Notices
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 214

Thread: ZELOS ASKED REV ROSWELL TO PROVE GOD EXISTS...OK READ THIS

  1. #101  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    'God' is a word. If there is anything which has caused conflict, words would be highest ranking. Let's change the term, say 'The Force' or 'The Spirit', but I prefer 'Quintessence'- the fifth element. Now, we're ready to look at what this is.
    I wonder if you do not yourself use the word god, or if you are trying to wrap up god in a word that is more palatable to science types.
    Honestly, I couldn't convince myself that I'm trying to 'wrap up' anything, you see, that would be lying. Lying for no reason more to that, which is, very immature. No, I do not use the word 'god' personally.

    The universe is a dynamic equilibrium. For every action, there is a counteraction. This is what some theologists would call 'karma'.

    Reflect, isn't it simple to do an evil thing and difficult to do a good thing. Let's classify them scientifically: The 'good' thing we'll classify 'positive' and the 'evil' thing we'll classify 'negative'. Thus, when a positive endeavor is atempted, there is a negative force attempting to counter it. When a negative endeavor is attempted, there is a postive force attempting to counter it.

    Now, the nature of these opposing forces differ as opposing forces always will. It is this nature which causes the positive endeavor difficult to achieve and the negative endeavor easier. The reason for this, I'm afraid I cannot tell you. But if you take a moment and observe, you'll see the truth of this.

    In this light I assume the above explanation can be considered proof of karma.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    I agree that this can be considered proof of karma, but not to me. Anything can be considered proof of anything to the right person. You explain how positive begets negative and vice versa, and then you claim that by some mechanism that you cannot explain, this is proof that positive begets positive and vice versa. This is big leap that you expect us to make for you.
    'Anything can be considered proof of anything'? I'm sorry, this does not sound very intelligent.Do you really think it does? Read again what I said about the conflict with words and enlighten yourself.

    Inherent conscience is the quality of quintessence within you.

    The Religious Problem arises when you think of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The truth about the quintessence is that it is within one and all. A force imperceptible to the senses, a spirit with the qualities of mystique, a unifying guide. Explanation of the quintessence is beyond the power of words. If you want answers, look within you, Zelos. Observe and obtain the proof of these truths.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    This sounds to me like an attempt to introduce god as a scientific concept. Tell me if I am wrong.
    You are not wrong. Ultimately, 'God' is a scientific concept. That could explain why we are discussing him in The Science Forum :-D

    So, if 'God' does not exist from a religious view-point, at least you can agree with me that the quintessence exists from a scientific view-point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Do you believe in god? I don't see any other use for this statement. You introduce a vague concept that sounds scientific in nature, and then attempt to equate it with god for an unexplained reason.
    Yes I believe in 'God', but in perhaps a different way from the majority. Do you know what, Hermes, I seriously think you should reread what I wrote. This time, open your mind to different possibilities. Try and be objective and realistic. Then we can discuss a little further. God is such a broad subject and as I said, this essay was inexhaustive due to that. If there is a particular issue you have to discuss, perhaps we could start there and arrive at an answer together.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Yes I believe in 'God',
    It seemed fairly likely that you were in fact trying to wrap up the concept of god in scientific sounding terms.

    Do you know what, Hermes, I seriously think you should reread what I wrote.
    Why? I did read it.

    This time, open your mind to different possibilities. Try and be objective and realistic.
    Don't pull that crap on me. "If only you would accept my definition of god, if only you would be objective and realistic." Does this ever get any mileage for you?

    Then we can discuss a little further. God is such a broad subject and as I said, this essay was inexhaustive due to that. If there is a particular issue you have to discuss, perhaps we could start there and arrive at an answer together.
    What makes you think that we might arrive at an answer together? Furthermore, I already responded to your post. You were nice enough to answer the most important question, but there were several others. In mind mind, those qualify as issues to discuss.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Yes I believe in 'God',
    It seemed fairly likely that you were in fact trying to wrap up the concept of god in scientific sounding terms.
    Do you know what, Hermes, I seriously think you should reread what I wrote.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Why? I did read it.
    Because you missed several things I explained, clearly indicating that you did not read it thoroughly. Like, the essay was inexhaustive

    This time, open your mind to different possibilities. Try and be objective and realistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Don't pull that crap on me. "If only you would accept my definition of god, if only you would be objective and realistic." Does this ever get any mileage for you?
    I apologize again, I never realized I was 'pulling crap' on you. No those are not my arguments. Again, my friend, you prove not to be a very apt reader.

    Then we can discuss a little further. God is such a broad subject and as I said, this essay was inexhaustive due to that. If there is a particular issue you have to discuss, perhaps we could start there and arrive at an answer together.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    What makes you think that we might arrive at an answer together? Furthermore, I already responded to your post. You were nice enough to answer the most important question, but there were several others. In mind mind, those qualify as issues to discuss.
    And, those issues are? You see, to me, you are being a lot more 'vague' than I was. I thought wecould arrive at an answer together because, strangely enough, that is the use of several forums.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Because you missed several things I explained, clearly indicating that you did not read it thoroughly. Like, the essay was inexhaustive
    You are saying that I did not read it thoroughly because it was inexhaustive? Do you know what you are saying?

    This time, open your mind to different possibilities. Try and be objective and realistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Don't pull that crap on me. "If only you would accept my definition of god, if only you would be objective and realistic." Does this ever get any mileage for you?
    I apologize again, I never realized I was 'pulling crap' on you. No those are not my arguments. Again, my friend, you prove not to be a very apt reader.
    It seems that you are not the apt reader, are you. What does "Try and be objective and realistic." mean to you? It sounds like crap to me that you tried to pull.

    And, those issues are?
    You are being funny. You have claimed multiple times that I am not an "apt" reader, and yet you post this, quite obviously without reading my post in response to you. Is there really nothing else there?

