Creationists

[emilynghiem]

Close Hollie! We could set up a valid scientific study that is replicable, with tweaks
to what you propose. It's not just praying externally as you suggest. That will fail, I agree.

What true healing involves is diagnosing the cause of the spiritual blocks and praying for forgiveness of those memories thoughts or perceptions, or in the case of full demonic possession as Peck studied, even more serious intervention with team prayer in addition to the other levels.

Here's what I propose:
(A) Set up teams of trained prayer partners to work with Rheumatoid Arthritis patients.
Oops sorry, that's already been done. MacNutt's study which he includes in his 1999 edition of Healing gave testimony of a man healed of any pain, where he went from crippled to walking after the therapy was applied.

If you want, you can throw in the placebo effect by having people pray without the spiritual diagnosis and forgiveness prayer, but use bone rattling and external things without any thoughts of forgiveness. This may be hard to isolate, to make sure no one thinks a single forgiving thought of prayer for healing but just prays without connection or whatever.

How about
(B) give a professional psychiatrist who is either neutral or even biased against exorcism being real, two schizophrenic patients deemed incureable and see if the treatment works.
Oops. sorry Peck already changed his mind and published a book on why he did.

Maybe we could repeat these experiments? Because I would LOVE to take you up on this
and replicate the studies started by Peck and MacNutt.

MacNutt specifies why the process fails or is delayed and how to correct most of those
reasons. So as long as the study DISTINGUISHES the different types of steps or causes of teh sickness, to make sure the right process is applied, then it would not produce a false positive or negative.

Hollie anyone can set up an experiment to fail or succeed if you rig it that way.

I am interested in proving that MacNutt's distinctions need to be made to prove
WHY certain cases fail WHY some succeed and which can be corrected.

The ones that cannot be, that is like how for some people chemotherapy works
and other times it fails. This is better than chemo because it has no ill side effects
adn is natural and the cure of the root cause is permanent not just placating symptoms.

Also important: spiritual healing does not negate or exclude science and medicine!
it works alongside it.

Just because you go to a heart doctor for your heart doesn't mean you reject
going to the skin doctor for your skin or the therapist for your mind.

Spiritual healing is for healing causes or diseases rooted in teh spirit.
So you heal the spirit using this.
You heal the mind using therapy for one's thoughts and perceptions to change
And you heal the body using medical means.

sometimes it happens that the spiritual healing allows the mind and body to follow also.
But not always

In the case of the schizophrenic patients, they still required therapy afterwards
to finish the process. they could not even begin that part of the treatment until
after the exorcism got rid of the obstructions on the spiritual level. once they got
their minds back then they could follow doctor's instructions and do the
physical and mental therapy to heal on all levels. this is only one level and
does NOT replace the other levels of treatments that can still be required.

I hope that is clear! thank you Hollie I will set up a website and let's do this!!!

I'll propose an experiment:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?

Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

P.S. appendicitis is rarely caused by a spiritual illness. you don't expect to heal a heart attack by calling on a foot doctor which is for a different field or area of disease or conditions. I could see healing people of pain related to healing of surgery indirectly
but not the appendicitis itself. Maybe something else that is clearly in someon'es spirit
or mind, like pedophilia or schizophrenia, multiple personalities. one friend of mine
has helped people heal of cancer and also diabetes. let's try all areas shall we? and see?

 

[Hollie]

Close Hollie! We could set up a valid scientific study that is replicable, with tweaks
to what you propose. It's not just praying externally as you suggest. That will fail, I agree.

What true healing involves is diagnosing the cause of the spiritual blocks and praying for forgiveness of those memories thoughts or perceptions, or in the case of full demonic possession as Peck studied, even more serious intervention with team prayer in addition to the other levels.

Here's what I propose:
(A) Set up teams of trained prayer partners to work with Rheumatoid Arthritis patients.
Oops sorry, that's already been done. MacNutt's study which he includes in his 1999 edition of Healing gave testimony of a man healed of any pain, where he went from crippled to walking after the therapy was applied.

