NavajoEverclear

i guess that answers the question, i still dont understand exactly how an organism keeps it from decaying during its life (so we know it didn't start decay till the thing died, otherwise something being built out of carbon that constantly decays, the dating would show from the creation of the atom, which would go back a very long time before being made part of the one it is finally found in and not recycled back)

I'll admit it may be a form of deja vu, but in saying that stuff about statistics is a misunderstanding of the phemomenon--- in some cases of it i have solidly remembered having the dream, thinking about it when i woke up and what else happened the day i had it. So yeah it could be an illusion, but it is to an extent beyond dejavu, more along the lines of hallucination (well thats not what you'd call it but its like that: being indistinguisable from reality, yet infact is a mental fabrication). Some of the memories that were brought back to life with living the dream were so real i could not reason I might have drawn quick conclusions. While it could have been an illusion, it would have been one that actually rewrites my memory as far as i know---- just to say it is a different thing than deja vu. Deja vu being simply a feeling that it happened before, this is an actual memory, indistinguishable from my real ones.

whats up with bills reply? For one thing you can deduce those too fabrications of the imagination, for another thing, how does santa, the easter bunny, and tooth fairy fit in (my mother told me the truth about them). By what do you think about those fictional characters, did you introduce them to your children as real people? Since your scientists i'm guessing not. I'm not sure what i'll do, on one hand its certainly not psychologically beneficial to lie to a child to reveal the truth later--- on the other hand its tradition, and i'm not sure what my wife will think on that matter, because i base my values on a woman on things other than their santa clause beliefs, so if this idea conflicts with us it will not stop our marraige but will have to be decided one way or the other, and likely i'll give in to my wife. How come bill isn't banned yet? Well i guess if idiocy was a justification for bannishment i'd be gone, but bill is pretty wack . . .

Well evidently carbon dating does work, but how? I know it measures date by the state of the decay of the nucleus of the carbon atom---- but wouldn't it be true that none of the carbon is new? I'm i don't know when all the carbon was created or surfaced or whatever, but i know i'm not made of new carbon. My body is made from eating food that ate food that ate food--- shouldn't the carbon i'm made of really be as old as anything ancient as found in dinosaurs? So you see what i'm saying-- i don't understand how you can tell the age of it if i know i'm also made of ancient atoms, how come i dont have a carbon dating of a bazillion years (well i haven't recently got my carbon analyzed in such a way but i know it shouldn't say i'm that old). Is there something about life that preserves the atom from decaying, so only when an organism dies and is not taken up as food for another that the decay has time to begin?

Dude i know exactly what you mean, this has happened to me quite a few times. Usually its only about mildly significant matters---- i know a guy though who had a dream about an entire nonsignificant conversation between two people he didnt know and happened to be walking behind a few weeks later. If you want to know other stuff i said you can hunt down my other post on it ------ or not that could be a lot of work. I don't know what to say because i don't know what it means, and don't care to passionately pursue the phenomenon because i think there are more important things in life--- but nice to share some common strange experiences.

about us not having physical evidence of atoms working the way we teach they do---- i knew this but now i'm wondering to what extent is atomic structures just a guess? Atoms sound reasonable to me but what about quarks? Was there some super complex math involved to theorize them, or did somebody just say it could work this way, or a little of both? And what about all those other particles i've heard about but dont care to assimilate into my knowledge---- how did we decide they exist?

i watched this discovery channel special where they dumped a bunch of powder (i think it was calcium something) into a lake that had become lifeless because high acidity from industrial pollution (in a forrest in germany) and this stuff neutralized it and life began to return. That stuff is probably expensive right?

Wow this is awesome, i wonder if i could go check out his reactor, wherever they keep it now. I am a Utan, i've taken a summer band camp course, and had a youth conference at that very university (its not much more than an hour away). Thats a majorly radical acomplishment. Also really cool that we live in the same state--- the funny thing is i think spanish fork is the town that gets made fun of for being full of hicks. But then you also got the rocket boys (true story made into a movie called october sky), who were also 'hicks'.

