Posted on 11/17/2004 11:06:41 AM PST by ElkGroveDan
Mortality
7% IP 9% Control Group
Yes, the case is closed. The control group had higher mortality, wturkey.
You not only don't have the document, you are willingly letting others do your thinking for you.
Shame on you.
I'm disgusted. But not surprised. When you find some dignity come back and maybe I'll engage in honest intellectual discourse with you. But probably not.
Good luck. Oh, you don't believe in that. Well.... then, have a life.
BTW, I'm praying for you.
And to paraphrase a Henny Youngmanism:
100% of them will die eventually.
Ok. Post the document and show your numbers are correct.
Show that the control group was NOT more sick to start with.
Show that the prayed-over group had a higher percentage of re-admissions to the Coronary Care Unit, needed 4 times the number of temporary pacemakers as the control group, and three times the number of permanent pacemakers.
Explain why he did not submit his study to the Journal of American Medicine.
Statistically insignificant, particularly when you consider that he did not correct for the different initial conditions concerning the illness of the test subjects.
Conclusion: Don't bother to pray to say someone's life.
Explain why it took five years to get his study published!
How many credible journals rejected his study?
Was the Journal of American Medicine more credible in rejecting his study than the religiously biased journal that printed it?
What kind of God would respond to a few extra prayers by a stranger rather than to a mother's prayer for her son or a husband's prayer for his wife?
Is it compassion when God sides with the ones that receive the most prayers?
No significant differences between the prayer and control groups were found in days in CCU, days in hospitial, discharge medications and deaths, despite explicit prayers for "a rapid recovery and prevention of death.
Are we thus to conclude from all of the data derived in this study that although God may reflexively respond to the will of the majority, his manifestations are so marginal as to approach insignificance?
Sorry, I was off my feet for a while.
Miss me, huh?
Too bad.
Your credibility is zero.
Does that mean you are not going to pray for me anymore?
For a contrarian you assume way too much.
All you know about my thoughts about you is that your credibility is zero.
---
Over time, yes. And that's just what the evidence shows.
---
Mathematics really should be required for a degree in evolutionary biology.
Time is not a factor in a continual, on-going process. It cancels out of the equations. That's why we can study stellar life cycles in human life times even though an individual star itself takes anywhere from a million to 20 billion years to go through its life cycle.
The point is, we shouldn't HAVE to look in a fossil record, we should be able to measure speciation occurring throughout the entire biosphere right now. We should be able to take sample populations, observe speciation vectors, distribution plots and harmonic resonances around a maximized form. These are all things mathematics predicts should be happening if evolution, as currently theorized, is accurate. We don't see any of this.
The dirty little secret is that biologists with a good math background already know this. That's why they keep resurrecting the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium, and then state that we are currently in an Equilibrium period.
> That's why we can study stellar life cycles in human life times even though an individual star itself takes anywhere from a million to 20 billion years to go through its life cycle.
That's becasue there are enough stars, and stars are sufficiently simple, that the life cycle is based not on watching individual stars, but on the differences between simialr stars. Just like the fossil record.
> we should be able to measure speciation occurring throughout the entire biosphere right now
Just like we should be able to mathematically predict future history, just like Hari Seldon, yes? Predicting the future of evolution in detail is like predicting who is going to win the 2020 Presidential election, and by how many electoral college votes. In principle, with enough information both should be possible.
I assume nothing. Just going by your earlier post.
------------------------------------------
BTW, I'm praying for you.
321 posted on 11/18/2004 4:22:33 PM PST by ColoCdn
"BTW, I'm praying for you."
You ASSUMED that I would no longer be praying for you.
Credibility=MegaZero
I assumed nothing. I ASKED you if you would still be praying for me. Notice the "?"?
Now answer the question.
Are you still going to pray for me?
Bwahahahaaahaaaahaaaaa!
Someone with no credibility DEMANDING I answer the question?
AHahahahahahahahahahahahhaaaaahaaaaaa!
(Drying my eyes)
Right. Any day now.
Come back when you grow up.
BTW, I'm praying for you.
Or maybe I just forgot the quotation marks.
Hahhaahaahaahaaaaa.
Yep, now I'm just funnin' you.
Hmmm...or am I just quoting you?
I think you forgot to take your meds today.
Are you sure I don't just pray for my good health?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.