If you want, you can throw in the placebo effect by having people pray without the spiritual diagnosis and forgiveness prayer, but use bone rattling and external things without any thoughts of forgiveness. This may be hard to isolate, to make sure no one thinks a single forgiving thought of prayer for healing but just prays without connection or whatever.

How about
(B) give a professional psychiatrist who is either neutral or even biased against exorcism being real, two schizophrenic patients deemed incureable and see if the treatment works.
Oops. sorry Peck already changed his mind and published a book on why he did.

Maybe we could repeat these experiments? Because I would LOVE to take you up on this
and replicate the studies started by Peck and MacNutt.

MacNutt specifies why the process fails or is delayed and how to correct most of those
reasons. So as long as the study DISTINGUISHES the different types of steps or causes of teh sickness, to make sure the right process is applied, then it would not produce a false positive or negative.

Hollie anyone can set up an experiment to fail or succeed if you rig it that way.

I am interested in proving that MacNutt's distinctions need to be made to prove
WHY certain cases fail WHY some succeed and which can be corrected.

The ones that cannot be, that is like how for some people chemotherapy works
and other times it fails. This is better than chemo because it has no ill side effects
adn is natural and the cure of the root cause is permanent not just placating symptoms.

Also important: spiritual healing does not negate or exclude science and medicine!
it works alongside it.

Just because you go to a heart doctor for your heart doesn't mean you reject
going to the skin doctor for your skin or the therapist for your mind.

Spiritual healing is for healing causes or diseases rooted in teh spirit.
So you heal the spirit using this.
You heal the mind using therapy for one's thoughts and perceptions to change
And you heal the body using medical means.

sometimes it happens that the spiritual healing allows the mind and body to follow also.
But not always

In the case of the schizophrenic patients, they still required therapy afterwards
to finish the process. they could not even begin that part of the treatment until
after the exorcism got rid of the obstructions on the spiritual level. once they got
their minds back then they could follow doctor's instructions and do the
physical and mental therapy to heal on all levels. this is only one level and
does NOT replace the other levels of treatments that can still be required.

I hope that is clear! thank you Hollie I will set up a website and let's do this!!!

I'll propose an experiment:

Find two people with radical appendicitis. Person A, apply the same steps as were applied before the mid 1800's (i.e., pray over them, light incense, tell them to "believe", rattle bones, whatever). Person B -- perform an appendectomy using modern surgical techniques without any prayer. Who will survive, who will die -- consistently?

Then ask yourself why is it that when using prayer (or hoping for miracles) they've always died, and not until man learned the science of medicine did people start to survive (i.e., only until man learned how to remedy appendicitis, did "god suddenly have the power to perform this miracle")? It's pretty self-evident.

P.S. appendicitis is rarely caused by a spiritual illness. you don't expect to heal a heart attack by calling on a foot doctor which is for a different field or area of disease or conditions. I could see healing people of pain related to healing of surgery indirectly
but not the appendicitis itself. Maybe something else that is clearly in someon'es spirit
or mind, like pedophilia or schizophrenia, multiple personalities. one friend of mine
has helped people heal of cancer and also diabetes. let's try all areas shall we? and see?

As with so many of the claims made by Christian faith healing ministries, a simple solution to resolve the efficacy of the claims would be for the faith healers and the allegedly healed to submit to peer reviewed, double blind testing.

That never happens. Why do you think that is?

 

[newpolitics]

It's tough to argue against someone so blatantly wrong about their understanding of evolution to begin with.

It's like asking someone to multiply when they know they can't even add yet. It's pointless.

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.

 

[ima]

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science

But can you prove creation?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Not real science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

When the religiously addled claim to spew irrefutable "facts", regarding evolution. it usually means they've been scouring Harun Yahya again.

