Gene-editing helps man see again

[Kenny]

What exactly do you think "medically affirmed" means in the context of those accounts? Does being medically affirmed constitute evidence of a miracle? Most any person a doctor treats could be considered medically affirmed as to condition, prognosis, treatment, response, recovery, etc. Even the dead patients.

Can those anecdotes about unexpected positive results be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be the product of a real miracle? On what evidence can that be shown to others? To me? In the case of CRSPR, there is clear evidence of what was done, the methods, and the results.

In other words, "medically affirmed" means that they understand it wasn't a "medical" induced healing. It was a miracle.

Of course, if no evidence is good enough evidence and we always have a reason why it wasn't a miracle... then no evidence will suffice in the first place.

In other words, If (and I did) I had a consistent (probably once every 2 - 3 months) "I'm perfectly fine one moment and sneezing, watery eyes and snotty nose in a couple of minutes", and prayer was given and it never happened again... If you don't believe it was miraculous in nature, you will find a reason why it wasn't.

Or, (and it did), I have my baby in my arms with 104 degree fever and I say "Lord, I can't afford the hospital, but if you don't do something, I will have to take her to the hospital" and 5 minutes later she is normal, if you don't believe in miracles you will say "coincidence" or side step with "Why didn't it happen too (insert a name".

Or, (and it did happen), I am laying on my back in excruciating pain to where it took me 5 minutes to roll over and get on the floor dragging myself saying "By the stripes of Jesus I am healed" repeatedly and went from dragging to crawling to standing to by the time I got to my door it was completely gone... You can say whatever you want if you don't believe.

Or... how many examples do you want? If you believe, it should be enough, if you don't, no amount of evidence and "medically affirmed" examples will suffice.

It is what it is. Or, as Jesus said, "be it unto you according as you have believed". You don't have to believe in miracles and you will never get one or, you can believe in miracles and receive one. We all will die eventually anyways, I just plan on it being later an not sooner.

 

[Wandering Monk]

'MINEOLA, N.Y. - FOX 5 NY first introduced viewers to Michael Kalberer in May. He spoke to us about being the second participant in the world in a groundbreaking medical trial designed to try and restore vision to visually impaired patients.

"What I was seeing prior to the surgery last September, my central vision was very obscured," Kalberer said. "It was probably the size varying between a Q-tip and dime."

Now his surgically-treated right eye no longer experiences an underwater sensation, he said. Also, the circumference of his vision in that eye is now closer to the size of a quarter.

"I've also started to see changes in light perception — things like silhouettes of objects like a fork or food on a plate and even color which was pretty cool," Kalberer said.


The study he is part of involves the revolutionary gene-editing technique called CRISPR, which allows scientists to make precise changes in DNA.'

Source: MAJOR STEP FOR SCIENCE: Gene-editing helps man see again

Looks like another solid result from science while religion can only offer us empty promises of miracles.

In my opinion.

The blind see. Not stories, but real facts.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In other words, "medically affirmed" means that they understand it wasn't a "medical" induced healing. It was a miracle.

Of course, if no evidence is good enough evidence and we always have a reason why it wasn't a miracle... then no evidence will suffice in the first place.

In other words, If (and I did) I had a consistent (probably once every 2 - 3 months) "I'm perfectly fine one moment and sneezing, watery eyes and snotty nose in a couple of minutes", and prayer was given and it never happened again... If you don't believe it was miraculous in nature, you will find a reason why it wasn't.

Or, (and it did), I have my baby in my arms with 104 degree fever and I say "Lord, I can't afford the hospital, but if you don't do something, I will have to take her to the hospital" and 5 minutes later she is normal, if you don't believe in miracles you will say "coincidence" or side step with "Why didn't it happen too (insert a name".

Or, (and it did happen), I am laying on my back in excruciating pain to where it took me 5 minutes to roll over and get on the floor dragging myself saying "By the stripes of Jesus I am healed" repeatedly and went from dragging to crawling to standing to by the time I got to my door it was completely gone... You can say whatever you want if you don't believe.

Or... how many examples do you want? If you believe, it should be enough, if you don't, no amount of evidence and "medically affirmed" examples will suffice.

