| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Budikka666" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2007 10:42:50 AM |
| Object: |
Why There's No Design #85 |
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
.
|
|
| User: "Kathy" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 02:07:27 PM |
|
|
"Budikka666" <budikka1@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:1171212170.851611.240530@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
The fundies will say it was the fault of A&E. If they had obeyed god the
cells wouldn't act that way and no one would get cancer. They have an answer
for everything..... simply blame A&E!!!! I was even told that tigers and
wolves eat other animals because of A&E.
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "XeNO" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
11 Feb 2007 11:37:57 AM |
|
|
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
I think that most believers in Christianity adhere to the idea that
creation is non perfect. Design doesn't mean perfection.
After many years I no longer try to fight that 28% or so of hardcore
biblical literalists... it just gets so tiring. They don't listen to
us, you know!
I adhere to a simpler policy: Teach what science is and isn't. If you
can get more religious people involved in the research, the clarity of
the thoughts and ideas... and that everything in science is provisional,
you can break through those barriers... otherwise it just seems
you're looking for a fight. It's more like the minds of the artists vs.
the minds of the mathematicians.
--XeNO
aa# 1901
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Henry" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
11 Feb 2007 01:10:27 PM |
|
|
"XeNO" <xeno6696@cox.net> wrote in message
news:RvIzh.74136$5q6.58398@newsfe17.lga...
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
I think that most believers in Christianity adhere to the idea that
creation is non perfect. Design doesn't mean perfection.
After many years I no longer try to fight that 28% or so of hardcore
biblical literalists... it just gets so tiring. They don't listen to us,
you know!
I adhere to a simpler policy: Teach what science is and isn't. If you
can get more religious people involved in the research, the clarity of the
thoughts and ideas... and that everything in science is provisional, you
can break through those barriers... otherwise it just seems you're looking
for a fight. It's more like the minds of the artists vs. the minds of the
mathematicians.
Many scientists are religious people who know what science is and what
is not.
--
Geo. Michael Henry
"And one of the hot topics for me is the number of Christian atheists who
are fully committed to living
according to the teachings of Jesus, but unwilling to accept the idea of
God."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJAB1958" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 04:16:45 AM |
|
|
On 11 Feb, 17:37, XeNO <xeno6...@cox.net> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
I think that most believers in Christianity adhere to the idea that
creation is non perfect. Design doesn't mean perfection.
the logical conclusion of creation being imperfect is that the
designer is imperfect too, which means that those people that believe
creation is imperfect are putting limitations on their creator too.
After many years I no longer try to fight that 28% or so of hardcore
biblical literalists... it just gets so tiring. They don't listen to
us, you know!
I adhere to a simpler policy: Teach what science is and isn't. If you
can get more religious people involved in the research, the clarity of
the thoughts and ideas... and that everything in science is provisional,
you can break through those barriers... otherwise it just seems
you're looking for a fight. It's more like the minds of the artists vs.
the minds of the mathematicians.
--XeNO
aa# 1901- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sasam" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 05:33:48 AM |
|
|
On Feb 11, 7:37 pm, XeNO <xeno6...@cox.net> wrote:
Budikka666 wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/2ny266
Nature journal reports on the role of a tumor-suppressor protein
p16INK4a. Since "p16" suppresses thsoe cells which indicate that they
aren't going to behave, it helps prevent cancer. But when the gene
for this protein was knocked out in mice, while many of the mice did
go on to develop cancer, they gained unexpected benefits.
For example, when insulin-producing cells were destroyed in mice with
functional p16 those mice became, as expected, diabetic. But the "non-
functional p16" mice did very well because they were able to
repopulate the pancreas with new cells. The "healthy" mice were not.
When p16 "retires" a cell, that isn't necessarily the end of the
cell. A retired cell starts producing vascular endothelial growth
factor (VEGF), which encourages blood vessels to muliply, thereby
feeding nutrients to the retired cell.
This behavior creates a population of retired rogue cells which get a
free ride in the body. They're effectively parasites. They sit and
wait patiently like people at a retirement community gazing over the
beach to the ocean. At any time in old age, when the body falters or
gets a virus, the cells can take off and cancer kicks in.
Is this evidence of a design? To keep rogue cells sitting around
instead of disposing of them? To have a set of proteins that are
required to cull rogue cells, but which make people grow old and
infirm? To create cells that are so *poorly* designed that they can
go rogue and create cancer in the first place?
It seems to me that the designer is either truly incompetent or non-
existent.
