|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49bac4fe$1@news.povray.org...
> Invisible wrote:
>> Mike Hough wrote:
>>> I would imagine that Man was his first attempt at creating something in
>>> his own image, much like my attempt at sculpting a bust out of clay my
>>> first year at community college. There is some pride that goes along
>>> with the achievement but the result is still flawed.
>>
>> Aren't you forgetting something? HE is Perfect. ;-)
>
>
> You could still hold that since man would be only part of God's creation
> it's incorrect to consider the "perfection" of a part in isolation of the
> whole, and since we can't see the whole it's entirely expected that things
> might look imperfect from our viewpoint. An analogy would be asking if
> each note in a very good song is "very good" when considered by itself --
> the concept isn't really meaningful at that scale.
>
> A bit of a philosophical dodge, I'll admit, but it seems to work in
> getting the desired answer from those premises. That said, I find the
> `lumpy clay bust' theory a somehow more satisfying response to the
> question.
This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe is
infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there can
still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite universe. Had
trouble wrapping my mind around that one.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Hough wrote:
> This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe is
> infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there can
> still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite universe. Had
> trouble wrapping my mind around that one.
Huh, that is a bit of an odd concept. I guess I would have to read it
as "infinite but repeats eventually", in which case how would you ever
tell if it's repeating or just finite and spherical (or some other
closed topology)?
Do you have a link? You got me all curious!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
From: Darren New
Subject: Re: Another thought on Intelligent Design
Date: 13 Mar 2009 20:01:29
Message: <49baf3d9@news.povray.org>
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Do you have a link? You got me all curious!
Reminds me of a SF story I read once where the protagonist decides he's
going to walk, and after a surprisingly short time he comes to another
neighborhood that's almost exactly like his own, and another, meeting the
same people in the same places each time, until he gives up and goes off to
be Soylent Green, deciding there's nothing more to be seen in the society
designed by the man who invented wallpaper. :-)
Bonus points if anyone can give me a pointer to the story!
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>
> On a side note, recent research has shown that when "thinking about
> god", we do so in the same way that we would think about, "What would
> the neighbor do, if I took his news paper." I.e., we imagine what would
> would do as such a thing, and draw attributions from that. Which is of
> course, why gods never "reveal" to people things that contradict their
> own prejudices, tell them to do things they didn't one some level want
> to do, or otherwise add anything useful to the conversation. One might
> as well be watching someone employ the so called "solicited
> communication" method, by which people convince themselves that their
> own "helping" of an autistic child is "really the child", and not, as
> evidence shows, the parent/practitioner themselves expressing their own
> "knowledge" and understanding through the medium.
>
> In other words, the moment we went from general, "The other ape may
> steal my food.", to, "I would steal his food, so he is probably plotting
> to steal mine.", we "invented" god to fill in the gaps where the world
> acted against or for us, as an explanation for why things seemed to
> either go right, or wrong, for us. Call it, another nail in the coffin
> of the idea that design was involved from something else's side of the
> equation. ;)
>
Oh my, they've just scientifically proven Hebrews 8:10!
Intelligent Design **is** loopy. The Old Earth Creationists I subscribe to,
folks who look for religious inferences in the scientific observations around
us, say that ID is loopy.
Back to your proof above. Philosophy will always find a way around scientific
data. I once read about men's reactions to learning that men were
psychologically wired to be filled with lust at most of the women that passed
them by.
Some men said, "Hey, I'm WIRED this way! Party!!" and used it as justification
to be promiscuous.
Other men said, "Oh, that's just my hormones! Whew! So I'm really not *more* in
love with that blond at that next table than I am with my own wife. I can
relax."
If you're biased against finding a god, you'll be able to come up with
philosophical ruses all day long.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Sorry, it was some time ago and it was just some random article that I came
across. I think the basic idea is that the universe is infinite but most of
it is empty, so there is a limited amount of "stuff" in the universe. But
that still implies that infinity is a finite quantity which doesn't make
sense. Maybe I wasn't fully grasping the concept.
Mike
"Kevin Wampler" <wam### [at] uwashingtonedu> wrote in message
news:49baea1a$1@news.povray.org...