    You see, to me, you are being a lot more 'vague' than I was.
    And yet, I responded to your post, yet you did not respond to most of mine. Instead, you have asked me twice what you could understand by reading my post. You obviously did not read my post very well, because you preferred to tell me multiple times that I did not read yours. I did read yours, and I challenged it. You still have not attempted to clarify your explanation of karma, for example. Please do so in objective and realistic terms, as this seems so important to you.

    BTW, I liked your original style of word composition. I think that it shows ability in English. However, I am far from convinced about your conclusion. Telling me to be objective and realistic about your reframing of god as quintessence is not an effective strategy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    BTW, I liked your original style of word composition. I think that it shows ability in English.
    Thank you. But this would equally mean that I know precisely what I am talking about. Now, forgive me for my inaptitude, but I don't know exactly what you find unjustified about my theory of karma.

    You see, religion is a rather deep subject. Necessary to study it a lot more before engaging in its criticism.

    In terms that I hope even you will be able to understand, I simply believe that religion and science harmonize and try as often as possible to bridge the gap between them.

    When I talk of objectivity and realism: Don't use snide and cynical comments if your true aim is to arrive at a conclusion. Believe me friend, it scarcely works. (Proof: Look around)

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Because you missed several things I explained, clearly indicating that you did not read it thoroughly. Like, the essay was inexhaustive
    You are saying that I did not read it thoroughly because it was inexhaustive? Do you know what you are saying?
    Oh sorry, allow me an attempt to make myself clear. I indicated that my essay was inexhaustive. Yet you still went further to tell me it was vague. Often, this happens when an essay is inexhaustive. May the 'quintessence' within you help you understand.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Oh sorry, allow me an attempt to make myself clear. I indicated that my essay was inexhaustive. Yet you still went further to tell me it was vague. Often, this happens when an essay is inexhaustive. May the 'quintessence' within you help you understand.
    All of this bull about god on your part. Why do you bother responding to my posts and asking me to make my issues known without showing any interest in the issues that I made clear in my first response to you? You will not score any points by pretending that god can be reworded as a scientific concept. Do you even know who coined the word quintessence and why?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Oh sorry, allow me an attempt to make myself clear. I indicated that my essay was inexhaustive. Yet you still went further to tell me it was vague. Often, this happens when an essay is inexhaustive. May the 'quintessence' within you help you understand.
    All of this bull about god on your part. Why do you bother responding to my posts and asking me to make my issues known without showing any interest in the issues that I made clear in my first response to you? You will not score any points by pretending that god can be reworded as a scientific concept. Do you even know who coined the word quintessence and why?
    If I told you who coined the word 'quintessence', it could really make you look stupid, which, undoubtedly, you are not. I would not try and fathom my knowledge if I were you; equally diverting the topic. Rather, since in my ignorance I cannot see the points you made, how about you enumerate them now so I can take a good look at them. Please.

    And don't feel that I have no interest in your views. Believe me I do.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Excuse me, I am equally not trying to score any points. I don't see a prize being won here and if there was I wouldn't be able to compete due to my ignorance. However I am trying to raise some points.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Here we go. Monte did you read any of the other posts in this thread. People will twist your words and leave your original efforts far behind.

    You two have already used up an entire page and have gotten no where.

    It is as though they think you are trying to make them feel inferior with every comment. I truly don't understand why.

    Well anyways, it's just a warning. Feel free to try.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #111  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    If I told you who coined the word 'quintessence', it could really make you look stupid,
    You are quite an odd person. If you know who coined a word that you use, how in god's name (I put that one in for your benefit) would that make me look stupid? I consider your comment pretty dumb. Don't you think so? You are telling me that you refuse to name the person for the protection of my ego. Get over yourself. Jesus (no offense if that is your god). I don't care if you know or not. I was just wondering.

    I would not try and fathom my knowledge if I were you;
    Oh, fathom is it?

    Rather, since in my ignorance I cannot see the points you made, how about you enumerate them now so I can take a good look at them. Please.
    In my very first post to you, I commented about your logic in determing the evidence of karma. I certainly would not mind if you would help me to understand the seeming contradiction that I noted in your explanation.

    While we are at it, what is your goal is reframing god in scientific terms? Do you think that it will become more palatable to science types?

    While we are at it, why do you think that I have ever argued against the existence of god?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #112  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Okay, Hermes. According to what you explained I guess I have said some stupid things. I guess i felt (like humans do) that you were trying to insinuate that I did not know what I was talking about. Forgive me, but it looked like it.

    Now, please, could you just again explain the seeming contradiction which you observed. Looking at your first post to me, I can't locate it. Thanks

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #113  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Here we go. Monte did you read any of the other posts in this thread. People will twist your words and leave your original efforts far behind.

    You two have already used up an entire page and have gotten no where.
    Thanks for the heads-up. That is why I tried, to no avail, to explain the conflict which arise from words. Still, there is always at least one who'll understand.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #114  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    While we are at it...

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    While we are at it, what is your goal is reframing god in scientific terms? Do you think that it will become more palatable to science types?

    While we are at it, why do you think that I have ever argued against the existence of god?
    To answer the second question first, arguing against one who argues for the existence of God seems, to the best of my intelligence (which is not great), that you are arguing against. Also this link is very interesting. You explaining why you dont believe in God.

    Herme's answer to: Why don't you believe in God?

    To the first, I honestly don't argue in regard to 'science types'. I use science to substantiate my argument to appeal to all who are interested and with the ultimate goal of acquiring more knowledge. You see, in a forum where there are a variety of ideas and concepts, some good soul might peddle more answers my way. The sciences do help us after all to learn most of what we know.

    I hope this answers your question.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #115  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    While we are at it, what is your goal is reframing god in scientific terms? Do you think that it will become more palatable to science types?

    While we are at it, why do you think that I have ever argued against the existence of god?
    To answer the second question first, arguing against one who argues for the existence of God seems, to the best of my intelligence (which is not great), that you are arguing against. Also this link is very interesting. You explaining why you dont believe in God.
    I have never argued that god does not exist. I have no reason to attempt to prove to relgious types that they should follow my belief in the matter.

