More whacky ideas about peer review from ICR.

[archaeologist]

So praying to the sun god and rain God really worked and predicted the weather?

i think you make too many assumptions about the ancients. he modern weather people may get some things right, but to be a real prophet (of God) you have to be 100% correct all the time. i do not know how manytimes weather experts have beenwrong, even with the advanced doppler system.

just goes to show youthat creation is stillout of science's reach.

Boring holes in peoples heads really helped cure disease?

no more so or less than electro shock therapy done well into the 20th century. or modern medication with its potentially fatal side effects.

you sound like science is your god.

Suggesting that the scientific method hasn't drastically increases our understanding of reality and our ability to predict it is demonstratively false.

no, it is your placing science on a pedestal above God that i find repugnant.

You basically admit that you want to go back to the thoughts of a time of untreated or mistreated disease, witch burnings, killing of animals to try to make it rain.

why would i want that, though i do recall that in the ancient world there were doctors whow ere probably ust as smart , and knowledgable as modern ones. in fact not only did they have surgery back then, they also had plastic surgery, along with very good dentistry (there was an article not too long ago onthat last one. seemed they were quite the little drillers)

we have God to rely on as well. oh wait, ...

You are a great creationist

this is old...find another way...like being respectful.

 

[notto]

why would i want that, though i do recall that in the ancient world there were doctors whow ere probably ust as smart , and knowledgable as modern ones. in fact not only did they have surgery back then, they also had plastic surgery, along with very good dentistry (there was an article not too long ago onthat last one. seemed they were quite the little drillers).

You are making my point for me.

They did what worked and didn't rely on 'God did it' or 'God will do it' as an explanation.

When religious rits and cantations didn't work they were abandon. They were abandon for testable methods of actually addressing disease, evidence, and reality. And here you are defending them instead of claiming that their methodology is not of God. Strange turn of events that.


You do understand that the scientific method demonstrates a better track record than claims or calls for religous intervention, right? It seems that you have just demonstrated that with your examples.

I think you just dismantled your own logic.

You are a great creationist.

 

[Willtor]

it wasn't written as an accusation but as an explanation, big difference.

But I denied neither God nor His Word. Neither has anybody is this thread, so far as I've seen (though, I'm open to correction).

Can't we discuss these things as reasonable people without assuming that the other is being dishonest and secretly has an agenda to undermine the faith? Aren't we brothers in Christ?

 

[archaeologist]

But I denied neither God nor His Word. Neither has anybody is this thread, so far as I've seen (though, I'm open to correction).

it was a reference to kerrmatic's statement on revelations.

I dismiss Revelation as without inspiration. I find it abhorrent that it is in the Canon

stand corrected.

You are making my point for me.

not at all, just addressing your misrepresenting of the ancient world.

They were abandon for testable methods of actually addressing disease, evidence, and reality. And here you are defending them instead of claiming that their methodology is not of God. Strange turn of events that.

you are good at mis-representing what i say. wasn't defending that at all, nor did i say it was correct and God wrong.

why don't you learn to address what a poster says and not what you wanted him to say?

I think you just dismantled your own logic.

You are a great creationist.

not at all, you just don't understand. stop insulting as this will be the last time i address you until you can learn to do post right.

 

[Willtor]

it was a reference to kerrmatic's statement on revelations.

stand corrected.

I stand corrected. All the same, since your initial accusation was directed at me, I don't understand its purpose. Similarly, I don't see the need for vitriol. I assume you could make your points in a Christian way.

 

[USincognito]

no more so or less than electro shock therapy done well into the 20th century. or modern medication with its potentially fatal side effects.

You're conflating trepanation, which was supposed to let demons out of the skull, with electroshock therapy, which was based on an understanding of the bioelectrical functioning of the brain?

Man, the list of things you don't understand very well grows ever longer.

 

[archaeologist]

leave it to the TE's to misrepresent the true story:

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/historia/shock_i.htm

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]As it happened with [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]psychosurgery[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica], electroconvulsive therapy was a highly troublesome therapy. First, there were many examples of ECT being used to subdue and to control patients in psychiatric hospitals. Troublesome patients received several shocks a day, many times without proper restraint or sedation. Medical Historian David J. Rothman affirmed in an [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]NIH Consensus Conference[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] on ECT in 1985: [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"ECT stands practically alone among the medical/surgical interventions in that misuse was not the goal of curing but of controlling the patients for the benefits of the hospital staff"[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]However, in the 70's, strong movements against institutionalized psychiatry began in Europe and particularly in the USA. Together with psychosurgery, ECT was denounced by libertarians, and the most famous libel was a 1962 novel written by Ken Casey, based on his experiences on an Oregon mental hospital. Titled "[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]", it was later made into a highly successful [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]movie[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] by Czech director Milos Forman, starring [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Jack Nicholson[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]. Bad press turned into a series of legal actions involving the abuses of shock therapy.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]By the mid-1970s ECT had fallen into disrepute. Psychiatrists increasingly made use of powerful new drugs, such as thorazine and other antidepressives and antipsychotics.[/FONT]

i stand vindicated

 

[archaeologist]

here is a better source:

http://www.ect.org/news/sundtimes.html

It has a brutal history. We don't know how, or even if, it works. So why do we still give electric shocks for depression? Kathy Brewis investigates.

