LHC Discovers the Universe was once Liquid

[Wiccan_Child]

Herbs.

Herbs...? Herbs what? Herbs wiped out smallpox? Herbs virtually removed measles, mumps, and rubella from developed countries (till religious types got in a frenzy, that is)?

The earth is "above" the sun.

Are you really saying that MorkandMindy is using such an asinine definition of 'up', to the extent that Australians are 'upside down'?

'Up' is directly away from the surface of the Earth. While this has little use in deep space, it still follows that the stars are above the clouds.

Genesis 1.
The OP shows it is correct.

The OP shows that the very early universe, 13.5 billion years ago, was a superhot plasma which behaved analogous to a liquid. Where, in Genesis 1, is that stated?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You must recall the Word:



Jer 22 v 5

'But if ye will not hear these words, I swear by myself, saith the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.'

It was a joke. Lighten up.

God doesn't finish the Bible with this disclaimer:


'I may have got some of the history wrong, and just ignore the science because it is easier to lie than tell the truth, and apologies for not clarifying the point about what exactly must be done to be saved, I'll clear all that up in my final revelation which will be called ...'

Exactly. According to Christians, Jesus and salvation is the key point of the Bible. The people who wrote the Bible didn't need a disclaimer, since they already knew what it was. They didn't have to stick a disclaimer on it any more than we have to stick one on the back of Mr. Men books - it's obvious.

 

[juvenissun]

Do you not know what a vaccine is?

Vaccine, in a sense, is a function of immunity.

 

[juvenissun]

Keep the rationalizing up. If they had proved the universe was solid you'd find some way to twist that into proving the bible right.

It is not as easy as you think. It has to be logic.

 

[juvenissun]

Even if you did opt with the perspective that the Sun is above the Earth, it would only be the case for half the year. The other half it would be under the Earth. Anyway, don't think you really addressed the comment properly there Juve.

I only responded to the comment of a single sentence, not the whole argument.
Think: all satellites are "above" us. No one argues about that. So are stars.

 

[juvenissun]

Herbs...? Herbs what? Herbs wiped out smallpox? Herbs virtually removed measles, mumps, and rubella from developed countries (till religious types got in a frenzy, that is)?


Are you really saying that MorkandMindy is using such an asinine definition of 'up', to the extent that Australians are 'upside down'?

'Up' is directly away from the surface of the Earth. While this has little use in deep space, it still follows that the stars are above the clouds.


The OP shows that the very early universe, 13.5 billion years ago, was a superhot plasma which behaved analogous to a liquid. Where, in Genesis 1, is that stated?

I only respond to one comment at a time. So, the first one:

Herbs can help to resist, defend or cure some diseases. Sometimes, it works better than any artificial drug (or, vaccine) by having no side effects.

Just like your response, it is usually rejected by medical science because of the lack of consistency.

The point of argument is: there are truth beyond science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I only respond to one comment at a time.

Which is a shame, because there are three separate points ('Truth beyond science', 'superhot plasma is water, therefore the Bible is true', and 'Australia is upside-down'). Nevertheless...

So, the first one:

Herbs can help to resist, defend or cure some diseases. Sometimes, it works better than any artificial drug (or, vaccine) by having no side effects.

And, if it works, it becomes medicinal science. We discover what works using science, take what works and improve upon it using science, distributed it to the masses using science... what is it about herbs that make beyond the purview of science? How do they constitute something 'beyond' science?

Just like your response, it is usually rejected by medical science because of the lack of consistency.

Naturally. If herbs are harmful or ineffective, they're replaced. That's science. Some herbs do indeed do good, such as marijuana, and that is why they're used in medicine today. But the discovery of what herbs are good, what herbs are bad, what their exact properties and side-effects are, is very much a scientific pursuit.

The point of argument is: there are truth beyond science.

And my counterargument is: like what? Herbs are not a 'truth beyond science'. They're plants. Plants that science exploits for human benefit.

 

[juvenissun]

Which is a shame, because there are three separate points ('Truth beyond science', 'superhot plasma is water, therefore the Bible is true', and 'Australia is upside-down'). Nevertheless...


And, if it works, it becomes medicinal science. We discover what works using science, take what works and improve upon it using science, distributed it to the masses using science... what is it about herbs that make beyond the purview of science? How do they constitute something 'beyond' science?


Naturally. If herbs are harmful or ineffective, they're replaced. That's science. Some herbs do indeed do good, such as marijuana, and that is why they're used in medicine today. But the discovery of what herbs are good, what herbs are bad, what their exact properties and side-effects are, is very much a scientific pursuit.


