Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:19 am
puglia wrote:
Wolf, you wont get away with dismissing the theory because its too complicated to follow. I;m not very good with computers yet. but I will improve.


I'm sorry, I didn't make myself clear and thus ended up insulting you. It's not your lack of computer skills that made me dismiss your theory, it's the wording, spelling and most importantly, punctuation and presentation.

The sentences weren't very clear and somehow managed to confuse me without using any technical jargon. It just wasn't very readable. Even I, who has read as many scientific papers from various scientific disciplines, could not understand what was being said, not because it was a difficult idea, it was because it didn't explain itself in a coherent manner.

Quote:
I dont feel like cleaning it up really. I told you I would provide a source. I have, I do not feel the need to correct a published document, it is word for word.


You sure? It doesn't make much sense for a published document.

Specifically, it was this part of your post that needed clearing up:

Quote:
Only 3% of DNA encodes the physical body. The remaining 97% of the 3 billion base pair genome contains over a million genetic structures called
transposons, that have the capacity to jump from one chromosomal location to another. ( Kelleher, 1999)source Kelleher CA. Retransposons as engines of human bodily transformation, J, Sci Explor, 1999 (spring) ;13;1:9-24....".you are 99.9% identical to other human beings in shared genetics." "Your individualality is expressed through three small variations of cells called single nucleotide polymorphisims"...gene expression is the mechan nism by which new patterns are called into being "from these small variations". (Rossi,2000) (The Psychobiology of Gene Expression: Neurogenisis in hypnosis and The Healing Arts. New York; W.W Norton professional books, 2002..... The holographic concept of genetic expression that results in precipitated reality, according to Miller et. al. operates using both photons and phonons( Miller,Webb, Dickson, 1975 ) see above orginization(are you listening my friend in the Romulin prison?) "Superimposed coherent waves of different types in the cells interact to form diffraction patterns, firstly in the acoustic domain, secondly in the electromagnetic domain". The resulting manifestation is a "Quantum Hologram-a translation process between accoustical and optical holograms.


The rest was quite clear and very coherent. It was just the above quoted paragraph.

Quote:
I dont understand why you are having so many problems looking up research on Dolphins, over a Million papers have been published on that subject also.


Yes, research on dolphins. Yet, you specifically specified "faith healing in dolphins", or that's the impression I got from your post, so I tried searching for anything about dolphins and healing and found nothing that even related to your post.

Quote:
I suspect you should look into "Entrainment"....Entrainment has been defined by practitioners of rife frequency theraputics as "the tendancy for two oscillating bodies to lock into phase so that they vibrate in harmony It is also defined as syncronization of two or more rhythmic cycles. Like resonance, the principal of entrainment is universal, appearing in chemistry, pharmacology, biology, psycology, sociology, astronomy, architechture, and more (Hyson,2004) Page 453


Ah, now that's much better. You should be more specific in your posts, something like entrainment I can actually search for.

However, the following sources:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15899977&query_hl=7
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15893651&query_hl=7

And a lot more that I can't be bothered to post up, all suggest that entrainment is influenced by genes or things ingested into the body. There is nothing about entrainment related to faith healing.

Quote:
Compared to Dolphins we are almost blind, almost deaf, have a smaller brain and shorter evolutionary history.


Your point being?

As suspected, you are under the delusion that a longer evolutionary history means more advanced. It does not so. A longer evolutionary history merely means the species has had to adapt to more environmental changes.

It all depends on your definition of more advanced. What is something that is more advanced?

Human society is far more advanced than dolphin society, given one of the definitions of advanced being more complicated and developed, as our societies have grown, advanced, become more complicated and have developed, whilst that of the dolphins hasn't changed since for centuries.

That does not mean they are inferior. On the contrary, in their environment, they would be quite superior to us if we were to suddenly appear in their environment and decide to live there.

