Are any of you here a Sensitive?

Padawanbater2 · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
I believe carbon 12 has a half life of approximately 6000 years. I remember learning about carbon dating in chemistry and I believe that this meant that after 12,000 years the carbon atoms have mostly decayed and therefore the accuracy of those results decrease dramatically after that amount of time. The 1-3% you speak of is only accurate within 12,000 years at the most. I've read that scientists conduct the experiments and if they get more than one possible scenario, they simply use the one that most supports their hypothesis which would be incorrect.

Anything dating back further than that time frame is using based on another type of dating, which would be radioactive dating through certain isotopes. The problem with this is that you need an abundant enough source of radioactive materials to find something and when dealing with ancient civilizations, why the hell would they have such materials nearby? For example a certain phosphorus isotope has a half life of 32 days whereas a certain uranium isotope has a half life of up to 4.5 billion years.

If you're curious, they take a sample of material, they measure it's mass and they measure the amount of radioactivity it emits. Uranium decays into other isotopes at a constant rate therefore you can accurately date the sample based on ratio between the mass and the radioactivity (each atom also emits a certain amount of radiation so it's not exactly a "rocket science" calculation). The same thing is done with carbon dating.

In conclusion: carbon-12 dating (building block of life) will not show us anything over 12,000 years old. For that we must rely on other materials, many of which are rare to find in most archeological discoveries since we haven't used them in the past.

Radiocarbon dating (usually referred to as simply carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to estimate the age of carbon-bearing materials up to about 58,000 to 62,000 years. Raw, i.e., uncalibrated, radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), with "present" defined as CE 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates. One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic matter during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere. After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals), the accumulation of 14C fraction stops and the material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.

The technique of radiocarbon dating was developed by Willard Libby and his colleagues at the University of Chicago in 1949. Emilio Segrè asserted in his autobiography that Enrico Fermi suggested the concept to Libby at a seminar in Chicago that year. Libby estimated that the steady state radioactivity concentration of exchangeable carbon-14 would be about 14 disintegrations per minute (dpm) per gram. In 1960, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in chemistry for this work. He demonstrated the accuracy of radiocarbon dating by accurately estimating the age of wood from a series of samples for which the age was known, including an ancient Egyptian royal barge of 1850 BCE.

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

Padawanbater2 · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study. You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions. Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.

Pseudoscience, ie. God, is untestable. It will forever remain that way. There are no experiments we could conduct that would prove it one way or the other, rendering it, essentially, useless in any practical terms.

You seem to be using the term 'imagination' in some kind of placeholder kind of way. Imagination simply means the process of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. We use imagination all the time in science.

You haven't provided any other way of perceiving reality. Through "imagination" isn't actually saying anything. It doesn't mean anything.

What is testable is real, if it's not testable, it isn't real.

There is nothing in existence that is real that we can't test.

Heisenberg · Nov 17, 2012

Radiometric dating is most often used as a method of testing predictions which collaborate other evidence and reasoning, at which it has proved to be very successful. I think rather than defend a tried and true method, a better question is how do you support your estimations of a ruins age? Like usual, you seem to have made the assumption of a dichotomy-- if science is suspect then my pet nonscientific theory must be right. This dichotomy allows the easy move of manufacturing controversy to gain the appearance of validity.

ganja man23 · Nov 17, 2012

Yes but carbon-14 dating is not nearly as accurate as you have mentioned. Carbon14 is so rare in nature that just a few atoms can dramatically increase the results. If carbon 14 dating is to be assumed as a fact, it must be verified by measuring other isotopes as well. The only way to truly provide validation

Will Carbon-14 dating work on all artifacts?

No. There are a few categories of artifacts that cannot be dated using carbon-14.

First, carbon-14 cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not get thier carbon dioxide from the air. This rules out carbon dating for most aquatic organisms, because they often obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved carbonate rock. The age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in the air and makes carbon dating data for those organisms inaccurate under the assumptions normally used for carbon dating. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in their diets, as well.