Which is it?
Budikka
I think that most believers in Christianity adhere to the idea that
creation is non perfect. Design doesn't mean perfection.
After many years I no longer try to fight that 28% or so of hardcore
biblical literalists... it just gets so tiring. They don't listen to
us, you know!
I adhere to a simpler policy: Teach what science is and isn't. If you
can get more religious people involved in the research, the clarity of
the thoughts and ideas... and that everything in science is provisional,
you can break through those barriers... otherwise it just seems
you're looking for a fight. It's more like the minds of the artists vs.
the minds of the mathematicians.
--XeNO
aa# 1901- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Buddika's biological posts are certainly informative. It is when he
starts attacking Christianity that he identifies himself as a hard
core atheist as anti-pole to your hard core biblical literalists. They
sure are picking fights with each other as politicians would do for
the sake of fighting. This may be related to a testosterone driven
territorial instinct. (For the male contributors in any case). These
type of posts may be largely ignored for the honest seekers of truth,
which are not in it for the sake of fighting.
In this case Buddika is delving into an aspect of mortality. He could
have brought the same message by stating: Why do we start dying at age
23? Why are we not created as perfect beings not prone to suffering,
sickness and death?
There certainly are various philisophical viewpoints about this and
many Christians are battling with similar questions, i.e. why do
innocent children get molested? Buddika's limited choice between
either a non-existing or imperfect creator is a false dichotomy. Other
possibilities do exist.
I do not agree with the statement that the creator must be imperfect
if creation is imperfect. My standpoint with respect to imperfections
in creation would relate to this period of creation being a time of
testing, cleansing and growth for the head of material creation,
namely humans. This is a birth period where evil is allowed to show
it's fruit for us and higher beings. It is clearly stated for those
who want to believe it that the earth itself will be renewed and that
the current imperfections will pass away.
The "artsist's" or "mathematician's" view (in your words) must be
reconciled for us to discover the whole truth. The clinically strict
material view regarding origins is meaningless if you do not consider
abstractions, i.e. purpose and aesthetics as a sinergistic, holistic
approach to origins, where every input has it's place, but the whole
gives the picture clearer.
I certainly have come to know and accept the observed facts about
speciation and variation. The evolutionist will boast about the
circumstantial evidence out there actually indicating common origins
and ever increasing meaningfull complexity by (yes - I'll say it)
chance. The equally circumstantial evidence (where legitimate) out
there (polter- and other geist, spontaneous combustion, miracle
healing, foreknowledge, excorsism, etc.) indicative towards a parallel
or higher intelligence than ours is totally ignored or ridiculed.
The last may perhaps not be downclampable as science as we currently
understand it, but it certainly must form part of our broader quest
for truth regarding origins and should as such not be ridiculed in
general. Specific fabricated cases may certainly be ridiculous, as is
the case with some evolutionary examples.
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are merely
rearranging their prejudices" - William James
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 06:31:02 AM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 3:33 am, "sasam" <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
I do not agree with the statement that the creator must be imperfect
if creation is imperfect. My standpoint with respect to imperfections
in creation would relate to this period of creation being a time of
testing, cleansing and growth for the head of material creation,
namely humans. This is a birth period where evil is allowed to show
it's fruit for us and higher beings. It is clearly stated for those
who want to believe it that the earth itself will be renewed and that
the current imperfections will pass away.
There are two possibilities:
1) God could not make a world with any less evil that still provided
the same benefits.
2) God could make a world with less evil that still provided the same
benefits and nevertheless chose to make the one with evil.
Which is it?
If every single bit of evil in this world is necessary, ask yourself
what it is that *makes* it necessary. Whatever it is, it's something
god created, isn't it? It's something god could change, isn't it?
DS
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 06:27:37 AM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 3:33 am, "sasam" <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
The equally circumstantial evidence (where legitimate) out
there (polter- and other geist, spontaneous combustion, miracle
healing, foreknowledge, excorsism, etc.) indicative towards a parallel
or higher intelligence than ours is totally ignored or ridiculed.
Except they aren't indicative towards a parallel or higher
intelligence. The more you investigate them, the more nonsensical they
are. The "evidence", such as it is, all points in different and
incompatible directions.
An interesting thought experiment is to take all that stuff and assume
it's all accurate reporting and factually true. Now think for a second
what sort of "parallel or higher intelligence" it would take to make
that true. Imagine a world where the one person who survives the plane
crash really is a miracle, and the 104 others who died really are
passed over for such treatment.