Observed Instances of Speciation

Funny then you copy and paste from talk origins. What is your point ? are you once again showing you have reading comp problems.

here's a fine example of ywc's lack of originality, the phrase:" you have reading comp problems" was first used by Me in this thread .it also points up ,quite nicely I might add, that ywc has no concept of context.

Are you the only one who didn't understand why I posted what I did ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What's really funny is watching you run for the exits when your invented "facts' are shown to be fraudulent.

This article addresses your point.


Species” and “Kind”


by on

January 1, 1994




author-gary-parker
creation-facts-of-life
evolution
kinds
speciation

Whoops! Two or more species from one kind! Isn’t that evolution?

Some evolutionists certainly think so. After I participated in a creation-evolution debate at Texas A & M, a biology professor got up and told everyone about the flies on certain islands that used to interbreed but no longer do. They’ve become separate species, and that, he said, to a fair amount of applause, proves evolution is a fact—period!

Well, what about it? Barriers to reproduction do seem to arise among varieties that once interbred. Does that prove evolution? Or does that make it reasonable to extrapolate from such processes to real evolutionary changes from one kind to others? As I explained to the university-debate audience (also to applause), the answer is simply no, of course not. It doesn’t even come close.

?Species? and ?Kind? - Answers in Genesis

this is not a scientific site

Nor are many that you copy and paste from.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Scientists aren't pretending to know everything, they are still looking, experimenting, sometimes getting things wrong, but that also moves them and us forward. You read something in a 1700 year old book about a magician who poofed everything into being in 6 days, and then are stuck there like an ignoramous.

And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?

so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?

I have no doubts of creation and the Creator.

 

[Youwerecreated]

For your enlightenment, science is the process of discovery. You will want to scream the four word "The Gawds Did It", and proceed on as though you have answered every query, resolved every mystery and vacated every original thought, when what you actually have done is to further your religious dogma by retreating from any further investigation.

There is the brightness of hope and achievement that is falling across the land called literacy and education and knowledge, and exploration and science, each demonstrable, each progressing the human condition, each giving us hope for a better day tomorrow. The hatreds that you espouse for science and the knowledge it brings will always be your worst enemy.

OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.

Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.

I hope you don't talk like this in front of that little girl.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you cant use precision in nature as evidence of design, obviously, and even if you were dumb enough to do so, you'd have to explain the areas where there's lack of precision.

How do you get precision in nature from chaos ? The answer for a creationist is that things are no longer precise because of the punishment for origional sin handed down by God.

and it's false...based on an unprovable assumption.

Did the big bang produce chaos origionally ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

how the hell does someone seriously believe the earth is 6000 years old?

Meh. It baffles me.

"someone" actually realizes that there is something bigger, greater, more powerful, wiser, stronger, and an eternity beyond the intelligence of man.

stfu!

Tough guy here

 

[Youwerecreated]

Evolution is not science:

Scientists tell why evolution is not supported by the facts!

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science

Is Evolution Science?

Here, have a cookie.

Why don't you sweetheart !

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just think, this is the kind of retrograde nonsense that fundies want to introduce into a public school syllabus. Every class - a fundie madrassah.

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.

It's been on display since the beginning of this thread.

 

[LittleNipper]

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science

Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.

I enjoy science. What I dislike is its application to circumvent the existance God, ban the suggestion of God as unconsitutional, and then promote theories that seen to fit data that could very well be interpreted differently provided one considered the likelyhood of God. It is just as likely to prove the existance of God through science, as it is possible to prove the Big Bang and formulate how life began. They all require belief in the mix. Now, I can certainly see that bias people and those looking to keep control seem more interested in eliminating a competative understanding of the data. However, medicine and invention will certainly not be in anyway affected if a Creationistic view became even more popular. The entire reason that our industry has moved overseas has nothing to do with God centered people. However, it has everything to do with people interested only in themselves and their accumulation of wealth, given the notion that they have only a willing government to answer to. God fearing people understand that this is an ignorant course of action, which will eventually come back to undermine everything wealth centered people hope to manipulate...

 

[ima]

Can anyone prove creation?