> Mike Hough wrote:
>> This reminds me of something I read regarding the idea that the universe
>> is infinite. It was argued that although the universe is infinite, there
>> can still be a finite number of the possibilities in the infinite
>> universe. Had trouble wrapping my mind around that one.
>
> Huh, that is a bit of an odd concept. I guess I would have to read it as
> "infinite but repeats eventually", in which case how would you ever tell
> if it's repeating or just finite and spherical (or some other closed
> topology)?
>
> Do you have a link? You got me all curious!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> On a side note, recent research has shown that when "thinking about
>> god", we do so in the same way that we would think about, "What would
>> the neighbor do, if I took his news paper." I.e., we imagine what would
>> would do as such a thing, and draw attributions from that. Which is of
>> course, why gods never "reveal" to people things that contradict their
>> own prejudices, tell them to do things they didn't one some level want
>> to do, or otherwise add anything useful to the conversation. One might
>> as well be watching someone employ the so called "solicited
>> communication" method, by which people convince themselves that their
>> own "helping" of an autistic child is "really the child", and not, as
>> evidence shows, the parent/practitioner themselves expressing their own
>> "knowledge" and understanding through the medium.
>>
>> In other words, the moment we went from general, "The other ape may
>> steal my food.", to, "I would steal his food, so he is probably plotting
>> to steal mine.", we "invented" god to fill in the gaps where the world
>> acted against or for us, as an explanation for why things seemed to
>> either go right, or wrong, for us. Call it, another nail in the coffin
>> of the idea that design was involved from something else's side of the
>> equation. ;)
>>
>
>
>
> Oh my, they've just scientifically proven Hebrews 8:10!
>
>
> Intelligent Design **is** loopy. The Old Earth Creationists I subscribe to,
> folks who look for religious inferences in the scientific observations around
> us, say that ID is loopy.
>
> Back to your proof above. Philosophy will always find a way around scientific
> data. I once read about men's reactions to learning that men were
> psychologically wired to be filled with lust at most of the women that passed
> them by.
> Some men said, "Hey, I'm WIRED this way! Party!!" and used it as justification
> to be promiscuous.
> Other men said, "Oh, that's just my hormones! Whew! So I'm really not *more* in
> love with that blond at that next table than I am with my own wife. I can
> relax."
>
> If you're biased against finding a god, you'll be able to come up with
> philosophical ruses all day long.
>
Snort.. No one is biased "towards" finding one, they have to be taught
to believe in them. Mind, we invent them all the time as a child. The
tree creature that scratches the window, the monster hiding under the
bed, the strange shadow the follows you around, etc. We invent things
that we "imagine" control some aspect of the world around us all the
time. Then someone tells us to, "grow up, the only *real* one is this
one that controls the universe and everything in it. Oh, and only *our*
all powerful, all seeing, able to do anything, version is the *right*
one." Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist. You only believe in god,
instead of the "forest spirits", or some other entity(ies), because that
is what people "told you" where the correct answer, and because, unlike
some of us, you refuse to accept the logical, non-philosophical,
conclusion that if the monster under the bed doesn't steal your socks,
maybe some god doesn't spend time watching you pee either.
See, the sort of people that used the, "I am wired that way", argument
fail on two counts - 1. They presume that what ever they read on the
subject is the "final" answer, and its never the final answer. 2. That
"wired" means you can't change the wiring, which is only "partly" true.
You can make someone a sociopathic chauvinist, or someone so
pro-feminist that they can't think for themselves, and everything
between, with the same "basic" wiring. Anyone reading anything else from
it is as big a fool as the people that insist that anyone alive has an
internally consistent, rational, believable, and not-totally-pointless
definition of what a god is, and which one is the right one. Its all
philosophical fung shui, everyone arranging the funiture to match what
they imagine is the best design for their own desires, insisting that,
because they once read some place that wind chimes relax people, that
they even know what that means, and that they are using "logic" (or
worse, science) to reach their conclusions. In reality, what they are
using has jack to do with science at all. Its an abuse of it.
