Genesis and The Big Bang

[Zamorakshadow]

[hide]1. Mutations have been observed, but an animal turning into a whole different kind of animal has not. (Just so we're on the same page, I'm not disputing microevolution.) The lack of evidence alone is reason enough not to believe that evolution is a proven fact.

 

2. The transition from asexual creatures to creatures who need both a male and female in order to reproduce makes very little sense at all. There had to be two animals that randomly generated these "opposite gender genes" from asexual parents in the same lifespan as each other, they had to find each other on this huge planet earth, and have intercourse in order to pass the gender genes down (and the genes had to be successfully carried down into the offspring and so forth). It's also pretty hard to believe that wings randomly and successfully came to be, given all the complications to aerodynamics.

 

3. There is a lack of transitional creatures in our fossil records. Why don't we see species of animals all with "half-wings" or other useless body parts? Even Darwin himself said, several generations ago, that if we don't find enough inter-species fossils then his theory would collapse. It's 2009 now and we're still searching. I have every right to be skeptical, especially when the person who proposed the theory even agrees with me.

 

4. The Law of Biogenesis VS The Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Biogenesis - every living creature we have observed had parents. As for evolution, the only things we have to work with are conjectures about "patterns of progression".

 

5. Humans look for patterns where they do not exist. For example: the Mother Mary on someone's toast and seeing pictures in the clouds. Evolution sounds exactly like this. People putting skeletons next to each other, seeing some similarities, and then inferring that there is a pattern showing some sort of "progression".

 

6. Evolution proposes that my great-great-great etc. grandfather was a single cell. My body is composed of millions. Where did all the millions of extra cells come from? What about the DNA?

 

7. There is no need for evolution to exist. It is not the only possible explanation for why our bodies are so fine-tuned for survival, if you would even call it that.

 

Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect[/hide]

 

Okay, here we go...

 

1: Speciation/Macroevolution HAS been observed in nature, in lab, and in the fossil record. Hathorn fly, Culex Pipiens - Culex Molestus... Not to mention, it is logical to assume that Microevolution + Time = Macroevolution. Scientists don't even use the terms "micro" and "macro" anymore, they know that one will lead to another.

Also, there is a lot of other evidences for evolution. Every year countless of studies on genetics show common descent among close species ( Retroviruses, Wobble Gene Sequence and Intron Gene Sequence are good examples).

 

2:[hide] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk[/hide]

 

Theese two videos, one show how Meiosis ( "primitive" form of sex) first originated, and the other shows how Sexual Reproduction could have evolved from Meiosis to how it is now.

 

3: There are A LOT of transitional fossils... In fact, *all* existent fossils are transitional fossils. Just put all fossils in Chronologic order, and see the intermediate features they have. My favorite example of fossils is the horse evolution: Hyracotherium - Orohippus - Epihippus - Mesohippus - Miohippus - Kalobatippus - Parahippus - Merychippus - Hipparion - Pliohippus - Dinohippus - Plesippus - Equus.

 

4: [hide]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg[/hide]

 

Biogenesis isn't 100% true, this video in the hide tag is about the Scientists leading model on Abiogenesis Theory, that was proven right by Dr. Jack Szostak's research. Abiogenesis is possible.

 

5: They don't just put skeletons in a pile and look for similarities. They are scientists, they do research, not guesses. If you put all fossils in chronological order you will see small changes piling up with time and intermediate features existing.

 

6: The DNA forming naturally isn't really hard, one of the DNA bases is proven to form naturally, in fact. DNA is just a kind of molecule that can organize itself in patterns and make copies of itself. The "milhons" of extra cells came from 3.6 bilhon years of evolution. Unicelular beings forming multicelular life is proven possible ( in fact, there was an algae specie that was observed to form a multicelular being in a few dozen generations), after multicelular beings first form, it isn't hard to imagine the amount of cells that make them multiplying...

You know, one single mutation on someone can make a person have hundreds or thousands of cells more than the others ( it's called "tall people"...), milhons of cells appearing in 3.6 bilhons of years sounds plausible to me.

 

7: It is not the only explanation, but it is backed up by mountains of evidence, from transitional fossils to genetic studies, and it explains all relevant facts and is contradicted by none. Sounds good to me.

 

 

 

Also, someone earlier said a brain can't come from Evolution...

