₦airaland Forum

Studies conducted by other researchers with small numbers of hallucinating volunteers suggest that when people hear voices out of nowhere, their brains are failing to identify internal thoughts as self-generated, Sommer says. In other words, neural activity reflects a mental state in which imagined statements are interpreted as coming from someone else. Confusion about the source of one’s own thoughts could apply to sensory overrides as easily as to psychotic hallucinations, Luhrmann says.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/prayer-hallucination-and-date-night-with-god/

Deep Sight: As I hinted prior, evolution has nothing to do with theism or atheism.

musKeeto: And btw, trying to prove something you don't believe in is called MADNESS.

wirinet: What pains me is that Nigerians like to speak authoritatively on issues they have no clue about, and cover that ignorance using their idea of religious morality. Sexuality is a far more complex subject than what is between ones legs or chest. Sexual orientation is a factor of hormones, environment and instincts.

toba: i feel so sorry for myself for believing in TB joshua's prophecy

OLAADEGBU: Is that the church that approved Gay marriage?

toba: today is the D day. Hope i have ur support

Deep Sight: You did not grasp the analogy made in the least.

That which justifies homose.xuality justifies all of those other actions which I mentioned, as they are all cases of free adult consensus.

Sometimes you surprise me the way you read things.

Deep Sight: Unles you are incapable of reading, i addressed all of these issues in my post. It seems that the analogy i made has willfully escaped you. Too bad.

I am happy that it is on record that you regard necrophilia, in.cest and such other things to be natural and normal.

You are simply perverse, and an indelible harm has been done to your reputation on this forum.

You are probably one of those people who turn out to be serial killers or other socio-paths.

Yuck.

As such based on the principle of free adult consensus, you have absolutely no basis to hold any of these actions as wrong, immoral or unnatural. In the same way, and based on the same principle under which you hold homose.xuality to be natural, you must remain consistent and apply the self same principle to hold that it is natural and moral for a man to have homose.xual intercourse with his father, for a man to have intercourse with his mother and sister, perhaps even in a three.some, for a man to sleep with a corpse, and for a man to have intercourse with his adult daughter. The very same principle of free adult consensus applies.

The Westermarck Effect
The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction. This phenomenon, one explanation for the incest taboo, was first hypothesized by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). Observations interpreted as evidence for the Westermarck effect have since been made in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.

In the case of the Israeli kibbutzim (collective farms), children were reared somewhat communally in peer groups, based on age, not biological relation. A study of the marriage patterns of these children later in life revealed that out of the nearly 3,000 marriages that occurred across the kibbutz system, only fourteen were between children from the same peer group. Of those fourteen, none had been reared together during the first six years of life. This result suggests that the Westermarck effect operates during the period from birth to the age of six.[1]

When proximity during this critical period does not occur — for example, where a brother and sister are brought up separately, never meeting one another — they may find one another highly sexually attractive when they meet as adults, according to the hypothesis of genetic sexual attraction. This supports the claim that the Westermarck effect evolved because it suppressed inbreeding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

Genetic S.exual Attraction

Genetic s.exual attraction (GSA) is a term that describes the phenomenon of s.exual attraction between close relatives, such as siblings, first and second cousins or a parent and offspring, who first meet as adults. Genetic s.exual attraction is presumed to occur as a consequence of genetic relatives meeting as adults, typically as a consequence of adoption.

GSA is rare between people raised together in early childhood due to a reverse s.exual imprinting known as the Westermarck effect, which desensitizes them to later close s.exual attraction; it is hypothesized that this effect evolved to prevent inbreeding.
Several factors may contribute to GSA. People commonly rank faces similar to their own as more attractive, trustworthy, etc. than average.[4] Heredity produces substantial physical similarity between close relatives. However, Bereczkei (2004) attributes this in part to childhood imprinting on the opposite-sex parent. Shared interests and personality traits are commonly considered desirable in a mate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction#cite_ref-9

Martian: When I think about free will and omniscience, I think about a character in a novel saying he has free will when the author of the novel already decided his choice and his fate on the very next page.

Deep Sight: @ Jayriginal and Aletheia -

Please refer to my post to wirinet above.

Both of you also introduced qualifications. Jay qualified by saying "western music" - what sorts of music abound in the world outside the western world - not to speak about the earth, and then, the universe, and then, all existence?

Aleth qualified by saying "the human tongue" - what sorts of music may be produced by a further evolved human tongue perhaps? Or even a non human tongue? Are the only sounds we make limited to the tongue? Have we conceived of all possible musical instruments in the universe? Will we ever?

Deep Sight: You said that "the human ear is sensitive to a limited range of frequencies, from about 20hz to 20MHz. We cannot perceive lower and higher frequencies."

Please note the bolded within the italicized above.

This infers that there are many frequencies that the human ear is not sensitive to.

And as such, obviously many sounds that humans can not or do not hear.

Which would infer the possibility of the existence of many notes that humans do not perceive.

Would your conclusion be revised if in the future humans develop greater auditory refinement and thus are exposed to a new world of frequencies?

Are ALL the possible frequencies in existence finite?

Deep Sight: Dear, it says nothing about the origin of life. Like other experiments, it merely refers to the very natural, very normal and very understandable composition of inanimate components such as acids. Life on earth obviously is made of various elements of matter. Water is predominant everywhere: so just take this analogy: it is like a scientist showing how water is formed and then concluding that he has shown the creation of first life. Simples.