Carbon dating also cannot be used on artifacts over about 50,000 years old. These artifacts have gone through many carbon-14 half-lives and the amount of carbon-14 remaining in them is miniscule and very difficult to detect.

Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils, not only because they are almost always too old, but also because they rarely contain the original carbon of the organism. Also, many fossils are contaminated with carbon from the environment during collection or preservation proceedures.

How do we know Carbon-14 dating is accurate?

Scientists check the accuracy of carbon dating by comparing carbon dating data to data from other dating methods. Other methods scientists use include counting rock layers and tree rings.

When scientists first began to compare carbon dating data to data from tree rings, they found carbon dating provided "too-young" estimates of artifact age. Scientists now realize that production of carbon-14 has not been constant over the last 10,000 years, but has changed as the radiation from the sun has changed. Carbon dates reported in the 1950s and 1960s should be questioned, because those studies were conducted before carbon dating was calibrated by comparision with other dating methods.

Nuclear tests, nuclear reactors and the use of nuclear weapons have also changed the composition of radioisotopes in the air over the last few decades. This human nuclear activity will make precise dating of fossils from our lifetime very difficult due to contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the earth with addition artificially produced radioactive atoms."

http://www.acad.carleton.edu/curricular/BIOL/classes/bio302/pages/carbondatingback.html

BASICALLY CARBON 14 IS USED FOR (oh shit caps lock) dating biological materials and i wasn't aware of this type of dating, merely the carbon 12 half life type of dating. I'm not saying that it doesn't work or anything but it's not part of the beloved scientific method if it's subject to any inaccuracies, whether created by us or by nature. But anyway what about biology 60,000 years and older. What if we are missing something significant that appened 65,000 years ago.

ganja man23 · Nov 17, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
Pseudoscience, ie. God, is untestable. It will forever remain that way. There are no experiments we could conduct that would prove it one way or the other, rendering it, essentially, useless in any practical terms.

You seem to be using the term 'imagination' in some kind of placeholder kind of way. Imagination simply means the process of forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses. We use imagination all the time in science.

You haven't provided any other way of perceiving reality. Through "imagination" isn't actually saying anything. It doesn't mean anything.

What is testable is real, if it's not testable, it isn't real.

There is nothing in existence that is real that we can't test.

That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.

Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.

Heisenberg · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.

Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.

What experiment do you propose we use to test god?

Definition of UNFALSIFIABLE

: not capable of being proved false <untestable hypotheses>

cannabineer · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
I don't think we differ much on what we consider actual evidence versus speculation. I just want to mention that I have yet to deal with a situation in which anything spiritual has been debunked by any scientific study.

And you never will. What science can do is address the phenomenology assigned to spirit action. But if you really expect science to be able to debunk, as you say, anything spiritual, you'll be disappointed.

You are all merely suggesting that science is the only method to understanding

the material, sensory, phenomenological world

and I can't disagree with that any more seeing as how i believe speculation is the very thing that fuels science. I mean by this that any experiment that is conducted was first imagined. Yes too much imagination in life is dangerous, but too little is anal. Balance is key for forward progression of course. Think of it this way; if you are only here for 70 years or so then why are you waiting for science as a validation. If you want to disprove a creator why not create a hypothesis and then form an experiment and see your conclusions.

Perhaps you can suggest an experiment. But as the questions of spirit and God are not considered phenomenological, I don't see a way in.

Unless you contribute to science directly by conducting experiments, you are just an observer waiting for the scientists to "show you the answers" so to speak. All i want to state is that there are a great deal of things within the universe that we don't understand. You need imagination and validation to accomplish something spectacular within a life span. If you're just waiting around for science to prove things for you then haven't you missed on an equal half of your consciousness; imagination. It's all about how you apply your imagination to your physicality (what you all call "reality") since we are all so convinced that this is the only way to perceive things. How are we to go anywhere without imagining a way first? If the path is wrong, we will know. How will we know? Watch the news. Mostly stories of people starving, getting shot, starting wars, etc. We are doing something wrong because the world is abundant for at least the 7 billion people on it so why are there so many suffering? There is only one direction for humanity to collectively progress towards and that is unity with each other and our surroundings.

