So what does "supernatural" actually mean?

[DogmaHunter]

My answer to you is the same. Study the evidence.

I already told you that that is not my job. I'm not a scientist, I'm not a peer, I'm not a reviewer, I have no expertise or credentials in any relevant field.

In short: I am the very definition of "unqualified" to do that. My opinion on the matter is completely irrelevant.

That debate at the royal society is out there on youtube somewhere - Or it was a couple of years ago.

And again, I already told you that science isn't done in such "debates". Debates do not matter. They are intellectual masturbation and ego tripping. They are more about who is the best speaker rather then who is actually correct.

Sure they can be fun and interesting to watch, but again, when it comes to the actual science - nobody cares about debates. The vast majority of active scientists are all much too busy doing actual research and publishing papers and simply don't have time to engage in silly debates.

See if you think the "opposing" speech is based on other than prejudice!

I don't care. It does not matter.

You mean other than the scientific method used and the evidence it produced?

Just like creationists claim.
Clearly, the scientific community disagrees.

Again: it's them that you need to convince, not me.

Again it is out there on the web!

yes, yes...
There's plenty of creationist propaganda on youtube as well.

Newsflash: the internet... also not the place where science is done.

Take a look and follow it up. Then YOU Judge. Dont let sceptic sites judge for you.

I'll let scientists evaluate it for me. They are the ones actually qualified to do that - I'm not. They are the ones being paid to do that - I'm not.

If nothing else it is interesting

You obviously think so. I don't.

And the reality of Dawkins methods ( and intellectual dishonesty ) here:
I saw that series - that Dawkins produced - Sheldrakes assertions are spot on.
Not a shread of evidence discussed, only Dawkins apriori prejudice
Its how the world of science works on things it does not "like"

And again with the Dawkins ranting....


Once more: the guy is an evolutionary biologist. So for starters, this isn't his field.
The guy is also retired. The scientific community doesn't bow to his will. The guy is not the "boss of science". His opinions are his and his alone. Nobody cares. (except you, apparantly).

I have now concluded that it is not possible to have a serious discussion on this forum.

Why? Because I don't agree with you?

One based on evidence rather than prejudice.
That being so, I will not continue. Which is sad.

I don't think that's sad

In any case: my advice to you is, stop expecting the scientific community to do your homework. Don't come on here with the excuse that "nobody wants to fund these studies" with accusations of closed mindedness and whatnot. These are all excuses - if not lies.

For crying out loud, Ken Ham managed to gather no less then 100 million dollars to build his ridiculous Ark Encounter. And you're telling me you can't manage to get a fraction of that for a telepathy experiment? BE SERIOUS!

If you can't manage to find funding for such a study, it can only be by lack of trying.

By the way I love science.
I owned my first chemistry set age 8
Built my first radios age 9
Bought a telescope age 10
Built my first oscilloscope age 11
Read about quantum theory
Read my first book on black holes in teens.
It was reading quantum theory and bohr vs einstein that first led me to question.
Is this reality? Or just an equation that fits it? At at time before my maths could cope with it! That came later...
So later read books on philosophy of science - what it can tell us and what it cannot.

And so on...

Therefor, your accusations at the address of working scientists are valid?

Again: BE SERIOUS.

 

[tas8831]

So it is subjective then: "reputable academics" - good old boys who think as you do?

'Good old boys' with requisite and relevant knowledge and experience.

Those good old boys have prejudice that prevents them looking objectively.

And the fringe heroes - what of their prejudice?

You are CLEARLY prejudiced to accept even debunked claims of miracles, and to automatically side with fringe pseudoscientists like Sheldrake, presenting every inflated claim as irrefutable proof.

I thought you claimed to like science?

 

[tas8831]

Debates do not matter. They are intellectual masturbation and ego tripping. They are more about who is the best speaker rather then who is actually correct.

E X A C T L Y

Sure they can be fun and interesting to watch, but again, when it comes to the actual science - nobody cares about debates. The vast majority of active scientists are all much too busy doing actual research and publishing papers and simply don't have time to engage in silly debates.