    To the first, I honestly don't argue in regard to 'science types'. I use science to substantiate my argument to appeal to all who are interested and with the ultimate goal of acquiring more knowledge.
    I do not mind this at all, as I said. I do not appreciate, naturally, being told that any lack of appreciation that I show for your idea is due to lack or interest in objectivity or reality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #116  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Now, please, could you just again explain the seeming contradiction which you observed. Looking at your first post to me, I can't locate it. Thanks
    I don't remember where your post is, but you mention that karma is like causing like, whereas your demonstration was of like causing unlike. In other words, your example of postive causing negative and vice versa does not demonstrate, in my mind, your notion of karma that like causes like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #117  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    ...you mention that karma is like causing like, whereas your demonstration was of like causing unlike. In other words, your example of postive causing negative and vice versa does not demonstrate, in my mind, your notion of karma that like causes like.
    Firstly, allow me to apologize for the tense words we exchanged. I didn't understand from the beginning that this is the contradiction you were talking of.

    Okay, you see, I set that line as a little 'riddle'. You will remember that I wrote (paraphrasing) 'this is ultimately what I have explained'.

    Now observe it this way. When a positive endeavor is attempted, a negative force counters that positive endeavor. However, subsequently, a positive force will equally counter that negative force, leaving what was originally there. However, the process is perpetual.
    The same occurs when a negative endeavor is attempted. A positive effect is subsequent, only to be replaced by a negative force.

    Try and attach these common sayings to what I've explained above and you may understand.
    Positive endeavor: If you can make it through the storm, you'll see the rainbow.
    Negative endeavor: 99 days for the thief, one day for the owner.

    This is the reason why the world is like a 'yin-yang' dynamic. Good and Evil perpetually at logger-heads.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #118  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Now observe it this way. When a positive endeavor is attempted, a negative force counters that positive endeavor. However, subsequently, a positive force will equally counter that negative force, leaving what was originally there.
    Originally, you did not describe this threesome, but only a two some. I do not know how you can elaborate into this thressome without necessarily going into a foursome and beyond. In other words, your new descritptioni does not make sense to me.

    This is the reason why the world is like a 'yin-yang' dynamic. Good and Evil perpetually at logger-heads.
    FYI, Yin and Yang are, fundamentally, not at all about good and evil. If they were, however, yin would be evil and yang would be good.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #119  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Now observe it this way. When a positive endeavor is attempted, a negative force counters that positive endeavor. However, subsequently, a positive force will equally counter that negative force, leaving what was originally there.
    Originally, you did not describe this threesome, but only a two some. I do not know how you can elaborate into this thressome without necessarily going into a foursome and beyond. In other words, your new descritptioni does not make sense to me.

    This is the reason why the world is like a 'yin-yang' dynamic. Good and Evil perpetually at logger-heads.
    FYI, Yin and Yang are, fundamentally, not at all about good and evil. If they were, however, yin would be evil and yang would be good.
    You see, like I just explained, the process is perpetual. True: the twosome would move into a threesome and the threesome into a foursome (that might sound a bit weird for some folks). The process is perpetual. This is why, in the universe, there are basically two principles at logger heads.

    I know that yin and yang are not originally about good and evil. I said the world is like a 'yin-yang' dynamic. This is just to make more understandable.

    Don't you agree that in the universe, there seems to be an epic cause between two opposite forces? Each fighting for a supremacy? However, ironically, each survive on each other. There cannot be a good without evil and vice-versa.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #120  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Don't you agree that in the universe, there seems to be an epic cause between two opposite forces? Each fighting for a supremacy? However, ironically, each survive on each other. There cannot be a good without evil and vice-versa.
    I would not use the word supremacy, but in general I think that the model of Yin-Yang duality, which is far deeper than simply good and evil, is a good one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #121  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Don't you agree that in the universe, there seems to be an epic cause between two opposite forces? Each fighting for a supremacy? However, ironically, each survive on each other. There cannot be a good without evil and vice-versa.
    no, for god sake no. there is no battle. yin yang stuff is fun but have nothing to do with the world of physics. why all the forces are of equal strenght and opposite is to conserve momentum, if they werent momentum would be created wich would be a violation of conservation laws.
    good and evil is just human definitions. for some alien species we might be evil and for us they are evil., but thats becuase we would have different ideas of whats right, and relative to a third species we might be neutral becuase they have both what we think is evil(/good
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #122  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    I think that the model of Yin-Yang duality, which is far deeper than simply good and evil, is a good one.
    And finally I see we agree with one point. Now, after reading your article under 'Why dont you believe in God?', I understand a little where your problem arises from. Now here's the difference between what my theory is explaining and world religions. Almost all religions have a savior and dogmas and doctrines. However, my theory attempts to prove the existence of a 'quintessence', a god, yes, however as for the saviors, dogmas and doctrines I have nothing to say. The reason being that almost everyone has a different 'cause'.
    Someone born to a happy white collar family, in a developed country at peace, in my opinion certainly has different ethics and causes than a destitute child born of a raped mother in the middle of the dark continent during a civil war, in a society plagued with poverty and massacre.
    According to me, different situations are causes for different principles.
    In this light, good and evil are ultimately non-existent.

    I don't challenge other belief systems, however I just remain in doubt of their authenticity. What is evident, to me though and as I have explained in my first post is that there is a 'God'. Certainly this much is clear.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #123  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Don't you agree that in the universe, there seems to be an epic cause between two opposite forces? Each fighting for a supremacy? However, ironically, each survive on each other. There cannot be a good without evil and vice-versa.
    no, for god sake no. there is no battle. yin yang stuff is fun but have nothing to do with the world of physics. why all the forces are of equal strenght and opposite is to conserve momentum, if they werent momentum would be created wich would be a violation of conservation laws.
    good and evil is just human definitions. for some alien species we might be evil and for us they are evil., but thats becuase we would have different ideas of whats right, and relative to a third species we might be neutral becuase they have both what we think is evil(/good
    This is mainly true, however, the forces are at logger heads, and, as you explained, to preserve momentum. What is also true is that a force cannot exist without its opposite. We know that 'good' and 'evil' are human definitions, it is just employed to aid in the understanding of the discussion. However, if you look around you, you will realize that the world you are in is divided. I don't have much to elaborate on that, it seems clear enough where I'm coming from.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #124  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    yin yang stuff is fun but have nothing to do with the world of physics.
    What about the electron and the proton. Or, when we push air down on an airplane to make it go up. Everything is Yin-Yang in some way or another.

