The Miracle of Water.

[Truly Enlightened]

I wonder where our complex brain came from, with all of its spiritual energy that scientists hardly have a clue of, with which we are conscious of ourselves, our surroundings; with which we can rationalize, and weigh decisions; with which we can have various emotions - the feeling for love, justice; with which, if we did not have, science and technology could not even exist?
Hmmm. How did all of that come to be built from nonexistent intellect?
Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause?
This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence.
I guess we all see through different lenses though.

Our more complex brain evolved from the lesser complex brain of our human/simian ancestors. There is no spiritual energy that gives us self-awareness and insight. This insight and awareness comes from the evolutionary development, of the language centers in our brain. This development was critical to our survival. There is no insight or self-reflection without the use of language, coupled with our senses. Science does have a clue about the non-localization of consciousness. Science simply don't completely understand the entire process that is involved. Intellect is a term used to represent our ability to learn and reason. It is not a thing that exist externally. It unfortunately allows us to make up things to fill in the gaps, that will confirm our understanding of conceptual ideas. Intellect is like energy, it needs to be used to exist.

Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause?
This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence.
I guess we all see through different lenses though.

Yes it IS true that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. Because particles have both wave and particle properties, they can certainly seem to pop in and out of reality(Quantum Wave Theory). Also, the existence of virtual particles can be tested and measured. The interaction of particles within the quantum fields, with other fields, create the necessary building blocks for life. These building blocks become the matter, that become self-replicating molecules, that become organized matter, that eventually become self-sustaining life. We have intellectually come too far as a species, to still believe that God(s) is the answer to anything that we don't understand. Why God? Why not Thor, Zeus, or the FSM? And, which God?

You are correct, we do see reality through different lens. Your lens has a religious filter, mine has no filter at all.

 

[ecco]

What I truly believe is that science itself cannot prove its own theory, so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

Let's be honest. What you truly believe is ...

Any protestations about theories, laws, proofs or evidence are nothing more than smoke.

You can accept science only to the point where it conflicts with your ingrained religious beliefs.

You are not alone. The same is true of everyone. There are many Christians who accept Evolution. To do so, they put aside a fundamentalist reading of Genesis. That is something you can not / will not do.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No test...no science.

Thank you kindly for your science lessons, but if you don't mind, I'll take my science from the scientific community, not creationists.

But don't be offended. Most of us also don't take science from other non-scientists.

I believe science twists the truth

I believe that religion twists the truth.

How can we tell who is correct? Which system of thought produces more useful ideas? The sine qua non of a correct idea is that since it maps a portion of reality, it can be used to predict and at times control outcomes. Scientific theories meet that criterion, which validates the scientific method and its underlying philosophical foundation (rational skepticism, empiricism, reproducibility, falsifiability, etc.).

Contrast that with religion, which you tacitly concede is useless by your repeated evasion the question of why one should exchange a useful idea for a useless one. You have no answer, because there is none.

If you ever guess anything correctly using faith, what you will find is that the material world agrees with you. Had you guessed that evolution was correct rather than creationism, you wouldn't need to be fighting off reality. You wouldn't be forced to deny obvious truths, but rather, like the discovery of human chromosome 2 and its implications, find that they support your lucky guess.

But that didn't happen, did it? You guessed for creationism, and now have to contend with a sea of contradicting data, which means pretending that nothing is known and all is assumed, and you do this for people who know that you are wrong.

This should serve as evidence to you as well - evidence that you have guessed wrong - but it doesn't.

You see believers as 'collectively blind'...we see you the same way.

Yet it is the reason and evidence based set that have the results that demonstrate that that is a sound and productive manner of understanding reality, whereas it is the faith-based thinker whose beliefs cannot be put to any productive use.

we are drawn to things that are compatible with what we want to believe

The critical thinker is drawn to the truth, truth being the quality that facts possess making them facts, and facts being linguistic strings that accurately map a portion of reality. The critical thinker is trained to evaluate all of the relevant evidence impartially and to apply valid logic to it to arrive at sound conclusions. He is qualified to evaluate an argument, and willing to be convinced by a compelling one. His only agenda is finding the truth, even if the truth is undesirable.