 

[hide]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RbPQG9WTZM[/hide]

 

This video shows how a primitive brain can form, after this, all it needs is a few milhons of years of evolution. Something being complex isn't proof against evolution, in fact it is evidence for it, because incredibly complex characteristics are predicted by evolution.

[brunokiller]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love?

Human babies are unable to care for themselves for 10+ years. Love keeps the parents together, which means the child has a better chance to survive.

 

Why havent animals learn to love?

Who is to say they don't? Some species have males and females that stay together for their whole life.

 

And why are we able to think?

Currents and reassigning nerve ends in our brain.

 

Why can we make our own choices?

 

That's what you think :wink: In concept you're just a machine.

 

Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct?

 

We still are driven by instinct. Ever been scared by something? Seen a beautiful woman and subconsciously staring at her before you realise what you are doing?

 

Why don't we still evolve?

 

We do.

Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans?

The chances of them following us is probably rather small as exactly the same mutations must occur, of which the chance is negigible. But they might get more intelligent.

 

Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet?

Doplhins, elephants, birds(singing) and many more creatures use sound to communicate.

 

Did evolutions just stop?

Never will.

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

Still?

[Greatsilverwyrm]

While I haven't been to every country in the world, numerous reliable sources cite their existences. But if you want to parade around denying that Norway is a real place, go right ahead.

You're using faith in believing that it exists and that those sources are true, just as you'd be using faith to believe in evolution and its proof.

Everyone uses faith in practically every situation and to discount religious faith would be ... hypocritical...?

 

Here's the thing, though: faith in norway is backed-up by solid factual reliable evidence and the knowledge that you could if you wanted to travel to norway.

Faith in God is backed up by no solid scientific evidence and nobody can tell me a 100% accurate way to experience God.

[Zamorakshadow]

Evolution is still happening... If it wasn't happening, you would look EXACLY like your parents, in each and every possible small characteristic. Love came when our brains formed. The origin of the brain is explained by Evolution, i even left a link to a video about the origin of the brain in my last post here...

 

 

If you think that humans aren't driven by instinct, or that animals haven't learned love OR language... you have A LOT to study.

 

It is actually proven that humans and monkeys behave in very similar ways, in fact. It is proven that "The annoying boss" at work behaves exacly the same way as monkey species alpha male. Animals have languages, Dolphins even call eachothers by names! Monkeys have body languages, and Elephants have "sounds" that they make to warn about danger, and when they hear it the elephants organize themselves to protect the children.

 

And animals do love. If an elephant in a group of elephants die, they will be around his body mourning his death for hours. Also, dogs love their owners, or you think your pets feel nothing for you?

[gorgoroth]

Okay lets suppose for a second that evolution is true. How would you explain love? How did humans learn to love?

Human babies are unable to care for themselves for 10+ years. Love keeps the parents together, which means the child has a better chance to survive.

 

Why havent animals learn to love?

Who is to say they don't? Some species have males and females that stay together for their whole life.

 

And why are we able to think?

Currents and reassigning nerve ends in our brain.

 

Why can we make our own choices?

 

That's what you think :wink: In concept you're just a machine.

 

Why are we driven by choice and thought rather than instinct?

 

We still are driven by instinct. Ever been scared by something? Seen a beautiful woman and subconsciously staring at her before you realise what you are doing?

 

Why don't we still evolve?

 

We do.

Why arent monkeys still evolving into humans?

The chances of them following us is probably rather small as exactly the same mutations must occur, of which the chance is negigible. But they might get more intelligent.

 

Why havent animals learned the art of speach yet?

Doplhins, elephants, birds(singing) and many more creatures use sound to communicate.

 

Did evolutions just stop?

Never will.

Those are the things that just dont make sense to me.

Still?

Now even more than ever. The more i read the replies the bigger the bull [cabbage] gets.

Its all a 50 - 50 game to me. Every reason you have for evolution i have a reason for God. To me it sounds like you're making up excuses and i'm 100% sure to you it sounds the same on my part. I guess all that mankind can do is wait for Judgement day or whatever.

[gorgoroth]

Oh also i forgot to ask one thing. Do you believe in ghosts/spirits?

[warri0r45]

Scientists don't know how life formed, but they know many ways life could have formed.

 

We're in agreement then.