Now there's a truly horrible thought.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "SeppoP" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
12 Feb 2007 09:45:08 AM |
|
|
David Schwartz wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:33 am, "sasam" <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
The equally circumstantial evidence (where legitimate) out
there (polter- and other geist, spontaneous combustion, miracle
healing, foreknowledge, excorsism, etc.) indicative towards a parallel
or higher intelligence than ours is totally ignored or ridiculed.
Except they aren't indicative towards a parallel or higher
intelligence. The more you investigate them, the more nonsensical they
are. The "evidence", such as it is, all points in different and
incompatible directions.
An interesting thought experiment is to take all that stuff and assume
it's all accurate reporting and factually true. Now think for a second
what sort of "parallel or higher intelligence" it would take to make
that true. Imagine a world where the one person who survives the plane
crash really is a miracle, and the 104 others who died really are
passed over for such treatment.
Now there's a truly horrible thought.
DS
It'd have to modify the standard question:
"Other than that, how was your flight?"
to:
"Other than that, how was your flight, and, by the way, which deity do you think succeeded in saving you, and which
deities failed to save your neighbors?
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "sasam" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
13 Feb 2007 12:31:06 AM |
|
|
On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:33 am, "sasam" <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
The equally circumstantial evidence (where legitimate) out
there (polter- and other geist, spontaneous combustion, miracle
healing, foreknowledge, excorsism, etc.) indicative towards a parallel
or higher intelligence than ours is totally ignored or ridiculed.
Except they aren't indicative towards a parallel or higher
intelligence. The more you investigate them, the more nonsensical they
are. The "evidence", such as it is, all points in different and
incompatible directions.
An interesting thought experiment is to take all that stuff and assume
it's all accurate reporting and factually true. Now think for a second
what sort of "parallel or higher intelligence" it would take to make
that true. Imagine a world where the one person who survives the plane
crash really is a miracle, and the 104 others who died really are
passed over for such treatment.
Now there's a truly horrible thought.
DS
There actually was found some correlations. In his book "Operation
Trojan Horse" by John A.Keel there was a definite correlation found
between poltergeist activity and (now you forced me to use that taboo
word) UFO sightings for specific areas of activity at specific times.
His findings were indicative of ultra-terrestrial in stead of extra-
terrestrial activity.
There is a definite correlation between satanism and - what shall we
call it - instantaneous multiple personality disorder. One of my close
friends witnessed the instantaneous (over three days) curing of such a
person of 24 personalities.
Within my own ring of relations there are some examples of super
natural occurences, some witnessed simulatneously i.e. the larger ones
(writing in the clouds in Dutch, overnight healing of cancer, unseen
cradle rocking) and the smaller ones (reverse communication via
scripture). It's the little miracles that tend to strengthen your
faith.
Either we are all liars, or there is more to creation than is
sensorically perceived. But lets step off this subject before I get
snowballed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
13 Feb 2007 12:04:21 PM |
|
|
sasam wrote:
On Feb 12, 2:27 pm, "David Schwartz" <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Feb 12, 3:33 am, "sasam" <f...@absamail.co.za> wrote:
The equally circumstantial evidence (where legitimate) out
there (polter- and other geist, spontaneous combustion, miracle
healing, foreknowledge, excorsism, etc.) indicative towards a parallel
or higher intelligence than ours is totally ignored or ridiculed.
Except they aren't indicative towards a parallel or higher
intelligence. The more you investigate them, the more nonsensical they
are. The "evidence", such as it is, all points in different and
incompatible directions.
An interesting thought experiment is to take all that stuff and assume
it's all accurate reporting and factually true. Now think for a second
what sort of "parallel or higher intelligence" it would take to make
that true. Imagine a world where the one person who survives the plane
crash really is a miracle, and the 104 others who died really are
passed over for such treatment.
Now there's a truly horrible thought.
DS
There actually was found some correlations. In his book "Operation
Trojan Horse" by John A.Keel there was a definite correlation found
between poltergeist activity and (now you forced me to use that taboo
word) UFO sightings for specific areas of activity at specific times.
His findings were indicative of ultra-terrestrial in stead of extra-
terrestrial activity.
There might be a correlation but I doubt he came close to proving the cause.
If the people in a given area are more prone to hallucinations (for
what-ever the reason), it'd make sense that they'd 'see' both more UFO's
and poltergeist activity that don't exist. Just like you'd see more
bikinis in California than you do in Alaska and you'd also see more palm
trees. Do the bikinis cause the palm trees or do the palm trees cause
the bikinis or are they BOTH caused/influenced by the warmer temperatures?
