It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Paul_Richard
shaunybaby,
Can you name us one person who you have found through your research has a Gift of Healing and/or Telekinesis?
I'd be willing to bet that you can't simply because you have yet to learn that these things exist.
You are therefore making your appraisal out of prejudice and ignorance, not out of years of research and analysis.
en.wikipedia.org...
There are many anecdotal references to people being declared dead by physicians and then coming back to life, sometimes days later in their own coffin, or when embalming procedures are just about to begin. Stories of people actually being buried alive (which must assume no embalming) led one inventor in the early 20th century to design an alarm system, with a bell and a cord that could be pulled from inside the coffin.
Same source
Changes after death:
1. Body core temperature cooling depends a number of external factors including the environment and clothing;
2. Rigor mortis - begins prior to decomposition:
1. Muscles gradually become hard due to decreased ATP and lactic acidosis within muscle fibrils
2. Begins 2-4 hours after death, though the process may begin more immediately;
3. May disappear after 9-12 hours in a warm enough climate.
3. Livor mortis - begins on the point of death:
1. Body becomes distended;
2. Skin color progressively changes from green to purple and finally to black;
3. Dependent areas of the body undergo this process first due to the pooling of blood;
4. Seen within 2 hours of death, the process of livor mortis reaches its maximum at 8-12 hours.
Quantam Physics Supports NDE Concepts
Originally posted by shaunybaby
There is suggestable evidence that prayer may help a patient. However, there is no evidence to back that up, as the patient may have got better anyway. Then again prayer is thought to bring hope... and hope is all the patient may have. It does not mean that God helped out the patient, but has more of a placebo effect.
I do believe in natural remedies to cure diseases. I believe somewhere on earth there is a cure for every disease, we've just yet to find them all. The power of plants, we've only just begun to touch on.
As for a 'gift of healing', there is no evidence to suggest this. It's like a story a christian friend told me: she said there are still miracles going on today, one being in africa at an orphanage where one bowl of soup fed 100s of people and never ran out. That's utter rubbish, there's no evidence for that, it's just something she heard and took for 100% truth.
Originally posted by Paul_Richard
I'd be willing to bet that you can't simply because you have yet to learn that these things exist.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I've learnt and heard of these things you speak of. However, as much as you don't like it there is no evidence to suggest any human being can heal people with prayer or telekinesis.
Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You are therefore making your appraisal out of prejudice and ignorance, not out of years of research and analysis.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I have no prejudice or ignorance on this subject. I'd be ignorant if i read a few internet articles you posted and merely took your word for it.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
As for that post 'people have been brain dead for several days' that's pure rubbish. The brain can survive for a certain amount of time with no oxygen, usually a matter of minutes. If the brain goes a certain time without oxygen, and a person is brain dead, even if they do survive... they would have severe brain damage...and that's only going minutes as brain dead, not days.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
Your stories are nothing but propoganda to push an agenda that has no evidence nor suggestable evidence to support it.
Originally posted by shaunybaby
I'm supposed to take a person's word for it, who believes david blaine literally can pick winning lottery tickets, pick things from thin air, snap quarters in half etc... now that would be ignorant.
Originally posted by Prot0n
People have and still are declared dead when they really aren't. Brain death is still a debatable argument. Some say electrical activity must cease in the entire brain in order to be brain dead. Other's hold the view that it's only in the neo-cortex where they think consciousness is. There are some people who can enter a deep medatative state and appear to not be breathing or have a pulse and appear to be 'brain dead' as well. This would indicate that untill rigor mortis sets in, a patient still has a chance to come back to life. The guy you linked to couldn't have been dead as rigor mortis sets in 2-4 hours after real death, not percieved death.
Quantum Physics Supports NDE Concepts
Originally posted by Prot0n
Not necessarily. If you add religous biased theories into it, possibly. But in reaility, no.
Originally posted by Prot0n
energy of light is infinite. - Not really. Something is needed to generate light. Light doesn't exist just on it's own. Thing's don't emit light unless some sort of process occurs to allow them to.
This doesn't wash for those who have been declared legally dead for well over twenty-four hours.
Some People Have Been Dead For Several Days
Once more we have someone who has lots of opinion but little or no experience or research in the topic at hand.
Again...you are trying to explain The Light Of The God Force - that many Near Death Experiencers report seeing when leaving their body or shortly thereafter - neatly into your little antiquated paradigm.