What science embraces, and every spiritual protocol I've encountered abhors, is the primacy of test. cn

cannabineer · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't?

The line is drawn not by us but for us. It is the boundary of phenomena. All phenomena submit to test.

Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things?

Certainly, but if they are phenomenological, if they affect the material/sensory world, they are testable in principle.

Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it.

You've provided a good example of tech catching up with a phenomenon.

You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't.

This is where you take a bad step. Nobody here ever has said this is as far as we go with science.

Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.

Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.

Radically different, and the difference is test. cn

ceterum censeo Carbon-12 is stable.

ganja man23 · Nov 17, 2012

Heisenberg said:
What experiment do you propose we use to test god?

Definition of UNFALSIFIABLE

: not capable of being proved false <untestable hypotheses>

LOL have you been reading the bible too much? Are god and Jesus the only answer or some shit? We don't need to prove god, that's more like the last piece to the puzzle and it won't be proved in that sense anyway.

If you want my opinion as to when we are on the right path; it will be when we start examining time's relation to space more closely. Evidence shows we can view it as a fabric similar to space in the sense that duration creates a linear "fabric". Much evidence exists to support string theory and its not yet complete. Basically string theory shows that a change in vibrational frequency will result in a different "reality". Even if we have all the evidence to complete string theory for example are you going to take science's word for all the infinite dimensions that exist in the same space you occupy right now without actually seeing them. Curiosity killed the cat but limitation left the monkeys in the trees. I'm so clever i just thought of that right then and there i swear...

Padawanbater2 · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
That ignorance is just simple appalling. Where do you draw the line between what you can test and what you can't? Did you ever think that we don't have the technology or even the resources to test certain things? Are you (or we shall i say) so smart you think the scientific method will answer absolutely any questions we have about the universe? At one point a few hundred years ago we could not test radioactivity so why don't you go tell Madam Curie that radiation is not real because she couldn't "test" it. You're basically telling me we are as advanced as it gets and if we haven't thought of the way to prove it, we simply can't. Absolutely WRONG and LIMITED. Only time will tell you how wrong you are, wait a few decades and see the shit your scientists come up with. I can promise you they won't be the same scientists you're thinking of today.

Stop limiting yourself to science, you're merely becoming a "poser". You're no different than any religionist who has stories told to them, you are both limiting perception. If you were a true scientist you would have better shit to do than post on RIU so stop pretending you have some extra validation because you put yourself into that category. You are not a scientist you are merely told how to percieve reality by the scientists.

You misunderstood.

What you seem to have read is "what is testable now is real, if it's not testable now, it isn't real", which isn't what was said at all.

Testable, now or in the future.

If it isn't testable now, where is the value in believing it's real?

The problem with religion is that it will never be testable, no matter how advanced our science or technology becomes. It says it right there in the scripture.

If you disagree, then how would you suggest we test God?

bob jameson · Nov 17, 2012

Seriously, I do have very good instincts about people when I first meet them. I know if a person is sincere, deceptive or whatever. I get a very strong reaction to shady, untrustworthy people, much more than the people around me do. Bottom line, time always proves me right. My biggest challenge is not saying, "I told you so."

ganja man23 · Nov 17, 2012

Padawanbater2 said:
You misunderstood.

What you seem to have read is "what is testable now is real, if it's not testable now, it isn't real", which isn't what was said at all.

Testable, now or in the future.

If it isn't testable now, where is the value in believing it's real?

The problem with religion is that it will never be testable, no matter how advanced our science or technology becomes. It says it right there in the scripture.

If you disagree, then how would you suggest we test God?

I don't think it's necessary to test god, let alone attempt to prove him. You have no clue what god is and how can you when you don't believe in the very spark that fuels us? God is just one of those words that sparks controversy because people don't understand it. You have to realize that a lot of religions simply offer analogies for situations rather than literal interpretations such as an invisible bearded sky daddy watching us forever. This is your problem, you read something and take only one meaning from it which fits along the same lines of something you can't perceive, therefore not real.