 

You claimed there were good arguments against it, let's hear some.

 

1. Mutations have been observed, but an animal turning into a whole different kind of animal has not. (Just so we're on the same page, I'm not disputing microevolution.) The lack of evidence alone is reason enough not to believe that evolution is a proven fact.

 

2. The transition from asexual creatures to creatures who need both a male and female in order to reproduce makes very little sense at all. There had to be two animals that randomly generated these "opposite gender genes" from asexual parents in the same lifespan as each other, they had to find each other on this huge planet earth, and have intercourse in order to pass the gender genes down (and the genes had to be successfully carried down into the offspring and so forth). It's also pretty hard to believe that wings randomly and successfully came to be, given all the complications to aerodynamics.

 

3. There is a lack of transitional creatures in our fossil records. Why don't we see species of animals all with "half-wings" or other useless body parts? Even Darwin himself said, several generations ago, that if we don't find enough inter-species fossils then his theory would collapse. It's 2009 now and we're still searching. I have every right to be skeptical, especially when the person who proposed the theory even agrees with me.

 

4. The Law of Biogenesis VS The Theory of Evolution. There is plenty of evidence for Biogenesis - every living creature we have observed had parents. As for evolution, the only things we have to work with are conjectures about "patterns of progression".

 

5. Humans look for patterns where they do not exist. For example: the Mother Mary on someone's toast and seeing pictures in the clouds. Evolution sounds exactly like this. People putting skeletons next to each other, seeing some similarities, and then inferring that there is a pattern showing some sort of "progression".

 

6. Evolution proposes that my great-great-great etc. grandfather was a single cell. My body is composed of millions. Where did all the millions of extra cells come from? What about the DNA?

 

7. There is no need for evolution to exist. It is not the only possible explanation for why our bodies are so fine-tuned for survival, if you would even call it that.

 

Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect.

 

1) We havent seen that scale of change directly because it takes a very long time. We have seen processes of speciation and organisms gaining new traits, however. I say evolution is proven mostly because of retrotransposons and other hard evidence like that. Retrotransposons prove that were related to chimpanzees and can be used to reconstruct phylogenies of other sets of organisms as well. However, they cant be used to generate phylogenies for all of life because background mutations make them indistinguishable over longer time scales. Having said that, Id argue if weve basically proven it for some organisms, whats there to prevent it from happening in others? At the very least, all the other molecular sequence evidence would suggest that the universal common descent of all organisms is a very good theory and the most solid explanation for how we got here.

 

2) To be honest Im completely ignorant on the proposed mechanisms of how sexuality and flight evolved and the evidence to back it up, but from what research Ive done into evolution I wouldnt discount that its out there. Off to do some research I suppose.

 

3) Three points here. One, there are indeed transitional fossils out there, for example Tiktaalik roseae and Ventastega are among the fossils showing a fish to tetrapod transition. Other interesting transitions are the tetrapod to whale transition, with new fossil finds in Pakistan in recent years.

 

Two, animals wont evolve useless body parts. To say so doesnt make sense based on what we know about natural selection. I suppose you could call the weird hand-like fins of Tiktaalik useless, but it would seem theyre used for moving around swampy/floodplain areas (cant explain it too well basically areas with shallow water).

 

Three, the person who proposed the theory hundreds of years ago doesnt own it and doesnt dictate what makes it stand or fall. Youre right to say that were still searching, but that doesnt mean we havent found some interesting fossils. Theyre out there if youre willing to do some research. Ive provided some examples here, and another example that you can follow up on (whale evolution). If you just google something like whale evolution or horse evolution youll find some good information, trust me.

 

4) This doesnt make any sense. Ive seen this used as an argument against abiogenesis before, but not evolution. Evolution is perfectly consistent with biogenesis. One organism produces offspring with slight variations, and so on, and so on, and so on. In retrospect, the latter generations look different to the first. As for patterns of progression, theyre perfectly reasonable and are based on science. In other words, scientists propose structures that we ought to find if x evolved into y. You can see an example of this in whale evolution, where the middle ear structure of the transitional forms needed to shift from hearing in air to hearing underwater. This is exactly the kind of shift documented in the fossil record.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7001/abs/nature02720.html

 

Perhaps the best geological/paleontological evidence for evolution is the principle of faunal succession, which states that there is a consistent order of fossils from less complex to more complex forms over time, basically documenting the direction of evolution throughout the history of life, if you like.

