Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Ectoplasm..Evolutions nightmare

Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.

Ectoplasm was said to the the visible signs of Demon Spirits through the spirit medium.

What do you think?

http://www.encyclopedia.com...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 11:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.

Ectoplasm was said to the the visible signs of Demon Spirits through the spirit medium.

What do you think?

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

Did you watch the movie, "Ghostbusters" recently?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Looncall
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 11:59:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.

Ectoplasm was said to the the visible signs of Demon Spirits through the spirit medium.

What do you think?

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

Lots of dumb things get said.

None of this is described in the article you linked. Got anything real?
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.
What do you think?

Peter, science has no problems with matter that hasn't previously been seen. In antiquity only a dozen elements were known -- elements easy to isolate using Bronze and Iron Age manufacturing techniques. From the Middle Ages through to the late 1700s, 22 more were identified, mainly produced through 'basement' chemistry. From the 1800s to today, 84 more were either discovered or synthesised using advanced industrial techniques, including radiosynthesis.

But for all that some 118 new elements have been found over three or so millennia, countless tens of thousands of substances thought to be new elements were proven under testing to be compounds of elements already known.

So: where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today? What does a failure to reproduce it tell us? Which more probably explains it: a new, earthshaking element supposedly ubiquitous (due to a ubiquitous metaphysical moral war), yet which can hide for centuries like the Loch Ness monster; or superstitious, 17th century chemical ignorance swept aside by better knowledge?

And which respected research biochemists are having nightmares over this? Name them please. :D
Looncall
Posts: 455
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 7:34:11 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.
What do you think?

Peter, science has no problems with matter that hasn't previously been seen. In antiquity only a dozen elements were known -- elements easy to isolate using Bronze and Iron Age manufacturing techniques. From the Middle Ages through to the late 1700s, 22 more were identified, mainly produced through 'basement' chemistry. From the 1800s to today, 84 more were either discovered or synthesised using advanced industrial techniques, including radiosynthesis.

But for all that some 118 new elements have been found over three or so millennia, countless tens of thousands of substances thought to be new elements were proven under testing to be compounds of elements already known.

So: where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today? What does a failure to reproduce it tell us? Which more probably explains it: a new, earthshaking element supposedly ubiquitous (due to a ubiquitous metaphysical moral war), yet which can hide for centuries like the Loch Ness monster; or superstitious, 17th century chemical ignorance swept aside by better knowledge?

And which respected research biochemists are having nightmares over this? Name them please. :D

Hmmm, crickets, just crickets.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 3:24:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/10/2016 10:57:52 PM, Peternosaint wrote:
Ectoplasm is not seen much anymore,or even at all, but when it was samples were taken and showed all the chemical components that one would expect from an earthly substance, PLUS one that couldn't be identified.
What do you think?

Peter, science has no problems with matter that hasn't previously been seen. In antiquity only a dozen elements were known -- elements easy to isolate using Bronze and Iron Age manufacturing techniques. From the Middle Ages through to the late 1700s, 22 more were identified, mainly produced through 'basement' chemistry. From the 1800s to today, 84 more were either discovered or synthesised using advanced industrial techniques, including radiosynthesis.

But for all that some 118 new elements have been found over three or so millennia, countless tens of thousands of substances thought to be new elements were proven under testing to be compounds of elements already known.

So: where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today? What does a failure to reproduce it tell us? Which more probably explains it: a new, earthshaking element supposedly ubiquitous (due to a ubiquitous metaphysical moral war), yet which can hide for centuries like the Loch Ness monster; or superstitious, 17th century chemical ignorance swept aside by better knowledge?

And which respected research biochemists are having nightmares over this? Name them please. :D

ME: Ectoplasm was seen in abundance in the early years of all sorts of religions claiming miraculous happenings. Talking in tongues is one that has persisted, but the early Pentecostal movement also had situations where parishioners would drop to the floor, their ankle would disjoint so they could stand like dogs, and they would howl to the sky. Then there were and are the snake handlers, the faith healers that still make a motza before they are undone..Tammy and ???