It's the faith based thinker whose thinking goes wherever he wants it to - that is, to things that he hopes are true or that he has been told are true and which he accepted uncritically.

What do atheists have to look forward to?

You probably mean after death. Same thing theist have to look forward to, the difference being that atheists don't typically and falsely claim to know what that is. Just because you believe in an afterlife doesn't mean you'll get one.

science itself cannot prove its own theory

I don't know what that means, but science has proven that it is not only the only valid method for testing reality and discovering her secrets, but that it has been ridiculously successful in so doing. You keep ignoring that inconvenient fact because you have to.

so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

You don't understand the first thing about science or the philosophy of science, do you? Consider a false statement about reality - pure water at standard pressure freezes at 15°C. This is a statement that can't be proven, but can easily be falsified.

One more time:

"Why we would trade in a theory that unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture for an idea like creationism that can do none of that?"

Spoiler: answer

We wouldn't. We won't

 

[Jose Fly]

And there we have the fundamental lack of understanding of how science works in a nutshell.

How long has @Deeje been here arguing about science? Yet as her last series of posts show, she still doesn't understand the word "theory", still thinks science deals in proof, still thinks evolution = atheism.......

The Jehovah's Witnesses generally discourage education and higher learning. I think Deeje's posts are manifestations of that.

 

[Jose Fly]

Yet it is the reason and evidence based set have the results that demonstrate that that is a sound and productive manner of understanding reality, whereas it is the faith-based thinker whose beliefs cannot be put to any productive use.

That's a very good point. If creationism is actually correct and true, why has it not added a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world around us?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's a very good point. If creationism is actually correct and true, why has it not added a single thing to our scientific understanding of the world around us?

Thanks.

I think that the point can be generalized to say that if one way of viewing reality produces no useful results, and that a competing one does, we can say that one is more correct than the other on that basis, or as I choose to word it, more useful.

That brings me to two more ways of deciding what is true that we seldom consider

[1] One is what I have come to call restricted choice. It says that if situation 1 can lead to result A or B, and that situation 2 only yields one of these - let's say result B - and result B is the one always found, that constitutes compelling evidence that situation 2 is the case. So, for example, in a universe with a god (situation 1), we might (result A) or might not (result B) have evidence of that god, but in the case of a godless universe (situation 2), we would not (only result B).

If we consider several dozen more of these types of observations, they're always B. Thus in a godless universe, we might or might not find regular, invariant laws, since a god can just will the planets to circle their stars without any need for laws, but a godless universe needs those laws to have sufficient order and stability for life and mind to arise in that universe.

In a universe with a god, we might or might not have scripture or other forms of communication that are definitely beyond what humanity could generate, but in a godless universe, any holy books will perforce be no better than what we expect human beings could have written, which is of course what we find.

And so on. For some reason, this alleged god always seems to make the choice that would be imposed on a godless universe.

This is the method that is used to catch unsophisiticated tax cheats. If the taxpayer is honest (21), any errors he makes will be equally likely to go against him (rA) as his way (rB), but with an unsophisiticated cheat (s2), the errors are all his way, it will always (or usually if we allow for an honest mistake or two, or a little deception to facilitate plausible deniability down the road) be rB.

[2] The other involves a method for determining if, when two groups of people disagree about what they are experiencing, how we can tell whether one of these groups is seeing something that is not there, or the other is blind to something that is. We simply interview those claiming to have that experience, and see how their answers compare. Since no two theist that claim to experience god seem to be able to describe the same thing, there is no reason to believe that their experience is of what they think it is.

Compare that to somebody with red-green color blindness, the condition that makes red look like green to them. How can such a person confirm that he cannot see colors being honestly and accurately reported by others? Show red and green socks, for example, to people that claim to be able to see these colors. The answers from honest people with normal color vision interviewed independently will be the same. That's how we know that they really are experiencing what they claim they are.

It is on this basis that we can conclude that people claiming to experience God are experiencing their own minds and confusing them for something else, but that those who claim that what they call red and green appear as distinct colors to them are experiencing external reality.