No: I believe in evolution.

My view however, is that it was a guided and directed process.

Deep Sight: Might I add, all succeeding theories about the generation of first life in a pre-biotic soup, have yet to be proven.

Miller/Urey Experiment

In 1953, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey, working at the University of Chicago, conducted an experiment which would change the approach of scientific investigation into the origin of life.

Miller took molecules which were believed to represent the major components of the early Earth's atmosphere and put them into a closed system The gases they used were methane (CH4), ammonia (NH3), hydrogen (H2), and water (H2O). Next, he ran a continuous electric current through the system, to simulate lightning storms believed to be common on the early earth. Analysis of the experiment was done by chromotography. At the end of one week, Miller observed that as much as 10-15% of the carbon was now in the form of organic compounds. Two percent of the carbon had formed some of the amino acids which are used to make proteins. Perhaps most importantly, Miller's experiment showed that organic compounds such as amino acids, which are essential to cellular life, could be made easily under the conditions that scientists believed to be present on the early earth. This enormous finding inspired a multitude of further experiments.

In 1961, Juan Oro found that amino acids could be made from hydrogen cyanide (HCN) and ammonia in an aqueous solution. He also found that his experiment produced an amazing amount of the nucleotide base, adenine. Adenine is of tremendous biological significance as an organic compound because it is one of the four bases in RNA and DNA. It is also a component of adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, which is a major energy releasing molecule in cells. Experiments conducted later showed that the other RNA and DNA bases could be obtained through simulated prebiotic chemistry with a reducing atmosphere.

These discoveries created a stir within the science community. Scientists became very optimistic that the questions about the origin of life would be solved within a few decades. This has not been the case, however. Instead, the investigation into life's origins seems only to have just begun.

There has been a recent wave of skepticism concerning Miller's experiment because it is now believed that the early earth's atmosphere did not contain predominantly reductant molecules. Another objection is that this experiment required a tremendous amount of energy. While it is believed lightning storms were extremely common on the primitive Earth, they were not continuous as the Miller/Urey experiment portrayed. Thus it has been argued that while amino acids and other organic compounds may have been formed, they would not have been formed in the amounts which this experiment produced.

Many of the compounds made in the Miller/Urey experiment are known to exist in outer space. On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. (table showing comparison of Murchison meteorite to Miller/Urey experiment) The early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, then this might suggest that amino acids were present when the Earth was formed. More importantly, the Murchison meteorite has demonstrated that the Earth may have acquired some of its amino acids and other organic compounds by planetary infall.

If these compounds were not created in a reducing atmosphere here on Earth as Miller suggested, then where did they come from? New theories have recently been offered as alternative sites for the origin of life.

http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/miller.html

Not that such a replication would disprove the existence of God, because the path from unicellular organism to human being is a path that is treacherous for the scientist.

Pastor AIO: I wish there was an option to vote for Epic failure on the parts of both Logic Mind and Rastamouse.

ea7: the deist god for all you know might have died upon creating the universe, . . .

Deep Sight: ^ No you didn't. You only mentioned the take of some scientist, and then averred that he is "highly qualified". That says exactly nothing sir.

Deep Sight: Atheism is indeed rather ill considered: not to mention hopelessly unscientific.

Deep Sight: If it were proven, do you not think that that could be highly suggestive of the existence of non-physical influence on the material world - and as such, infer the existence of a bigger reality than that apprehended by the strict materialist atheist?

Kay 17: Its difficult to clear all other options, it could be that the distance btw the pig and her offspring is the cause for stress

Deep Sight: You know that, Jayriginal knows that, but both of you will shrink from saying it because you worship scientists just as ardently as the Christian worships Jesus.

If I told you that there is no possible offence in any kind of homicide, you should reject that even if I have won a million nobel prizes in law: and yet such a statement is not even nearly as untenable as the statement about "nothingness" being "unstable."

Einstein's original equations in general relativity predicted that the universe should be expanding. Interestingly, however, Einstein later inserted into his equations an arbitrary "cosmological constant" to negate the necessity of cosmic expansion. Einstein later described his cosmological constant as "the biggest blunder of my life." It is incredible to contemplate that, in addition to his other extraordinary contributions to science, Einstein could have provided theoretical evidence for the Big Bang before any experimental or observational evidence suggested its occurrence. Unfortunately, Einstein was influenced by the popular belief of his time that the universe was more or less static. Einstein, like those of us of lesser ability, could hardly display more intellectual independence than his time permitted.

David Mills, Atheist Universe, (Berkley, CA: Ulysses Press, 2006)

Psychological Roadblocks

Science, by its very definition, disregards "common-sense" notions and relies solely upon experimental data to construct scientific law. It is wholly irrelevant whether we feel comfortable with the results of our experiments. These experimental results, if repeatable and independently verifiable, must be accepted, regardless of our cherished "common-sense" theories to the contrary.

Likewise, a science-minded attitude requires us to accept the cosmological implications of the mass-energy conservation law whether or not we feel comfortable with those conclusions. Very often, our "common sense" will lead us astray if it is utilized to formulate scientific law. Many pre-Renaissance scholars thought it was common sense that the Earth was flat and motionless. If Einstein's special and general theories of relativity had been tested by common sense, Einstein would have been committed to a psychiatric hospital. Where, may I ask, is the common sense in Einstein's time dilation or in his proposition that empty space can be bent? Ideas based only upon "common sense" are of little use to science.