Indeed.
The fringe types, on the other hand, are skilled at public debate because besides writing books for lay audiences, THAT IS ALL THEY DO. Kent Hovind, creationist felon, used to boast about doing something crazy like 300 debates a year.
And at his debate that I saw, he was, indeed, very slick, charming, likeable, etc. He was also full of crap. And that did not matter one bit to the bused-in followers. I should note that the school newspaper did a story about the debate a week later, and while those interviewed at the debate tended to consider Hovind the 'winner', the Christian group that invited him and organized the debate issued an apology, indicating that they had thought he would talk more about science and not be such a 'showman.'

 

[DogmaHunter]

E X A C T L Y

Indeed.
The fringe types, on the other hand, are skilled at public debate because besides writing books for lay audiences, THAT IS ALL THEY DO. Kent Hovind, creationist felon, used to boast about doing something crazy like 300 debates a year.
And at his debate that I saw, he was, indeed, very slick, charming, likeable, etc. He was also full of crap. And that did not matter one bit to the bused-in followers. I should note that the school newspaper did a story about the debate a week later, and while those interviewed at the debate tended to consider Hovind the 'winner', the Christian group that invited him and organized the debate issued an apology, indicating that they had thought he would talk more about science and not be such a 'showman.'

That's a hilarious anecdote

What I find most amazing in this particular discussion, is @Mountainmike 's insistence on the "conspiracy" (by lack of a better word) of the scientific community to "boycot" or whatever, such things as research into telepathy.

Especially that claim that it is refused any funding..... That's just retarded and so obviously false.
If Ken Ham manages to gather 100 million to build a ridiculous "ark" replica, it's beyond ridiculous to suggest that they can't find a fraction of that for telepathy studies.

They could in fact also get the million dollars from the James Randi foundation by demonstrating that telepathy is real, lol. There's your funding, not just for one study, but plenty of them.

It's excuse after excuse and accusation after accusation.
All bark and no bite.

And the continued implication that the opinions of a retired scientist, who wasn't even active in that field, somehow matter to the scientific community, as if Dawkins is "Mr Science" himself and that he somehow decides what gets to be studied and what not.

It's amazing how transparant these obvious lies and falsehoods are. And yet they double down on it with every response.

I don't get it. Do they actually believe the things they say or do they really think that people are such fools that they won't be seeing through it?

That's a serious question, by the way. I honestly don't know.

 

[tas8831]

That's a hilarious anecdote

And true. In the videos, they panned the audience several times, but I never saw myself

What I find most amazing in this particular discussion, is @Mountainmike 's insistence on the "conspiracy" (by lack of a better word) of the scientific community to "boycot" or whatever, such things as research into telepathy.

Especially that claim that it is refused any funding.....

In grad school, my advisor was unique in that he had been continually funded by either the NSF or NIH for close to 50 years straight (he never retired, died after going home from work at age 83). Then one year, his NIH grant did not get renewed. The same year, his NSF grant application was rejected.
Must have been a conspiracy...

Most of my grant applications have been rejected. Most of my colleagues' grant applications have been rejected. Only something like 10% of NSF grant applications make it through on their first try. Tons of conspiracies to suppress the TRUTH, I guess.

This is one of several things that annoy me about these sorts of claims - either the person making them has no idea how research funding works (MOST grant applications are rejected, not just the silly ones from fringe loons), or hopes that those reading or hearing their claims won't know any better. So they are either deceptive or ignorant (or gullible).

 

[tas8831]

Also, regarding Sheldrake and his telepathy deal - the issue in science is one of mechanism.

It is all well and good for Sheldrake to conjecture about telepathy in dogs and all, but what is the mechanism by which this takes place?

 

[tas8831]

When it comes to eucharistic miracles - some were validated in a number of forensic labs ( by not revealing the origin of sample, simply asking what it was).

Was the 'chain of custody' verified? That is, was it known and controlled and corroborated that the pained heart tissue was from the same un-interfered with container that the wafer was put in?
You rely 100% on these books being 100% truthful and accurate, but you have 0% way of knowing if this is the case.

I would like to know, EXACTLY, how ANY pathologist can tell if cardiac muscle muscle came from a person experiencing pain.

Tell me - no, I am not going to read your books because I am 100% certain the answer to this question is not in any of them.