    Nuetron hmm.... :? Is a neutron made up of smaller quantum particles that are yin-yang?

    Another reason why this new "string theory" sounds bogus to me (another topic). It has no opposing or attractive forces as far as I know.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #125  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    I'd like to hear about this "string theory".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #126  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    neutron are made up by quarks wich arent ying and yang to each toher
    It has no opposing or attractive forces as far as I know.
    whjat do u mean with that=?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #127  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    I'd like to hear about this "string theory".
    Well I still havent had time to read much on it but as far as I know it is an effort to combine quantum mechanics and standard physics into a system that can explain anything. It is strange. There is a website on it. Search google.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    neutron are made up by quarks wich arent ying and yang to each toher
    I looked it up and you are right, partialy. A neutron is made of two down quarks (-1/3 each) and one up quark (+2/3).

    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    It has no opposing or attractive forces as far as I know.
    whjat do u mean with that=?
    I mean that, as far as I know, these strings have no specific charge (or force) in comparison to anything else; like an electron or proton would.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #128  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    Code:
    A neutron is made of two down quarks (-1/3 each) and one up quark (+2/3).
    proton is the same, just 1 down and 2 up

    what do u mean they dont have a specefic force? what kind of force does the proton has?
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #129  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    no, for god sake no. there is no battle. yin yang stuff is fun but have nothing to do with the world of physics.
    I suspect that you have no idea what yin yang is really about, except for "fun", as you say. It is fundamentally about physics, and only secondarily about good and evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #130  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Now, after reading your article under 'Why dont you believe in God?', I understand a little where your problem arises from. ...

    What is evident, to me though and as I have explained in my first post is that there is a 'God'. Certainly this much is clear.

    ~1~
    And now I understand a little where your problem arises from. You believe that physics is a god, and you belive that by qualifying physics using the term god you somehow have a better handle on it. Fine with me. Yet, is seems to me that you are qualifying nature as a god, for what reason I do not understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #131  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    This is mainly true, however, the forces are at logger heads, and, as you explained, to preserve momentum. What is also true is that a force cannot exist without its opposite. We know that 'good' and 'evil' are human definitions, it is just employed to aid in the understanding of the discussion. However, if you look around you, you will realize that the world you are in is divided. I don't have much to elaborate on that, it seems clear enough where I'm coming from.
    The words yin and yang can be applied to good and evil. However, these are an extremely high level of abstration. Yin and yang are far more fundamental than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #132  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    neutron are made up by quarks wich arent ying and yang to each toher
    I did not realize that you are so knowledgable about yin and yang. Still, I wonder how you can make this claim. Can you elaborate on how you know this to be true?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #133  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    ying and yang is oposites, +/-
    religius ppl and me etc
    those quarks arent opposites about the same mass, dont ahve oposites charges, -1/3 isnt the oposite of +2/3
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #134  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Now, after reading your article under 'Why dont you believe in God?', I understand a little where your problem arises from. ...

    What is evident, to me though and as I have explained in my first post is that there is a 'God'. Certainly this much is clear.

    ~1~
    And now I understand a little where your problem arises from. You believe that physics is a god, and you belive that by qualifying physics using the term god you somehow have a better handle on it. Fine with me. Yet, is seems to me that you are qualifying nature as a god, for what reason I do not understand.
    No, then unfortunately, you don't realize what I've been explaining. Physics, is most definitely not a 'God'. I'm really sorry if by some misunderstanding I caused you to believe that. Simply, my theory attempts to prove the existence of God by employing a little physics (which is not the only way of proving God's existence).

    Trust me on this one, you have no idea what I believe in.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #135  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    The words yin and yang can be applied to good and evil. However, these are an extremely high level of abstration. Yin and yang are far more fundamental than that.
    This is true.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #136  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    ying and yang is oposites, +/-
    religius ppl and me etc
    those quarks arent opposites about the same mass, dont ahve oposites charges, -1/3 isnt the oposite of +2/3
    Did you not yourself say that there are 2 quarks. The notion of opposites is irrelevant to yin and yang. If there is not unity, as in only 1, then yin and yang are applicable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #137  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Trust me on this one, you have no idea what I believe in.
    Trust me on this one, I have no pretense to knowing what you believe in.

    However, I have no idea why you need some for of a god to satisfy your requirements of nature. Is this a person? If not, then why need one at all. Is it not enough, based on your definition, to call nature itself, in its totality, to be your god? And if so, then why need it?

    I do not understand the purpose of your god.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #138  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    no, yin-yan need opposites
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #139  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    no, yin-yan need opposites
    Since you do not understand the nature of yin and yang, then why do you claim that you must be correct? I have no idea what you mean by opposites, but it sounds as though you have created for yourself a highly limiting restriction that is not really there, and now you cannot get past your self-created limitation. If there are 2, there is yin and yang. Whether or not they are opposites, or even what the word opposites means, is completely irrelevant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #140  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by Monté
    Trust me on this one, you have no idea what I believe in.
    Trust me on this one, I have no pretense to knowing what you believe in.

    However, I have no idea why you need some for of a god to satisfy your requirements of nature. Is this a person? If not, then why need one at all. Is it not enough, based on your definition, to call nature itself, in its totality, to be your god? And if so, then why need it?

