Evolution vs Intelligent design/creationism

[ArtieE]

His conclusions are that abiogenesis is a mathematically null hypothesis - and you'll note no evolutionist / atheist ever publishes the odds....

Then you publish the odds. What are they?

 

[DavidFirth]

The "power" of pray has been scientifically tested and found wanting. I often ask why your God so hates amputees.

Scientifically tested? I think not. The testers have to have faith that the prayer might at least have a chance to work or there is no test due to the fact that the testers have already determined the outcome of their so-called "test."

 

[sayak83]

Scientifically tested? I think not. The testers have to have faith that the prayer might at least have a chance to work or there is no test due to the fact that the testers have already determined the outcome of their so-called "test."

No. Only those who pray need to have faith, not those who compile the outcomes of faithful prayer.

 

[DavidFirth]

No. Only those who pray need to have faith, not those who compile the outcomes of faithful prayer.

Well, if those who are doing the testing have already made up their minds that prayer is for naught and are wasting their time doing the testing it kind of defeats the purpose for doing the testing in the first place. You can't have people biased against anything in a position to judge that thing they are biased against. That's what makes picking SCOTUS Justices such a great political matter.

 

[Looncall]

Well, if those who are doing the testing have already made up their minds that prayer is for naught and are wasting their time doing the testing it kind of defeats the purpose for doing the testing in the first place. You can't have people biased against anything in a position to judge that thing they are biased against. That's what makes picking SCOTUS Justices such a great political matter.

You seem to have an odd idea of experimentation. It does produce data, you know, not just opinions.

 

[DavidFirth]

You seem to have an odd idea of experimentation. It does produce data, you know, not just opinions.

The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence.

 

[Sapiens]

The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence.

Interesting excuses, but ... nothing but excuses nevertheless.

 

[DavidFirth]

Interesting excuses, but ... nothing but excuses nevertheless.

I suppose you can produce a spiritual study done by secularists completely without any bias at all.

You're the one making excuses.

 

[Jose Fly]

The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence.

That specifically what double blind studies are set up to account for and eliminate. And when prayer is tested under those conditions, the results weren't good.....

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

"CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

 

[DavidFirth]

That specifically what double blind studies are set up to account for and eliminate. And when prayer is tested under those conditions, the results weren't good.....

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI

"CONCLUSIONS:
Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."

Again, look who is giving us their conclusions, not a believer in the bunch and I'm definitely not surprised by their biased decision.

"The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence."
- Holds up yet again. Thanks for showing it to be true.

 

[Jose Fly]

Again, look who is giving us their conclusions, not a believer in the bunch and I'm definitely not surprised by their biased decision.

IOW, even before any scientific test of prayer is ever conducted, there is only one conclusion you'll accept. Anything else you'll just wave away.

"The data produced is usually skewed according to and along with the testers' bias, especially when the testers have already made up their mind and decided to give it zero credence."
- Holds up yet again. Thanks for showing it to be true.

You've not shown a single shred of evidence of bias, nor have you addressed the fact that this was a double-blind study, which eliminates the sort of bias you're claiming.

Try again.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then you publish the odds. What are they?

Hawking puts it at about infinity to one

- the number of multiverses required to accidentally produce a life producing and sustaining universe like this

 

[DavidFirth]

IOW, even before any scientific test of prayer is ever conducted, there is only one conclusion you'll accept. Anything else you'll just wave away.


You've not shown a single shred of evidence of bias, nor have you addressed the fact that this was a double-blind study, which eliminates the sort of bias you're claiming.

Try again.

Nah. You're more biased than they are, probably. Neither you or them would ever entertain the possibility that God might answer a single prayer.
I won't even hear of the possibility that He does not. So your biased "test" means less than nothing to me.

The real Christian has already had many of his/her prayers answered so we know for a fact that He does answer prayer. We don't need any of your secular tests to prove anything to us, we already know the truth.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nah. You're more biased than they are, probably. Neither you or them would ever entertain the possibility that God might answer a single prayer.

Again you're making accusations without a single shred of evidence, and you're completely ignoring the fact that the study was double-blind, thereby eliminating the bias you're accusing the researchers of having.

You can stamp your little feet and wave your arms all you like, but unless you provide something other than baseless, ignorant accusations, the results stand.

I won't even hear of the possibility that He does not. So your biased "test" means less than nothing to me.

Exactly as I described. You will only accept one outcome and will reflexively reject all others no matter what (and then hypocritically accuse the researchers of bias).

The real Christian has already had many of his/her prayers answered so we know for a fact that He does answer prayer. We don't need any of your secular tests to prove anything to us, we already know the truth.

Then just say that and leave it there. No need to make baseless accusations against people you know nothing about.

 

[DavidFirth]

Again you're making accusations without a single shred of evidence, and you're completely ignoring the fact that the study was double-blind, thereby eliminating the bias you're accusing the researchers of having.

You can stamp your little feet and wave your arms all you like, but unless you provide something other than baseless, ignorant accusations, the results stand.


Exactly as I described. You will only accept one outcome and will reflexively reject all others no matter what (and then hypocritically accuse the researchers of bias).


Then just say that and leave it there. No need to make baseless accusations against people you know nothing about.

I know enough to know not to trust unbelievers. That's all I need to know. Have a good day.

 

[Jose Fly]

I know enough to know not to trust unbelievers. That's all I need to know. Have a good day.

Right......just say that up front and be done with it. No need to disparage people you know nothing about.