These things were so frightening at times that they were later not found in the Charismatic religions, as sensible, thinking people would stay away. The medium is still active as is hoodoo and other satanic cults, and it is suggested, if you search around, that the extra element came from the satanic component of ectoplasm.

The Bible says that the power of demons to appear was removed in later days.

Now, if ectoplasm was or is real, it would put a flurry amongst evolutionists as there would be a substance in modern times that they could not explain.

Ectoplasm was never claimed to come from human chemistry kits, but from the source assisting the medium.

Have you read of the use of the ouija board? There is many accounts of supernatural activity in the use of this device.

I am not taking one side or the other, but it is an interesting discussion. And I promise, I wont ask you questions that should have a yes or no answer.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/23/2016 4:44:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 3:24:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today? What does a failure to reproduce it tell us? Which more probably explains it: a new, earthshaking element supposedly ubiquitous (due to a ubiquitous metaphysical moral war), yet which can hide for centuries like the Loch Ness monster; or superstitious, 17th century chemical ignorance swept aside by better knowledge?

Ectoplasm was seen in abundance in the early years of all sorts of religions claiming miraculous happenings.
That's not really possible, Peter. The term was first attested in use in 1883, as the exterior protoplasm of an amoeba. [http://www.etymonline.com...] It was adopted by mediums/seance/spiritualist charlatans eighteen years later. So the term wasn't in use 150 years even ago, the exploitation of early 20th century audiences by frauds is very well-documented, and most religions are more than 150 years old.

The Bible says that the power of demons to appear was removed in later days.
Then surely, nobody using the word 'ectoplasm' could have seen a demon?

Now, if ectoplasm was or is real, it would put a flurry amongst evolutionists as there would be a substance in modern times that they could not explain.
Unfortunately, every claim you've made so far has been badly researched, uncited and is historically inaccurate. So this is really a thread of you imagining there's a curious substance, rather than announcing where it can be found.

Have you read of the use of the ouija board? There is many accounts of supernatural activity in the use of this device.
I have. There are also studies explaining how ouija boards, dowsing wands and similar demonstrations work. The effect is called the ideomotor effect -- making movements you're not aware of making. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

You can detect such movements in people by using electrical sensors, and through other means, but in the 1880s when it became popular, nobody knew, and so there were many reports of unexplainable spookiness in popular media.

I am not taking one side or the other
I am: it's bunkum, beyond reasonable doubt.

If you want to demonstrate spooky abilities to scientists, it's actually very easy. You just need to be good enough that under clinical conditions you can offer specific, significant, independently-testable predictions defying normal means, and do so more accurately than random chance.

For over 50 years, you could win $1M for demonstrating paranormal abilities. Over a thousand people tried. Nobody ever succeeded, and a number of so-called psychics refused to be tested. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. There are still privately-funded paranormal research units around, starving for wondrous findings to announce.

We have better explanations for people believing such stuff than that it works.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 12:49:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/23/2016 4:44:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:24:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today? What does a failure to reproduce it tell us? Which more probably explains it: a new, earthshaking element supposedly ubiquitous (due to a ubiquitous metaphysical moral war), yet which can hide for centuries like the Loch Ness monster; or superstitious, 17th century chemical ignorance swept aside by better knowledge?

Ectoplasm was seen in abundance in the early years of all sorts of religions claiming miraculous happenings.
That's not really possible, Peter. The term was first attested in use in 1883, as the exterior protoplasm of an amoeba. [http://www.etymonline.com...] It was adopted by mediums/seance/spiritualist charlatans eighteen years later. So the term wasn't in use 150 years even ago, the exploitation of early 20th century audiences by frauds is very well-documented, and most religions are more than 150 years old.

ME: Come on, mate, have a bit of lateral thinking, maybe they didn't call it ectoplasm in the early days. To say it is not possible on your grounds is like saying you have the power of all things right, do you exude any substance when you talk.

The Bible says that the power of demons to appear was removed in later days.
Then surely, nobody using the word 'ectoplasm' could have seen a demon?