TE's need to learn how to use sources and links.

 

[USincognito]

Yes. Sources are good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroconvulsive_therapy

Abstract of 2007 article on treatment of mixed mania

High-dose medications are sometimes needed to control the episode, and time to remission is usually longer than in pure mania. Importantly, patients with mixed manic episodes have more adverse events of psychopharmacological treatment. In some cases, electroconvulsive therapy is required.

Bold mine.

Or this abstract of a 2003 article comparing the relative merits of Repetative trancranial magnetic stimulation and electroconvulsive therapy.

It's always best to get your links from a RESOURCE, and not an ADVOCACY GROUP.

No find me anything on the web that advocates trepanation to release demons, then we can determine whether you've been "vindicated" or not.

 

[USincognito]

believers are to consider the source. if it is not of God then they must do away with it. evolution leads away from or tries to replace God, no believer should have anything to do with the theory.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n04/historia/shock_i.htm

http://www.ect.org/news/sundtimes.html

Are those Christian sources? I didn't see anything on their websites quoting the Bible or mentioning God.

Why should I believe them?

 

[archaeologist]

your 2007 abstract article doesn't show that they used electrical shock but that it was reccommended as a form of treatment. nor does it but up any claims to be a cure or evenhelpingthe patient.

Results indicate that electroconvulsive therapy had a more positive effect on mood than did a 2-week trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. With regard to cognitive outcome measures, electroconvulsive therapy exerted a deleterious but transient effect on various components of memory that were no longer detected 2 weeks after the end of treatment; however, there was evidence of persistent retrograde amnesia after treatment with electroconvulsive therapy

if you read that quote, you will see that electric shock therapy made a brief and non-permement effect on the patient. any thing good was gone shortly there after. still doesn't prove thatit works or is a cure or is actually bone fide science. sounds more like witch doctors resorting to their last option.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....

obviously that can be taken 2 ways but here is an invitation for all you TE's , come to Korea and say these insults to me face.

if you don't, then don't say them here.

I can be with you in an hour Archie, I am just down the road from you.

Is that OK?

 

[USincognito]

your 2007 abstract article doesn't show that they used electrical shock but that it was reccommended as a form of treatment. nor does it but up any claims to be a cure or evenhelpingthe patient.

{snip my quote]

if you read that quote, you will see that electric shock therapy made a brief and non-permement effect on the patient. any thing good was gone shortly there after. still doesn't prove thatit works or is a cure or is actually bone fide science. sounds more like witch doctors resorting to their last option.

Is English your native language? It might explain a lot.

Results indicate that electroconvulsive therapy had a more positive effect on mood than did a 2-week trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation. With regard to cognitive outcome measures, electroconvulsive therapy exerted a deleterious but transient effect on various components of memory that were no longer detected 2 weeks after the end of treatment; however, there was evidence of persistent retrograde amnesia after treatment with electroconvulsive therapy

What I have bolded and blued to highlight does not say that the effect of treatment was deliterious or transient in terms of treatment, but was deliterious and transient in terms of memory - and that they were no longer detected after 2 weeks after treatment. There was evidence which showed persistent amnesia, which is why electroconvulsive therapy is still being applied to patients with severere PSTD in an effort to help erase the bad memories of the traumatic events. There are some drugs which are showing promise in wiping bad memories of traumatic events from patients and hopefully they can replace ECV therapy. Currently ECV is one of the more successful therapies we have for the treatment of recent PTSC inducing events though.

I personally hope some day ECV can be totally replaced by drug therapy - which will, again, undermine your whole position, but I digress. ECV remains an accepted and usuable treatment for psychiatric disorders.

So, getting us back on the topic as you raised it, please cite an example of a study in the last 500 years suggesting trepanation for releasing demons from the brain and how that is the same as ECV therapy.

 

[archaeologist]

but is wiping out bad memories a 'cure'? or right?

no i read it and it still does not show how it can overcome its problems. focusing on such limited success does not take into account the side effects nor why it fell into disrepute.

but thatis typical of people who desperately want to prove their point, they will leave out things to make their point sound great.

your insult is ignored and you should leatrn to understand the whole point being made. i also said that there was nothing inthose articles proved anything.

you may think amnesia is a good thing but i don't nor do i consider it an option for healing.