You are under the assumption that not only is something that is not measurable not real, it can't possibly exist at all. What if we simply don't have the tools or even the mental cognitive ability to perceive it. WE're not the pinacle of knowledge, we are simply left with what's in front of us and you have to realize that in order to advance in science we need to study what's not in front of us which is kind of difficult if you don't know what it is. What about "evidence" for something similar to string theory? Most physicists today will support this hypothesis. So now, can you please provide speculation as to how we would test vibrational frequencies that are not visible to our colour spectrum? Even if we do prove it, it's going to be through a computer rather than actually seeing different dimensions unfold in the frequency you manipulate. At the moment we have no way of proving it while many of the most intelligent minds in the world agree to the theory.

mindphuk · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
Perhaps i can break down everything youve writen but i wont for one reason, being that you show no more evidence other than your knowingness that you are much superiour to me in genetic studies. You cant use things you say in an attempt to disprove what i say as evidence. I only have one point and you've failed to grasp it IMO. Do you really think you've shown more concrete evidence than I have here? It's different that you may know more but I have yet to see it therefore don't believe it.

FYI I have chosen genetic engineering as my study in university and no I am not finished yet but to call me unqualified you would be wrong. Don't fail to realize that science has not proved everything about our origins. You seem to be under the impression that you have it all figured out which is what these guys are telling me about beliefs. Don't come upon the conclusion that we evolved 100% naturally until all the evidence is in place. If you're curious what I did, I merely took all my beliefs and tried to create my own theory and no offense it has less questions than your claim of natural evolution.

As for the lion thing: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

Whats the matter trying to disprove my beliefs based on an idea I wrote? Answer one question for me and provide me with all of your concrete scientific evidence and you'll be king. I want your proof to how we naturally developed intelligence to become as sophisticated as we are today.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/what-made-us-human-unique-evolution-gene-found-20121115-29d9p.html

Read the article, you will notice they come upon the conclusion that we have no idea how such a gene could arise so suddenly. That's where I would like to share my belief that we were tampered with. After that tampering we were left alone to develop. That's my idea. And I'd like to apologize if I offended you I really am learning but unfortunely I kind of learned more finding that link then I did from reading what you wrote. I'm just trying to be honest and in all honesty I don't think you should eliminate the possibility that our genetics were tampered with. Was I there watching this, no. Just keep the possibility running through your mind as nothing more than a thought for now.

I haven't shown evidence because I haven't tried. You ignorance is clear just by your own words. If you want me to demonstrate then I will, but the problem is that the explanations become tiresome and you will just ignore it. If you want you can search some of my responses to finshaggy to see some of my explanation of the scientific method and why science never proves anything, but you have google, you should be able to read up on science. If you are in genetic engineering, then your school has failed you. They need to teach you basic fundamentals that you seem to be missing. The fact that you can dismiss solid scientific theory because not everything has been proved tells me that. Germ theory is not proven, do you avoid antibiotics because of it? You may have forgotten some of what you learned in basic science classes in high school and intro classes at the university level, but I can assure you, if you were my student, you would have a hard time passing my class. As to evolution, the stupidity of the question about why there are still apes if we evolved from them is demonstrated by countless youtube videos and good resources like talkorigins.org. If you have trouble finding something, you can ask, but these are the same discussions that have been posted countless times in this subforum alone. Americans came from Europeans. Why are there still Europeans?