Even if ultimately there something to these 'miracles', the embellishment of the events (like claiming the heart tissue had gone through pain) makes it less likely that educated people will even want to consider them because of the stupidity of these embellishments - it renders the entire claim untrustworthy.

 

[Tom 1]

You mean, "personal" observation, i'm guessing.

Yes, any proof of biblical teachings is in the doing of them, and finding out what happens.

Because you might care if what you believe is actually true?

I don't have any reason not to believe that.

Cultures that don't apply such a rule at least to a certain extent, do not survive.

That gives a fair bit of leeway. Civilizations with strict caste systems have lasted a long time. The sheer volume of human sacrifice in Aztec civilization at least indicates a very different value system for some members of society over others.

Golden Rule - Wikipedia

The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets, 1754-1790 BCE.

According to Greg M. Epstein, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely," but belief in God is not necessary to endorse it.[6] Simon Blackburn also states that the Golden Rule can be "found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".[7]

Humanists and ethics specialists tend to get pretty woolly on this kind of thing - I haven't read any expert in the relevant period of ancient history - and the relevant languages - I mean any of the best known specialists - whose ideas coincide with this, based on their published writing and lectures. Hammurabi's and Ur-Nammu's preceding code weren't used in any way for actual legal practice or civic codes, they were more like statements of 'look what a great guy I am, these are ways in which I deal with things justly' etc. That said, apart from all the warfare and slavery, Sumerian and later Babylonian society appears to have been very civil and there were certainly shared moral and ethical codes, when understood within their context.
'No religion misses entirely' is really stretching it pretty thin - religions appear similar superficially but aren't. Compare Christ's 'love your enemies' with what Mohammed actually said (and did), below.

Then some other tradition would have taken its place. Again, good ideas about how to act in a social environment are not the exclusive property of any religion. Sure, religions have acted like the carrier of sorst, to implement order and such values. Kind of like a catalyst. But religion is not the originator of such ideas. Religions were a means to an end in that respect.

Where do you think the ideas did originate? Religion as a shared enterprise is a pretty good candidate, not that it necessarily is how ethical and moral behaviours developed, I don't think it is, but in coming together in community religion certainly played a major role.

"If you murder one human, it is as if you murdered human kind. If you save one human, it is like saving human kind" -Mohammed.

I like that.
There's fun and inspirational stuff in most all religions.

That's not the actual quote, you can check a variety of translations but here's one of Islam's most influential commentators (Umar Ibn Kathir) on the actual verse and its context -
'when a Muslim is killed it is as if the entire humanity is killed. When an infidel is killed it has no relevance. Similarly, when a Believer’s (i.e. Muslim’s) life is saved it is as if the entire humanity is saved. You see, in the Qur’an and in Islam what matters most is the lives of Muslims and not the lives of infidels.'

The christian idea of original sin. Horrible, horrible idea.

What do you think original sin means?

 

[tas8831]

Here is some cardiac muscle:

How do we tell is the person this came from experienced pain or trauma?

 

[Mountainmike]

Also, regarding Sheldrake and his telepathy deal - the issue in science is one of mechanism.

It is all well and good for Sheldrake to conjecture about telepathy in dogs and all, but what is the mechanism by which this takes place?

At last someone asking a sensible question. The evidence stands regardless. Moss on a north wall of a churchyard was observed by chinesse to cure people for millenia before penicillin was isolated.

If these 'reports' actually exist, then it seems that a single book should not be the only place they are to be found.

Let me know where you find them.
Otherwise there is only a precis on realpresence.org

Nothing unusual there. Many papers and thesis can only be bought. When I recently had surgery on my knees and had choices of operation I had to pay to download research on those options too.

One correction - Woolfe mentions that Sheldrake's TED talk was 'banned',

Woolfe is the idiot who failed to prepare for the debate with Sheldrake on telepathy and got caught out. No wonder he is embarassed enouh to rant: Like dawkins he is an embarassment.

And back to definitions of straw men. It doesnt matter who sheldrake is - the evidence is valid or not regardless.

It's not my job to evaluate this evidence and peer review such studies, because I am not a peer, nore am I a scientist.

Evidently.