In a sense, this can be called restricted choice as well if we word it, "In a world in which there are people pranking others about seeing colors that they don't actually see (s1), about half will identify a sock that was previously identified as green as being red (rA), and about half will call it green (r2). In a world with red-green color blindness in which most people can discern these colors (s2), all honest people with normal color vision will identify the sock as green (r2)"

 

[ecco]

How long has @Deeje been here arguing about science? Yet as her last series of posts show, she still doesn't understand the word "theory", still thinks science deals in proof, still thinks evolution = atheism.......

The Jehovah's Witnesses generally discourage education and higher learning. I think Deeje's posts are manifestations of that.

Manifestations? I'd go with one of Deeje's favoirite words:

The Jehovah's Witnesses generally discourage education and higher learning. I think Deeje's posts are proof of that.​

 

[gnostic]

How long has @Deeje been here arguing about science? Yet as her last series of posts show, she still doesn't understand the word "theory", still thinks science deals in proof, still thinks evolution = atheism.......

The Jehovah's Witnesses generally discourage education and higher learning. I think Deeje's posts are manifestations of that.

If I remember correctly what she wrote about herself, she used to believe in evolution, but her high school biology class made her skeptical of evolution.

She doesn’t have any qualification after high school in biology or in fields related to biology. She is not teacher or lecturer or researcher in biology or biology-related fields.

So how does she expect us to believe that she have the knowledge to refute or debunk evolutionary biology?

As far as I know, she has never worked in the labs, not just in biology, but in any non-biological lab.

I don’t know what her exact qualification she did or what her employment are or were, because she has never been straight about. I have no idea what she does for a living, but it is certainly not in science.

 

[nPeace]

Our more complex brain evolved from the lesser complex brain of our human/simian ancestors. There is no spiritual energy that gives us self-awareness and insight. This insight and awareness comes from the evolutionary development, of the language centers in our brain. This development was critical to our survival. There is no insight or self-reflection without the use of language, coupled with our senses. Science does have a clue about the non-localization of consciousness. Science simply don't completely understand the entire process that is involved. Intellect is a term used to represent our ability to learn and reason. It is not a thing that exist externally. It unfortunately allows us to make up things to fill in the gaps, that will confirm our understanding of conceptual ideas. Intellect is like energy, it needs to be used to exist.



Yes it IS true that quantum particles pop in and out of existence. Because particles have both wave and particle properties, they can certainly seem to pop in and out of reality(Quantum Wave Theory). Also, the existence of virtual particles can be tested and measured. The interaction of particles within the quantum fields, with other fields, create the necessary building blocks for life. These building blocks become the matter, that become self-replicating molecules, that become organized matter, that eventually become self-sustaining life. We have intellectually come too far as a species, to still believe that God(s) is the answer to anything that we don't understand. Why God? Why not Thor, Zeus, or the FSM? And, which God?

You are correct, we do see reality through different lens. Your lens has a religious filter, mine has no filter at all.

Why do you believe my lens has a religious filter, while yours is clear?
I see the same things you see. I use the same reasoning you do. So maybe you can show me why your vision is not filtered.
Perhaps you can show me one piece of direct evidence for your conclusions.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, precisely. Humans dictate laws because they want to set up standards for action and punishments for going against those standards.

So, they are set by a lawgiver with a purpose in mind.

Well, physical laws are descriptive: they *describe* how things do, in fact, work. For example, the statement that F=ma says that the acceleration of a particle times its mass is always equal to the force applied. No punishments are set up for violating this law: it is a description of what actually happens. proscriptive laws can be violated (and punishments assigned). Descriptive laws, if correct, are never violated (that's what it means to have the correct law).

You seem to think these laws were set up after man worked out a formula to describe them.
That is not the case.
As with human laws, I can describe them. I may be able to say or explain why they were given, but I did not set them.
The physical laws may be described, but they were set before being discovered.
They are described as being Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
They dictate.

No, no. If it has a cause, the action of that cause is via a law. That means we are describing the original law as an application of the one giving the cause. In other words, the one giving the cause is the more fundamental one. But this means that the *most* fundamental laws *cannot* have a further explanation: any explanation would be based on a more fundamental law.