 

[newpolitics]

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

What is a "fundie athiest?" There are no gradations to a lack of belief. Are you referring to someone that doesn't selectively pick which science he will accept, because it might interfere with other held beliefs? Science has nothing to do with atheism. This is demonstrated by the fact that there are many Christians who fully accept evolution, such as Kenneth Miller and William Lane Craig, the latter being modern Christianity's foremost apologist.

It's been on display since the beginning of this thread.

You didn't answer the question.

 

[newpolitics]

Evolution is propaganda:

PBS's 'Evolution' Series is Propaganda, Not Science

Once again, the science loathing, knowledge rejecting fundies have no positive evidence for gawds, thus are left to further conspiracy theories and attack science.

I enjoy science. What I dislike is its application to circumvent the existance God, ban the suggestion of God as unconsitutional, and then promote theories that seen to fit data that could very well be interpreted differently provided one considered the likelyhood of God. It is just as likely to prove the existance of God through science, as it is possible to prove the Big Bang and formulate how life began. They all require belief in the mix. Now, I can certainly see that bias people and those looking to keep control seem more interested in eliminating a competative understanding of the data. However, medicine and invention will certainly not be in anyway affected if a Creationistic view became even more popular. The entire reason that our industry has moved overseas has nothing to do with God centered people. However, it has everything to do with people interested only in themselves and their accumulation of wealth, given the notion that they have only a willing government to answer to. God fearing people understand that this is an ignorant course of action, which will eventually come back to undermine everything wealth centered people hope to manipulate...

There is no bias against god, scientifically. Rather, god doesn't show up in science, yet you arrogantly demand that it simply does, by ... magic? Also, the constitution explicitly makes respecting any religion illegal.

 

[Koios]

OK Hollie when science is used to establish that spiritual healing is real, and there is a measurable cause and effect and healing effect and even cure from applying exorcism or deliverance, then maybe you will see there is no need to demonize religion for science.

If science would change your beliefs by discovery, then you would prove you are not being hypocritical nor avoiding anything because of your own biases, but are open to science and truth even if this proves that some things taught in religion are actually natural laws at work.

Science already has: placebo effect.

Actual healing, science does, too, i.e. reattaching a severed arm, which will not regrow, even if the entire fucking planet is praying in unison.

There's what's real (scientifically discovered) and what's believed (take your fucking pick.)

And it's none too complicated.

I hope you don't talk like this in front of that little girl.

Keep hoping. Who knows; maybe you'll get lucky.

 

[Hollie]

And if they are wrong and there is a designer ?

so you're not confident that existence is a product of a designer?
if you were you wouldn't have used the word if?

I have no doubts of creation and the Creator.

Quite obviously you do. Your every waking moment appears to be consumed with vilifying science and scientific discovery. That speaks to someone who sees their gawds becoming less relevant and reduced to.... mere paper shufflers.

Let's be honest, you have never even attempted to offer positive evidence for your gawds. What you have offered is lies, falsified "quotes" and profoundly silly attacks on the relevant sciences supporting evolution as though doing so, somehow supports your claims to supermagicalism.

 

[daws101]

Just think, fundie atheists are trying to jam a naturalistic view of the universe down the throats of the young under the guise of science.

Yeah, what a horrible thing. Science should be banned so fundie creationists can transform schools into madrassahs.

Legions of Kool-aid drinkers.

Not real science.

A scientific hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable. That is to say, a hypothesis must make predictions that can be compared to the real world and determined to be either true or false, and there must be some imaginable evidence that could disprove it. If an idea makes no predictions, makes predictions that cannot be unambiguously interpreted as either success or failure, or makes predictions that cannot be checked out even in principle, then it is not science.