Look, here is the thing. People constantly say they "know" god exists.
Some of them point at old books, which more and more scholars admit
constitute "no" evidence at all, and are wrong as often as they get
anything right. Some people point at the number of people that "believe"
in it, while failing to grasp that this is only proof that you can teach
people to believe anything, if everyone else already believes it as
well. If you where born in the time of Greece, no one would be babbling
about the Christian god as the "right one", at all. They would either
insist you where nuts, because there are many of them, or that you where
totally insane, because the "real" god was one of a long list of them.
Many people point to personal experience and "knowledge" of god really
existing. But, here is the problem: If people all *universally* think
about god the same way they do Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or their
imaginary friend, is, "thought about", "experienced", and "see he/she/it
to act in the world", then you just lost "personal experience" as any
kind of valid measure for such a beings existence. Its basic logic. You
can't claim that something is "real", because the experience of it is
qualitatively different that "fake" experiences, if every single
"non-personal" measurement of the experience says, "No, in point of
fact, you are treating the experience exactly the same as if you where
imagining some non-real person's actions, under circumstances such as
someone asking you the question, 'What do you think someone else would
do in this situation.', and even less so if the *response* you get in
your head is also *indistinguishable* from asking, 'What would Zippy,
your imaginary best bunny friend, do in this situation.'"
Point being, I would love to have you explain to me what "valid"
criteria you imagine would "prove" that your experience of what ever god
you believe in is "real". And how that experience isn't at all
"questionable", should it turn out that the thought processes are
identical to that of imagining "anyone" real or imaginary, solving a
problem, or taking some action. And, more to the point, what such
evidence would be, which isn't "precisely" what you accuse me of doing,
"Philosophically reaching the conclusion I want to, based on a previous
bias to look for it."
Oh, and claiming this is, quite frankly, insulting anyway. I spent 20
years of my life "looking for" a reason to believe in god, with the
presupposition that miracles do happen, some sort of "real" magic
existed, and that spirits, souls, ghosts, etc., where possibly real. All
I found was con artists, liars, made up stories, testimony from people
who changed their stories over time, to make them more believable, and
an endless list of fake miracles, alternative, and more rational
explanations, etc. Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in
any of it. If I have a bias today against finding such a thing, its due
to 20 years of *failing* to find any in the first place. And, I know
other people that have spent more than that **believing** whole
heartedly in this stuff, who eventually found themselves confronted with
the glaring realization that something about the real world didn't "fit"
what they where biased to see, and suddenly found themselves reexamining
"everything", only finding that nearly everything they believed in had
holes, gaps, errors, factual omissions, out right lies, etc.
In truth, atheist that "convert" to faith never got to their "starting
point" by thinking about anything. Its like having money. Some people
are privileged to be bored into it, and become Paris Hilton. Such an
"atheist" would join up with the first cult, that made them feel more
"wanted" than they already are, at the drop of a hat, because they
"never" once thought about why they reached their conclusion, or so much
as saw anything about religion more complicated than old movies and the
occasional lame cartoon. Some are actually the supposed "angry" people,
who unable, or unwilling, to be angry at the idiots making their life
miserable, opt to be angry at what they can rant and whine at, and
pretend to attack, without being arrested for it, they way they would be
if they beat the heck out of their neighbor. You can think of this sort
as the same type of moron that takes out 12 credit cards, then uses them
to pay off each other. They don't know what they believe, they don't
know what they are doing, and they don't have a clue what the
consequence of their dumb behavior is going to do to them, not the least
being that they will probably join up with the first group of people
willing to help them "fix" their problem. Some however end up with
money, either inheriting it, or winning the lotto, or the like, and they
*actually* spend the time trying to figure out what to do with it. Still
others spend a **lot** of time working *really* hard at it, and get
people telling them, "Man, why are you buying that atheist salad!
Everyone knows you should buying a McChurch!", because, you know,
spending a few hours each week listening to someone else "tell you" what
something says, and occasionally reading the "nice" parts, is the same
as spending 30+ years (in some cases) reading "every page" without bias,
reading dozens of other religious texts, reading humanist documents,
reading science, and coming to the conclusion that McChurch is roughly
the same thing as McDonald's. A cheap, poor, and low quality, imitation
of the real world.