    I do not understand the purpose of your god.
    If you have no pretense to knowing what I believe in why did you say this?
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You believe that physics is a god, and you belive that by qualifying physics using the term god you somehow have a better handle on it.
    Forgive me, but that shows more than pretense in knowing what I believe in (according to my slow wits of course).
    I do not need this form of a 'God'. The theory simply attempts to prove that the 'God' - the 'quintessence' is there.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #141  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    . Yin and yang are opposites.

    Everything has its opposite—although this is never absolute, only relative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, winter can turn into summer; "what goes up must come down".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_yang#Principles
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #142  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    [quote="Monté"]
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    If you have no pretense to knowing what I believe in why did you say this?
    Since you are the one who initiated the discussion of your concept of a god, I did not think that you would mind if I attempted to frame my understanding of your words. Sorry if this has offended you.

    I do not need this form of a 'God'. The theory simply attempts to prove that the 'God' - the 'quintessence' is there.
    I am quite familar with the concept of quintessence. You seem to have developed another meaning for a word that I am quite familiar with in a very different context. I am trying to understand the word as you use it. You seem to take offense at such attempts, even when I stated that I do not claim to know what this means to you. You are not simply trying to prove the existence of quintessence, you are trying to prove the existence of a notion that you qualify using the adopted word quintessence. The more I guess, the less you seem to appreciate. Since you do not additionaly give more information that might lead to greater understanding, perhaps I should give up for now.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #143  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    . Yin and yang are opposites.

    Everything has its opposite—although this is never absolute, only relative. No one thing is completely yin or completely yang. Each contains the seed of its opposite. For example, winter can turn into summer; "what goes up must come down".
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yin_yang#Principles
    Except for the first sentence, the one that you defend, this is a reasonable partial description of yin and yang. The notion of opposites is not correct, because it is much too limiting. By quoting this, and by using this quote from wikipedia, it is quite clear to me that you really have little understanding of the nature or significance of yin and yang. You can continue to use this as a working definition if you wish, but this will not help you to understand the concept. Based on this as your only understanding of this highly fundamental theory of physics, it is no wonder that you do not appreciate it. If you had such a poor quality definition of relativity, I am sure that you would sluff it off as well, pointing to your poor quality reference as a justificaiton.

    I suggest that you do not take this wikipedia definition as being anywhere close to complete or even useful except in a very introductory sense, which you seem to have taken as all that there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #144  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Zelos
    ying and yang is oposites, +/-
    religius ppl and me etc
    those quarks arent opposites about the same mass, dont ahve oposites charges, -1/3 isnt the oposite of +2/3
    ok, ok, Zelos slow down. A neutron is two downs and one up. Not one down and one up. Or else it would not be a neutron.

    I agree with Hermes. I am not sure you understand what Yin and Yang are. Yin and Yang are two words but not necessarily two things. For Ex. Then neutron has 2 of one force and 1 of another force. These forces balance eachother out. The forces are only as they are when compared to something else. This is why there must always be two.

    A meal with some black pepper may be yang to a meal with no spices. Whereas this same meal (black pepper) would be yin to a habanero pepper.

    Do you understand?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #145  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    They are forces of balance. However this balance is achieved. It is like the Karma that Monté spoke of. It it not a simple concept. One thing leads to another. Yin to Yang to Yin to Yang. When the balance is disrupted things get chaotic.

    This is why many eastern medical practices use this principle. If you are sick in any way it is from imbalance.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #146  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Actually, to be as honest as a man can be honest, I don't take offence. You see, this is the reason why I first asked you to reread what I had written. This is because you are continuously dwelling on the definition of quintessence which I, perhaps mistaken, believe is related to this link.

    Quintessence

    You might also be referring to the ancient Western Philosophical definition. I simply use the word due to its root meaning: the fifth element, in an attempt to explain 'god'. If you firstly understand the fact that most of the terms I use, I use loosely, then this word conflict would not exist.

    And no, I do appreciate your guesses, but would appreciate them more if they were in the form of questions and not assumptions. But perhaps this notion is slightly too futuristic and not acceptable to what you might generally understand about 'god'. However, if I were in your shoes, giving up would not be my method.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #147  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    This is why many eastern medical practices use this principle. If you are sick in any way it is from imbalance.
    Practitioniers of Chinese medice, such as myself, treat disease at its most fundamental level as a disharmony (inbalance) of Yin and Yang.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #148  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    42
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    They are forces of balance. However this balance is achieved. It it not a simple concept. One thing leads to another. Yin to Yang to Yin to Yang. When the balance is disrupted things get chaotic.

    This is why many eastern medical practices use this principle. If you are sick in any way it is from imbalance.
    Again, that is very well put. Very astute. Right now, I can't think of anything to add.

    ~1~
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #149  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    This is why many eastern medical practices use this principle. If you are sick in any way it is from imbalance.
    Practitioniers of Chinese medice, such as myself, treat disease at its most fundamental level as a disharmony (inbalance) of Yin and Yang.
    When you say practitioner what do you mean? Are you a doctor?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #150  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    When you say practitioner what do you mean? Are you a doctor?
    More or less. I have treated hundreds of people at hospitals in China.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #151  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Sweeet. :-D

    I want to go to China.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #152  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Do you use herbs and stuff? Acupuncture/pressure?

    Sorry off topic. :?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #153  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    This is why many eastern medical practices use this principle. If you are sick in any way it is from imbalance.
    Practitioniers of Chinese medice, such as myself, treat disease at its most fundamental level as a disharmony (inbalance) of Yin and Yang.
    I must say this: pure quackery.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #154  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Do you use herbs and stuff? Acupuncture/pressure?
    Mostly acupuncture and moxibustion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #155  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I must say this: pure quackery.
    I must say this, you are being quite funny. Why MUST you say this? Do you have any first hand knowledge, or are you just speculating? What, specifically, is quackery, and on what basis do you claim to be qualified to judge? Just wondering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #156  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Sweeet. :-D

    I want to go to China.
    For what reason?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #157  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Do you use herbs and stuff? Acupuncture/pressure?
    Mostly acupuncture and moxibustion.
    Awesome!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Sweeet. :-D

    I want to go to China.
    For what reason?
    Well I want to go everwhere but, Japan, China and India are my first choices. I love the culture and the philosophy. Have never been to any of them.