Various forms of creationism fail on all three counts here. For example, "intelligent design" creationism makes no testable predictions at all - it makes no checkable claims about how to identify design, who the designer is, what the designer's goals and motives are, what the mechanism of design is, or when and where the design takes place. In fact, it makes no positive claims whatsoever, other than the hopelessly vague assertion that some intelligent being played a role in the diversification of life. Unless additional details are provided - and advocates of ID have so far steadfastly refused to provide them - ID is untestable and unfalsifiable, and can thus be firmly excluded from the domain of science.

Other forms of creationism, such as the young-earth creationism derived from a literal reading of the Bible, do make some testable claims. However, when these claims do not pan out, YEC advocates typically seek to rescue them from falsification by adding additional qualifications that make them untestable. For example, when radiometric and other dating methods show the Earth to be older than the 6,000 years YEC predicts, advocates of this idea often respond by saying that the world was created with an "appearance of age" - that it came complete with false evidence of a history that never happened. No conceivable evidence could prove this idea wrong even in principle, making any version of creationism that relies on it unambiguously not science.

Even some of creationism's defenders admit this. Henry Morris writes in his textbook Scientific Creationism that "Creation... is inaccessible to the scientific method", and that "It is impossible to devise a scientific experiment to describe the creation process, or even to ascertain whether such a process can take place." His colleague and fellow creationist Duane Gish agrees, writing in Evolution: The Fossils Say No! that "We do not know how the Creator created, what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator."
• A scientific hypothesis must be naturalistic, relying only on principles of cause and effect and laws of nature to explain observed phenomena. An idea that is not naturalistic - i.e., that incorporates supernatural intervention and miracles - cannot be part of science, because it is impossible to test, disprove, or further investigate. Once one has concluded a miracle has occurred, there is nothing more that can be done. The proposal that a miracle happened can explain absolutely any imaginable scenario with equal ease, which is the same as saying that it really does not explain anything at all. On this score, there is abundant evidence that creationism in all its forms is not naturalistic, and indeed is absolutely dependent upon miracles, as creationists themselves admit (see below).
• A scientific hypothesis is almost always fertile, suggesting new areas to study and expand our knowledge and giving rise to new hypotheses in turn. Creationism does not do this; it is scientifically sterile. It explains observed facts in an ad hoc way but suggests no surprising consequences, nowhere to focus our efforts on next, and cannot be used to derive further predictions. Whatever we find, whatever patterns or evidence we uncover, the creationist explains it simply by assuming that that is how God must have wanted it, for unknowable reasons of his own. This does not add to our knowledge and does not lead to new avenues of research.
• Finally, a scientific hypothesis, in addition to being testable, must actually be tested. The essence of science is its self-correcting mechanism, in which hypotheses are constantly revised and refined to comply with new evidence. Those ideas that survive the test of time, that pass every test to which they are subjected, become generally accepted knowledge and are added to the scientific canon. Nevertheless, no theory is ever considered to be proven beyond any further possibility of doubt, since there's always the chance that that one startling bit of evidence might turn up tomorrow. In short, doing science means always accepting the possibility of error, and always being willing to test your ideas and accept the results whatever they may be.

This, more than anything else, is the one thing creationists refuse to do. Creationism starts with the Bible and goes nowhere. Most major creationist institutions, despite annual budgets in the millions of dollars, do not fund or perform any original scientific research at all. Indeed, such research would be redundant as far as creationists are concerned; they are already so convinced of the correctness of their conclusions that they see no need to test them. (If any reader thinks this is in any way an exaggeration, see below.) The moment you say, "I know I'm right and nothing could ever convince me otherwise", you are no longer doing science.

For further evidence that creationism is not science, consider their "Statements of Faith". Almost every major creationist organization has one, which consists of a list of tenets that all members of that organization adhere to. The mere existence of such a thing is suspicious; no legitimate scientific body would require its members to hold certain opinions as a precondition of belonging. But it is in the specific wording of these statements that the creationists' bias comes out most clearly. These affirmations show in exceedingly clear detail that creationists subscribe, not to the self-correcting system of science, but to the infallible dogma of fundamentalist religion.

Ebon Musings: Why Creationism Isn't Science