Quote:
You cant get away with attacking the messenger, when the message is not agreeable to you. (enough of that is going on these days ) you can try it but my guess is that most of you guys see through that kind of shallow and naked eye tactic.


But when the message is garbled beyond a readable and understandable nature, you must inform them of your displeasure and tell them to do much better next time.

Quote:
Its ok Wolf, I love you still.


Indeed, and it was because of that, I insisted on you clearing up your argument, so I could understand it better. It was me, saying to you, you can do better with yourself and I want you to see you do better and improve.

Quote:
Wolf has seen proof that faith healing is bogus! Will you please share this with all of us so we might cease this forum?


With the amount of posts that are added to this thread each day, I'm not surprised you haven't seen the links I posted on faith healing studies some time back, all the way on page 4 of this thread.

Hence, for your benefit are all the links I dragged up:

Quote:
Taken from page 4 of this thread:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this study shows that praying gave no additional benefits to children with psychiatric disorders:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15715813

Then there's the case of retroactive prayer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15604179

In the case of HIV, one study proved that faith healing was a risk to diagnosis of cancer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15765309

Here's another report looking at how many child deaths could have been prevented if their parents did not completely substitute traditional medicine for faith healing:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/101/4/625.pdf

Here's another concerning cancer patients' use of faith healing and other non-proven treatments, the conclusion of the study showing that NPTs do not have any effect on the patients:
http://www.jco.org/cgi/content/abstract/16/1/6

I suspect that the woman with terminal stomach cancer one of you mentioned is the exception to the rule.

I think, however, this following article is very interesting and very relevant to this topic: http://www.sram.org/0801/v8n1_columbia_prayer.pdf


(Oh and next time, don't double post. Here's some friendly advice and I intend it to be friendly and sincere; see how all your posts have an edit button near the top? Click on that button and it will allow you to add to your post. Be sure, though to show people what you've edited out of curtesy to them. This of course, applies to everyone else I've seen double-posting).

Quote:
I'm sure you realize Wolfie that lack of sight from your vantage point only causes you to have an obstructed veiw, others are positioned elsewhere and thus can see past your obstruction.


I am quite open-minded, but when it comes to things that have been proven to be wrong or fallacious, I view them as just that.

Quote:
By the way where are your proof sources that the info I presented are 95% not 97%?


Oh dear, it would seem I haven't made myself clear again. I meant to say approximately 95% and 97% is approximately just that. It's not exactly that number, but it is within the vicinity.

Also, don't forget that through science, we are discovering the use of this so-called junk DNA.

Real discoveries will not come from the genome. The genome, sure, is very useful, but people tend to forget that the majority of diseases now are a result of multiple genes acting in a network of gene products.

Majory discoveries will not come from the genome. They will come from the transcriptome and the proteome (the transcriptome being the RNA made from DNA and the proteome being all the proteins made by the genome).

Oh, and to you people who think you've caught the flu, remember that real flu or influenza can be deadly and makes you feel as if you're about to die. Real flu, or influenza, is nothing to sneeze at (no pun intended).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:28 am
I'm sorry, Wolf, but i cannot accept that contention, and i think you have been very false with us all.

The Wolf wrote:
. . . Real flu, or influenza, is nothing to sneeze at (no pun intended).


I submit that you intended the pun at the outset, with malice aforethough, and some minor glee thrown in for good measure.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:54 am
Setanta wrote:
I'm sorry, Wolf, but i cannot accept that contention, and i think you have been very false with us all.

The Wolf wrote:
. . . Real flu, or influenza, is nothing to sneeze at (no pun intended).


I submit that you intended the pun at the outset, with malice aforethough, and some minor glee thrown in for good measure.