But, yeah.. I am sure even the ones that "used to be" priests where all
"biased" against finding a god any place, and suggesting so isn't
insulting at all.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>> McChurch is roughly the same thing as McDonald's.
That's cool.
>> All I found was con artists, liars, made up stories,
>> testimony from people who changed their stories over time,
>> to make them more believable, and an endless list of fake
>> miracles, alternative, and more rational explanations, etc.
>> Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in
>> any of it.
I don't doubt this for a second. I'm guessing this is the majority of the
religion that has enough cash to buy TV programs or networks.
But back then were you really the type who was looking for TV-style miracles?
I'd bet I would have disagreed with you more back then when you were carrying
your bible on Sundays.
>> Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist.
I heard there's some article out this year "proving" that everyone starts out as
a theist, that you're wired to be one of some sort. (Of course, some make a
pro-religious philosophical spin and say God of Bible literally wrote on our
hearts; others make an anti-religious philosophical spin and say religious
thoughts are exclusively genetic tendencies in our brain chemistry.) It seems
that you posited a philosophical spin as scientific fact-- "everyone starts out
as an atheist." Of course this one article in the science journals isn't the
final answer, but it shows your position is weak.
>> old books, which more and more scholars admit
>> constitute "no" evidence at all,
Those are the most loopy ones of all. I saw the PBS show "Christianity before
Paul," where they interviewed the Jesus Seminar. They said something like, the
bible said Jesus' family was poor, but we've found archaeological evidence that
Bethlehem was a rich thriving town, and it wasn't even in Bethlehem! I say on
the contrary, the bible also says that Jesus' family gives the offering allowed
for a poor family-- but you'd have to know about the OT laws to catch that fact
when you read it today. And the ruins of a great trading center doesn't make
for Jesus not being poor. Now God could have sent a Messiah from the richest
family on earth-- that's not the point. It just shows that you can spin the
stones any way you want. There's scholarship on both sides.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
gregjohn wrote:
> Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
>
>>> McChurch is roughly the same thing as McDonald's.
>
> That's cool.
>
>>> All I found was con artists, liars, made up stories,
>>> testimony from people who changed their stories over time,
>>> to make them more believable, and an endless list of fake
>>> miracles, alternative, and more rational explanations, etc.
>>> Not once did I *ever* find a *reason* to believe in
>>> any of it.
>
>
> I don't doubt this for a second. I'm guessing this is the majority of the
> religion that has enough cash to buy TV programs or networks.
>
> But back then were you really the type who was looking for TV-style miracles?
> I'd bet I would have disagreed with you more back then when you were carrying
> your bible on Sundays.
>
TV style miracles? What does that even mean? The Biblical miracles are
ridiculous enough without TV style ones. In fact, most of the TV style
miracles always have been the sort of BS, "Oh, 5,000 people spent years
perfecting the hospital bed, IV drips, medications and surgeries used to
save you, isn't it just a *miracle* that god kept you alive, while so
many other people died before!" Uh, no, not 20 years ago when this was
the common response when you asked most people what "miracles" where,
and even less so today. It cheapens a word that was already cheapened by
the fact that its original meaning was indistinguishable from "And Zues
came down in the form of a swan to seduce the maiden." Its like everyone
decided that clown shoes where really silly, but not because they are
over sized and hard to walk in, but rather because they where the wrong
color. Point out that they are just as silly if they are not fire engine
orange with purple polka dots and watch out, all the "clown shoeist"
will cry about how unfair you are about their choice in shoes.
>>> Truth is, everyone starts out an atheist.
>
> I heard there's some article out this year "proving" that everyone starts out as
> a theist, that you're wired to be one of some sort. (Of course, some make a
> pro-religious philosophical spin and say God of Bible literally wrote on our
> hearts; others make an anti-religious philosophical spin and say religious
> thoughts are exclusively genetic tendencies in our brain chemistry.) It seems
> that you posited a philosophical spin as scientific fact-- "everyone starts out
> as an atheist." Of course this one article in the science journals isn't the
> final answer, but it shows your position is weak.