This is not a physically-based light that you can explain away via a Wikipedia entry.
It is the energy of Spirit and it does not operate off of the rules you cling to and it does indeed exist on its own, without a physical apparatus
But you would not know that unless you did some research and/or had experience in this area of life.
So your conclusions are faulty and based out of sheer ignorance and bias.
You have not done any research, such as the professionals in the sites that I have patiently posted; you simply spout the scientific materialist view of light with no clue as to the Light that transcends the physical spectrum of reality.
DO THE HOMEWORK OF INVESTIGATION.
Originally posted by Paul_Richard
You have to give people more credit for sincere and objective testimonials that have been occuring on this subject for thousands of years. It would also be a good idea to check out those with a Gift of Healing firsthand and experience it for yourself.
It isn't just all a placebo effect, to say the least.
Have you ever seen Blaine in action?
No.
Have you ever witnessed anyone with a Gift of Healing?
No.
Have you ever been around someone with a Gift of Telekinesis?
Of course not.
How can you even begin to understand something with which you have absolutely no frame of reference.
Originally posted by Prot0n
Rren.
In your opinion, what would be the best data that supports ID? I'm abit knew to ID.
Suppose that nearly four billion years ago the designer made the first cell, already containing all of the irreducibly complex biochemical systems discussed here and many others. (One can postulate that the designs for systems that were to be used later, such as blood clotting, were present but not "turned on". In present-day organisms plenty of genes are turned off for awhile, sometimes generations, to be turned on at a later time.) (Behe 1996: 228)
Originally posted by James_Moriarty
Paul, your main argument for ID seems to be based on the very low probability that life could come about by pure chance.
Originally posted by James_Moriarty
First and foremost, a theory is an explanation for some event that can be put through repeated testing; otherwise, it is simply a baseless statement. ID cannot be tested because it incorporates a ‘higher power’; something that one can never demonstrate actually exists. So why would we EVER teach this in a science class if science demands tangible evidence?
The cyclical theory basically says that the Universe has been in an infinite cycle of expansions (Big Bang) and contractions (Big Crunch). In which case, your argument about the probability being very low is no longer valid, because probability is no longer an issue when considering a universe that has always been in existence; every possibility is played out. So again, I don’t even see how this debate has continued as long as it has, because there is no testable evidence to support ID; making it conjecture and not theory.
[edit on 2-8-2006 by James_Moriarty]
www.physorg.com...
But what if the universe is much older than it appears? Professors Paul Steinhardt (Princeton University) and Neil Turok (Cambridge University) have come up with a novel solution that gives the cosmological constant time to decay to its required value. Resurrecting a ghost of the cyclical universe, they propose that our universe is one of two embedded in the eleven-dimensional space of string theory.
The two universes are linked with a spring-like attraction, and so pass through each other (moving along one of the higher dimensions) periodically. Every time they interact, enormous energies are released and both universes fill with hot plasma—a new Big Bang. There is no Big Crunch, as both universes are constantly expanding. A trillion years or so after one Big Bang, when the universe is practically empty, another Big Bang occurs and the stars and galaxies can form once more.
Originally posted by Rev Paine
That is a myth used by ID proponents, that is, creationists, to trick the public into believing that there is scientific evidence of a creator.
In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means.
That is another ID lie. They are not calculating the odds that life occurs by natural means, they are calculating the odds that life could occur naturally and end up exactally as it is on Earth. Well, the odds are just as astronomical as the die rolling test, yet both happened.
I hope that this has helped to shed some light on the ID cult's methods of deception.
ID does not incorporate a 'higher power' anymore than evolution is contingent upon abiogenesis. IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable - just as you seem to - yet you claim they don't.
Please review the definition for cult. Report back, thanks. Also are you saying that life is a 1 in 10 shot? If so, care to back that up? Check the link in my signature for a more detailed look at the actual issues/figures. Have you thought of writing up your 'ten-sided die' hypothesis. Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail, you're gonna be famous.
Do you know of another kind of life? Or is that just another materialists' lie? You've managed to correlate this unknown type of life with your 'die hypothesis' I see... can we just take your word on this?
Originally posted by Rev Paine
www.antievolution.org...
The Discovery Institute, the invertors of Intelligent Design, internally admits that its strategy is linked to Christianity.