Untrue, although I did find minor glee in your post.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:55 am
Pug, I really would like to know what is going on in that head of yours. Here's a bit of help with spell check: In the upper right hand column of the spell check box is a smaller box labeled 'word correction'. Underneath is a box that may or may not contain suggestions. This being a rather ignorant spell checker, there often are no suggestions given. Either way, you may edit words by moving your cursor to the correct spot in the word correction box, making the appropriate correction and clicking 'correct'. I've discovered that if you fail to close the spell check box by clicking 'OK', the almighty spell checker will restore your mistakes in their original form. I'd hate to admit how many times I have posted, only to edit the post within seconds after discovering this idiosyncrasy.

As for this assertion:
Quote:
Neo- If you believe nothing deserves eternal punishment, then you are not a "believer" since you would be in total disagreement with the creators' will.
a word or two in support of your proposition seems to be in order. Otherwise it becomes an 'is to! is not!' argument suitable only for the grammar school playground.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 06:25 pm
Thank you Neo, and wolf for your kind words. I will Master this spell check. I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of you. I will retract my earlier statement regarding some who have "no eyes to see".
and I'm sorry if I insulted your intelligence. I have been known in the past as insensitive. I am working to improve in that and other areas. As far as ascension is concerned I do not want to give the impression that I am of higher intelligence, actually I am just a regular guy who later in life decided to educate myself. Therefore some fundamental syntax and punctuation errors will show through.

The truth is I am spiritually at rest (inner peace) and it was achieved through divine guidance. I just want everybody to feel what I feel, and to be able to do what I have been able to.

I will be back with what I promised yesterday.

I love you all.
P
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 07:30 pm
Did the good doctor ever get back to timber?
0 Replies
 
gospelmancan2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:06 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Did the good doctor ever get back to timber?

I was kind of curious about that myself considering what I know the doctor would say.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:26 pm
Around here, burden of proof is a big thing, and around here, the burden of proof lies with the proponent of the proposition. If you state a case, be not dismayed to be called upon to make that case, and be likewise not dismayed should demand be made of you to adhere to forensically sound, academically valid, independently verifiable manner of support for your proposition. Circular logic, solely self-referencing "validation", and diversionary responses don't carry any weight here at all.

Timbo- Brother, I do hope you realize that you have not investigated my proof sources. Not Horowitz, but the sources he cites. Can you dispell those findings? If so please feel free to do so.

Please do get back to me on this without diverting our attention away from the original quotations from Horowitz' book.

K
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:28 pm
I've heard nothing from the good doctor ... don't give up though - could happen.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:33 pm
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, even if "the good doctor" confirms the "story"--we still won't know if it is indeed a story, or the truth. As independent confirmation would have to come from Edmonton, thousands of miles away, the "good doctor" is well placed to make such an assertion with little fear of contradiction.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 08:38 pm
One source without reliable confirmation leaves much to be desired - concerning this topic.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:12 pm
Setanta wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, even if "the good doctor" confirms the "story"--we still won't know if it is indeed a story, or the truth. As independent confirmation would have to come from Edmonton, thousands of miles away, the "good doctor" is well placed to make such an assertion with little fear of contradiction.
This is precisely why I stated that the only method that seemed guaranteed to satisfy both proponent and skeptic in this forum is the scientifc method of experimentation.

Many, I think, would not accept any evidentiary testimony from others, no matter how many witnesses it came from.

Many seem to have as their only method of argumentation to shout "Prove it . Prove it." and hope that it seems that they are being objective.

In the real world, it is customary for one asking a question ( one seeking out information ) to accept input gracefully; not shout down anyone who dares to attempt to help him answer the question that he asked. This is true whether the question is "How do I know faith healing really works?" or "How do I drive a stick shift, rear wheel drive pickup in the snow?"

To restate as mentioned earlier, if anyone doubts that faith healing can work, all he need do to experimentally prove/disprove it to himself is to:

--Find out under what conditions God says He will answer prayer;

--Be completely certain that you meet those conditions; and

--Pray for some sick folks.