 

[Sapiens]

Nah. You're more biased than they are, probably. Neither you or them would ever entertain the possibility that God might answer a single prayer.

What I will entertain or not entertain is irrelevant to the data, that is the point of science.

I won't even hear of the possibility that He does not. So your biased "test" means less than nothing to me.

You won't even hear of the possibility ... sounds like bias to me, big time!

The real Christian has already had many of his/her prayers answered so we know for a fact that He does answer prayer. We don't need any of your secular tests to prove anything to us, we already know the truth.

No, that's just the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. That's why I pick something clear, regrowth of an amputated limb. Many who were believers undoubtedly prayed for it, none ever received it. Pretty clear, no bias there.

 

[blü 2]

Here's a sampling

On the first link on your link I find:

Some of the physicists working in this area are discovering no conflict at all between physics and belief in the paranormal and the afterlife. They are showing that the phenomena we now call “paranormal” are normal and consistent with the laws of science at the subatomic level.
​

So where do these 'physicists' publish their findings? Not in any reputable journals of physics that I'm aware of.

We now know that atoms are 99.999999999% empty space.
​

We know no such thing. The statement is meaningless.

And, thanks to 'quantum physics', we now know that subatomic particles- electrons, protons and neutrons - are not solid either. They are made up of energy. So the world we think of as being solid is in fact empty space.
​

There is no space without energy in it. Space with energy in it is not empty.

This means that there is plenty of room for other worlds, other dimensions, to take up the same space our own world but at a different frequency.
​

What 'other worlds'? What 'other dimensions'? What scientific theory is implied in the reference to 'at a different frequency'? This sounds like the nonsense that was fashionable in the 1920s and 1930s and produced a lot of bad science fiction.

Our senses and our instruments are only able to perceive a small range of vibrations between two fixed points, namely between 34,000 and 64,000 waves to the inch, or from 400 to 750 billion waves to the second. That is the section which makes up to us the physical world.
​

750 bn is 7.5 e+11. Our instruments can and do detect frequencies up to at least e+15 cycles / sec (photons in the γ-ray range), and I dare say a lot more.

But the physical world is only a very limited section of vibrations compared with all the other vibrations in the universe.
​

That's a falsifiable statement. What evidence (of scientific standard) supports it?

Scientists working in the Spirit world (which they call the Etheric world) tell us that their world is just as solid as our world but on a different frequency- just above what our senses can perceive.
​

I'm trying to think how to be polite about that last sentence. Perhaps I'll just ask whether when they say 'scientist' they intend to denote a trained investigator who proceeds by scientific method. And if not, why do they use the word 'scientist'?

 

[George-ananda]

On the first link on your link I find:

Some of the physicists working in this area are discovering no conflict at all between physics and belief in the paranormal and the afterlife. They are showing that the phenomena we now call “paranormal” are normal and consistent with the laws of science at the subatomic level.
​

So where do these 'physicists' publish their findings? Not in any reputable journals of physics that I'm aware of.

We now know that atoms are 99.999999999% empty space.
​

We know no such thing. The statement is meaningless.

And, thanks to 'quantum physics', we now know that subatomic particles- electrons, protons and neutrons - are not solid either. They are made up of energy. So the world we think of as being solid is in fact empty space.
​

There is no space without energy in it. Space with energy in it is not empty.

This means that there is plenty of room for other worlds, other dimensions, to take up the same space our own world but at a different frequency.
​

What 'other worlds'? What 'other dimensions'? What scientific theory is implied in the reference to 'at a different frequency'? This sounds like the nonsense that was fashionable in the 1920s and 1930s and produced a lot of bad science fiction.

Our senses and our instruments are only able to perceive a small range of vibrations between two fixed points, namely between 34,000 and 64,000 waves to the inch, or from 400 to 750 billion waves to the second. That is the section which makes up to us the physical world.
​

750 bn is 7.5 e+11. Our instruments can and do detect frequencies up to at least e+15 cycles / sec (photons in the γ-ray range), and I dare say a lot more.

But the physical world is only a very limited section of vibrations compared with all the other vibrations in the universe.
​

That's a falsifiable statement. What evidence (of scientific standard) supports it?

Scientists working in the Spirit world (which they call the Etheric world) tell us that their world is just as solid as our world but on a different frequency- just above what our senses can perceive.
​

I'm trying to think how to be polite about that last sentence. Perhaps I'll just ask whether when they say 'scientist' they intend to denote a trained investigator who uses scientific method.

Well, I am not a physicist so I can not answer all your technical questions. You have to read these physicists directly to understand their positions.

However I do accept the key point that there are planes of nature at different vibratory levels and in dimensions not detectable by our physical senses and instruments.

I have come to believe in these concepts as the best explanatory model for so-called paranormal phenomena. I believe so-called paranormal phenomena exists beyond reasonable doubt from my study of the collective human experiences. In fact, I know of no other comprehensive model besides materialism which I reject as it relies heavily on denial of much of the paranormal experiences of man.

 

[George-ananda]

There

Scientists working in the Spirit world (which they call the Etheric world) tell us that their world is just as solid as our world but on a different frequency- just above what our senses can perceive.
​

I'm trying to think how to be polite about that last sentence. Perhaps I'll just ask whether when they say 'scientist' they intend to denote a trained investigator who proceeds by scientific method. And if not, why do they use the word 'scientist'?

There, I believe they are referring to 'scientists' who have physically died and are working through their spirit forms communicating telepathically through mediums.