Is your creation or evolution perspective infallibly correct?

[belladonic-haze]

What area of science do you practice?

I have dedicated my life to tapping into my evolutionary potential by recycling the circadian rhythm. My body currently operates on a 36-hour cycle, as opposed to a 24-hour cycle, and will likely do such (or greater) for a permanent lifetime basis. This means that my waking periods are 24 hours long and my sleep periods are 12 hours long. This method has already regenerated damaged organ tissue within my body through natural physiological enhancement. Eventually, I will boost my natural rhythm to a permanent 48 cycle.

You forget one aspect. Light. People have a bio-rhythm and that is based on light. Plants react to the length of the daytime, but animals as well. If you change this unnaturally, you will suffer the consequences of it. You cannot call this a natural biorhythm, because 'force' yourself to be on a 48 hour cycle. The planet is on a 24 hour cycle.......you would need at least 20 hours of natural sunlight to get away with this without damaging you inner clock......or worse.....You're not evolving, you're forcing the unnatural

 

[Tomk80]

I agree and further extend this to non-scientific realms too.

Who might you be referring to? And in what context?

Creationists and ID-ists. Their opposition to the theory of evolution and virtually everything else they oppose is not motivated by science, even though they claim it is.

 

[Tomk80]

Okay, but what if the people of the time came up with diametrically opposed conclusions? Maybe some asserted that the earth was flat and some asserted that the earth was round. Would both of these be valid conclusions for the time?

That would depend on the information they had access to.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationists and ID-ists. Their opposition to the theory of evolution and virtually everything else they oppose is not motivated by science, even though they claim it is.

Don't lump sola scripturists in there ---

[bible]1 Timothy 6:20[/bible]

I know you like to think you know how we think, but let's not go too far, okay?

 

[belladonic-haze]

Don't lump sola scripturists in there ---

[bible]1 Timothy 6:20[/bible]

I know you like to think you know how we think, but let's not go too far, okay?

Tom80 is right. It's not science, it's faith.....

 

[VinceBlaze]

Cosmology.

And how does one 'practice' cosmology as per my original question? Are you suggesting that you are fulltime employed cosmologist, or is this merely a sidehobby of yours?

I don't see how this has anything whatsoever to do with science,

It has to with human physiology. If you fail to see the connection of human physiology with science, it then communicates to me that your perspective is narrowminded. You acknowledge some scientific fields while simultaneously invalidating others.

but I find it highly unlikely that moving to any cycle other than 24 hours would be of benefit,

This is because you are ignorant of the science of human physiology in this context. My practice has successfully regenerated damaged organ tissue by bolstering the healing process. Your postulation that my practice is highly unlikely to yield benefit is an expression of ignorant judgment on your part.

as humans evolved in the presence of a 24 hour day.

How does this negate other paths of evolution? You seem quite rigid in what incomplete knowledge that you already possess. Be creative.

 

[Tomk80]

Don't lump sola scripturists in there ---

[bible]1 Timothy 6:20[/bible]

I know you like to think you know how we think, but let's not go too far, okay?

I know it is not your position, but face it, you are not the majority in this. Organisations like the discovery insitute, creation ministries, institute for creation research, answers in genesis etc etc all hold that the science supports creationism instead of evolution. Even you do to a certain extent, when you say that the earth does not show a history of 4.5 billion years. In that sense, you do make a scientific statement. Given the evidence, you are incorrect. But you don't want to look at the evidence.

And that ties directly in what I have said about valid conclusions. You conclude certain things (for example, the earth does not show a history) but only by ignoring a whole lot of evidence. That is not a valid way of reaching conclusions.

 

[belladonic-haze]

And how does one 'practice' cosmology as per my original question? Are you suggesting that you are fulltime employed cosmologist, or is this merely a sidehobby of yours?

It has to with human physiology. If you fail to see the connection of human physiology with science, it then communicates to me that your perspective is narrowminded. You acknowledge some scientific fields while simultaneously invalidating others.

This is because you are ignorant of the science of human physiology in this context. My practice has successfully regenerated damaged organ tissue by bolstering the healing process. Your postulation that my practice is highly unlikely to yield benefit is an expression of ignorant judgment on your part.

How does this negate other paths of evolution? You seem quite rigid in what incomplete knowledge that you already possess. Be creative.

Never question someone's faith or profession...

the Earth evovles around the sun in 24 hours.....sorry, but that is a scientific fact....

 

[AV1611VET]

Tom80 is right. It's not science, it's faith.....

Yup --- Tom's been reading his Bible ---

[bible]2 Corinthians 5:7[/bible]

 

[AV1611VET]

And that ties directly in what I have said about valid conclusions. You conclude certain things (for example, the earth does not show a history) but only by ignoring a whole lot of evidence. That is not a valid way of reaching conclusions.

Only insofar as it contradicts Scripture. I actually embrace science, holding it up to a much higher standard that most (by claiming God is the Author of science).

 

[VinceBlaze]

You forget one aspect. Light.

Actually, light is not the primary element in the governance of the human timeclock, insofar as not all parts of the earth (let's say portions of Alaska) have a standard light/darkness cycle. Some portions of the earth have several months of light and several months of darkness, for example. In this case, the natural biorhythms are more predominated by the adrenal cortex and an internal timeclock that has nothing to do with light/darkness.

People have a bio-rhythm and that is based on light.

Not always. Not all regions have the same light/darkness cycles as referenced above. Therefore, light/darkness cycles do not govern all human beings. Habituated adrenal programming becomes more of a primary factor.

Plants react to the length of the daytime, but animals as well.