>
No it doesn't. Belief in "god" isn't the same as believing that there
might be a scary monster hiding the in the bushes, instead of just the
wind blowing them. The whole point of being able to "make up" stories
about what is "making" things happen around you is that, early on, a
primitive form of this would keep you from getting eaten by something
that "was" hiding in the bush. The problem is, we now make up stuff that
thinks, acts, has the power to make things happen, and all the other
attributes "we have", and imagine that hiding in the bushes instead. You
need the former, the later is just pointless and misleading. Show me
someone "born" with a belief in your or any other "specific" god, who
wouldn't be just as happy believing in multiple gods, or tree spirits,
or elves, or fairies in the garden, or just growing up and realizing
that none of them are any more reasonable than imagining that the
presents show up under the tree due to a jolly fat man in a red suit,
and we will talk. Otherwise, all this proves is that people make stuff
up, based on their **own** abilities, which they imagine think like, act
like, react like, and possibly even "look like" themselves, most of the
time. It still, even if you wanted to imply that it suggested god,
requires that you explain "which one", and "how do you know, given that
any god you can imagine is ***just like you***, only able to leap tall
buildings in a single bound (oh, sorry, wrong fictional character...)."
>>> old books, which more and more scholars admit
>>> constitute "no" evidence at all,
>
> Those are the most loopy ones of all. I saw the PBS show "Christianity before
> Paul," where they interviewed the Jesus Seminar. They said something like, the
> bible said Jesus' family was poor, but we've found archaeological evidence that
> Bethlehem was a rich thriving town, and it wasn't even in Bethlehem! I say on
> the contrary, the bible also says that Jesus' family gives the offering allowed
> for a poor family-- but you'd have to know about the OT laws to catch that fact
> when you read it today. And the ruins of a great trading center doesn't make
> for Jesus not being poor. Now God could have sent a Messiah from the richest
> family on earth-- that's not the point. It just shows that you can spin the
> stones any way you want. There's scholarship on both sides.
>
There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he even
existed at all. Everything, and I mean everything, about him shows up
50-100 years later, and all of it either suspiciously matches times,
places and events also attributed to Titus Flavius' campaigns against
Jewish people, roughly 50 years or so "after" Jesus was supposed to be
around, or looks a awful lot like prior mythologies. Mind, so does the
OT, if you study older religions that it, most of them contradictory not
in "details", but in which, and how many, gods where involved (instead
of just assuming it is the oldest). Do you know, for example, that while
El is used in later cultures to refer to merely "godlike things", the
word is "originally" more like Zues, and that El had three sons, one of
them known as Yahweh. I.e., they are not even the "same" gods? Seems
like a pretty big thing to mess up... And, this is from here:
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/God/el-goi.htm
Its not surprising that there are massive discrepancies in the NT, which
was pieced together by comity years after the supposed events, using
source documents that all, so far, can't be traced back farther than 50
years "after" the events, when even the OT isn't consistent in any way
either. It smacks of "invented" religion, and its hardly helped by the
fact that the Flavians where the "first" converts to Christianity, and
one of their own claimed to be "appointed" as the second ever "Pope" by
one of the supposed disciples, while the same persons brother had his
Jewish history chronicler busy trying to make him look like the second
coming of the same mythical figure. You would think, if the "Pope" at
all objected to this, you might have found "something" denouncing the
comparison, denying Titus' divinity, or accusations against Titus'
father, who was among the first of the Roman emperors to start calling
themselves "living gods". Seems to be a bit of Egyptian conceit in their
some place, but it did make Titus the "son of god", which again, if the
first/second (depend if you believe some disciple did make him one)
official "Pope" had any objection to... there doesn't seem to be a lot
of evidence of it.
Until someone finds something, **anything** suggesting that more than a
fairly common names shows up on Jesus from his own supposed time, you
might as well be arguing that Freddy Kruger couldn't possibly have been
able to make the knife claws he uses to kill people in the movies, for
all it makes any sense to ask about, "Was Jesus really poor?" We know
more about "other" carpenters from the time period, including where they
lived, from documents, tools, official records, etc., in the same area,
than we have for the supposedly most famous carpenter in history. In
fact, we know as much, of more about virtually every other god, or
son/daughter of one, from virtually every other religion in the world
than we do the one you think is the only "real" one.
