Posted on 12/25/2008 7:55:05 PM PST by Soliton
After 10 years and many thousands of replies, I am leaving FR.
I don't really care, and I don't know why anyone else would.
I am leaving before I am banned (again). Truth doesn't seem to matter on FR. I don't know if it is donations or sympathetic opinions that do, but I have been suspended twice when I followed the rules and the people who complained to the moderators didn't, yet the moderators sided with them.
For the record, evolution is a fact and the Shroud of Turin is a fraud. I would prove it if the admin moderators would let me, but they won't. Your resident "expert", Swordmaker won't debate me because he can't.
I will work to build a forum where members have rights and truth matters.
Merry Christmas
I only have one web page open at the moment, but it appears to contain staff profiles...
Click here.
You know, Coyote, you might recall that people on the crevo threads (most often the cre- side) would post from discredited sites and get flamed to a crisp for their poor choice of partners and/or source material.
In that spirit, it is a bit puzzling that you would quote from the site that you did, as a reputable source, on Free Republic, and (apparently) take the position that you are still acting as a conservative.
Look at the biographical details of the staff on the page I posted and you might see why it looks dubious.
Yeah, I know, you want to prevent the trashing of the conservative movement by its becoming too closely wedded to Christian fundamentalism in the public mindTM. But how is posting from a moonbat anti-religious, anti-conservative site going to *COUNTER* that impression?
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
So, basically, you're chalking up spontaneous remissions to God.
Strange how God can cure allergies, asthma, diabetes, high cholesterol, cancer, and 'a hole in the heart' - all, except the hole (AFAIK), can be effected by diet, exercise, and spontaneous remission - yet seems unable to give a man a new set of legs, restore vision, or grow a new set of adult teeth.
I'll happily change the recipient of the miracled teeth to someone I know, if 'selfishness' matters. The person I'm thinking of lost them because of poor nutrition, due to neglect and abuse, during her childhood.
The offer will still stand.
Doesn't a part of your mind scream, "That doesn't make sense! God is all powerful! Why won't He do that?!"
You are an intelligent person. That is obvious. Why can't you see the glaring problem there?
Go to the link and search for the words "WHEN DOCTORS AGREE" and you will arrive at the top of the story.
The hardtext is available from Amazon.com:
# Publisher: Dover Publications (January 1, 1990)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0486261859
# ISBN-13: 978-0486261850
and if I am reading correctly is also available via Kindle.
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
No, I didn't break any deal with Him. He straightened out my life and I gave it to Him.
I told Him that I'd even become a missionary and go to Africa, if He wanted. I simply neglected to type that part in, by accident. I know what I'm thinking but it doesn't always get down on paper and since it wasn't spelled wrong, the computer didn't tell me I left it out. No program for that yet, that I know of.
Hmmm. No stereotypes about scientists *there*, eh?
And you're in San Francisco. Close enough to Silicon Valley, I guess. Have you considered visiting Iceland?
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas!
AN EARLY UPPER PLEISTOCENE AND AFRICAN ORIGIN FOR THE NEANDERTHALS
Patrick Fleming, February 1992
Summary
This contribution to the ongoing Neanderthal debate (Graves, 1991) postulates that the species Homo sapiens originated in Africa in the early Upper Pleistocene. This population then split into two groups. One group migrated to the Near East and Europe where it developed into Neanderthal. The other group stayed in Africa and developed into anatomically modern Homo sapiens. This latter group then migrated from Africa sometime later. The article will indicate that:
i) Homo erectus was a world-wide taxon that died out in all locations except Africa where it developed into archaic Homo sapiens (AHS);
ii) All archaic Homo sapiens populations (Africa, Europe, Asia) belong to the one taxon that originated in Africa;
iii) Anatomically modern Homo sapiens (AMH) belonged to the same species as AHS and was an adaptation to the warm conditions of Africa;
iv) Neanderthal belonged to the same species as archaic Homo sapiens and was an adaptation to the icy conditions of Europe and Northern latitudes.