It is what it is. Or, as Jesus said, "be it unto you according as you have believed". You don't have to believe in miracles and you will never get one or, you can believe in miracles and receive one. We all will die eventually anyways, I just plan on it being later an not sooner.

Medically affirmed in the context of those anecdotes seems to mean that the people were ill and then they were not and this was noticed by doctors. That is it. It means nothing regarding the incidence of a miracle. It is evidence only that they were sick and then were not.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In other words, "medically affirmed" means that they understand it wasn't a "medical" induced healing. It was a miracle.

Of course, if no evidence is good enough evidence and we always have a reason why it wasn't a miracle... then no evidence will suffice in the first place.

In other words, If (and I did) I had a consistent (probably once every 2 - 3 months) "I'm perfectly fine one moment and sneezing, watery eyes and snotty nose in a couple of minutes", and prayer was given and it never happened again... If you don't believe it was miraculous in nature, you will find a reason why it wasn't.

Or, (and it did), I have my baby in my arms with 104 degree fever and I say "Lord, I can't afford the hospital, but if you don't do something, I will have to take her to the hospital" and 5 minutes later she is normal, if you don't believe in miracles you will say "coincidence" or side step with "Why didn't it happen too (insert a name".

Or, (and it did happen), I am laying on my back in excruciating pain to where it took me 5 minutes to roll over and get on the floor dragging myself saying "By the stripes of Jesus I am healed" repeatedly and went from dragging to crawling to standing to by the time I got to my door it was completely gone... You can say whatever you want if you don't believe.

Or... how many examples do you want? If you believe, it should be enough, if you don't, no amount of evidence and "medically affirmed" examples will suffice.

It is what it is. Or, as Jesus said, "be it unto you according as you have believed". You don't have to believe in miracles and you will never get one or, you can believe in miracles and receive one. We all will die eventually anyways, I just plan on it being later an not sooner.

There could be real miracles there, but not on the basis of simply being declared miracles, because the results were unexpectedly or dramatically positive.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Two step - side step. The information was quoted with sources.

The "prayer" investigations has too many flaws.

Your attempt is simply an attempt at "this is want I want it to be so no matter what you say, I'm not accepting it"

It is the byproduct of "digs"

Physician, heal thyself. "this is what I want it to be" seems to be the basis of your view as well.

I want to believe that miracles happen, I think that they do. But I am never going to know for sure. I cannot think of any way that anyone could really. And those that get some revelation that an event was a miracle are stuck in the same boat. How can they take their subjective experience of revelation and turn it into objective evidence that can be used to get the miracle accepted as verified? It has never been done.

 

[Kenny]

How exactly do you determine if a given prayer was faithless?

Sometimes it is quite obvious...

Doubt... Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

So to speak, if you are praying and all you are doing is just "Hoping it will come to pass, but I just am not sure"... it is a faithless prayer.

Or, if you pray but you don't "believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass" - it is a faithless prayer

This is what happens when you doubt:

Matthew 14:31 And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him,O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

Here Peter was walking on water (whether you believe it or not, just look at the principle) - God was working, faith was working and then he started looking at the circumstances (looking at what he can see vs what God promised), the manifestation stopped.

There are other reasons prayer doesn't work

 

[Kenny]

Medically affirmed in the context of those anecdotes seems to mean that the people were ill and then they were not and this was noticed by doctors. That is it. It means nothing regarding the incidence of a miracle. It is evidence only that they were sick and then were not.

No... I don't think it was just as simple as that.

 

[Kenny]

There could be real miracles there, but not on the basis of simply being declared miracles, because the results were unexpectedly or dramatically positive.

I think this pretty much nails it on the head. If one has the position that "it isn't a miracle"... then no matter if they saw one, they wouldn't subscribe that it was but might say something like "there is a medical reason... we may not know exactly why, but it is just unexpected and dramatically positive".

And yet, miracles are unexpected and dramatically positive.

So we ultimately just view the same information but have a differing viewpoint.

 

[Kenny]

I want to believe that miracles happen, I think that they do. But I am never going to know for sure. I cannot think of any way that anyone could really. And those that get some revelation that an event was a miracle are stuck in the same boat. How can they take their subjective experience of revelation and turn it into objective evidence that can be used to get the miracle accepted as verified? It has never been done.