    But one day. Maybe you will be doing acupuncture on me and never know it.

    Feel free to return to the topic at any time.... although we are way way off by now.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #158  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    I want to go everwhere but, Japan, China and India are my first choices. I love the culture and the philosophy. Have never been to any of them.
    I spent several years in Asia. I think that it is a lot of fun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #159  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Why MUST you say this?
    Because poppycock deserves a dissenting voice whether that poppycock be religion or fanciful claims of alternative medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Do you have any first hand knowledge, or are you just speculating?
    Specific knowledge. I've spent considerable time researching the scientific and woo-woo literature on topics just such as this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    What, specifically, is quackery, and on what basis do you claim to be qualified to judge? Just wondering.
    I don't judge. I leave that to those that have done the research and those that have failed to quantify their claims in areas of alternative medicine such as acupuncture and homeopathy. The field of acupuncture, like most alternative medicine claims, is mired by dubious claims and questionable standards.

    While there have been one or two favorable studies for some aspects of acupuncture, there are many more that demonstrate the unreliable and complete "quackery" of the subject.

    The National Council Against Health Fraud concludes:
    1. Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment;
    2. Its theory and practice are based on primitive and fanciful concepts of health and disease that bear no relationship to present scientific knowledge;
    3. Research during the past twenty years has failed to demonstrate that acupuncture is effective against any disease;
    4. Perceived effects of acupuncture are probably due to a combination of expectation, suggestion, counter- irritation, operant conditioning, and other psychological mechanisms;
    5. The use of acupuncture should be restricted to appropriate research settings;
    6. Insurance companies should not be required by law to cover acupuncture treatment; and
    7. Licensure of lay acupuncturists should be phased out.

    A recent study showed that diagnoses varied considerably among practitioners in both method and treatment (Kalauakalani et al 2001), seriously questioning the validity of acupuncture as a legitimate means of either.

    Melzack and Katz (1984) found acupuncture to be no more effective than placebo at treating chronic pain.

    Basically, there are no studies that conclude acupuncture or related alternative therapies to be effective in either diagnoses or treatments. The results and effectiveness are in the minds of believers. Much like that of religion and prayer.

    References

    Kalauokalani D et al (2001). Acupuncture for chronic low back pain: Diagnosis and treatment patterns among acupuncturists evaluating the same patient. Southern Medical Journal vol 94, pp. 486-492.

    Melzack R, Katz J. (1984). Auriculotherapy fails to relieve chronic pain: A controlled crossover study. JAMA, vol. 251(1041*1043).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #160  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    haha, I like you SkinWalker.

    First of all why is it called "alternative medicine". It was used long before any "western" medicine. Which I wouldn't even call an alternative to medicine (speaking about western medicine). More like a last resort.

    Second, most eastern "medicine" is not medicine at all but, instead philosophy on how to prevent desease. And let me tell you, it works great.

    When someone gets to such an extreme state of imbalance that a doctor is needed, it is also very effective.

    You silly people believe that your "western medicine" practices that have been developed in only the last few hundred years are somehow superior to others. Let me tell you something. It's all about the money my friend.

    Something tells me that alot of these people Hermes has treated weren't the wealthiest of people. I could be wrong but, my point is that TCM, Ayurveda and others are purely the science of life which "western medicine" is not. Your "proven" medicine is nothing more than the art of concealing people's symptoms.

    Want proof, well your not gonna get it from me other than to believe when I tell you that I am living proof.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #161  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    poppycock deserves a dissenting voice whether that poppycock be religion or fanciful claims of alternative medicine.
    Pretty strong opinion for one who admits to zero firsthand knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Do you have any first hand knowledge, or are you just speculating?
    Specific knowledge. I've spent considerable time researching the scientific and woo-woo literature on topics just such as this.
    But no time learning about it firsthand. All you have done, and correct me if I misread you, is read what others have said. You claim specific knowledge. Do you have firsthand knowledge or not. I cannot tell from your response. If not, then you do not have specific knowledge. If you do, then you should be able to debate the specifics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    What, specifically, is quackery, and on what basis do you claim to be qualified to judge? Just wondering.
    I don't judge.
    So, you do not have firsthand knowledge. You come off with this major attitude, in a situation where you claim specific knowledge, and yet here you say that you only know what you have read elsewhere, and that makes you know more than anyone who might actually practice it.

    Your strong opinion seems way out of place here. You know the opinions of others. Great. How can you claim specific knowledge on the basis of reading the opinions of others? Unlike your typical posts, I think that you are having an extremely allergic reaction to this topic. You are willing to read a few articles by westerners, and on the basis of that you are willing to say that the form of medicine used for thousands of years by more than a billion people is nothing more than a placebo. I think that you are not qualified to make such strong statements of "specific knowledge".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #162  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    First of all why is it called "alternative medicine". It was used long before any "western" medicine. Which I wouldn't even call an alternative to medicine (speaking about western medicine). More like a last resort.
    Alternative to legitimate medicine. Modern western medicine has the benefit of peer-review, testing, and the rigors of the scientific method. "Ancient" medicine is simply folk remedies -some work, most do not- and are not subject to testing, oversight, and quality control that is applied to real medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Second, most eastern "medicine" is not medicine at all but, instead philosophy on how to prevent desease. And let me tell you, it works great.
    Where's the evidence? Anecdotal evidence is the worst & most unreliable and controlled studies show otherwise. Its in people's heads.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    When someone gets to such an extreme state of imbalance that a doctor is needed, it is also very effective.
    "Imbalance?" If someone is ill or injured, they should visit a physician, not a charlatan or quack.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    You silly people believe that your "western medicine" practices that have been developed in only the last few hundred years are somehow superior to others. Let me tell you something. It's all about the money my friend.
    Its about the evidence. Prior to the development of "western medicine," the mean lifespan of humans was about 35-40. Now, in nations where western medicine is available and accessible, its about 75-80. There is no evidence that your appeals to the ancients have any value in medicine beyond nostalgia.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Want proof, well your not gonna get it from me other than to believe when I tell you that I am living proof.
    The power of belief obscures critical thought in people. That much is evident.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #163  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Alternative to legitimate medicine. Modern western medicine has the benefit of peer-review, testing, and the rigors of the scientific method. "Ancient" medicine is simply folk remedies -some work, most do not- and are not subject to testing, oversight, and quality control that is applied to real medicine.
    Wow, do you have it bad.