This isn't a matter of our knowing the law or not. In fact, it may well be that all the laws we currently know have further explanations. But that just means they aren't fundamental laws.

Why? Why is the action of that cause via a law?

 

[gnostic]

Why do you believe my lens has a religious filter, while yours is clear?
I see the same things you see. I use the same reasoning you do. So maybe you can show me why your vision is not filtered.
Perhaps you can show me one piece of direct evidence for your conclusions.

There are some Christians, who worked as scientists or some fields that are related to science in some ways (eg engineers).

These people who do, keep their religious belief out of their work lives, as it should be.

For instance, I don't see creationists having problem with not bringing up the bible or God or creation or Jesus, when teachers or tradesmen teaching their students or apprentices to be accountant, doctor, pilot, journalist, salesperson, carpenter, bricklayer, plumber, electrician, mechanics, farmer, chef, etc.

Surely you would recognize that the bible and church cannot teach an apprentice how to make better wooden chairs and tables, they cannot teach electrician how to be better electrician, or teach a fisherman how to fish, etc.

So why would a biologist need to learn creation, when the bible is not a biology textbook? Does the Genesis explain in details to a biology student about the human anatomy, what is the brain, heart or lung and how they each function? Can the bible teach a person of possible illnesses or diseases, and how to treat them? Does the authors of Genesis had no idea of cells, genes, DNA/RNA, proteins, etc.

The Bible doesn't teach many things, and that's including biology.

And yet we have creationists complaining about creation and bible not being taught in science classrooms, but creationism is science.

Sorry, but creationists cannot tell anyone what should or shouldn't be taught in the science classroom.

Each person may believe whatever he or she believe in regarding to religion, but cannot and should not be telling what are to be taught in science. But if you want people to learn about the bible or about creationism, then start a class in theology, and keep creationism and ID out of science classrooms.

I am not just talking about biology, here. I am saying creationism should also stayed out of any non-biology science, like physics, chemistry, Earth science, astronomy, etc. The bible cannot teach anyone to become a better physicist, chemist, Earth scientist or astronomer or astrophysicist.

Do some Christians have "religious filter" in their lens?

Some do, some don't.

Georges Lemaitre for example, was both a Catholic priest and theoretical astrophysicist, and one of the pioneers of the expanding universe model, which you know as the Big Bang theory. He has no problem with keeping his church life and personal belief, out of his work as a physicist.

Most biologists who are Christians, are the same way, where they keep their work lives separate from their private social lives which included their religious beliefs, and they happily accept evolution as accepted explanation to biodiversity of life.

Creationists are being biased, when it comes to creationism, Genesis or some other forms of non-Christian creationisms.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Why do you believe my lens has a religious filter, while yours is clear?
I see the same things you see. I use the same reasoning you do. So maybe you can show me why your vision is not filtered.
Perhaps you can show me one piece of direct evidence for your conclusions.

I wonder where our complex brain came from, with all of its spiritual energy that scientists hardly have a clue of, with which we are conscious of ourselves, our surroundings; with which we can rationalize, and weigh decisions; with which we can have various emotions - the feeling for love, justice; with which, if we did not have, science and technology could not even exist?
Hmmm. How did all of that come to be built from nonexistent intellect?
Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause?
This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence.
I guess we all see through different lenses though.

With all due respect, your religious agenda is quite transparent. I have addressed all the underlining assumptions you've presented(in bold). If any of these assumptions were valid, it would indeed support your conclusion. Unfortunately they aren't valid, and based entirely on ignorance.

Both our interpretations of reality are clear. But, because of your religious presuppositions, you seem go one step further than I do. You seem to believe that concepts and beliefs behave like physical things in reality. You seem to believe that emotions and intelligence exist in us, only because a higher intelligence had designed it for us. You seem to ignore the importance of the brain's ability to compartmentalize data, which unfortunately allows for irrational thoughts as well. You seem to ignore the role that evolution and the environment play, in shaping our internal and external human features. You seem to ignore the roles that our genetic and endocrine systems play in shaping our behavior, intellect, emotions, and our cognitive abilities. You seem to ignore the fact that ours's is a Universe based entirely on cause and effect, mathematics, and the laws of probability. My clarity and reason ends, where your ambiguity and faith begins.