Again, this is only partially true, being subject to regional differentiation. Further, various animals (and most plants in certain regions) enter into quite natural hibernation states. Unless you are infering that all animals sleep at night, which they do not. Nor can it necessarily be infered that plants sleep at night any more than animals do. Many animals sleep in the daytime.

If you change this unnaturally, you will suffer the consequences of it.

Not all change is unnatural. You are speaking from a vantage point of unfamiliarity, which thereby induces fear of the unknown. I believe that you may be confusing the natural with the familiar.

You cannot call this a natural biorhythm,

This is a natural biorhythm.

because 'force' yourself to be on a 48 hour cycle.

The practice would be near identical to a sports athlete in training. If you fear this, you will also fear a weightlifer or olympic runner who is enhancing their body through the science of exercise physiology. You judge the unfamiliar to be unnatural. Physiological adaptation is characteristically pain-associated as with common athletes. But this does not make it unnatural. It may simply be unfamiliar to you.

The planet is on a 24 hour cycle.......

No, it is not. The planet is on a 365 day cycle. Rather, you are on a 24-hour cycle. But you are not the earth.

you would need at least 20 hours of natural sunlight to get away with this without damaging you inner clock......

Your postulation fails to regard regional differences and variations of adaptive adrenal programming. You are asserting that your way is correct in all circumstances, when it is not thoroughly applicable.

or worse.....You're not evolving, you're forcing the unnatural

Evolution only occurs when the body and/or psyche are subjected to the unfamiliar. (in one sense, the 'unnatural', but we may be using the word differently here.) I believe that you may be confusing the natural with the familiar. They are two different things.

 

[AV1611VET]

Never question someone's faith or profession...

the Earth evovles around the sun in 24 hours.....sorry, but that is a scientific fact....

Stop being sorry --- I have good news:

• The earth revolves around the sun in 365 days.
• The earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Stop being sorry --- I have good news:

• The earth revolves around the sun in 365 days.
• The earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours.

LOL............true.......but I loved the 'evolved' word....

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL............true.......but I loved the 'evolved' word....

Ya --- I seen that too --- LOL

 

[VinceBlaze]

Creationists and ID-ists. Their opposition to the theory of evolution and virtually everything else they oppose is not motivated by science, even though they claim it is.

I believe that the multiverse itself (as opposed to a god) is a conscious living organism possessing full intelligence. Yet I fail to see how such would necessarily conflict with evolution. I suggest that not all ID theory must involve a god. Greater intelligence can exist in the absence of a god, and is more than likely existant within the vast scope of our multiverse.

 

[VinceBlaze]

That would depend on the information they had access to.

Okay.

 

[Chalnoth]

I believe that the multiverse itself (as opposed to a god) is a conscious living organism possessing full intelligence. Yet I fail to see how such would necessarily conflict with evolution. I suggest that not all ID theory must involve a god. Greater intelligence can exist in the absence of a god, and is more than likely existant within the vast scope of our multiverse.

Well, no, it doesn't really conflict with scientific theory. It just conflicts with logic: for there to be intelligence, there must be communication. Our planet goes through its motions without being affected much at all by any other planets in the solar system. Our solar system goes through its motions as if no other stars existed at all. Our galaxy goes through its motions as if no other galaxy existed.

There is, quite simply, no basis for the communication required for intelligence.

 

[VinceBlaze]

Never question someone's faith or profession...

And where has this occured?

the Earth evovles around the sun in 24 hours.....sorry, but that is a scientific fact....

Relevance please? In what context are you attempting to apply this?

 

[VinceBlaze]

Stop being sorry --- I have good news:

• The earth revolves around the sun in 365 days.
• The earth rotates on its axis in 24 hours.

This is much more contextually accurate.

 

[belladonic-haze]

Actually, light is not the primary element in the governance of the human timeclock, insofar as not all parts of the earth (let's say portions of Alaska) have a standard light/darkness cycle. Some portions of the earth have several months of light and several months of darkness, for example. In this case, the natural biorhythms are more predominated by the adrenal cortex and an internal timeclock that has nothing to do with light/darkness.

Not always. Not all regions have the same light/darkness cycles as referenced above. Therefore, light/darkness cycles do not govern all human beings. Habituated adrenal programming becomes more of a primary factor.

Again, this is only partially true, being subject to regional differentiation. Further, various animals (and most plants in certain regions) enter into quite natural hibernation states. Unless you are infering that all animals sleep at night, which they do not. Nor can it necessarily be infered that plants sleep at night any more than animals do. Many animals sleep in the daytime.

Not all change is unnatural. You are speaking from a vantage point of unfamiliarity, which thereby induces fear of the unknown. I believe that you may be confusing the natural with the familiar.

This is a natural biorhythm.

The practice would be near identical to a sports athlete in training. If you fear this, you will also fear a weightlifer or olympic runner who is enhancing their body through the science of exercise physiology. You judge the unfamiliar to be unnatural. Physiological adaptation is characteristically pain-associated as with common athletes. But this does not make it unnatural. It may simply be unfamiliar to you.

No, it is not. The planet is on a 365 day cycle. Rather, you are on a 24-hour cycle. But you are not the earth.

Your postulation fails to regard regional differences and variations of adaptive adrenal programming. You are asserting that your way is correct in all circumstances, when it is not thoroughly applicable.

Evolution only occurs when the body and/or psyche are subjected to the unfamiliar. (in one sense, the 'unnatural', but we may be using the word differently here.) I believe that you may be confusing the natural with the familiar. They are two different things.

Light is not? That is new.......Hmm, let me pull out my eco-physiology book on that one...it's been a while.....