Now, if ectoplasm was or is real, it would put a flurry amongst evolutionists as there would be a substance in modern times that they could not explain.
Unfortunately, every claim you've made so far has been badly researched, uncited and is historically inaccurate. So this is really a thread of you imagining there's a curious substance, rather than announcing where it can be found.

ME: Here you go again, in some instances you say that something I suggest is not possible, or never existed, then you say I should research it...which it do you mean. Why don't you come up with some expert citations on the subject, as I do not consider your contradictions as being expert.

Have you read of the use of the ouija board? There is many accounts of supernatural activity in the use of this device.
I have. There are also studies explaining how ouija boards, dowsing wands and similar demonstrations work. The effect is called the ideomotor effect -- making movements you're not aware of making. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]

You can detect such movements in people by using electrical sensors, and through other means, but in the 1880s when it became popular, nobody knew, and so there were many reports of unexplainable spookiness in popular media.

ME: Here is a blatant contradiction, you disclaim the effect of the spiritualistic devices and then offer your proof with the word phenomenon. Clever

I am not taking one side or the other
I am: it's bunkum, beyond reasonable doubt.

ME: What gives you the right to be so sanctimonious. Remember the art of science.

If you want to demonstrate spooky abilities to scientists, it's actually very easy. You just need to be good enough that under clinical conditions you can offer specific, significant, independently-testable predictions defying normal means, and do so more accurately than random chance.

For over 50 years, you could win $1M for demonstrating paranormal abilities. Over a thousand people tried. Nobody ever succeeded, and a number of so-called psychics refused to be tested. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. There are still privately-funded paranormal research units around, starving for wondrous findings to announce.

We have better explanations for people believing such stuff than that it work.

ME: Maybe the conjurers of these things are at work against the super dooper wonderful all mighty scientists?????

Did instantaneous combustion in humans ever happen? And would we have credible science from this as scientists do not want anyone to think about anything that they don't know about.

As an example: The first blood transfusion was preformed on a boy using lambs blood. Some medical scientists say it was a success, others who said the boy died after two hours proved it was not a success, so there you have argument over two hours.

The two hour success rate is decided on the fact that the boy didn't die instantly the blood hit his body function system.

As the transfusion was only experimental there was no outcome predicted, so success rates could be, and were, manipulated. Just as you are the Master Manipulator.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 1:29:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 12:49:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:44:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:24:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today?
Ectoplasm was seen in abundance in the early years of all sorts of religions claiming miraculous happenings.
That's not really possible, Peter. The term was first attested in use in 1883.
Maybe they didn't call it ectoplasm in the early days.
No maybe about it.

But why the choice of name, other than to gain pseudoscientific credibility?

Unfortunately, every claim you've made so far has been badly researched, uncited and is historically inaccurate. So this is really a thread of you imagining there's a curious substance, rather than announcing where it can be found.
In some instances you say that something I suggest is not possible, or never existed, then you say I should research it...which it do you mean.
I mean you should not say ectoplasm existed before the 17th century when the word wasn't even used before the late 19th century. You should instead state the material which you claim existed in the 17th century by a name under which you believe it was then known and acknowledge that linking the two is only conjecture.

And then you should offer some authenticated research showing that it might have existed in the 17th century, because the clinical evidence is that such a substance never been reliably produced in the modern scientific era.

And then you should admit that you have zero evidence of it existing today, that the name 'ectoplasm' is a fatuous pseudoscientific term borrowed by 19th century stage charlatans, that its historical existence is conjectural, and that unprovable conjectures bother nobody, but especially not scientists.

And then, since the only parts of this thread interesting me are your sloppiness and dishonesty, I would have no reason to bother you at all. :)

Have you read of the use of the ouija board? There is many accounts of supernatural activity in the use of this device.
I have. There are also studies explaining how ouija boards, dowsing wands and similar demonstrations work. The effect is called the ideomotor effect -- making movements you're not aware of making. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
You can detect such movements in people by using electrical sensors, and through other means, but in the 1880s when it became popular, nobody knew, and so there were many reports of unexplainable spookiness in popular media.
Here is a blatant contradiction, you disclaim the effect of the spiritualistic devices and then offer your proof with the word phenomenon.
It is standard scientific practice that a transparent and testable hypothesis which successfully predicts everything observed displaces any opaque conjecture that predicts nothing testable.

