"Do Miracles Happen?"

[salimfadhley]

Usually declaring something to be a miracle is a way of suppressing further rational inquiry. It's a science stopper.

Whether it be a "miraculous apparition of the blessed virgin" or an "economic miracle" - the purpose of the M word is to lull our critical faculties to sleep.

Speaking of economic miracles, until recently we were told the principality of Dubai was one of 'em. Now this land of gleaming towers is revealed to be just another corrupt land subject to the laws of nature and economics. The miracle is simply a delusion.


But Faith is a 'power' - which I have said we don't understand.

It's impossible to debate this kind of nonsense since it's defining one vague concept in terms of another vague concept (wrapped in quotes so we know the author does not actually mean power in the sense understood by science).

[SorryImPsychic]

Usually declaring something to be a miracle is a way of suppressing further rational inquiry. It's a science stopper....

It's impossible to debate this kind of nonsense since it's defining one vague concept in terms of another vague concept (wrapped in quotes so we know the author does not actually mean power in the sense understood by science).

Re: faith is a 'power'

What is science's understanding of power?

Indeed further rational inquiry into the nature of Faith is required. Dismissing Faith as nonsense is not a feature of rational inquiry.

[SorryImPsychic]

Rubbish! There is absolutely no evidence that our minds can directly influence events in the outside world.

You've got to be joking? If you havn't come across evidence then your field of inquiry is very narrow.

[Tony Williams]

Indeed further rational inquiry into the nature of Faith is required. Dismissing Faith as nonsense is not a feature of rational inquiry.
Faith is simply a subset of belief - it is belief unsupported by objective evidence.

I believe that the sun will rise tomorrow morning; I don't need to have faith that it will. But belief in a god or any other supernatural occurrence requires faith.

[brianp]

Re: faith is a 'power'

What is science's understanding of power?

Indeed further rational inquiry into the nature of Faith is required. Dismissing Faith as nonsense is not a feature of rational inquiry.

Power is the rate of doing work. In everyday life we measure power in Watts or Horse-Power.

Faith is belief without evidence or, perhaps more often, despite evidence to the contrary. As Mark Twain put it "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Belief without evidence is inherently irrational - consequently it is not susceptible to rational inquiry and can quite properly be dismissed as nonsense.

[chaggle]

You've got to be joking? If you havn't come across evidence then your field of inquiry is very narrow.

I, for one, have not come across evidence that our minds can directly influence events in the outside world and I expect that you haven't either. I am, as always, open to being corrected.

[Pebble]

One type of power is the ability to control the behaviour of many people. We see this in politics and religion, in industry and legal systems etc. There is little doubt that charismatic leaders attract followers who behave in a faithful fashion and this gives the leader in particular and the group he/she leads in particular great power. Where one can shift the invested 'faith' from an individual to an idea (e.g. god, meeting the consumer's needs, 'protecting individual freedom') this provides continuity - since less able leaders can simply claim to be imperfect representatives or proponents of the perfect idea.
I don't see this as anything other than an extension of social cohesion, the kind of banding together and concerted action that has made the human species dominant. It is simply being practiced on a larger scale.
The question therefore for SiP, is what she intends to convey, beyond this suggestion?

[SorryImPsychic]

Belief without evidence is inherently irrational - consequently it is not susceptible to rational inquiry and can quite properly be dismissed as nonsense.

Then why do you believe in the Darwinian Theory of Evolution?

[DrS]

Oh Sip!

No-one "believes" in it. It is the best hypothesis to explain all the evidence, not a matter of faith or creed. If someone came along tomorrow with a sufficiently robust alternative explanation people would listen to it!

Do you not see how that is completely different to belief?

[SorryImPsychic]

One type of power is the ability to control the behavior of many people.

The question therefore for SiP, is what she intends to convey, beyond this suggestion?

You address here what we might call political/emotional power related to social cohesion (cohersion too).This power is based on emotion and emotional manipulation.


But the type of power we should seek to understand is human energetic power as in the electromagnetic energy we transmit and receive.