 

http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/infobank/programs/html/school/moviepage/09.01.17.html

 

5) What a ridiculous comparison. Its nothing like religious people freaking out because they think they see a face in a piece of toast. Firstly, paleontology is a fair bit more sophisticated than putting fossils next to each other and looking. There are a certain amount of detailed physical characteristics that need to show a logical progression for the transition to be plausible (e.g. whale inner ear structure). Added, this isnt the only line of evidence evolution is based on. See: retrotransposons and the principle of faunal succession for two examples.

 

6) This one is easy. The extra cells came from cell division, as did the extra copies of DNA. If youre wondering about the evolution of multicellularity, it would do good to research cell adhesion and some interesting species like Dictyostelium discoideum:

 

http://dictybase.org/tutorial/about_dictyostelium.htm

 

In a nutshell, its single celled, but part of its life cycle sees the cells aggregate to form a multicellular community.

 

7) In response to this I would say that evolution is the best explanation for how life on earth developed. Sure, some supernatural force may have done all of it and all the evidence could be a sham, but to me thats just ridiculous.

 

Again, I'm not saying evolution is an impossibility. It just surprises me how many people have such faith in this theory (enough that they even claim they're 100% sure about it) while they dismiss anything else without sufficient evidence to be entirely false. Evolution is exactly like God of the Gaps, but with the "God" part taken out.. Wishful thinking in order to try and explain a mystery without using the word "god", although the amount of support for each type of explanation are severely lacking. Belief in evolution and god are quite similar in this respect.

 

A few points in response to this:

 

First, I dont accept evolution through faith. I accept it through evidence alone, as Ive described here and at other points in this thread.

 

Second, Ive never claimed Im 100% sure about all of evolution. Much of the phylogenetic work that goes on is very hard to prove definitively, hence why we can only form best guesses at this stage. Having said that, some things we can be certain of, such as the human-great ape relationship, among others.

 

Third, there is no evidence that God created life on earth and most counter-arguments are based on ignorance (irreducible complexity being a prime example of this) or misunderstandings of evolution and how it works. Another example of people using the god of the gaps argument as evidence that God created life is in the vein of what you argued how come we dont see x/y/z in the fossil record? or how did x/y/z evolve?. While those are interesting questions, they are by no means evidence that god must have done it. Oftentimes, a little bit of digging will reward you with answers.

 

Fourth, I completely reject that evolution is like god of the gaps. The reason is simple: its a science and is based on continual criticism and testing of hypotheses. Irreducible complexity is a great example to show what I mean as soon as people like Michael Behe started arguing that the bacterial flagellum/blood clot cascade, etc, was irreducibly complex, people started pointing out all the research thats gone into showing potential routes of how these systems evolved through natural selection. This is the heart of why evolution is not a god of the gaps argument whenever we dont know how something worked, we research it ad nauseum and if were still unsure (e.g. the imprecise nature of phylogenetic reconstructions) then well admit it. The alternative is to ask questions of evolution and conclude that god must have done it. Thats god of the gaps.

 

There is plenty of evidence to support evolution and the fact that its the best explanation for how life on earth originated. If creationism is the alternative explanation, theres simply no contest.

[Zamorakshadow]

When you mentioned "why monkeys aren't evolving to humans today?", well, sorry, but i gotta say you don't know much about Evolution at all >.<

 

Evolution never stopped, it's still happening, but it's very slow. It's like taking a picture from you one day,and taking a picture 24 hours later. You won't be very different. But if you take a picture of a newborn baby, and take a picture of him 10 years later, he will be very different. It takes time for things to change.

 

Humans did not evolve from monkeys, monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. This ancestor species, one group was separed from the other, both in different environments, and both evolved in different ways. Monkeys aren't as smart as humans, but they are waay stronger than us and are adapted to their environment. Humans are pathetically weak compared to other animals, but we compensated that with our brain evolving.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RbPQG9WTZM

 

It is possible for a "primitive brain" to form, after it, it just needs to evolve and get more complex as milhons of years and thousands of generations pass. "Love", "language", are all reactions of hormones and ions in our brains, and they formed as our brain evolved and became more and more complex. Animals also feel love and have their language.