So, no biology background, and this odd tendency to side with fringe woo meisters. Interesting.

Other than still substantial earnings from a molecular genetics company I helped set up?You have no idea what I know. You do love your straw men.

And still nobody discusses the evidence.
So I am out.

I shall leave you atheists in the prejudice echo chamber!

 

[tas8831]

Check out the Nolan sisters experiment - see if you can find a flaw.

So... you accept the results of an experiment with a sample size of N=1 to be an all-encompassing 'proof' of an hypothesis?

Or just for Sheldrake and miracles?

Where were his controls? Why, when more people do try these things, do we get nothing better than chance?

 

[tas8831]

At last someone asking a sensible question. The evidence stands regardless. Moss on a north wall of a churchyard was observed by chinesse to cure people for millenia before penicillin was isolated

Geat. But we know the mechanism. Why isn't Rupert even looking for one?

Let me know where you find them.

So you are admitting that the only source for these 'confirmations' are in books written by Catholic miracle hawkers... Got it.

Otherwise there is only a precis on realpresence.org

Lame religious website.

Nothing unusual there. Many papers and thesis can only be bought. When I recently had surgery on my knees and had choices of operation I had to pay to download research on those options too.

Right... So official reports of God-affirming miracles are... not available to spread the Word. Makes sense...

Woolfe is the idiot who failed to prepare for the debate with Sheldrake on telepathy and got caught out. No wonder he is embarassed : Like dawkins he is an embarassment.

Excellent fact-filled rebuttal. Looks like fallacious argumentation is OK when you use it.

And back to definitions of straw men. It doesnt matter who sheldrake is - the evidence is valid or not regardless.

I don't think you understand what a strawman argument is.

So, no biology background, and this odd tendency to side with fringe woo meisters. Interesting.

Other than still substantial earnings from a molecular genetics company I helped set up?]/quote]

LOL!

You are implying that you have an in-depth knowledge of molecular genetics, yet hawk a miracle claim in which "white cells" were identified despite "no DNA" being present?

Pardon me, but I smell bovine excrement.

You have no idea what I know.

I have a very good idea of what you know if the things you have posted on here are indicative of your knowledge base.

You do love your straw men.

Again, you don't seem to know what a straw man is,.

And still nobody discusses the evidence.

You've not presented any.

You have hawked books and personalities, you've insisted that fringe nonsense is true, but you have produced NO evidence to discuss.

So I am out.

Bye.[/quote]

 

[Mountainmike]

So... you accept the results of an experiment with a sample size of N=1 to be an all-encompassing 'proof' of an hypothesis?

Or just for Sheldrake and miracles?

Where were his controls? Why, when more people do try these things, do we get nothing better than chance?

I didnt say so. The word was "evidence". Provided there were no holes in method, it is clearly evidence of more than chance. And that is the problem with science establishment. You cannot get funding for repeats. Grant agencies wont fund it, and journals wont publish them Check out journal terms.

When it was repeated by an independent group too many changes were made to consider the results comparable.

But it is not the only experiment. See for example this:
http://deanradin.com/evidence/Sheldrake2003-2.pdf
It seems to matter how well callers know each other.

 

[Mountainmike]

Here is some cardiac muscle:

How do we tell is the person this came from experienced pain or trauma?

Read the forensic reports. I am not a pathologist. They seemed convinced.

 

[Mountainmike]

A sensible question deserves an answer.
I have my back agasinst the wall to get some tax returns done for the next few days - so I have picked up the first thing to hand - which is english - tixtla is mainly spanish.

The following analysis refers buenos airies regarding a sample (that was provided without history to the pathologist other than a sample number so it was blind, the pathologist had no information of the source - the slide was prepared by a pathoogy lab: and I quote:

"The slide contains cardiac tissue that displays degenerative changes of the myocardial tissue with loss of striations of muscle fibres, nuclear pyrokinis, aggregates of mixed inflammatory cells, chronic inflamatory (machrophages) and small numbers of acute inflammatory cells (leukocytes) the direction of the fibres indicates it is relatively close to the valvular region in the ventricular area"

So not just leucocytes, also cell presentation, pyrokins, macrophages.