Thoughts can indeed be perceived as a form of energy in the most fundamental of senses, not strictly speaking, in the sense that Marieb describes as action potentials, but more in the sense of graded potentials 'because their magnitude varies directly with the intensity or strength of the stimulus.5 The more intense the stimulus, the greater the voltage changes and the farther the current flows.5 ... the human body is indeed an aerial that can transmit and receive energy. Thoughts and their concomitant energy do have an outlet by means of visible emotional expression and the radiation of an electromagnetic (EM) field.[William L Smith- Journal of Theoretics Vol. 4-2 ]

[SorryImPsychic]

No-one "believes" in it. It is the best hypothesis to explain all the evidence, not a matter of faith or creed. Do you not see how that is completely different to belief?

No DrS - Darwinian Theory has all the hallmarks of a belief system!

It is not the best hypothesis nor does it explain any evidence. Darwin based his theory on the hypothetical idea of transition from species to species - yet no valid evidence of this actually exists. Darwin even admits this fact.

Here I will paraphrase Dr John Angus Campbell (Ph.D in Rhetoric) - a man of brilliant intellect - and I strongly recommend this video to you where here discusses Darwin's rhetoric. (Darwin aside I'm sure you will find Campbell academically interesting.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_esXHcinOdA

Here I will paraphrase Dr Campbell:

Darwinian Theory of Evolution is an ideology - it is not based on evidence - in fact, since its inception, Darwinian theory has had to be continuously revised in light of conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Theory is a dogma which cannot be challenged or questioned in current scientific climate...however believing in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory unreflectively is a sin against the intellect and indeed is a great obstacle to liberal thought and liberal education.

[polomint38]

SiP I have highlighted two pieces of your quote, Darwinian theory according to this quote is a dogma which cannot be challenged, although the same quote says that has been continuously revised based on evidence. It is either set in stone (dogma) or changeable (continuously revised) , make your mind up fool.



Darwinian Theory of Evolution is an ideology - it is not based on evidence - in fact, since its inception, Darwinian theory has had to be continuously revised in light of conflicting evidence. Evolutionary Theory is a dogma which cannot be challenged or questioned in current scientific climate...however believing in Darwinian Evolutionary Theory unreflectively is a sin against the intellect and indeed is a great obstacle to liberal thought and liberal education.

[Pebble]

But the type of power we should seek to understand is human energetic power as in the electromagnetic energy we transmit and receive.

[COLOR=Black][/FONT]

To seek to understand something it must first exist. Given that despite all the evidence (closely related species, DNA evolution, viral evolution, Fossils etc) you regard Evolution as a belief rather than evidence based, you set the bar of evidence so high that your 'human energetic power' hasn't got a prayer!

[brianp]

No DrS - Darwinian Theory has all the hallmarks of a belief system!

It is not the best hypothesis nor does it explain any evidence. Darwin based his theory on the hypothetical idea of transition from species to species - yet no valid evidence of this actually exists. Darwin even admits this fact.

Here I will paraphrase Dr John Angus Campbell (Ph.D in Rhetoric) - a man of brilliant intellect - and I strongly recommend this video to you where here discusses Darwin's rhetoric. (Darwin aside I'm sure you will find Campbell academically interesting.)

Campbell may be brilliant in his own field but he is as scientifically illiterate and ignorant as your good self.

On the transition from species to species. see:

Evidence of evolutionary transitionals
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html

Evolution -- Transitionals & Observed Speciation
http://darwiniana.org/transitionals.htm

Species in Transition
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/species-in-transition

(http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/species-in-transition/)

[DrS]

Campbell may be brilliant in his own field but he is as scientifically illiterate and ignorant as your good self.Or me. Rhetoric is part of my field of expertise, and I could analyse any text within its own and modern contexts for rhetorical effect, but I wouldn't have the first idea about the scientific rigour of the ideas contained within it.

[SorryImPsychic]

It is either set in stone (dogma) or changeable (continuously revised)

Yes you are correct in the contradiction here....but the dominant Darwiniam paradigm still remains. The goalposts might shift but the paradigm is still dogmatically that of Darwinian Evolution.

[Tony Williams]

No-one "believes" in it. It is the best hypothesis to explain all the evidence, not a matter of faith or creed. If someone came along tomorrow with a sufficiently robust alternative explanation people would listen to it!