"...we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."
In any case, the "Wedge Document" articulates a strategy for influencing science and culture with our ideas through, research, reasoned argument and open debate. As our not-so-secret document put it, "without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade."
The Center for Science and Culture is not attacking science or the scientific method. It is challenging the philosophy of scientific materialism and the false scientific theories that support it
What is the stated goal of ID?
"Governing Goals
1. To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
We admit it. We think the materialistic world-view that has dominated Western intellectual life since the late 19th century is false and we want to refute it. [...] We certainly are not conceiling these views
2. To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God. "
The goal is to replace science with a faith that God created all.
How can you argue that?
The above is the stated agenda of the group that invented ID. It is not science, not only by method, not only in truth, but it has also been rulled as theism by a court of law.
1. I did not say that life is a "1 in 10 shot." Your lack of reasoning and intelligence has lead you to come to that conclusion on your own, despite plain English that clerly states otherwise.
2. If other scientists had not come to the simple conclusion on their own years before I considered the matter, then yes I would write that paper. However, that paper has already been written.
The does not have to be "other kinds of life" for the possibility to exist that slight changes in Earth's history, perhaps if certian metors missed the Earth, for example, that life on Earth would not be as it exists.
Originally posted by Rren “IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable”
Originally posted by Rren "[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" Is that "tangible?"
Originally posted by Rren "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."
Originally posted by Rren "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
Originally posted by Rren "The (modern) cyclical theory doesn't incorporate a "big crunch" that's the (now discarded) oscillating model, no?"
Originally posted by Rren “Is there a difference between it and M-theory?”
Originally posted by Rren “Not how it works, but how it's tested (why would result x [eg gravity waves] be evidence for cyclical theory) if you follow me. Could you give me the "for dummies" breakdown, thanks.”
Originally posted by Rren “Also how can you determine that "every possibility is played out/probability is no longer an issue " scientifically, ie no conjecture please.”
Originally posted by Rren “Scientists have been working on abiogenesis for well over fifty years now to no avail…..“
Originally posted by Rren "“It's interesting but I don't see how this resolves anything wrt ID/biology and the origin of life.”
Originally posted by James_Moriarty
Originally posted by Rren “IDers admit that the nature/indentity of the designer is untestable”
Then there is no argument, ID is a very week theory in that it cannot be tested.
Originally posted by Rren "[E]volution is understood to be the result of an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection" Is that "tangible?"
The evidence supporting evolution is tangible yes. I believe this has been discussed from the very beginning.
Originally posted by Rren "Design theory—also called design or the design argument—is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence."
Tangible signs that nature has been designed by a preexisting intelligence….yet you admit that the nature/identity of a designer is not testable…hmmmm. Perhaps you mean that you THINK that the probability of nature arising the way it did is evidence that we were created by a designer? But once again, this is not evidence.
Originally posted by Rren "Intelligent Design is the study of patterns in nature that are best explained as the result of intelligence."
Once again, because you feel that ID makes everything fit together, you believe that it is a bona fide theory. But again, to be a very strong theory, you need evidence. And there simply is no evidence at all.
So now the DI "invented" ID?
You said: "In truth, you, Paul and myself can roll a 10 sided die once every 10 seconds for 10 hours, and record the results of each roll. If we calculated the odds that such a combination of dice rolls could occur "by random chance," the odds would be as great as the odds that the ID cultists say must come into play for life to have come about via natural means."
Utter BS. The odds are the same? Seriously? Source? That's plain english? Pretend I don't speak it and explain that one slowly chief.
Originally posted by Rev Paine
So now the DI "invented" ID?
Do you deny that the founders of the Discovery Institute are the self proclaimed inventors of the Intelligent Design myth?
ID is not science. The cult believes that science is amoral, destructive, et cetera. They intend to replace science with deity worship.
That is their stated agenda.
How can you defend these positions unless you are a part of the cult movement that follows the above stated principals?
Okay, I will slow it down for you since you have poor comprehension.
1. Take three people.
2. Provide all three people with a ten sided dice.
3. Once every 10 seconds instruct all three people to roll the dice.
4. Record the result of each roll.
5. Repeat for 10 hours.
6. Calculate the odds that three people with a 10 sided dice would have rolled the exact combination of rolls.
Comprehende?