"For $24.95 and a signature anyone can become a minister. My interpretation of "shedding innocent blood" obviously doesn't agree with his although I don't feel very sorry for the abortionist either." Are you claiming that this was the case with this minister? "1. I seriously doubt the atheist media would report such a thing. 2. Wan't this what Hitler did?" 1) But the general media would. 2) Hitler was a catholic, not an atheist. peace axeman
Hehe... now that's a bit harsh. I've been wrong in the past. Debate is a great teacher. I always recommend it. After all... having my ass handed to me on a debate platter by atheists, back when I was a theist, taught me a lot. peace axeman
I don't know of any double blind study done on voodoo. I do however on the effectiveness of prayer . One I believe in New Mexico several years ago involving the praying for growth of cultures so there could be no psychological effects. Also there were some on heart attack patients, I believe in New York, and the statistical effects on the recovery or mortality rates. The heart patient one involved people praying at different places across the country for patients randomly entering a emergency room in New York, if I remember correctly. The original point about the voodoo was not that it was scientifically provable but that the local people believed it and that affected their human reason in regard to their laws and practices.
The results were dramatic and surprised many scientists.The men and women whose medical care was supplemented with prayer needed fewer drugs and spent less time on ventilators. They also fared better overall than their counterparts who received medical care but nothing more. The prayed-for patients were: Significantly less likely to require antibiotics (3 patients versus 16) Significantly less likely to develop pulmonary edema-a condition in which the lungs fill with fluid because the heart cannot pump properly (6 versus 18). Significantly less likely to require insertion of a tube into the throat to assist breathing (0 versus 12). Less likely to die (but this difference was not statistically significant). Even more outrageous experiments in distance healing involve nonhuman subjects. In a survey of 131 controlled experiments on spiritual healing, it was found that prayed-for rye grass grew taller; prayed-for yeast resisted the toxic effects of cyanide; prayed-for test-tube bacteria grew faster. "I adore these experiments," says Larry Dossey, M.D., perhaps the world's most vocal expert on prayer and medicine. "Because they don't involve humans, you can run them with fanatical precision and you can run them hundreds of times. It's the best evidence of all that prayer can change the world. And it operates as strongly on the other side of the Earth as it does at the bedside."
The study you refer to is the one entitled âPositive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Populationâ by Randolph Byrd, M.D., published in the Southern Medical Journal, July 1988. Dr. Byrd. This study has been rejected as invalid for several reasons. A big one being that the process they followed was flawed and the study was not actually double blind. Furthermore, the study has never been successfully replicated by another group. The newer Harris study attempted to and failed. Even Dossey admitted: "Do we know any more about the possible effects of prayer from this experiment? I am afraid the answer may be no." Even more troublesome is the following: When Irwin Tessman, Ph.D., professor of biological sciences at Purdue University, requested of Dr. Byrd that Dr. Tessman be allowed to review the raw data that went into the study, he was refused. Since Dr. Byrdâs claim is one of the supernatural, it would seem appropriate that all aspects of the study be reviewed by independent investigators. Something smell fishy? Ugghhh yeah These studies, to my knowledge, have all been debunked and rejected on the basis of flawed process, flawed statistics, and at least in one case, outright FRAUD. If you have links to any actual study which has been validated by the medical community (replicated and proven sound), please let us know. I am aware of no such study. The power of "extraneous" prayer to date has not been proven or accepted by medical science. Now I need to make an important distinction here. The above studies are about people being prayed for BY OTHER PEOPLE without their knowledge. Prayer by people, for themselves, and by their loved ones, I believe can have a very real positive biological effect on them. But this is explainable without the need of supernatural beings. The effects of the placebo effect and positive thought in general, and their effects on health are pretty well documented. Some reading: http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/avalos_17_3.html http://members.aol.com/garypos/medicine.html peace axeman
I was more interested in the prayers for organisms. Closer to double-blind. Remember when I said "Without something supernatural you won't believe, and because of something supernatural you won't believe." You kept trying to correct me but this is what I meant. No matter what no matter which way you are prejudiced not to believe, period. I categorically reject any analysis by secular humanism and have associates who have written articles on what a crock of lies and liars they are. I have a whole pile of books debunking that religion and their need to deny God so they themselves can be gods. No thanks. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Good morning Axe/Doubter I just want to bring up how hypocritical science can be .....To prove a god or a miracle, there must be un deniable imperical proof and evidence....yet these same doctors many times have proclaimed people dead or doomed and when they become well or live despite "undeniable illness"....they just shrug and say we don't know......Scientists scoff at the thought of a creator....but will blindly accept the idea of a "big bang" that just happened to put everything in the perfect spot ...They laugh at the thought of a creator of man....but then readily accept the idea that we evolved from apes, which in light of the fact that there are still apes in the jungle, on would think there would be continued evolution... what is more realistic in terms or percentages: The idea that ALL living creatures on earth came from a few hydrogen and oxygen cells that were hit by lightning and caused the start of all life over the course of 5 billion years....Or God created man and all the creatures? statistically and scientifically, its impossible that all living things on earth started from some dust particles and some water that got hi by lightning....in addition....Science has never been able to figure out where the animal cells came from...they know plant cells were the first ( or at least that's what they claim to know)...they just cannot figure out how plants made the jump to animal cells....what i would like to know is how come plants aren;t turning into animals today???? Science is no different then religion....it's a giant leap of faith when they cant fill in the gaps....but statistically speaking what would be the chances of all living cells on all living things, bird, trees, bugs, fish , mammals, lions, grass, amoeba's, worms, fungus, cancer, virus',ect,,,,,,,,,all came from a single dark planet energized by the sun and some water and a few cells that began reproducing??????....BTW Science also doesn't know how or why these so called cells started reproducing and splitting which again is a giant gap.
TM Welcome back. Good points. Either way it takes faith to believe in something or to believe in nothing.
Once again from a very biased religious doctor who has consistently produced FLAWED experiments, which have NOT been successfully replicated by unbiased third parties. Need I say more? peace axeman