Clever
It got us electricity and a germ theory of medicine, so yes. It is.

I am not taking one side or the other
I am: it's bunkum, beyond reasonable doubt.
What gives you the right to be so sanctimonious.
Rigour.

Remember the art of science.
I have no idea what that is, but if it's relevant please feel free to expound, with references.

For over 50 years, you could win $1M for demonstrating paranormal abilities. Over a thousand people tried. Nobody ever succeeded, and a number of so-called psychics refused to be tested. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. There are still privately-funded paranormal research units around, starving for wondrous findings to announce.
Maybe the conjurers of these things are at work against scientists?????
I have no idea what that means. I do understand though that people with religious or professional motives to claim paranormal abilities would be well-served by demonstrating them clinically -- unless they're false, in which case they'd be well-served by making excuses and avoiding clinical testing.

Only one of these two hypotheses predicts what we actually observe; the other is refuted by it.

Did instantaneous combustion in humans ever happen? And would we have credible science from this as scientists do not want anyone to think about anything that they don't know about.
I assume you mean 'Spontaneous Human Combustion'. Reports have been collected since the early 19th century; the allegations were scientifically studied in the late 19th century, studied again forensically in 1984, and have been revisited as recently as 2012. So no, despite your paranoid allegations, scientists are very interested in repeatable, curious observations whether they can readily explain them or not. Would you like some scientific references?

As an example [uncited blood transfusion anecdote elided.]
I have no idea what this example has to do with SHC, nor what SHC has to do with ectoplasm which wasn't really ectoplasm but called something else, only you can't tell us what it is.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 6:40:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 1:29:00 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/24/2016 12:49:28 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/23/2016 4:44:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/23/2016 3:24:46 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:39:52 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Where is this alleged ectoplasm? Why, if it was possible to produce with 17th century 'basement' chemistry, has nobody reproduced it with the full spectrum of industrial radiochemistry today?
Ectoplasm was seen in abundance in the early years of all sorts of religions claiming miraculous happenings.
That's not really possible, Peter. The term was first attested in use in 1883.
Maybe they didn't call it ectoplasm in the early days.
No maybe about it.

But why the choice of name, other than to gain pseudoscientific credibility?

ME" Now that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Unfortunately, every claim you've made so far has been badly researched, uncited and is historically inaccurate. So this is really a thread of you imagining there's a curious substance, rather than announcing where it can be found.
In some instances you say that something I suggest is not possible, or never existed, then you say I should research it...which it do you mean.
I mean you should not say ectoplasm existed before the 17th century when the word wasn't even used before the late 19th century. You should instead state the material which you claim existed in the 17th century by a name under which you believe it was then known and acknowledge that linking the two is only conjecture.

ME: But. I am like thou, I have this extraordinary gift that makes every utterance that I utter become the whole truth. I only need to cite myself to show proof of my discussion, which is not an argument, as one can't argue the truth of everything.

And then you should offer some authenticated research showing that it might have existed in the 17th century, because the clinical evidence is that such a substance never been reliably produced in the modern scientific era.

And then you should admit that you have zero evidence of it existing today, that the name 'ectoplasm' is a fatuous pseudoscientific term borrowed by 19th century stage charlatans, that its historical existence is conjectural, and that unprovable conjectures bother nobody, but especially not scientists.

ME: How can you borrow something that doesn't exist? Is it a reference to borrowing your intelligence?
And then, since the only parts of this thread interesting me are your sloppiness and dishonesty, I would have no reason to bother you at all. :)

ME: So why would one so wise as us selves bother to research anything that we both have the positive proof of just by uttering the utterance.