Do you not see how that is completely different to belief?

I would have to disagree with your first sentence. I do "believe" in the theory of evolution, just as I believe that the earth orbits the sun rather than the other way around. In both cases, my belief is solidly grounded in an overwhelming body of objective evidence. These beliefs require no "faith", as needed by religious or other beliefs not founded on such evidence.

[SorryImPsychic]

Given that despite all the evidence (closely related species, DNA evolution, viral evolution, Fossils etc)

The questions are really:

How did DNA arise in the first place replete with its complex protein folding instructions which need DNA to manufacture these proteins in the first place?

How do viruses continually engineer survival responses specific to their immediate needs?

Why doesn't the fossil record reveal any intermediate/transition stages of any species?

Why do the fossils of our so called human ancestors not contain one bone that is the same as humans?

[SorryImPsychic]

On the transition from species to species. see:

Evidence of evolutionary transitionals
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/benton2.html


2Lawrence M. Witmer, “Palaeontology: Inside the oldest bird brain,” Nature (http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v430/n7000/full/430619a_r.html&filetype=&dynoptions=) 430, 619 - 620 (05 August 2004); doi:10.1038/430619a.
A more shameless example of spin doctoring by a Darwin Party hack could hardly be found. The evidence showed that Archaeopteryx not only had the wings of a bird, but it had the skull of a bird, the eyes of a bird, and the pilot and onboard computer of a bird. And he has the audacity to say this confirms it as a near-perfect transitional form between reptiles and birds!

[brianp]

How did DNA arise in the first place replete with its complex protein folding instructions which need DNA to manufacture these proteins in the first place?

Why doesn't the fossil record reveal any intermediate/transition stages of any species?

Why do the fossils of our so called human ancestors not contain one bone that is the same as humans?

I'm no biologist but these three are very easily answered - It didn't - It does - They do.

Before DNA arose there was RNA which is rather clever in that it can carry a genetic blueprint AND act as an enzyme. RNA can self duplicate AND duplicate other RNA molecules AND catalyse the formation of proteins. RNA based life forms evolved and the RNA (for its own purposes) itself evolved all the skills which were eventually utilised by its descendant, the DNA of DNA-based life-forms.

The second is a ridiculous assertion - never heard of Archaeopteryx and Tiktaalik?

The third is simply wrong. Many of the bones of the several varieties of Homo Erectus below the neck are virtually indistinguishable from those of modern humans. As we look at earlier and earlier ancestors, the shapes of the bones change very slowly - it's mostly their proportions and their sizes relative to other bones that change. Exactly as we would expect from evolution through natural selection.


How do viruses continually engineer survival responses specific to their immediate needs?Bog standard evolution. A threat arises which can kill or impair the virus. Among the trillions of virus particles numerous mutations will occur every time the virus reproduces. Many of those mutations will kill the virus - many will have no effect - but some will give the virus carrying that mutation a survival advantage in the current threat conditions. Virus carrying such advantageous mutations will soon predominate over their unprotected cousins to a greater or lesser extent dependent on the selection pressure (ie the severity of the threat weighed against the strength of the advantage gained from the mutation.) More mutations occur and the cycle repeats - and soon, after a few generations (each generation is of the order of a day), all the surviving virus carries an assemblage of traits which render it virtually immune to that threat. Then the virus probably won't change much until the next threat arises.

[Cuddles]

How did DNA arise in the first place replete with its complex protein folding instructions which need DNA to manufacture these proteins in the first place?

How do viruses continually engineer survival responses specific to their immediate needs?

Why doesn't the fossil record reveal any intermediate/transition stages of any species?

Why do the fossils of our so called human ancestors not contain one bone that is the same as humans?

Why are creationist so universally pathetic? I mean come on, at least try to have some imagination rather than just repeating the same nonsensical lies that have been trotted out for years. David Icke manages better than this, and he's genuinely insane.

[Harryprice]

But the type of power we should seek to understand is human energetic power as in the electromagnetic energy we transmit and receive.

It's obviously true that everything transmits electromagnetic radiation purely because it has a temperature above absolute zero. I'm guessing, though, that you're referring to some other wavelength than far infrared. Could you please give details?