And my counterargument is: like what? Herbs are not a 'truth beyond science'. They're plants. Plants that science exploits for human benefit.

If herb medicine is scientific, then it should be accepted in the general practice. But it is not. Does that say enough about the limitation of science? This type of example, not limited to herbs, is everywhere.

Science is good. But it is not enough. Ask one of your social "science" friend to see if he agreed.

 

[Psudopod]

If herb medicine is scientific, then it should be accepted in the general practice. But it is not. Does that say enough about the limitation of science? This type of example, not limited to herbs, is everywhere.

Science is good. But it is not enough. Ask one of your social "science" friend to see if he agreed.

Have you got any examples of herbs that are more effective than the currently used drugs but are ignored, along with clinical trials that show their effiency? Every example I can think of where a plant has shown to be biologically active in treating disease has led to a new drug being developed from penicillin to tamaxofen (sp?).

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If herb medicine is scientific, then it should be accepted in the general practice. But it is not. Does that say enough about the limitation of science?

It says nothing about the limits of science. It says that the alleged benefits of herbal remidies is not borne out by the evidence. It says that herbs don't do the miraculous things people claim them to do. Some herbs confer benefits and cures, and we use science to understand why and how they do what they do - and then we create superior, safer, more effective versions.

So, again, what is it about herbs that puts them 'beyond' science? Their use is a scientific discipline: it's called medicine.

Science is good. But it is not enough.

Not enough to do what? What, exactly, is your objection?

Ask one of your social "science" friend to see if he agreed.

They do not.

 

[Psudopod]

So, again, what is it about herbs that puts them 'beyond' science? Their use is a scientific discipline: it's called medicine.

Juvenisson:
You know what they call alternative medicine that's been shown to work? Medicince.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Juvenisson:
You know what they call alternative medicine that's been shown to work? Medicince.

Dara O'Brien ftw! I saw it literally two days ago .

 

[Delphiki]

It is not as easy as you think. It has to be logic.

This word, "logic". I don't think it means what you think it means... Otherwise, you wouldn't be implying that using logic is difficult.

 

[rockaction]

Vaccine, in a sense, is a function of immunity.

Huh? No. A vaccine 'tricks' your immune cells by presenting them the structure of a pathogen (via an attenuated strain or killed remnants). Thus, your memory immune cells detect them and are stored and ready for subsequent detection of the pathogen (like if you really were exposed to the disease later).

 

[juvenissun]

Juvenisson:
You know what they call alternative medicine that's been shown to work? Medicince.

Yes, that is what I am saying. It is an "alternative" because we do not know why does it work, and sometimes it does not.

 

[juvenissun]

Have you got any examples of herbs that are more effective than the currently used drugs but are ignored, along with clinical trials that show their effiency? Every example I can think of where a plant has shown to be biologically active in treating disease has led to a new drug being developed from penicillin to tamaxofen (sp?).

I have many. They were tried for thousands of years. But none of them are clinically tested by western medical standard.

 

[juvenissun]

It says nothing about the limits of science. It says that the alleged benefits of herbal remidies is not borne out by the evidence. It says that herbs don't do the miraculous things people claim them to do. Some herbs confer benefits and cures, and we use science to understand why and how they do what they do - and then we create superior, safer, more effective versions.

So, again, what is it about herbs that puts them 'beyond' science? Their use is a scientific discipline: it's called medicine.


Not enough to do what? What, exactly, is your objection?


They do not.

They do. But science does not study them, because it is taken as "not scientific".

 

[MorkandMindy]

Pharmaceutical companies are not going to spend money testing something already available free of charge because they will never get their money back

I understand it took aspirin a while to catch on as a clot busting drug for that reason, and I've heard cinnamon is great for cholesterol problems and celery for male potency.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They do.

Can you prove that?

But science does not study them, because it is taken as "not scientific".

Why isn't it scientific to study the medicinal and other beneficent properties of herbs?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Pharmaceutical companies are not going to spend money testing something already available free of charge because they will never get their money back

Err... yes, they will. If it's available free of charge, they can spend virtually nothing on the production costs. They can research why it works, and synthesise more effective strains, more regimented and safe doses, etc. And, indeed, this is exactly what they do. New drugs come as often from the natural world as they do from the lab.

I understand it took aspirin a while to catch on as a clot busting drug for that reason, and I've heard cinnamon is great for cholesterol problems and celery for male potency.

Exactly. You heard. Is there any actual evidence for this, or is just an old wives tale? Lord knows many abound. "Nosebleed? Tilt your head back!"