THE STATUS OF HOMO ERECTUS
Rightmire (1990) discusses the following questions in relation to Homo erectus:
i) whether Homo erectus is best defined as an arbitrary grade in the Homo lineage or a discrete entity;
ii) the necessity, or even utility, of recognizing characters which are unique (autapomorphic) to Homo erectus if this species is to be diagnosed adequately relative to other taxa;
iii) Evolutionary tempos and whether gradual change can be documented within Homo erectus over a long span of Pleistocene time.
He presents a case for viewing Homo erectus as a real taxon. His description of this species lists many characters which are primitive and which are not shared with modern humans. It is also possible to identify some traits which are clearly derived for Homo erectus in comparison to earlier Homo or Australopithecus. These include a heavy brow, midline keeling and parietal tori, strong flexion of the occiput and development of a prominent transverse torus, features of the cranial base and expansion of cranial capacity. Such characters serve to diagnose the species in a more precise way, and it can be argued, he states, that Homo erectus is not simply an arbitrarily defined segment of a lineage. This paleospecies had ancestors and probably left descendants, but these groups can be distinguished from one another on the basis of morphological comparisons. Regarding ancestors he states that two taxa may be present, as both large and small-brained morphs are present.
Following the emergence of Homo erectus, he continues, systematic change is not easily documented. There is a trend towards endocranial expansion, which is apparent particularly in the later assemblages at Zhoukoudian and Ngandong. The growth of brain size with time depends on the date assigned to the Ngandong crania. If these crania are included then brain volume increases at a rate of about 180 ml/my. However, there is much doubt about the age of the Ngandong hominids, and assigning them a late Middle Pleistocene date biases the analysis. If a regression line is constructed without reference to Ngandong the slope drops to about 120 ml/my. This result cannot be distinguished from zero, and there is no evidence that the trend is statistically significant. Other characters change slowly or not at all. Towards the close of the Middle Pleistocene, there are signs that some of these traits begin to change more rapidly. It is during this period that populations of Homo erectus must have given way to the first representatives of a new species.
Rightmire states that early in the Middle Pleistocene, Homo erectus can be documented from fossils found in the South, Eastern and Northwestern parts of Africa, in the Far Eastern tropics and in the cooler reaches of Northern China. Populations inhabiting these far-flung regions of the Old World are anatomically similar, and the morphology of the species seems to have changed little over more than a million years. However, differences in behaviour are apparent. In Africa, Middle Pleistocene humans utilized an Acheulian technology, while at Zhoukoudian the chopping tools associated with Homo erectus do not include hand axes. In Java, few stone tools of any sort are found in the deposits yielding ancient hominids. This suggests that Homo erectus groups were adapting differently to local circumstances.
[snip] Source
Sure those things sometimes can be related to diet and exercise.
Spontaneous remission though? That’s presuming that such a thing really exists and that the healing is not an answer to prayer. However, knowing the medical (and scientific) community’s attitude towards the supernatural, they would just chalk it up to inexplicable spontaneous remission than admit that God had anything to do with it.
Besides, those conditions that are treated with diet and exercise take time. It’s not an instantaneous thing. What take the time is convincing the doctors and waiting for them to run the tests confirming.
If it’s not reasonable that God would do it, why is it reasonable that the human body would just decide to fix itself? Which is more probable?
Sentence 3 and Sentence 4 in the excerpt above appear to contradict one another.
An additional issue when debating someone who is not conversant with the technical language of a discipline, is that they often conflate words with specific meanings so that their sentences become (for the specialist) subtle non-statements. When the specialist attempts to point this out, he is accused of "moving the goalposts".
It can be quite frustrating.
Sources, please?
A couple of threads I found on FR (recently), for example here and here, appear, on the surface, to contradict your assertions.
In the meantime, perhaps some of the other Freepers who have been following the details more closely than I, could lay out a good comparison of the efficacy of treatments based upon ESC vs. adult stem cells?
Cheers!
Swell- the experts STILL REJECT his hypothesis
Not much hope, but the medical community has a better track record of delivering results than praying.
So the prayers of people that have lost their teeth are worthless?
However, knowing the medical (and scientific) community’s attitude towards the supernatural, they would just chalk it up to inexplicable spontaneous remission than admit that God had anything to do with it.
