by truthseeker 136 Replies latest jw friends
I do think that the stories about this are extremely curious, and indicative of something beyond the physical world as we know it
I have never been to Japan and yet, strangely, know about things that go on there. Even things that happened WHILE I WAS SLEEPING.
EP - what about knowing the events going on around them when they are confirmed dead? Out of body experience?
Reincarnation is Eastern philosophy lie. The biblical position is resurrection of all people, some to life with God, others to separation from God.
EP - what about knowing the events going on around them when they are confirmed dead? Out of body experience?
Because they aren't really dead. Cases abound where people were thought to be dead that weren't. And cliniccally dead means heart stopped, blood nod flowing, not "your brain and body has ceased all function".
"Clinical death is the medical term for cessation of blood circulation and breathing, the two necessary criteria to sustain life. [1] It occurs when the heart stops beating in a regular rhythm, a condition called cardiac arrest. The term is also sometimes used in resuscitation research."
Confirmed dead means "no coming back, end of the line".The brain doesn't die at clinical death. "Under laboratory conditions at normal body temperature, the longest period of clinical death of a cat (after complete circulatory arrest) survived with eventual return of brain function is one hour"
The body itself can survive during clinical death for many hours. "Most tissues and organs of the body can survive clinical death for considerable periods. Blood circulation can be stopped in the entire body below the heart for at least 30 minutes, with injury to the spinal cord being a limiting factor. [4] Detached limbs may be successfully reattached after 6 hours of no blood circulation at warm temperatures. Bone, tendon, and skin can survive as long as 8 to 12 hours. [5]"
So, what accounts for the out of body experiences? Hallucinations mixed with things they ARE hearing and perhaps seeing. We know that stress, fatigue, lack of sleep, oxygen depravation and food depravation can cause hallucinations.
Also. among cultures, NDEs happen on a pretty consistent rate. The major difference is the religious figures encountered during the NDE.
Nick....I think fundamenally you don't understand where I am coming from.
Let me make my postition a bit clearer for you.
I do not care wether anyone here believes in Jesus or God. No one comes to the father except through him. It's between you and God. If you don't get it. That is not my problem. I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs.
Evolutionists are the ones who have a problem with people not believing their silly theory. Again...your problem. Not mine.
I am simply trying to nut things out so that I can get my head around them.
EntirelyPossible Short of buying a plane ticket and taking you to meet him personally. You have enough evidence already to be getting on with. Although I would enjoy the trip. I cannot afford it. I answered your question a lot more than you answered mine.
Read what you just posted, still thinking.
Yeah Nick....thought I'd say it before you did.....thats generally how evolutionsts talk about people who don't agree with them. Said it in a language you would understand xxxxx
Evolutionists are the ones who have a problem with people not believing their silly theory.
You would have a serious problem with it if you were cut off from the advances in medicine and healthcare that come from evolution. And by problem, I mean "death".
Short of buying a plane ticket and taking you to meet him personally.
So you are giving up and admitting you CAN't prove that House isn't real?
I answered your question a lot more than you answered mine.
I never claimed I couldn't prove that Jesus didn't live. To do so would be a logical impossibility. Why would I accept a a challenge that is impossible? Besides which, YOU claimed you could do something, not me.
Yeah Nick....thought I'd say it before you did.....thats generally how evolutionsts talk about people who don't agree with them. Said it in a language you would understand
It's generally how people that get science talk about people that refuse to believe, accept or make any attempt at understanding science all while denying it yet at the same time reaping the benefits of it.
EP not ALL scientists are evolutionists. Many are creationists or at least doubt that evolution is feasable.
I havent given up on anything....do you want to pay for the ticket?
Just so we understand.....these were some of the creationist or non evolutionist scientists that I am reaping the benifits from...these....and many many more.
SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES ESTABLISHED | |
|---|---|
| DISCIPLINE | SCIENTIST |
| ANTISEPTIC SURGERY | JOSEPH LISTER (1827-1912) |
| BACTERIOLOGY | LOUIS PASTEUR (1822-1895) |
| CALCULUS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| CELESTIAL MECHANICS | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| CHEMISTRY | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| COMPARATIVE ANATOMY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
| COMPUTER SCIENCE | CHARLES BABBAGE (1792-1871) |
| DIMENSIONAL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| DYNAMICS | ISAAC NEWTON (1642-1727) |
| ELECTRONICS | JOHN AMBROSE FLEMING (1849-1945) |
| ELECTRODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| ELECTRO-MAGNETICS | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| ENERGETICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| ENTOMOLOGY OF LIVING INSECTS | HENRI FABRE (1823-1915) |
| FIELD THEORY | MICHAEL FARADAY (1791-1867) |
| FLUID MECHANICS | GEORGE STOKES (1819-1903) |
| GALACTIC ASTRONOMY | WILLIAM HERSCHEL (1738-1822) |
| GAS DYNAMICS | ROBERT BOYLE (1627-1691) |
| GENETICS | GREGOR MENDEL (1822-1884) |
| GLACIAL GEOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| GYNECOLOGY | JAMES SIMPSON (1811-1870) |
| HYDRAULICS | LEONARDO DA VINCI (1452-1519) |
| HYDROGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| HYDROSTATICS | BLAISE PASCAL (1623-1662) |
| ICHTHYOLOGY | LOUIS AGASSIZ (1807-1873) |
| ISOTOPIC CHEMISTRY | WILLIAM RAMSAY (1852-1916) |
| MODEL ANALYSIS | LORD RAYLEIGH (1842-1919) |
| NATURAL HISTORY | JOHN RAY (1627-1705) |
| NON-EUCLIDEAN GEOMETRY | BERNHARD RIEMANN (1826- 1866) |
| OCEANOGRAPHY | MATTHEW MAURY (1806-1873) |
| OPTICAL MINERALOGY | DAVID BREWSTER (1781-1868) |
| PALEONTOLOGY | JOHN WOODWARD (1665-1728) |
| PATHOLOGY | RUDOLPH VIRCHOW (1821-1902) |
| PHYSICAL ASTRONOMY | JOHANN KEPLER (1571-1630) |
| REVERSIBLE THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES JOULE (1818-1889) |
| STATISTICAL THERMODYNAMICS | JAMES CLERK MAXWELL (1831-1879) |
| STRATIGRAPHY | NICHOLAS STENO (1631-1686) |
| SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY | CAROLUS LINNAEUS (1707-1778) |
| THERMODYNAMICS | LORD KELVIN (1824-1907) |
| THERMOKINETICS | HUMPHREY DAVY (1778-1829) |
| VERTEBRATE PALEONTOLOGY | GEORGES CUVIER (1769-1832) |
EP not ALL scientists are evolutionists. Many are creationists or at least doubt that evolution is feasable.
Of course not. Many are cosmologists, geologists, chemists, etc. Of course, the term "many" is misleading and hard to quantify. In 2009, a Pew Research Center Poll found that 87% of scientists in ALL fields of science believe in evolution. From other studies, when narrowed down to scientists related to biology and life sciences, the gap closes to 0.5% of scientists doubting or disbeleiving evolution.
So exactly how many is "many"? How relevant is their training? What field do they work in? Is their work peer reviewed? Is it testable, repeatable?
Your list is indeed inpressive in how utterly useless it is. The most RECENT scientist you list DIED almost 100 years ago. I am sure none of them believed in quantum mechanics or the internet or black holes or nuclear weapons either, but since those scientifict advances came before their time, it's not at all relevant.
And, finally, with regard to the plance ticket, I could buy or use some of the hundreds of thousands of airline points I have, but, presuming I did that and you could somehow introduce me to Hugh Laurie, you still would only be proving that Hugh Laurie is real, at best, not that House isn't real.
Can you prove a negative?