Yeah welcome to the forums, but don't be offended it i don't have the attention span to read your post (i think audio would be easier for me absorb, but reading certain things just makes my brain fry), i'm sure its cool though. Hey Blike I read that you believe in God, so how do you fit in your belief with all the science that people say means he doesn't exist? I believe in God too, just curious how you work things out in your head. Are you one of the people that believe God willed evolution to occur? I think that God being human and already in existence would simply have started Adam and Eve with his wife like mortals do (and my religion believes God also has a physical body, unlike most believing he is only spirit)---- but then that conflicts with Jesus being his ONLY begotten son. ---------- so just wondering what you think about all that, or if what you believe doesn't have anything to do with that, just curious.

I have an awkward subject to talk about: what is crap mostly made of? Why cant we just attach it to some oxygen like the carbon, to eliminate that unattractive exrement process? Or would that make our breath constantly nasty thus going in the reverse direction making us even more disgusting creatures. Obviously we don't have the capablility to redesign these things, Just wondering if its possible.------ oh and another question--- why don't plants crap (i'm glad the dont though)?------ oh sorry another question why do we breath out carbon dioxide? Doing so we lose carbon and oxygen, both of which we use------ i understand there is probably something very undeducated about this question, but since i dont totally understand i'll ask anyway.

video? I'll try to find it BTW way i meant none of the anti-time activists HERE offered clarification to their beliefs, such as julian has, which is why i dont argue with him. accurate as far as we can measure--- maybe we don't know crap about measuring. Maybe our minds our designed to illude us, or we are plugged into the matrix. I don't believe any of these things, but i admit that i know of no way to proove any of what i do believe. I have my own reasons for the way i am, but i cant proove their 'correctness'. Have you read Inherit the Wind(if you haven't and have two hours(or less depending on how fast you read), its a really short play, with some interesting concepts(though i think it feels incomplete and relying too much on the novetly of creativity to take it a step further))? Well i dont think it was established exactly what Drummond believes, but some people believe that he was not an athiest and deffending freedom unconditionally (as he said himself, he 'defends the right to be wrong'). Not to say i'm as cool as Drummond, just to present that i don't personally believe everything we know is wrong, and think that most of what we know is correct---- though i don't know enough about a lot of it to judge intelligently. I just mean to say those possibilities are possible, and think it could be a good step of progression if people understood that.

thats one possibility, that they are completely wrong is also another. I'm sure i've redundantly told how i believe proof is impossible, and i haven't seen anyone sufficiently provide evidence to proove it wrong. You know what, think I'll find a way to proove it wrong. Well i have admited that if it applied to itself itself is as only right on a 50/50 chance, so maybe that counts. I need to think about it more.

Thanks for the link. I agree with julian barbour, because he said that the phenomenon is real, just that our perception of it could be flawed (i wont bother to go back to see exactly what he said), which it could be because i've heard that in some parts of the universe time may run backward in comparison to us (however that works i don't know)----- but none of the anti-time activists have offered such clarification to their beliefs

yeah, intelligence had some major narrow minded traits. I mean i'm often (i'd rather believe its not always) a hypocrite, but at least i know so--- can that be considered a quality? Well anyway its the quality that gives hope to future progression if acted on. I'm do not understand how you can say time doesn't exist---- for all we know anyone of our scientific ideas could be completely wrong, I see no reason to pick on time. My science teacher this year tells us that there's no such thing as time but as anyone else has not offered a completely thought out reason. Yes our measurement of time is made up---- but so is our measurments and names for everything else. We call it something so we can communicate what we're talking about. Our units for measurement in basically all cases are what they are because someone decided so. I take a step from here, to there----- it takes time. Time is what it takes for something to transpire--- and everything takes time. A car goes faster than i can run, because it takes less time to get from here to there. I'm having a hard time thinking up a more obvious way to put. So i'll be redundant as always : the only thing man-made about time is its name and the way we measure it. This is the same with everything, so what reason do you have to specify time as the physical property that doesn't actually exist? I think people who say things like time doesn't exist do so because it makes them feel special to have such superior knowledge. "Hey look at me, i discovered time doesn't exist!" or maybe they have some incurable mental diffeciency to comprehend simple things, or maybe they know the truth and just say crap for some mysterious reason hidden deep in their brilliance. Or maybe they are possessed by Lucifer himself--- whose motive is to waste our time argueing over stupid things. The possibilites are endless.

Crap for brains!