That is a good thought. I suppose that at some point one will only truly believe it when one personally sees it, or personally receives one.

For Rob, who lost his first wife with a tumor in her lungs, found out that his second wife had an inoperable tumor in the brain with just months to live.

Having now being armed with faith in the covenant of God, he prayed a prayer that shook his house. The wife's tumor disappeared and doctors have no clue as to what happened.

For someone who doesn't believe in miracles, their response will be "it was just spontaneous regression". He wouldn't subscribe to that position. And when those things happen again and again, eventually you understand that God really is the same yesterday, today and forever.

 

[danieldemol]

Sometimes it is quite obvious...

Doubt... Mark 11:23 For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.

A good a litmus test.

So gather all the most spiritually assured people you know and get them to pray altogether for a mountain to be removed, and let them specify which mountain they prayed over and the rest of us can watch them fail even when they all join together in praying for it to be removed.

In my opinion.

 

[Kenny]

A good a litmus test.

So gather all the most spiritually assured people you know and get them to pray altogether for a mountain to be removed, and let them specify which mountain they prayed over and the rest of us can watch them fail even when they all join together in praying for it to be removed.

In my opinion.

Obviously, you haven't studied the bible And nice way to take things out of context (not to mention, I don't think you can find any spiritually assured and matured Christians who would want to remove that mountain... we love mountains.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think this pretty much nails it on the head. If one has the position that "it isn't a miracle"... then no matter if they saw one, they wouldn't subscribe that it was but might say something like "there is a medical reason... we may not know exactly why, but it is just unexpected and dramatically positive".

And yet, miracles are unexpected and dramatically positive.

So we ultimately just view the same information but have a differing viewpoint.

That is the nail on the head. How do you know a miracle? What are the criteria that shows it is a miracle? Maybe the miracle isn't the dead man being defibrillated one more time, but the man that said let's do it. Or maybe those so called case histories are not miracles at all. How do we know? Simply put. We can't.

What is unexpected? Just because it is unexpected doesn't mean it is a miracle. Maybe we didn't expect it, but it was going to happen anyway.

It isn't miracles I am against. It is claims that cannot be supported that raise interest.

 

[Kenny]

That is the nail on the head. How do you know a miracle? What are the criteria that shows it is a miracle? Maybe the miracle isn't the dead man being defibrillated one more time, but the man that said let's do it. Or maybe those so called case histories are not miracles at all. How do we know? Simply put. We can't.

What is unexpected? Just because it is unexpected doesn't mean it is a miracle. Maybe we didn't expect it, but it was going to happen anyway.

It isn't miracles I am against. It is claims that cannot be supported that raise interest.

I guess the question would be from me to you is, "what would be a miracle that can be supported?" Maybe if I understood your standard, then we can narrow it down.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is a good thought. I suppose that at some point one will only truly believe it when one personally sees it, or personally receives one.

For Rob, who lost his first wife with a tumor in her lungs, found out that his second wife had an inoperable tumor in the brain with just months to live.

Having now being armed with faith in the covenant of God, he prayed a prayer that shook his house. The wife's tumor disappeared and doctors have no clue as to what happened.

For someone who doesn't believe in miracles, their response will be "it was just spontaneous regression". He wouldn't subscribe to that position. And when those things happen again and again, eventually you understand that God really is the same yesterday, today and forever.

So you see the death of the first wife as punishment for his lack of faith? Why Rob? What is so special about him that women have to suffer or die for him?

Of course someone who wants to believe in something would not subscribe to the facts. How do you know it was not a spontaneous regression? What if you are wrong to call it a miracle?

Things do happen again and again. That is called life. The problem is that we only remember what we want and do not remember or know everything.

How many times have believers died from the tumors compared to the miraculous recoveries? How do the miraculous recoveries of believers compare to non-believers?

I do not think that miracles have to be dramatic. And I do think of things as miracles. But the point is, none of us can truly know with any certainty whether something was or was not a miracle. The subjective experience that another may have gotten experiencing a miracle may not be mine to know. The miracle may be the existence of the science or the scientists that came up with some lifesaving technology. The miracle could simply be someone that cares.