    Where's the evidence? Anecdotal evidence is the worst & most unreliable and controlled studies show otherwise. Its in people's heads.
    You know that you sound quite foolish here. What you are saying is that is someone is healing people, that he should quit and read the literature to see if it says that he is able to do so. You claim that real evidence should be replaced with what you accept as evidence. If you don't really know, then how can you tell us with a straight face that you have the best specific knowledge possible?

    "Imbalance?" If someone is ill or injured, they should visit a physician, not a charlatan or quack.
    This is so ridiculous. You are saying that all doctors in China who pracitice Chinese medicine are quacks, and you are qualified to defend this statement aggressively due to your wonderul experience, none of which is first hand, but you have read books that you know are 100% accurate.

    Its about the evidence.
    No, it is not. You seem to have zero direct evidence. It is about your opinion, based on reading, that you think is superior to all of the direct evidence gained by the people in the field.

    Prior to the development of "western medicine," the mean lifespan of humans was about 35-40. Now, in nations where western medicine is available and accessible, its about 75-80.
    Well, there we go. You are telling us that western medicine alone is responsible for all progress in human lifespan since the advent of western medicine. You seem to be claiming that any increase in the life span of Chinese who do not use western medicine is a placebo tag along effect. You are not credible on this. You sound like a religious preacher, preaching that your preferred books should outweigh any and all personal experience.

    The power of belief obscures critical thought in people. That much is evident.
    In this case, you are living proof.

    You seem to think that all Chinese medical doctors are quacks. All western scientists also quacks, by your definition, as scientists do not deal with proof either. I am quite surprised that you would be so aggressive on a topic that you not only have no direct experience, so it seems, but you seem to claim that those with the most experience should be given the least credibility in preference to you, the one with the least direct experience but who is claiming the most.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #164  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Alternative to legitimate medicine. Modern western medicine has the benefit of peer-review, testing, and the rigors of the scientific method. "Ancient" medicine is simply folk remedies -some work, most do not- and are not subject to testing, oversight, and quality control that is applied to real medicine.
    Wrong. All these medicines have been tested and for many more years than any western medicine. You think people would just make up random stuff to create placebos. Haha you are very much mistaking.

    Also you should look up Kirlian Photography.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Where's the evidence? Anecdotal evidence is the worst & most unreliable and controlled studies show otherwise. Its in people's heads.
    Well if this is true than why use medicine at all. Why don't we all just free our minds and heal ourselves by thinking it. Actualy I do believe this is possible but, I doesn't happen over night and you must be very good at what you do.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    "Imbalance?" If someone is ill or injured, they should visit a physician, not a charlatan or quack.
    When you say "injured" I assume you mean something external caused a problem. Like a broken legg or something. Well just so you know TCM and Ayurveda both have surgical ways of dealing with things. There are also many painkilling herbs and so on that have been around much longer than tylenal.

    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Its about the evidence. Prior to the development of "western medicine," the mean lifespan of humans was about 35-40. Now, in nations where western medicine is available and accessible, its about 75-80. There is no evidence that your appeals to the ancients have any value in medicine beyond nostalgia.
    Well I know your going to hate this response but I will say it anyways. Have you heard the term Yogi. Old yogi sages are said to have lived houndreds of years. The only reason these Yogis die is because there soul is so enlightened it is as though this material world no longer has worth to them and their material being is left to die. I am not sure but, I believe there are some of these Yogis alive today.

    Also some buddhists that reach enlightenment take certain vows and become reincarnated as Bodhisattvas to teach what they know.


    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    The power of belief obscures critical thought in people. That much is evident.
    Ha, hhaa yes. Well maybe your belief is too strong. I think you need some more sceptisism in your beliefs about you western medicine.

    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Alright I was a little harsh before. Western medicine is not all that bad. Most of its purpose is to deal with symptoms that have already occurred. This is unhealthy in two ways.

    1: If the sypmtoms are occuring in the first place something is wrong.
    2: If only the symptoms are treated than what is wrong is never addressed. Sometimes it inadvertently is.

    There are some aspects about western medicine that, if it is too late (which it never is), can be helpful. Usually only on a temporary bases. Unless of course the patiant does not know how to fix their problem and is left paying for their prescriptions for the rest of their life (MONEY).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #165  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Alright I was a little harsh before. Western medicine is not all that bad. Most of its purpose is to deal with symptoms that have already occurred. This is unhealthy in two ways.

    1: If the sypmtoms are occuring in the first place something is wrong.
    2: If only the symptoms are treated than what is wrong is never addressed. Sometimes it inadvertently is.
    Western medicine is excellent. Unfortunately, I all too often hear ridiculous contentions against Chinese medicine by people who know nothing about it. As we have seen here, some of these people consider themselves extremely highly qualified to trash it without any need to actually understand anything about it. Each form of medicine has its strengths and its weaknesses. Chinese medicine is holistic, as you say, whereas western medicine focuses on treating the symptoms.