The lion thing is not an analogy because for the very reason we evolved the way we did and they evolved their way. You can't make an analogy when the fail is the fundamental point. IOW, the theory about how walking upright gave us the ability to use tools, which then allowed things like our ability to use fire and cook our food, which gives us more energy and easier digestion, which leads to getting rid of the huge ape gut, which then leads to more energy for our brains which then allows for development of a larger brain, etc. etc. Therefore, your question has actual answers, it wasn't rhetorical and your lack of knowledge about current theory on how we actually did get smarter is the reason I am telling you that you knowledge in this particular area is severely lacking. It's not a criticism as much as an observation.
A thread in the science section about aliens, I pointed out that whales could be just as intelligent as we are. Their language suggests very complex levels much beyond other animals. However, they are limited by their anatomy and environment hampering their ability to create technology. Technology allows humans to outpace biological evolution, an extremely slow process. You are being species-centric when you discount the intelligence of other animals. It's a form of bigotry to claim that our intelligence is the pinnacle of evolution or something and it's so special that it needs some sort of special intervention. The ability of other species to perform well in their environment is something we can envy. Intelligence is merely one pathway to adapt and our particular style of intelligence is merely another step in the chain that I described above. Even our brains display the stepwise fashion in which we developed. Science is making a lot of headway into understanding how the neocortex formed and functions. We are understanding emergent consciousness by studying other species. A hive intelligence, for example, displays some of the same properties as human intelligence. It shows how many subunits that are basically dumb (ants, neurons), can display all kinds of interesting intelligence when coordinated.

My issue that I have with people like you and CWE and pretty much every creationist and IDer, is how you discount the incredible thing that is nature and invoke something that has no real explanation without creating an infinite regress. Because ultimately, if the question is, 'how did we become intelligent?' then the answer must be complete and satisfying. Invoking an intelligent agent that did this to us, makes us ask, 'how did that intelligent being become intelligent?' Because only by answering that, will the original answer be complete. All you do is create an additional step unless you cop out like the Xians and claim intelligence has always been there.

BTW, it should be apparent to you my regard for the science of biological evolution if you bothered to pay attention to my avatar. This isn't merely a hobby for me.

ganja man23 · Nov 17, 2012

bob jameson said:
Seriously, I do have very good instincts about people when I first meet them. I know if a person is sincere, deceptive or whatever. I get a very strong reaction to shady, untrustworthy people, much more than the people around me do. Bottom line, time always proves me right. My biggest challenge is not saying, "I told you so."

By that do you mean

or

lol

cannabineer · Nov 17, 2012

ganja man23 said:
I don't think it's necessary to test god, let alone attempt to prove him. You have no clue what god is and how can you when you don't believe in the very spark that fuels us? God is just one of those words that sparks controversy because people don't understand it. You have to realize that a lot of religions simply offer analogies for situations rather than literal interpretations such as an invisible bearded sky daddy watching us forever. This is your problem, you read something and take only one meaning from it which fits along the same lines of something you can't perceive, therefore not real.

You are under the assumption that not only is something that is not measurable not real, it can't possibly exist at all.

Show me one post where someone has said that. One will do. Otherwise, you're moving the goalposts to make science, and its proponents here, look worse than is appropriate.

What if we simply don't have the tools or even the mental cognitive ability to perceive it. WE're not the pinnacle of knowledge, we are simply left with what's in front of us and you have to realize that in order to advance in science we need to study what's not in front of us which is kind of difficult if you don't know what it is. What about "evidence" for something similar to string theory? Most physicists today will support this hypothesis. So now, can you please provide speculation as to how we would test vibrational frequencies that are not visible to our colour spectrum? Even if we do prove it, it's going to be through a computer rather than actually seeing different dimensions unfold in the frequency you manipulate. At the moment we have no way of proving it while many of the most intelligent minds in the world agree to the theory.

But string theory can be proven or disproven or modified scientifically, since it makes predictions about physical doings. Not immediately, but the framework is there. That's what's missing in your proposals about spirituality ... a test protocol can't begin to be proposed. cn

greenswag · Nov 17, 2012

First off I would like to say that I enjoy science a lot. I follow things going on with astronomy, aviation, biology and things with the ocean. I'm not too interested in physics, not saying it isn't as important, just not as interesting to me, or with chemistry even though I seem to excel in it beyond everyone else I meet I just seem to learn and grasp it so well, but it tends to bore me.

