uber ride to a student studying for her Ph.D. In neuroscience from ucsd and even though she has heard of professor church lands work on the brain she has never heard of her opinion on ndes . Why is that Hugh ????

Here Hugh says

""You seem to be using the word 'materialistic' to imply 'atheist' as well, and if so, then I don't think the scientific community has such a bias. It most certainly does have a 'rationality' bias, not necessarily because of any prejudice against the supernatural, but because that's what science is. If a bookseller doesn't sell cheese, it's not necessarily because he doesn't like cheese, but because his field is books. The field of science is reason, the process of inferring information from observation, and relating all such inferences into a coherent unity. It cannot investigate deviations from this pattern, even if it thinks there ""

Actually Hugh science working in a vacuum is supposed to inferinfirmation from observation but as I showed in the treatment both the late brain surge in rats study and the aware study the scientific community isn't doing this at all .

The aware study clearly showed a veridical Nde for a full 3 minutes during cardiac arrest and even though this study clearly inferred information from observation mainstream science sites chose to either ignore it or put a negative spin on it while choosing to clearly pick up the late brain surge study and giving it more importance than the aware study and there can only be one reason here and that is mainstream science has a cheat bias against anything that points to the paranormal or supernatural even though it can sometimes be observed through scientific observations like this .

True the aware study was picked up by the major uk tabloids but it clearly wasn't picked up by mainstream science sites .

You are clearly wrong Hugh and you clearly didn't understand that the aware study did make observations that were inferred but mainstream science feels very uncomfortable with its finding because it went against its anti God and anti supernatural bias .

In this case Hugh the bogeyman is real and it's very powerful , especially in the uk

And lets take a look at a response to the late brain surge in rats study that livescience had on its site but never bothered to scientifically critique it

http://www.livescience.com/38817-electr ... brain.html

Did they bother to try to debunk it ? Oh but hugh farey says we are making mainstream science out to be some bogeyman .
If livescience and other mainstream science sites were really after scientific truth they would have published the refutation from
The god father of modern Nde research dr Bruce Greyson
Let's hear what he had to say

http://m.pnas.org/content/110/47/E4405. ... ce2321f3b0

Surge of neurophysiological activity in the dying brain
Authors
Borjigin et al. (1) describe recordings from electrodes implanted in rat brains that were made during and after cardiac arrest in rats. The surprising and unexplained 30-s surge in electrical coherence and connectivity certainly merits further study, but the authors’ suggestion that this transient electrical surge has implications for near-death experiences in humans seems premature to us.
First, it is impossible to establish what, if anything, the rats were experiencing during the postarrest period of the surge.
Second, the activity observed following cardiac arrest represents a tiny fraction of the total neuroelectric power present just before arrest (as indicated in figures 1 and 2 of Borjigin et al.), and thus it is misleading to describe these rat brains as being “hyperaroused.” All that can be concluded is that activity of unknown functional significance occurred at a few places in the EEG frequency spectrum in the context of near-total obliteration of activity accompanying the waking state. The pertinent question here is not whether there is any brain electrical activity at all after cardiac arrest, but whether there is activity of the type currently thought to be necessary for conscious experience.
Third, the relevance of these findings in rats to human brain physiology is unclear. Monitoring of cortical electrical activity in humans during cardiac arrest has documented a slowing and attenuation of EEG activity in humans detected an average of 6.5 s after cardiac arrest, progressing to isoelectricity and absence of evoked potentials within 10–20 s (2).
Fourth, many reports of near-death experiences include verifiable perceptions by the experiencer that are anchored to specific time periods far longer than 30 s after cardiac arrest (3), the duration of the electrical surge in this study.
Fifth, many near-death experiences occur under conditions that do not involve cardiac arrest or decreased cerebral perfusion (4).
Sixth, about a quarter of reported near-death experiences occur under general anesthesia (5), but the rats in the study by Borjigin et al. did not show the observed postarrest EEG patterns under anesthesia.
Seventh, all of the rats exhibited the same stereotyped pattern of high-frequency EEG activity following cardiac arrest, but only 10–20% of humans undergoing cardiac arrest report near-death experiences (4).
For these reasons we believe that the finding of Borjigin et al. of surprising brain electrical activity after cardiac arrest, although intriguing and meriting further investigation, is unlikely to contribute to an understanding of near-death experiences.

Thanks, Bippy, at last, for something someone can look up.

The research paper referred to in the article you link to is: "Surge of neurophysiological coherence and connectivity in the dying brain", by Jimo Borjigin et al. and can be downloaded free from http://www.pnas.org/content/110/35/14432.full.pdf. Have you read it?