I'm certain that nearly everyone that has lost their teeth, vision, or an appendage have prayed their butts off for a miracle. Yet, their prayers seem to go unanswered. Hm.
If it’s not reasonable that God would do it, why is it reasonable that the human body would just decide to fix itself? Which is more probable?
You mean like a body fighting an infection? Like a hand that drops a cup that's too hot? That's the body defending - 'fixing' - itself.
I think you've confused yourself.
If you would just read the article I excerpted and linked to you might have some understanding of the Rightmire's work.
You are scanning looking for keywords and attempting to make a cogent argument from quote-mined bits and pieces.
It doesn't work.
I wonder what your opinion of a heart transplant or kidney transplant is? An organ is removed, separated from the body, a replacement is put in. You would say that is purley man at work, but I would say the inspiration, intellect, and technical talent to do such things is God-given. Not all miracles are instantaneous or without retrogression. And that’s biblical, really.
That's a softball lobbed over home plate.
Even a six year old knows that that rhw body fixes itself, perhaps with the comforting addition of a plastic bandage.
The body tries to overcome everything that attacks it. Usually it wins, but eventually it loses. You don't need divine intervention to explain any of that in 99.99% of the situations.
Science hasn't provided miracles yet, either. Treatments, yes, but not the kind of replacement that you are demanding of God so should we reject science as well?
You mean like a body fighting an infection? Like a hand that drops a cup that's too hot? That's the body defending - 'fixing' - itself.
No, that's not what I mean. Like instantaneous healing. Like something that is wrong physiologically being corrected intrinsically, not superficially. Cured and healed, not treated.
From your post earlier....
If you can show me how to miracle myself a new set of teeth or perfect vision, I'll fall to my knees, accept Jesus and do missionary work in Iraq.
Since you're so bent on disproving miracles, I'd guess that is a pretty safe statement to make. How sure are you that you wouldn't just find some way to explain all that away?
People who want to believe will, and others won't, even if someone rises from the dead.
??? Non-sequitur ???
Apparently one may use embryonic stem cells or adult stem cells (broad brush, from a layperson w.r.t. that field).
From the little I have read on FR, adult stem cell therapies are much more effective than embryonic -- hence the flood of demands that the government fund embryonic stem cell research, like the one in California for $6 billion or so...the thinking being (endorsed by libertarians and Free Market Types alike) is that if the treatment regime showed promise, then *private* money would flood in, in the hopes of exploiting the breakthrough for cash, and so government funding would be unnecessary.
Why you happened to compare this to prayer is unclear to me.
However, since you mentioned prayer, you need to do an apples to apples comparison: prayer is not mechanistic, as it is by definition a *request*. And the circumstances and/or conditions under which it will be answered are not known in advance, making every prayer a "double-blind" in a sense. Of course, given that in one town Jesus was unable to do many mighty works "because of their unbelief" it looks like any attempt to systematically study prayer by a true double-blind test may run into methodological errors: all of the participants may be unaware of the study, or to which group they are assigned, but God (to whom the prayers are addressed by the participants) is : and furthermore, He is aware of the study, and the purpose of the study.
Incidentally, have you considered the idea that God expects us to exercise some effort and/work on our own behalf: we pray "Give us this day our daily bread" but we are still expected to go to work, go to the store, buy, and cook the food. A similar expectation holds with regard to medicine and/or miracles: we should do the ordinary, and be prepared to set aside our pride enough to ask God for the *extra*ordinary.
One other point -- how did George Washington die? It was the best available medical science, wasn't it? Bleeding? And how about the "prudent diet" including margarine and high carbohydrates?
If you want to bleat about the "self-correcting nature of science" (and therefore put your thumb on the scale, by implicitly accepting only the elements of science which have been proven by hindsight), go ahead. But then for a fair comparison, you'd need to have Jesus, Elijah, Moses, and St. Paul doing the miracles for comparison. Good luck with that one.
Cheers!
...oh, and Merry Christmas.
Read it- Experts STILL REJECT the classification of ER 3733 as some transiotional ‘ergaster’ model- Ignoring that doesn’t do away with that fact
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.