(Admittedly, it is much easier to sit back and naysay.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:14 pm
You may keep your rude and ill-considered remarks to yourself. I have not shouted at anyone. Those who advance extraordinary claims have the burden of proof. The proof must conform to ordinary standards of verification.

You're damned tootin' we don't take anectdotal evidence--and we don't buy bridges in Brooklyn, either.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:25 pm
real life, You really need to go get a "real life." It's not based on hocus pocus healings.
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 09:37 pm
Woe yo.

I say sentanta, are we more advanced that Ants? Who can turn the truth into a lie? I say you MUST TRY IT FOR YOUR SELVES. Yeshua say...It can be done, if he were typing this would you treat him this way? Would he treat you that way? Would you disbelieve until he heals you? He will heal you as mentioned above. Like making cake, follow instructions, preheat oven, bake and eat. It is from the tongue which all things evil are born. And I hope someone will check out the source(s) not one but several.
Sentanta, I bet you don't believe that English is mostly Hebrew in reverse either. I keep pitching and its almost a no hitter. No bar for you.

YAH BLESS

P.S. I almost forgot, Yeshua basically said ...that if you do not have faith (belief) that it is possible to heal or be healed, or walk on water you will not be successful, you will not receive. You will end up calling it an impossibility. Your experiment, no matter how much you want it to succeed, will always fail. This is why there are so few true healers.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 11:04 pm
pug, your spelling has improved. Thank you. You still have some problems with your rhetorical style and logical development. I would say read some of the other posts but it appears the thread has become a mud wrestling contest. (I'm not opposed to mud wrestling, mind you, when properly monitored.)

Try to remember the bible claims to be written for the common man. If one had to understand quantum mechanics in order to gain God's favor, would that seem fair? Oh, I'll admit the clergy would have you believe the answers are esoteric and mysterious. But what part of 'don't commit adultery' wouldn't you understand?

I always run my arguments by my friend Joe Sixpack before posting. If he says OK, then I go ahead. Smile
0 Replies
 
gospelmancan2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 11:38 pm
Setanta wrote:
I would like to take this opportunity to point out that, even if "the good doctor" confirms the "story"--we still won't know if it is indeed a story, or the truth. As independent confirmation would have to come from Edmonton, thousands of miles away, the "good doctor" is well placed to make such an assertion with little fear of contradiction.

And if the independent confirmation came from Edmonton I am sure then Gospelman, Dr, Hill and some other Doctor in Edmonton would be lying for some underhanded reason. Then further confirmation could be denied using the same premise.
Some of you need to step back and listen to yourselves.
Just who is the dogmatic fanatical type now; hmmm?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 11:38 pm
puglia, your "Sources" stand on their own merit. The term "Alternative Science" is short in the middle by one short word: "to". I submit you would do well to familiarize yourself with the concepts of sophistry, logical fallacies, and Occam's Razor.

I submit that all that is validated by your sources and their "work" is Hannums' (popularly, though incorrectly, known also as "Barnum's") Law
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 May, 2005 11:43 pm
neologist, I just gotta ask - are you a fan of C. S. Lewis?
0 Replies
 
puglia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 May, 2005 12:43 am
timberlandko wrote:
puglia, your "Sources" stand on their own merit. The term "Alternative Science" is short in the middle by one short word: "to". I submit you would do well to familiarize yourself with the concepts of sophistry, logical fallacies, and Occam's Razor.

I submit that all that is validated by your sources and their "work" is Hannums' (popularly, though incorrectly, known also as "Barnum's") Law


I Guess your smarter than I am. Wait you are not smarter than I AM.

I would suggest that if you were touched by YAH and manifest miracles within and without. You would seek out to reverse engineer the miracle and explain it off on science, separating science from YAH.

It is ALL connected.

Barnums Law is only one aspect of the theorem.

I would suggest reading "Mysteries of the Lost Civilizations" any one from a dozen different authors will do. Answer the questions without Barnums applications.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.08 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 01:14:00