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he even
> existed at all.
I was watching a documentary a couple months ago where they were talking
about Flavius and all that, and why Flavius was trying Jesus, and pointing
to the head priest (or whatever) of the time, talking about how the head
priest wouldn't have like Jesus, yadda yadda, how he probably knew about
Jesus and accused him of ... wait a minute, "probably"? Meaning there's no
actual documentation that the priests of the city where Jesus was crucified
ever mentioned Jesus' name? Amazing what people will paper over in support
of a point.
Me, I just don't understand the point of looking for historical or
scientific evidence of that in which you're supposed to have faith. I didn't
think that's how it was supposed to work.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
My fortune cookie said, "You will soon be
unable to read this, even at arm's length."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> There is no contemporary evidence, ***from his own time***, that he
>> even existed at all.
>
> I was watching a documentary a couple months ago where they were talking
> about Flavius and all that, and why Flavius was trying Jesus, and
> pointing to the head priest (or whatever) of the time, talking about how
> the head priest wouldn't have like Jesus, yadda yadda, how he probably
> knew about Jesus and accused him of ... wait a minute, "probably"?
> Meaning there's no actual documentation that the priests of the city
> where Jesus was crucified ever mentioned Jesus' name? Amazing what
> people will paper over in support of a point.
>
> Me, I just don't understand the point of looking for historical or
> scientific evidence of that in which you're supposed to have faith. I
> didn't think that's how it was supposed to work.
>
Ah, but its fairly close to impossible to remain "sane" and not attempt
to provide justification for why something you believe is true. All of
them do it, from the ID movement, who try, while ignoring vast swaths of
evidence to the contrary, to attribute every hang nail an animal gets to
"divine guidance", to those trying to explain belief in god in general,
while ignoring the vast chasm between what is "known", and what isn't,
in an attempt to make it seem like they have all sorts of "evidence" for
it, when in fact its... kind of like the list of "cures" one group of
them came up with in their anti-ES stem cell gibberish. They definitely
list 78 cases. The problem is that a small handful are "experimental",
and are not used to cure "jack" in the real world, and the rest are like
70+ of this:
1. Patient A had H cancer, which required radiation treatment S, after
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild
their immune system.
2. Patient B had I cancer, which required radiation treatment T, after
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild
their immune system.
3. Patient C had J cancer, which required radiation treatment U, after
which their own adult "bone marrow" stem cells where used to rebuild
their immune system.
4-70+ (same thing)
In not one of the non-experimental examples given was the stem cells
used to "cure" the disease they started with. They where used to cure
the disease "caused by curing the original disease". But, you have to
hand it to them, they did find ***one*** disease that adult stem cells
*can* cure. Too bad its one created by curing 70+ other, unrelated,
conditions. lol
Its this sort of thing they do all the time. That and "circular"
referencing. There is nothing like reading some comment about how person
A said something profound about god, which thus proves the Bible, only
to find that they where quoting person B, who quoted person C, who in
turn quotes a Biblical passage...
The only people I know of that have "faith" without "evidence" in any of
it, are the sort that even most Christians don't want to deal with,
unless its from the other side of thick glass, with the padded walls on
the side where the "faithful" are. None of them value "blind faith" in
anything, other than religion, and most of them spend almost all their
time then complaining that they can't tell the difference, when
confronted with someone that says, "Yeah, but my faith that I will wake
up tomorrow is based on, you know.. the fact that I 'have' all the prior
times, which is *not* the same as what you people keep babbling about,
and even you admit that you don't use the kind of faith you talk about
for *anything*, including, based on your actions, what you claim *is*
that kind of faith."
Its, like someone that persistently tells you that everything blue in
the entire universe is "blue", until confronted with a pair of blue
genes, at which point they "insist" that in that case they are in fact
"orange". Huh?!?
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|