Elephants mourn the deaths of other Elephants ( they are, in fact, VERY sentimental), and they have a language to warn other Elephants of danfer. Dolphins call eachother by "names". A dog will love his owner. Monkeys have "body language" like us humans.

 

Humans have a bigger sense of "morality", because humans are apes, and apes are sociable species that look for safety in numbers. In order to survive, we evolved to try to get along with others of our species, to not to harm them, and to punish those who do. And it is proven that we ARE moven by instinct, all the time.

[Zamorakshadow]

Hey Warrior, if you wanna do research, watch the videos i posted ( in "hide" tags) on my first post of this page. They explain how sexual reproduction evolved, how life first formed, and how the brain first formed.

 

In fact, go to youtube and search for the user named "cdk007". He is a scientist that makes videos about Biology and evolution, and made the videos i posted here, and i gotta say, he is freaking awesome.

[gorgoroth]

Oh also i forgot to ask one thing. Do you believe in ghosts/spirits?

No, because they aren't real.

But there is proof of their existance. Alot of proof. Concrete proof.

[warri0r45]

Hey Warrior, if you wanna do research, watch the videos i posted ( in "hide" tags) on my first post of this page. They explain how sexual reproduction evolved, how life first formed, and how the brain first formed.

 

In fact, go to youtube and search for the user named "cdk007". He is a scientist that makes videos about Biology and evolution, and made the videos i posted here, and i gotta say, he is freaking awesome.

 

Thanks, I vaguely remember the name as I think I've seen some of his videos before. I'll have a look.

[Stragomagus]

Oh also i forgot to ask one thing. Do you believe in ghosts/spirits?

No, because they aren't real.

But there is proof of their existance. Alot of proof. Concrete proof.

 

If there is such proof, bring it to the table so it can be evaluated based on the merits of authenticity.

 

You also need to consider, when putting forth such evidence, that we humans tend to create hallucinations when we are in states of mourning, fear, rage, etc...

 

Now even more than ever. The more i read the replies the bigger the bull [cabbage] gets.

 

At this point, with all the evidence that has been presented to you, this is what you are doing.

 

[hide][/hide]

[gorgoroth]

Discovery Chanel should be good enough. But appart from that there are many books and articles which would provide you with evidence that ghosts and spirits do exist in the modern world. I reallt cannot be asked to browse the internet at this time of the night to prove a point, that you can do yourself. But i can assure you that demons, angels, spirits and ghosts do exist. And as far as i know it would be highly impossible for them to be a result of evolution. A cell might be able to evolve into a human but i highly doubt beyond any reasonable doubt that a cell could evolve into a spirit.

[gorgoroth]

Oh also i forgot to ask one thing. Do you believe in ghosts/spirits?

No, because they aren't real.

But there is proof of their existance. Alot of proof. Concrete proof.

 

If there is such proof, bring it to the table so it can be evaluated based on the merits of authenticity.

 

You also need to consider, when putting forth such evidence, that we humans tend to create hallucinations when we are in states of mourning, fear, rage, etc...

 

Now even more than ever. The more i read the replies the bigger the bull [cabbage] gets.

 

At this point, with all the evidence that has been presented to you, this is what you are doing.

 

[hide][/hide]

Oh yes because your expert evaluation is going to prove a lot? Sorry but i am more liekly to believe someone that specializes in that feild than i would a random internet games. No offense. But for all i know you are simply someone pulling quotes and big words from a book.

I have a free day on Sunday. I'll look for some concrete evience then.

 

Also you must keep in mind that not all ghosts were seen when in shock, rage, etc.

[Seraphi]

The "evidence" for ghosts and spirits is, in my eyes, a bunch of rubbish. It is all based on visions and experiences. If you hear a strange sound in the dark, and somebody suggests that it's a ghost, you'll start to think that it's a ghost, and you'll start trying to find meaning in the sound. The human brain and body will sometimes create visions and sounds for you, when deprived of a sense, or when in a state of fear or stress.

 

I do not believe in any experience after death. I think the brain just ceases to function, and we're gone. I believe that we essentially cease to exist when we die.

 

This is the point I was trying to make a few pages back.

Gorgoroth, you may be trying to learn about the views of others, but you have no true intent to consider changing your views, because in reality, you are denying the evidence which others are providing.