I pick tixtla as important because the sample revealed blood had pushed out of the remaining bread, not into it. Which has massive implication for dismissing fraud.

The interesting thing about lanciano, is it was still recognisable as heart myocardium after almost a millenium! Try putting a small amount of ham on the window sill, see what is left after even a month. It wouldnt be identifable is my guess! Certainly not after a year...

And thats all I have time for at present.
And this really isnt the thread for this which is abut the meaning of "supernaturla"
I closed the thread about eucharistic miracles, becasue nobody there wanted to discuss evidence. Preferring the usual prejudice.

Here is some cardiac muscle:

How do we tell is the person this came from experienced pain or trauma?

 

[tas8831]

Read the forensic reports. I am not a pathologist. They seemed convinced.

No, they seem like frauds. Or their words were twisted by hoaxers.

There is literally no way to identify 'pain' in ANY tissue.

Someone with you amazing background in molecular genetics should have noticed something odd in such a claim.

Hmmmm..

Why didn't you?

I thought you were out of here?

Bye.

 

[Mountainmike]

I said trauma.

Now read the report I just posted for you.
A pathologist disagrees with you and explains why who does this for a living.
"thanks" would be courtesy!

But as noted- atheists always let their prejudice trump scientific evidence.

So after that last insult, I will leave you to the echo chamber!
Where you all ignore the evidence!

No, they seem like frauds. Or their words were twisted by hoaxers.

There is literally no way to identify 'pain' in ANY tissue.

Someone with you amazing background in molecular genetics should have noticed something odd in such a claim.

Hmmmm..

Why didn't you?

I thought you were out of here?

Bye.

 

[tas8831]

The following analysis refers buenos airies regarding a sample (that was provided without history to the pathologist other than a sample number so it was blind, the pathologist had no information of the source - the slide was prepared by a pathoogy lab:

Right, so no way of knowing whether or not this was actually the miracle wafer sample, we only have the word of the person writing a book about miracles. Got it.

and I quote:

"The slide contains cardiac tissue that displays degenerative changes of the myocardial tissue with loss of striations of muscle fibres, nuclear pyrokinis, aggregates of mixed inflammatory cells, chronic inflamatory (machrophages) and small numbers of acute inflammatory cells (leukocytes) the direction of the fibres indicates it is relatively close to the valvular region in the ventricular area"

So not just leucocytes, also cell presentation, pyrokins, macrophages.

Great. But nothing about pain.

I pick tixtla as important because the sample revealed blood had pushed out of the remaining bread, not into it. Which has massive implication for dismissing fraud.

Not at all.
I saw the pictures. They totally looked like someone had sprinkled a red liquid on the surface.

And thats all I have time for at present.
And this really isnt the thread for this which is abut the meaning of "supernaturla"
I closed the thread about eucharistic miracles, becasue nobody there wanted to discuss evidence. Preferring the usual prejudice.

Whatever.

 

[Mountainmike]

It will not surprise you there was a chain of custody managed by a solicitor. Forensic labs have to do it! Their day job is criminal evidence! That is why the sample was handed blind but carrying an ID tag.

I saw the pictures. They totally looked like someone had sprinkled a red liquid on the surface.

YOu have something in common with Joe Nickell then
He thinks his opinion on what blood samples looks like trumps lab reports of what what science saystoo!

You are in a prison of prejudice of your own making.
Most atheists are.

I prefer science.


The en tire reason you should look at the ENTIRE report is because of such as chains of custody, so you dont do the normal atheist prejudice..!

Farewell.

 

[tas8831]

I said trauma.

Online sources said "pain."

Are you renouncing them? Your fellow miracle acceptors?

Now read the report I just posted for you.
A pathologist disagrees with you and explains why who does this for a living.
"thanks" would be courtesy!

No, he really doesn't. No mention of pain. And maybe the trauma occurred when the heart was cut up and put on the wafer?

But as noted- atheists always let their prejudice trump scientific evidence.

But as noted- those who believe in miracles in eucharists always let their prejudice, their desire to BELIEVE! - trump scientific evidence.

So after that last insult, I will leave you to the echo chamber!
Where you all ignore the evidence!

LOL!

Whatever - going to ask to have this thread closed, too? Probably a good idea.