When I stated, "You are correct, we do see reality through different lens. Your lens has a religious filter, mine has no filter at all.", I meant that I don't filter out any evidence at all. Since I am not making an argument for an intelligent designer, what direct evidence do you expect from me to support your claim? I have no verifiable evidence to support your claim. On the other hand, you filter out all verifiable evidence against your claim. Even if God himself told you that you were wrong, your religious filters would reject His claim. For example, there are no verifiable miracles, paranormal activities, no testable power of prayer, no resurrection, no breeches or cessations of the laws of physics, no souls or spirits, and no verifiable prophesies. So, unless you can present any objective evidence, my mind will continue to be open to the possibility, but not the belief in the possibility.

 

[viole]

I wonder where our complex brain came from, with all of its spiritual energy that scientists hardly have a clue of, with which we are conscious of ourselves, our surroundings; with which we can rationalize, and weigh decisions; with which we can have various emotions - the feeling for love, justice; with which, if we did not have, science and technology could not even exist?
Hmmm. How did all of that come to be built from nonexistent intellect?
Does it not make sense that an intelligent mind caused it - even if you don't know that cause?
This seem reasonable to me, than to suppose non-existing particles popped into existence, and self arranged to evolve to a higher intelligence.
I guess we all see through different lenses though.

I wonder where those lightnings come during a storm. Our best scientists and philosophers cannot grasp what can cause that sudden scary release of energy. Ergo, it must be Thor. Who else?

That is probably what you have said if you lived in Scandinavia in the middle ages, using the same line of reasoning.

And since most Vikings were sure about the Thor scenario, together with millions of similar examples from other cultures from the past and the present, that also clearly show that the awsome machine between our skulls is very unreliable. So, if it is the product of a design, it is stupid design. I would have done definetely better if I had sufficient power to create minds.

By the way, what on earth is spiritual energy? Can you measure it in watt-hours?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

So, they are set by a lawgiver with a purpose in mind.


You seem to think these laws were set up after man worked out a formula to describe them.
That is not the case.
As with human laws, I can describe them. I may be able to say or explain why they were given, but I did not set them.
The physical laws may be described, but they were set before being discovered.
They are described as being Omnipotent. Everything in the universe apparently must comply with them (according to observations).
They dictate.

No, material things have properties. Those properties dictate what sort of interactions they can have. Descriptions of those interactions are what are known as physical laws.

Yes, the patterns of interaction existed before humans existed. But they are not dictated by someone: they simply are a consequence of matter having properties.

Why? Why is the action of that cause via a law?

Because causality describes how things can interact: that is a physical law.

 

[tas8831]

Chemistry and physics are not "chance."

You lose, as always.

Maybe I didn't dumb it down enough?

 

[tas8831]

Hey! I got a taker!

What’s your take on this...
Lincoln's ghost - Wikipedia

...or this...
https://www.history.com/topics/halloween/ghosts-in-the-white-house

...what about this...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...nd-pets/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9b0d203494d1

..etc., etc.

You really think these people — especially those who had reputations to protect — would admit to these experiences?

Granted, many sightings of spirits, and Ouija board and séance accounts, are faked.

But the candid nature of these occurrences as recounted by those with a lot to lose, should make one take notice!

Yes, notice.

Many people experience things that they cannot explain. This does not mean that their experiences were what they interpreted them to be.

 

[tas8831]

The miraculous healings Jesus did stopped once the apostles were off the scene.

How convenient.

 

[tas8831]

Missing the point?....how ironic when those who are determined to deny the clear design in nature are bent on never seeing it.

What is clear to a person needing to have science dumbed down to an 8th grade level to then misrepresent it is not at all in evidence to those who took the time to learn the material at an adult level.
This "clear design" is only clear to those that have a psychological need to 'see it.' If it were more than that, they should be able to provide some evidence for this design. Yet all they - certainly you - can seem to muster is lame, uninformed attacks and misrepresentations of evolution.

Where's the beef?