Are the (supposed) poltergeist activities caused by the (supposed) UFO's
or visa-versa or are they BOTH due to the increased suggestibility or
gullibility of the people reporting them (and do the same people tend to
'see' more ghosts, conspiracies, witches, demons, visions of the virgin
Mary and everything else that these type of people tend to see that
aren't there?)
There is a definite correlation between satanism and - what shall we
call it - instantaneous multiple personality disorder. One of my close
friends witnessed the instantaneous (over three days) curing of such a
person of 24 personalities.
Ah, yes, the "friend of a friend of my sister's barber's cousin's old
schoolmate's long dead father's captain in the army saw it happen so it
must be real."
Within my own ring of relations there are some examples of super
natural occurences, some witnessed simulatneously i.e. the larger ones
(writing in the clouds in Dutch, overnight healing of cancer, unseen
cradle rocking) and the smaller ones (reverse communication via
scripture). It's the little miracles that tend to strengthen your
faith.
<yawn>
Either we are all liars, or there is more to creation than is
sensorically perceived.
Or you're simply highly suggestable to seeing patterns that aren't
really there.
But lets step off this subject before I get
snowballed.
Too late. You're both buried under the avalanche of evidence showing how
wrong you are and exploded in the vacuum of lack of evidence in support
of your view.
.
|
|
|
| User: "sasam" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
14 Feb 2007 12:49:31 AM |
|
|
On Feb 13, 8:04 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
There is a definite correlation between satanism and - what shall we
call it - instantaneous multiple personality disorder. One of my close
friends witnessed the instantaneous (over three days) curing of such a
person of 24 personalities.
Ah, yes, the "friend of a friend of my sister's barber's cousin's old
schoolmate's long dead father's captain in the army saw it happen so it
must be real."
Sorry, I happened to be there during the event and witnessed firsthand
the fear of this specific individual of his "personalities" returning.
But, there are a miriad more examples of this type of event for you to
study if you're really open mindedly interested.
But lets step off this subject before I get
snowballed.
Too late. You're both buried under the avalanche of evidence showing how
wrong you are and exploded in the vacuum of lack of evidence in support
of your view.- Hide quoted text -
Wrong about what? You obviously do not understand my view. There
obviously are many hoaxes, but also a great many legitimate cases of
"unexplainables". I'll repeat my view from a different angle:
Emperical science is an important contributor to our increasing self-
awareness, but it is only a part of the reality we live in. Refusal to
acknowledge the existence - in defiance of the evidence - of that
which you do not understand is indicative of behaviour determined not
by reason but by other motivators, i.e. pride, prejudice, social
conformation, social image, fear of ridicule etc.
The conflict between religion and science is a view borne out of
religious oppression and has no place in our more enlightened world.
We need not bring religion into science the same as we need not state
that science is the be all and end all of human understanding and
existence.
So, go on living in an intellectual cocoon - it's your prerogative.
Repeat your statement above often to yourself, maybe it will become
true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
14 Feb 2007 07:34:13 AM |
|
|
sasam wrote:
On Feb 13, 8:04 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
There is a definite correlation between satanism and - what shall we
call it - instantaneous multiple personality disorder. One of my close
friends witnessed
"One of my close friends witnessed..." Remember this; there'll be a quiz
later on.
the instantaneous (over three days) curing of such a
person of 24 personalities.
Ah, yes, the "friend of a friend of my sister's barber's cousin's old
schoolmate's long dead father's captain in the army saw it happen so it
must be real."
Sorry, I happened to be there during the event and witnessed firsthand
the fear of this specific individual of his "personalities" returning.
Quiz time: who was it that witnessed it? Oh, yeah, it was "one of my
close friends." Now you're trying to claim you were there. So which is it?
But, there are a miriad more examples of this type of event for you to
study if you're really open mindedly interested.
Got any real evidence such as double-blind studies, etc. and not just
these "the guy was acting really crazy and then he wasn't" crap?
But lets step off this subject before I get
snowballed.
Too late. You're both buried under the avalanche of evidence showing how
wrong you are and exploded in the vacuum of lack of evidence in support
of your view.- Hide quoted text -
Wrong about what?
About the existence of ghosts, poltergeists, werewolves, witches,
warlocks, UFO's and other "paranormal events."
You obviously do not understand my view. There
obviously are many hoaxes, but also a great many legitimate cases of
"unexplainables".