 

[USincognito]

but is wiping out bad memories a 'cure'? or right?

no i read it and it still does not show how it can overcome its problems. focusing on such limited success does not take into account the side effects nor why it fell into disrepute.

but thatis typical of people who desperately want to prove their point, they will leave out things to make their point sound great.

your insult is ignored and you should leatrn to understand the whole point being made. i also said that there was nothing inthose articles proved anything.

you may think amnesia is a good thing but i don't nor do i consider it an option for healing.

You don't think the ability to erase memories that are causing PTSD (do you even know what that is, you've demonstrated ignorance of a lot of subjects since you started posting here) is a good thing? Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks people with terminal illnesses like stage 4 cancer shouldn't have access to doctor assisted suicide because suffering is good for the soul and that someone who rationally decides to end their physical torture is being selfish or "playing God"?

And all your blather doesn't address the question I am asking you. Red herrings might distract in conversation, but posts to Internet message boards persist:

Are you still, after I have shown you that ECV is still considered a usable, though admittedly not preferred, therapy for mental illness, suggesting that it's the same as chiseling holes in a persons skull to let the demons escape as was the rationale behind trepanation?

Can you just answer that question instead of trying to wriggle away from it like a slimy eel?

 

[archaeologist]

Let me guess, you're one of those people who thinks people with terminal illnesses like stage 4 cancer shouldn't have access to doctor assisted suicide because suffering is good for the soul and that someone who rationally decides to end their physical torture is being selfish or "playing God"?

this ability to immediately leave a cognitive discussion and go for the insulting assumption is amazing. someone disagrees with you and you automatically go into attack mode.

all you have done is shown how shallow your and your arguments are.

no, i do not think that messing with one's brain is a good thing, given the fact that God has alternatives which will not destroy a man but make actually heal him.

after I have shown you that ECV is still considered a usable, though admittedly not preferred, therapy for mental illness, suggesting that it's the same as chiseling holes in a persons skull to let the demons escape as was the rationale behind trepanation

this is the problem with discussing with people like you. you take an example and make a mountain out of a mole hill. do i care if it is considered a usable tool? no, nor does it make it a right treatment.

actually, in giving it some thoguht, i would say yes theyare the same as both display the barbaicness of secular science as they refuse to consider options far more viable and which include God.

Can you just answer that question instead of trying to wriggle away from it like a slimy eel?

can you actually have an intelligent discussion without resorting to name calling, insults, arrogance, elitism...etc.?

 

[Willtor]

Whether the tool has some use is really of issue, here. You maligned science's ability to distinguish (ie. through peer reviewed journals and such), and here we have an example of something that science says has some limited use. All of these studies were done through peer review. The applicability of ECV is being determined by science. If this is not the issue, could you describe what you see as the essential case you are trying to make?

 

[archaeologist]

All of these studies were done through peer review.

the peer review system is as fallible as the science they practice. appealing to it, when some here deny the same avenues of constructive criticism to those who believe differently, is just hypocritical.

it is not hard to manipulate the system so please don't hold it aloft as if it is a new objective, honest god which is so pure that no fault can be found with the system.

the peer review system is not an independent body free from the pressures that come with the scientific world, it is as biased as some here charge the ICR or AIG of having.

my whole contention has been to say that ICR or AIg have as much right to their own peer review system as the secular world has developed for themselves.

you do not like their criteria or regulations, then open up the secular system to show that they can do it better, more objectively, more honestly with better character, integrity and so on

the bottom line really is, as evidenced by the criticism of the new creation museum, that the secular world only wants evolution taught and will not accept alternative thinking, competition or allow avenues of expression for such positions.

even though evolutionists are teaching a lie and distorting reality.

 

[USincognito]

So Holocaust denial museums would be fine in your book? Teachers teaching the Moon landing was a hoax is just an alternate view in the classroom?

How far do you expect reality to bend for the woos that want their pet ideology taught?

 

[notto]

the peer review system is as fallible as the science they practice. appealing to it, when some here deny the same avenues of constructive criticism to those who believe differently, is just hypocritical.

it is not hard to manipulate the system so please don't hold it aloft as if it is a new objective, honest god which is so pure that no fault can be found with the system.

the peer review system is not an independent body free from the pressures that come with the scientific world, it is as biased as some here charge the ICR or AIG of having.

my whole contention has been to say that ICR or AIg have as much right to their own peer review system as the secular world has developed for themselves.

you do not like their criteria or regulations, then open up the secular system to show that they can do it better, more objectively, more honestly with better character, integrity and so on

the bottom line really is, as evidenced by the criticism of the new creation museum, that the secular world only wants evolution taught and will not accept alternative thinking, competition or allow avenues of expression for such positions.

even though evolutionists are teaching a lie and distorting reality.

Unsupported assertions with no references, sources, or links.

You can't support this and you won't.

Your argument really doesn't have much going for it does it?