My point is we should be concened about things more important than spelling, spelling doesn't have much purpose anyway. I also understand its a waste of my time to whine when i do not have systems to replace the ones i question----- just saying . . .

did i say water was an element? Sorry, i know its not. Theres a big difference, as in an element makes nuclear energy when broken. But everyone here knows that so no reason to say more, just stating that i do understand the diff.

Should it matter? What is the purpose of it mattering? If the task of communication is filled, what defines 'bad' spelling as an error? There is no impediment to the reason language exists, so i see no need to attach morality to it.--- thats what it is, right spelling VS wrong spelling, except that these values have only fictional relation to anything important. Down with ignorance! Down with spelling! (BTW i'm not actually that passionate about it, just joking around) Anyway its more of a bother to take the time to scramble it, so its really a pointless argument.

Oh yeah carbon dioxide, duh. Still amazing that all this has become of it, but at least now i know essentially how. So plants take the carbon out of air and use it to build their body, guess that should be obvious, but i never thought of it that way till now. How about phosophorus, will we someday have to mine it to make sure we get enough. Don't we need such small quantities of it that depleting the resource wont come in a long time? If that does come will life die out until phosphorus works its way out of the mantle back to accsessibility by organisms?

I read in my biologu book that carbon(and other elements that compose life, besides water) is not a very abundant element on earth, and yet we are made of it, so where does it come from? Well since we eat other things, it comes from them, but where to plants get theirs from? I know photosythesis preforms chemical reactions, but it obviously doesn't transform more abundant elements into the one we use (that would require nuclear power right?). So i think the soil is made of carbon (a stupid thing to say, it must be, but give me a break, i'm an undilligent highschool student), so plants get nutrients from soil. Where did all the soil come from? Far as i know its mostly decayed stuff broken down, but first you have to have things to decay, for them to die they must first live, to live they must eat, which esentially comes from plants who get their carbon from the soil which is made of something decayed. Is there there is some explanation for the evolution of soil, or whatever has played its role throughout history as the reserve of nutrients? So either i must be missing something or it is an incredible miracle that such a rare (i aughta look up exactly how rare before i start rambling) element gather itself together conviniently to feed life.

Wow, that was radical. I did have a seconds delay a few times, but only because i'm somewhat stupid. Duuuddeee. I think english teachers should officially stop caring about spelling. The purpose of language is to communicate right? So as long as thats achieved who in hades cares how the communication comes about, especially if its been established that spelling can be EXTREMELY off and still be understood. Do got a link to more stuff on the subject (just cuz its fun), maybes some stuff directly from cambrige?

i can see all parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. I can also see dead people. BTW do you guys think my crap comments like this are occasionaly slightly amusing, or just a stupid attempt to appear abstracting intelligent via humor.

Well i could agree with you, but theres a reason. We are in Utah, likely she comes of Mormon background, the dominant religion here, and so may have tendancy to be obligated to stretch known science to justify certain beliefs. ---- there i've considered that side, but why not---- they just said that brain fields would at least have affect in close range ,whether that effect could be analyzed into another brain evidently has not been experimented, but i see it as perfectly possible, setting asside religious bias that would obligate me to think so--- our minds can do amazing things. Common culture does not commonly take advantage of full potential, and so some loose faith in what we are capable of. If the electric fields cross into territory where another brain picks it up, i think that brain would be able to interpret it. I would say i have FAITH this is possible but then you might assume i am ignorant, but in a true state of openmindedness, we aught to know though it seems much, compared to what IS, we may know rather very little of it. Besides is there any evidence against it? It just doesn't seem likely i suppose. I could also agree that its the brain drawing conclusions, but in case where a thought arose has nothing to do (as it appears) with prediction based on passed experience-- the level of calculations made by the brain would have to be unconcious and very complex (well in a way simple, as the functions to come make it happen are simple, but i did not think a better word, and it would be very complex to be comprehended by our concious self). ---- Which i do have faith that the brain has capability to make such elite calculations. Which is why i also believe that if the brain encountered electric fields coming from another brain, that it would be able to analyze them. Perhaps it becomes easier to understand a certain brain's outputs, after having more experience being exposed to that brain.

Oh yeah, i checked it out on amazon too (maybe not too, dont know where you looked), they had 14 copies left, new and used total

Well, she didn't state it as established fact, but it appears she believes in it. Couldn't they do an experiment that shows what range the electric fields generated by the brain effect, and if two brains were within each others range what the effect was on each. Yeah that would be radical.