Exactly: "unexplainables." But when something can't be explained by
current knowledge, you don't just start making crap up.
I.e. I don't argue with the fact that "person X saw event Y." What I DO
argue with is "and event Y was caused by a ghost/UFO/poltergeist/whatever."
I.e. show that ghosts actually exist and form a coherent and scientific
theory of what they are or else don't use them as an explanation.
Show physical evidence of a UFO or don't use them to explain every
unexplained "light in the sky."
Show how a poltergeist could make things move without touching them or
otherwise showing itself or don't use them as an explanation.
I'll repeat my view from a different angle:
Emperical science is an important contributor to our increasing self-
awareness, but it is only a part of the reality we live in. Refusal to
acknowledge the existence - in defiance of the evidence - of that
which you do not understand is indicative of behaviour determined not
by reason but by other motivators, i.e. pride, prejudice, social
conformation, social image, fear of ridicule etc.
And no-one said things don't exist that we don't understand. We don't
understand how gravity is transmitted (we're working on some theories
but none are that firm yet) but we don't invoke spirits to explain it.
We don't fully understand how the universe was formed but we don't
invoke gods to explain it.
We don't understand a lot of things but we simply admit to that and work
on finding the understanding that fits and don't just make up imaginary
beings.
The conflict between religion and science is a view borne out of
religious oppression and has no place in our more enlightened world.
We need not bring religion into science the same as we need not state
that science is the be all and end all of human understanding and
existence.
No, the conflict is a view born out of "does this actually explain the
phenomenon or does it just throw up it's figurative hands and say 'well,
I don't know how it happened so it must have been a
spirit/god/ghost/ET/what-ever.'"
.
|
|
|
| User: "sasam" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
15 Feb 2007 11:40:13 PM |
|
|
On Feb 14, 3:34 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
Wrong about what?
About the existence of ghosts, poltergeists, werewolves, witches,
warlocks, UFO's and other "paranormal events."
Ghosts - yes
Poltergeists - yes
Werewolves - no
Witches - yes (wikka kind - not flying on brooms though)
Warlocks - no
UFO's - yes
Goblins - no
Hobbits - no
Instantaneous combustion - yes
Foreknowledge - yes
Other paranormal events - yes
Trying the old fairy-tales-inbetween-facts trick do you?
See the link from the French space agency
http://www.cnes.fr/
They will be releasing their 30-year old archive regarding UFO
incidents during the first quarter of 2007. This source documented
1600 sightings and over 6000 documents of reports made by police or
filed by airline pilots.
Admittedly this is not a scientific document,but only a list of
occurences. Regrettably they are already on the wrong track calling it
extraterrestrials.
I'd advise that you press your thumbs in your ears and go NA, NA, NA,
NA for the evidence to disappear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Why There's No Design #85 |
16 Feb 2007 11:32:12 AM |
|
|
sasam wrote:
On Feb 14, 3:34 pm, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
Wrong about what?
About the existence of ghosts, poltergeists, werewolves, witches,
warlocks, UFO's and other "paranormal events."
Ghosts - yes
Poltergeists - yes
Werewolves - no
Witches - yes (wikka kind - not flying on brooms though)
Someone who practices wicca is not the same as someone who can actually
produce any magical effects with it. Just as there's Christians but none
of them have actually performed verifiable miracles.
Warlocks - no
UFO's - yes
Goblins - no
Hobbits - no
Instantaneous combustion - yes
Foreknowledge - yes
Other paranormal events - yes
NONE of the above have either scientific evidence for them or even a
plausible explanation of how they could happen.
Trying the old fairy-tales-inbetween-facts trick do you?
No, just lumping together various things that all have the same evidence
(namely, none) for them. And none of the things in my list are from
fairy tales. ALL of the things in the list I gave have been claimed to
exist.
See the link from the French space agency
http://www.cnes.fr/
Sorry, I don't speak french.
They will be releasing their 30-year old archive regarding UFO
incidents during the first quarter of 2007. This source documented
1600 sightings and over 6000 documents of reports made by police or
filed by airline pilots.
Admittedly this is not a scientific document,but only a list of
occurences.
No, it's a list of reports. An occurrence of a UFO would mean there was
actually something there. A report simply means someone THOUGHT there
was something there.
Regrettably they are already on the wrong track calling it
extraterrestrials.
I'd advise that you press your thumbs in your ears and go NA, NA, NA,
NA for the evidence to disappear.
What evidence? You haven't yet even given any.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