That said, I cannot honestly say I came here with intent to change my views either.

[gorgoroth]

There is ofcourse the change of temprature in a room, objects being tossed around by something that is not visable to the eye. There are alot of other factors that come into play than just 'seeing" ghosts or "hearing" them.

[Seraphi]

I have never seen conclusive proof that an object has been moved without there being some logical reason for it to move.

The drop in temperature could be explained in a lot of ways, but a lot of the time it would probably be somebody's mind playing a trick on them and making them feel colder.

[gorgoroth]

I have never seen conclusive proof that an object has been moved without there being some logical reason for it to move.

The drop in temperature could be explained in a lot of ways, but a lot of the time it would probably be somebody's mind playing a trick on them and making them feel colder.

Alright, its quite early in the morning for me to get too deep into this but theri are alot of scientific ways of proving this. If not a ghost then some form of odd moving energy.

[Zamorakshadow]

To add to "evidence for supernatural is just rubbish that exists out of allucination" subject, it is proven by science that there is a "faith gene" or "god gene", that makes people believe in things supernatural around them, and makes them "feel" theese things. In fact, how this gene spreaded through the population is explained by evolution.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

 

Anyway, if you pick someone with a lot of this gene, brings him to spend the night in a house, and tell him that the house is built over a graveyard and that the house is said to be haunted, he will start being afraid, and he will most likely start "feeling" things around him. When fear start building up... well, he will think that he "feels" ghosts. But it's only his mind playing tricks.

 

 

Christians claim to "feel" the Holy Spirit, Muslims claim to "feel" Allah, and even Scientologists claim to "feel" the Thetans that are controlling them. I believe this is a mix of:

 

1: This gene, making them believe in the supernatural and making them "feel" it.

2: Delusion. Being convinced that there is something since early will brainwash people into thinking they "feel" it.

3: Some wierd sort of "placebo effect".

[gorgoroth]

Yes, and then we get the scientific proof of spirits which totally disproves all that you have just said.

 

EDIT: Rofl, i just realised you were using Wikipedia to prove your points. It is a well known fact that most Universities disallow students to use Wikipedia in any and all of their assignments and research projects because Wikipedia is so full of [cabbage] that has been made up its not even funny. So its really hard for me to take anything on Wikipedia serious.

Sorry.

[Seraphi]

The scientific evidence against ghosts and spirits far outweighs the evidence in favour of them.

[gorgoroth]

The scientific evidence against ghosts and spirits far outweighs the evidence in favour of them.

Still, there is some evidence for it. Odd might be against it but that does not mean you can totally disregard it.

[Zamorakshadow]

Well, i don't really think there is any "scientifical empirical evidence" for the supernatural, but i won't say that ghosts are completely impossible. I just don't really trust Discovery Channel's haunted-stuff shows... I used to watch them, but now i think it's just bs.

 

Though, the god gene + placebo effect + delusion + mind playing tricks on you + sometimes, schizofrenia = Explanation for most, maybe not *all*, but surely *most* people who claim to "feel" ghosts, gods, spirits, demons or thetans.

 

EDIT: I do know wikipedia is full of bs, i just searched through wikipedia because, like you, i don't feel like doing big searches for information this time in the morning.

Though, i have read in magazines, other scientific sites, and even from people in this thread about the God Gene, and it *is* true and it *does* cause people the illusion of "something mystic" happening to them. That wikipedia article seems to be for the most part right.

[Seraphi]

Yes, one should not totally disregard evidence just because the odds are against it, but there could be any number of explanations for the evidence supporting ghosts that don't rely on the existance of a soul.

[gorgoroth]

Well, i don't really think there is any "scientifical empirical evidence" for the supernatural, but i won't say that ghosts are completely impossible. I just don't really trust Discovery Channel's haunted-stuff shows... I used to watch them, but now i think it's just bs.

 

Though, the god gene + placebo effect + delusion + mind playing tricks on you + sometimes, schizofrenia = Explanation for most, maybe not *all*, but surely *most* people who claim to "feel" ghosts, gods, spirits, demons or thetans.

Most of the shows on Discovery really is BS. But at a Church Camp in 2007 we wer shown documents and documentries of people who see and feel these things. These people had multiple scientist working on projects with them and most of the time they could not come up with any logical explination for the things that happened.