Have you read of the use of the ouija board? There is many accounts of supernatural activity in the use of this device.
I have. There are also studies explaining how ouija boards, dowsing wands and similar demonstrations work. The effect is called the ideomotor effect -- making movements you're not aware of making. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]
You can detect such movements in people by using electrical sensors, and through other means, but in the 1880s when it became popular, nobody knew, and so there were many reports of unexplainable spookiness in popular media.
Here is a blatant contradiction, you disclaim the effect of the spiritualistic devices and then offer your proof with the word phenomenon.
It is standard scientific practice that a transparent and testable hypothesis which successfully predicts everything observed displaces any opaque conjecture that predicts nothing testable.

ME: Do water diviners have any success with their divining rods?

ME: Oh! What wonderful pseudo-scientific utterances you doth utter Oh! practitioner of all things. Such a great gift to have, just say something, anything and it automatically becomes the truth. You are a legend in your own mind.

Clever
It got us electricity and a germ theory of medicine, so yes. It is.

ME: You can't see electricity, so it doesn't exist.

I am not taking one side or the other
I am: it's bunkum, beyond reasonable doubt.
What gives you the right to be so sanctimonious.
Rigour.

ME: Like in Rigour Mortis, boy! Stiff luck.

Remember the art of science.
I have no idea what that is, but if it's relevant please feel free to expound, with references.

ME: You practice it all the time, it is like the stage charlatans who use odd words.

For over 50 years, you could win $1M for demonstrating paranormal abilities. Over a thousand people tried. Nobody ever succeeded, and a number of so-called psychics refused to be tested. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. There are still privately-funded paranormal research units around, starving for wondrous findings to announce.
Maybe the conjurers of these things are at work against scientists?????
I have no idea what that means. I do understand though that people with religious or professional motives to claim paranormal abilities would be well-served by demonstrating them clinically -- unless they're false, in which case they'd be well-served by making excuses and avoiding clinical testing.

Only one of these two hypotheses predicts what we actually observe; the other is refuted by it.

Did instantaneous combustion in humans ever happen? And would we have credible science from this as scientists do not want anyone to think about anything that they don't know about.
I assume you mean 'Spontaneous Human Combustion'. Reports have been collected since the early 19th century; the allegations were scientifically studied in the late 19th century, studied again forensically in 1984, and have been revisited as recently as 2012. So no, despite your paranoid allegations, scientists are very interested in repeatable, curious observations whether they can readily explain them or not. Would you like some scientific references?
ME: And what does that gobbledygook mean in human terms?

As an example [uncited blood transfusion anecdote elided.]
I have no idea what this example has to do with SHC, nor what SHC has to do with ectoplasm which wasn't really ectoplasm but called something else, only you can't tell us what it is.
ME: Just out of curiosity, did you ever look ectoplasm up in any reference books, or are you solely hooked on you own self importance.
Your discussions are based on two things: To air your own self importance. To argue for the sake of argument.
It is so boring after a while, at first you show yourself as a egotistical fool, but then discussion is bogged down in a recital of your wonderful self....Booooooring!!!!
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/24/2016 7:36:18 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 6:40:49 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
<Belligerent rhetoric elided.>
Peter, I understand that despite my repeated requests, you have no references or historical evidence at all, are out of arguments about scientific merit, have no relevant questions about scientific validation and verification, and have switched to insult just to keep an otherwise defunct and vacuous line of argument in play.

Since you don't need me to play this way, I shall leave you to play with...

...whomever.
Peternosaint
Posts: 1,166
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 1:30:46 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/24/2016 7:36:18 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/24/2016 6:40:49 AM, Peternosaint wrote:
<Belligerent rhetoric elided.>
Peter, I understand that despite my repeated requests, you have no references or historical evidence at all, are out of arguments about scientific merit, have no relevant questions about scientific validation and verification, and have switched to insult just to keep an otherwise defunct and vacuous line of argument in play.

Since you don't need me to play this way, I shall leave you to play with...

...whomever.

OH! Goody, Oh master of the insult...one must take what they give.