People know things are miracles, but cannot explain how they know. They cannot provide evidence to show that this is a miracle and this is not. Stories of miraculous events are not evidence that it was a miracle. They are only stories with unexpected outcomes. Maybe the miracle is science and reason. I don't know. I cannot show you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I guess the question would be from me to you is, "what would be a miracle that can be supported?" Maybe if I understood your standard, then we can narrow it down.

You seem to feel you have the answer. I do not. I do not know how you would show someone that something is a miracle. Like I said elsewhere, that is the problem with miracles. We just do not know a miracle from an ordinary event.

 

[Kenny]

So you see the death of the first wife as punishment for his lack of faith? Why Rob? What is so special about him that women have to suffer or die for him?

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say "it is punishment". can we just rationally discuss this and see if we can learn something?

Where did I say that women have to "suffer or die for him"? As you said below, life happens and has nothing to do with that statement.

Why Rob? I gave "Rob" as an example of a miracle... Please feel free to insert Mary, Jane, John, Juanita or any other name.

Of course someone who wants to believe in something would not subscribe to the facts. How do you know it was not a spontaneous regression? What if you are wrong to call it a miracle?

Again.... as I mentioned in a previous post... "What is your guidelines for something to be a miracle?" If we can have your goal posts, then I can give you an example of a miracle.

I know you said

I do not think that miracles have to be dramatic. And I do think of things as miracles.

Maybe, again, if you can give me the parameters... it would help

 

[Kenny]

You seem to feel you have the answer. I do not. I do not know how you would show someone that something is a miracle. Like I said elsewhere, that is the problem with miracles. We just do not know a miracle from an ordinary event.

Well... if you don't have parameters... then, as you said, you never know if it was an ordinary event or a miracle.

I'm just happy that you believe in miracles (even if you don't know when one happened to you)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say "it is punishment". can we just rationally discuss this and see if we can learn something?

Where did I say that women have to "suffer or die for him"? As you said below, life happens and has nothing to do with that statement.

Why Rob? I gave "Rob" as an example of a miracle... Please feel free to insert Mary, Jane, John, Juanita or any other name.

Please do not intentionally misinterpret my questions as putting words in your mouth. I did not. I asked a question. An important one I think.

Why Rob is also an important question too. One that people claiming miracles should be able to easily answer if they "know" something is a miracle.

Again.... as I mentioned in a previous post... "What is your guidelines for something to be a miracle?" If we can have your goal posts, then I can give you an example of a miracle.

I do not have guidelines to determine if something is or is not a miracle. That is the point. Who does. You claim things are miracles, so you must know. You must have the guidelines.

I know you said

So... if you do believe it.... why do we seem to be at odd?

Maybe, again, if you can give me the parameters... it would help

Again, you claim to know miracles, so it is your parameters that I want to know.

All I have so far is that you seem to feel that if you believe it is a miracle, then it is. So the criteria seems to be based on the existence of belief. So anything anyone claims based on belief is true under that parameter. That idea would diminish the value of a miracle down to nothing as far as I can see.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well... if you don't have parameters... then, as you said, you never know if it was an ordinary event or a miracle.

I'm just happy that you believe in miracles (even if you don't know when one happened to you)

What are your parameters? How do you tell a miracle from an ordinary event? If I make up a story claiming that I prayed over a dead body and it miraculously revived, are you saying I should just be believed and that should be considered in support of miracles and God? That would not be right in my opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well... if you don't have parameters... then, as you said, you never know if it was an ordinary event or a miracle.

I'm just happy that you believe in miracles (even if you don't know when one happened to you)

I believe in miracles too. I just cannot tell a miracle from an ordinary event on the face of what I see. I might believe that it was a miracle from God that saved a child and not first responders efforts. But I cannot make a reasonable claim of Divine intervention and have any way to demonstrate that. The miracle may have been that one of the first responders became an EMT because they miraculously survived drowning or a car crash.

We can believe in miracles. Sometimes we may be correct. But sometimes we may not be. We really cannot know based on any evidence even if we can know based on faith.