 

[tas8831]

The interesting thing about conspiracy theories is that every now and then there is one that rings true and makes you go and do research on the subject.

Yes.

Ignorant people lump them all together imagining that if most of them are rubbish, they must all be rubbish.

The truly ignorant think nearly all conspiracy theories are 100% true, and then engage in confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect, followed by the backfire effect, and along with a healthy dose of the Dunning-Kruger effect, convince themselves that they know more than they really do. Like when you declared there to be no evidence for evolution, and upon my presenting you with some, actually wanted me to dumb it down for you to then dismiss because you couldn't understand the evidence that you claim does not exist.

But thanks for the insult! Very Jesus-like.

.....how do you think they get away with what they do? They play on the very mentality that you display....and you think we are gullible.....?

No, I think people like you are ignorant, and your ignorance drives you to think yourselves more intelligent and well-informed that you really are.

I think that was pretty well established in your venture into evolution, but I'm betting you still think you came out on top in those 'discussions'; as well.

The Bible says that the whole world is ruled from behind the scenes by a powerful and evil entity who is bent on taking as many people as he can fool, down with him. Those who don't believe he exists are his primary dupes.

The bible also says it is OK to kill unborn children if they are in the uterus of a woman that does not worship Jehovah, so forgive me for not putting much stock in any of that. Hosea 13:16

The making of money at the expense of suffering has been carried on for decades under the guise of competent medical treatment.

And here we go - you are an expert on cancer, too?

Do you know how many people survive chemotherapy? For many types of cancer, it is extremely low and the 5 year survival rate is hardly a guarantee of a cure. Many cancers return after the 5 years are up.

How many people die from cancer with no chemo?

This is a multi-billion dollar business that because of politics, the almost invisible role of insurance companies

I agree that most insurance companies are run by greedy, evil jerks. But then you go down this road:

and the medical community’s lack of desire to do any research that will alter the outdated paradigm that they are stuck with, will most likely not change the thinking of the medical system any time soon.

What paradigm is that?
How do you know it is outdated, I mean other than what you've read on mommy blogs?
Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait!

They are reaping too much from this cash cow and the resulting suffering and death is deplorable, given the advances in science in so many other areas.

Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait!

Why in this 21st century are people still suffering and dying and the medical system is laughing all the way to the bank.

Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait!

How was it back in Jesus' time? Did people not suffer and die from cancer?

Did you know that doctors are not allowed to even suggest better natural therapies to their patients under threat of losing their licence [sic]?

Did you know that these "natural" therapies don't work?

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/alternative-medicine-kills-cancer-patients/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-natural-cancer-cure-narrative/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/complementary-and-alternative-medicines-and-cancer/

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/chemotherapy-doesnt-work/


https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-facts-of-the-alternative-medicine-industry/

Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait for your Sayer Ji links and the like.

If someone presents with cancer they are only permitted to suggest three approaches...chemo, radiation and surgery.....all have been demonstrated to increase the risk of return of the cancer or the spread of it.

Sounds like mommy-blog gibberish. Lets see a reference - and no, I won't need you to dumb it down. Unlike you, I have a science background that includes having taught Immunology for several years at the college level.

To their credit, many doctors are now turning to functional medicine....tired of the drug approach to everything with often poor very outcomes.

Citations please.

Alternative therapies have proven to be more successful than chemo, for the simple reason that the immune systems of patients have been stimulated and used to promote, not only remission, but a complete cure in many cases.

Awesome assertions with no support!

Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait!

Chemo destroys what little is left of the human immune system and often times is the cause of death, not the cancer.

Citations?

Doctors can bury their mistakes and still profit from them.

If you had done any real research, you would know this.

LOL!

You are a piece of work...

Your research appears to consist of little more than reading mommy blogs and woo sites like Mercola's and the Health Ranger's.

Still waiting for your amazing, science and reality-backed insights as to how the medical field SHOULD be treating cancer, and what research they SHOULD be doing.
Can't wait!

 

[tas8831]

What I truly believe is that science itself cannot prove its own theory, so what hope would anyone have of falsifying something that can't be proven in the first place?

This from the person that needs the science dumbed down and then only dismisses it anyway - such Christian Humility!