But from the post I've seen in this thread and in others, it seems a lot of people like to say that ganja man, and other spiritual people who post here are wrong. And I may be wrong in that and if I am please correct me. I often see atheist, or scientologist complain about bible thumpers, and how relentlessly they fight tooth and nail that they are right and everyone else is wrong, and how they will never, ever change their view no matter what evidence or lack of evidence is presented to them. These same people are just as bad in my mind. Because they also fight tooth and nail, that the bible thumpers or anyone else who is spiritual for that matter, are wrong in their ways. They refuse to accept that there just might be something there, that our current science can never possibly discover. That those people who they so vigorously fight to prove wrong, just MAY be right. Or maybe they aren't right, but maybe they have the right idea. In any case why is it so hard to accept another persons point of view, regardless of whether you agree with it or not. And why on earth do you feel the need to wander onto a thread, specifically aimed towards spiritual people, and bash those who come to it for being 'wrong'. There is no right or wrong on this topic, because no one has a fucking clue, and you will never have a clue, whether you are in a sexual relationship with your bible, or if you believe everything must be testable, until you are dead. Only then will you say, HA I was right! As you float through oblivion in a vast nothingness, not ever really existing. Actually then you wouldn't be able to say you were right, which is what all of you would love to do, now that sure would suck wouldn't it? Or you'll say 'ha I was right!' as your walking through paradise in the next life.

Learn to let go of your beliefs, stop being so thick headed and open up your mind a little to the possibilities, you ARE in the SS&P section by the way. And if you can't do that, make threads about what you believe in, and don't bother the people who make threads about what they believe in, unless of course they ask. I waited a long time to step in and say this because I really didn't feel it was necessary, I thought it would work itself out but obviously not, it never has before in history. We're on a weed forum, what happened to the peace, isn't that why you came here?

Btw, I like all of you, I read each post and say, oh good point. Then the next post, oh good point against his point. I'm not calling out anyone in particular, it's just so many threads get derailed when people flood in and try to call out others. I can almost guarantee, no matter what side you are fighting for, you won't convert anyone to your side.

Canna Sylvan · Nov 17, 2012

Greens,
I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?

greenswag · Nov 17, 2012

Canna Sylvan said:
Greens,
I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?

I think your talking to me? I read that carne might have faced what you talk about too. Are you bringing this up from my previous post? I didn't see anything this most recent time, only the tv flickering. What happened when you were faced with them? What did they look like, did they do or say anything? And wheres that last bit coming from friend? No one here is calling you crazy

We had more activity today I think. On Thursday I told dad about the tv thing, and we talked and he was telling me he doesn't think anythings here, but then again he is the opposite of a sensitive lol. This morning he woke me up asking if I was coughing. I was dead asleep in the middle of a nightmare and he actually startled me awake. I told him no and asked why. He said he was downstairs watching TV when he heard a very low, deep coughing or laughing (and I cough and laugh kind of, middle-high, not deep or low at all), he really wasn't able to describe what he heard. I told him that beyond a doubt it was not me and asked if it was in the house, or just outside and he thought he heard inside. He said he looked around outside but there was no one around to make the noise, and no one else is in the house with us. Come the end of the conversation I could tell he was starting to get freaked out and I stopped pressing because he was getting uncomfortable, I think he's starting to realize what I've been saying when I feel there's something here. Maybe it did that to make a point to him because he was so quick and happy to say that there is nothing with us.

Canna Sylvan · Nov 17, 2012

Padwan,
The oldest religious cave art is over 70,000 years old found in Botswana in 2006. The 30,000 years you reference is the previously found oldest cave drawings in France.

bob jameson · Nov 17, 2012

Canna Sylvan said:
Greens,
I've experienced the shadow people five times in my life, face to face. Free standers as they're known by others who've seen them. It's more than a shadowy figure. They make you feel dread, loathing, fear and all other bad emotions. I'm crazy? Wtf?

That would be my second wife. Tell her I said hi and she still owes me $150.

Are any of you here a Sensitive?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Ursus marijanus

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member