In the opening paragraph, the authors say; "Internally generated visions and perceptions are also reported by ∼20% of cardiac arrest survivors during clinical death. These near-death experiences (NDE), reported worldwide across cultures, are described to be highly lucid and vivid, and are perceived to be “realer than real”. Whether and how the brain is capable of generating conscious activity during cardiac arrest has been vigorously debated. We reasoned that IF NDE stems from brain activity, neural correlates of consciousness should be identifiable in humans or animals after cessation of cerebral blood flow." The emphasis on the word 'IF' is mine.

Is there anything in that statement with which you disagree? If the brain generates NDEs, then more brain activity than usual would be expected to accompany it. If it doesn't, then extra brain activity could be coincidental. Fair enough?

Having explained their experiments, the authors say this: "Though neurophysiology at the moment of cardiac arrest has not been systematically studied in human cardiac arrest survivors, surges of electroencephalographic activity (measured by bispectral index) have been reported in humans undergoing organ donation after cardiac death," and also: "Use of these unique experimental paradigms will allow detailed mechanistic dissection of neurophysiology of the dying brain in animal models, which could provide guidance for research on NDE after cardiac arrest in humans. NDE represents a biological paradox that challenges our understanding of the brain and has been advocated as evidence for life after death and for a noncorporeal basis of human consciousness, based on the unsupported belief that the brain cannot possibly be the source of highly vivid and lucid conscious experiences during clinical death. By presenting evidence of highly organized brain activity and neurophysiologic features consistent with conscious processing at near-death, we now provide a scientific framework to begin to explain the highly lucid and realer-than-real mental experiences reported by near-death survivors." (Emphasis mine)

Clearly, there is no claim to a complete explanation for NDEs in this paper. The authors do say that the belief that NDEs "cannot possibly" be derived from brain activity is unsupported, which can be queried, I agree, although the support is rather circumstantial. I agree that there is merit in Bruce Greyson's reply to Jimo Borjigin (http://m.pnas.org/content/110/47/E4405.full.pdf), but recommend those interested to read Borjigin's response (http://m.pnas.org/content/110/47/E4406.full.pdf).

bippy123 wrote:Just line up a series of one model from ford over 100 years and it wouldn't look that different from the whake transition are chart . How does this prove Darwinian evolution ?
It doesn't

Does this "prove" that some people dont even know that science does not do proof?

Actually, of course, there is a sense in which cars most certainly evolve; features which work are improved, while features which don't are discarded. Although a modern car is designed by a contemporary designer, he is not starting from scratch. If he were, he might put the pedals in a different order, or come up with a completely different gearshift pattern. Some of these things are only still features of cars because convention so dictates, such as the symbol of a bugle to represent the horn, or the wholly artificial "engine noise" played by some almost silent electric cars - vestigial organs?

Audie wrote:

bippy123 wrote:Just line up a series of one model from ford over 100 years and it wouldn't look that different from the whake transition are chart . How does this prove Darwinian evolution ?
It doesn't

Does this "prove" that some people dont even know that science does not do proof?

Correct Audi my bad I should have reworded it better my apologies

Hugh also veridical ndes are further evidence against the rat study and I believe you will really like to research Greyson's research into peak in Darien ndes which further weaken any brain based explanation for ndes.

To dr parnias credit , when asked if his research proves the afterlife he simply stated that his research only shows that consciousness lives on for at least 3 minutes without a functioning brain , but his research stops short of showing if it survives beyond that .

If Parnia gets 3-5 hits on the digital images in his aware 2 study he could be up for a noble prize ad this study could be the most important scientific study in human history

Hugh there is a website that is keeping track of the aware 2 study
A Google search for the keywords aware of aware will get you to this site .
The aware 2 study is 5% done .

Oops here it is
https://awareofaware.co/welcome/blog/

This time they will only accept patients who do not pass away and if my memory serves me right only people that have had ndes .

Greyson was involved in aware 1 I'm betting he will be involved in aware 2 as well

Hugh I would also look into remote viewing since one of the most prominent sceptics in England Richard wiseman said this
http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/s ... s.html?m=1

Skeptic agrees that remote viewing is proven



Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:
In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

Of course, this doesn't wash with sceptical scientists.

Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire, refuses to believe in remote viewing.

He says: "I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do.

hughfarey wrote:Actually, of course, there is a sense in which cars most certainly evolve; features which work are improved, while features which don't are discarded. Although a modern car is designed by a contemporary designer, he is not starting from scratch. If he were, he might put the pedals in a different order, or come up with a completely different gearshift pattern. Some of these things are only still features of cars because convention so dictates, such as the symbol of a bugle to represent the horn, or the wholly artificial "engine noise" played by some almost silent electric cars - vestigial organs?

This is basically Michael behes stance on intelligent design . He believes in ID but also believes in common descent so you could say he's got a hybrid stance here .