    For example, if a patient sees a doctor due to severe illness from a chronic overdose of junk food, a western doctor will prescribe wonderful drugs. Western doctors like drugs. Drugs will enable the person to continue his lifestyle with no problem. Western doctors assume that lots of drugs is a healthy way to counter lots of junk food. Any good Chinese doctor will recommend that the person phase out junk food for a healthier diet. Less drugs and less junk food is better, holistically, than more drugs that allow more junk food. Critics of Chinese medicine tout the wonder drugs of westen medicine, and criticize the simplicity of Chinese medicine, completely ignoring the difference in goals of holistic medicine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #166  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    to be honest, when i hear that kind of stuff my first thought is hipie crap and that someone have smocked wee.
    btw quark isnt a force its a particle
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #167  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    On the contrary. I have smoked less than you. This is an educated guess based on the fact that I have never smoked anything.

    I think the reason these things make you think of hippies is because of the idea of peace. It just so happens that many of the people who use these types of medicine are also religious. All religions advocate peace and love, just like the hippies. But, religion does not advocate drug use. Stereotypes are really too bad. Well, that is if you think of things in terms of good and bad.

    A quark is actualy a low-fat soft German cheese.

    What I meant was it has a force of -1/3 or +2/3.
    It is interesting though because when you think of it, it is not a particle in the normal sense of the word. It has no real mass. If it did something would have to make that mass. So if it does in fact have mass than I guess we need to find a even smaller particle right?

    yeeaaaah
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #168  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    thats not force either, thats charge.
    whats special about quarks is that they can never be alone. they need to be more than 1 to be white
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #169  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Melzack and Katz (1984) found acupuncture to be no more effective than placebo at treating chronic pain.
    Mmmm yes. I think this is probably right. However this is precisely what is wrong with western medicine. It demands the use of control groups to rule out the placebo effect. This is very very very good practice when it comes to the use of new drugs. For the placebo effect should not be allowed to justify the use of dangerous new drugs whose long term effect are outright harmful if even understood at all. But these control groups are required precisely because the placebo effect is so real and effective. The human mind can be a powerful tool in the healing of disease. And here is the greatest problem with western medicine, by insisting that its methods have demonstrably measurable effects on the human body, it errs on the side of being harmful, and thus it has abandoned the Hippocratic oath to at least do no harm.

    Ancient remedies have the advantage of hind sight on the long term effects, selected by an evolution-like process if not by rational analysis. As a result they tend to at least do no harm, and if they are effective by means of the placebo effect then they are effective without doing harm.

    If you have something broken and bleeding then nothing can beat modern medicine at setting the bones and sowing you up. Antibiotics have been a great life saver as well, until we started misusing them. But I fear that in everything else the modern doctor has no more understanding of what he is doing than a tribal medicine man. As a result, I find the training of western doctors to have this arrogant pretense of omnisicence to be rather scary.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #170  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You know that you sound quite foolish here. What you are saying is that is someone is healing people, that he should quit and read the literature to see if it says that he is able to do so. You claim that real evidence should be replaced with what you accept as evidence.
    No. I'm say the poppycock should be replaced by real evidence. Anecdote cannot be considered evidence. If so, then we should accept all manner of religious claim based on testimony of "witnesses." You seem to have a bit of a double standard on the testimony of "witnesses" in this regard. Is not your anti-religious stance, contrasted and compared with your overly credulous position on the paranormal beliefs of TCM, presenting you with a dilemma of intellectual dishonesty?

    Again, I ask -implore- you to show us the double-blind study that demonstrates the validity of TCM, acupuncture, or any other form of quack "medicine."

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    This is so ridiculous. You are saying that all doctors in China who pracitice Chinese medicine are quacks, and you are qualified to defend this statement aggressively due to your wonderul experience, none of which is first hand, but you have read books that you know are 100% accurate.
    I'm saying that there exists scientific studies of the claims put forth by various advocates of alternative medicine, including TCM and acupuncture, that contradict their claims and none that support them with any consistency -not even from TCM proponents. I'm also saying that there are those willing to take money from believers in this bit of paranormal quackery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    No, it is not. You seem to have zero direct evidence. It is about your opinion, based on reading, that you think is superior to all of the direct evidence gained by the people in the field.
    That's what I've been saying all along: there is "zero direct evidence." None. Nada. Zilch. My opinions are irrelevant. There are no data which support the claims of TCM and acupuncture. There *is* no evidence gained by "people in the field" that demonstrates the validity of TCM and acupuncture. If so, where is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Well, there we go. You are telling us that western medicine alone is responsible for all progress in human lifespan since the advent of western medicine.
    I'm saying that modern Western medicine is primarily responsible, yes. The evidence is clear. A look at nations where modern Western medicine isn't readily available or accessible shows a very dramatically different average lifespan and much higher infant mortality rate. One need only look at the UN data to see these patterns.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You seem to be claiming that any increase in the life span of Chinese who do not use western medicine is a placebo tag along effect. You are not credible on this.
    Not to a devout believer. But I challenge you to show me the study that includes Chinese individuals who have not vaccinated or visited the doctor when seriously ill with pneumonia, measles, or the bird flu, etc. Modern western medicine has its presence in China and has for many years now. TCM is practiced out of tradition, not because it is successful.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You sound like a religious preacher, preaching that your preferred books should outweigh any and all personal experience.
    Pots, kettles, and several shades of black come to mind. At least my books include hard science: the kind that can be tested and reproduced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You seem to think that all Chinese medical doctors are quacks.
    I wouldn't know. I'm commenting on TCM (traditional Chinese medicine). Are you suggesting that TCM is the only form of treatment and diagnosis in China? I certainly hope not. Indeed, its been largely banned for the quackery it is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    All western scientists also quacks, by your definition, as scientists do not deal with proof either.
    This would seem to reveal your ignorance about both science and medicine. No one is suggesting that there are "proofs." I don't believe I've even used the word. This must be something in your head. I'm speaking about evidence, something which is completely absent in TCM. Science is not about absolutes and dogma of religious belief in the way TCM is; it's about conditional conclusions based on evidence. The evidence shows that TCM is bunk. Science and scientists are willing to revise their position with the first double-blind study that shows differently.

    Thus, science is the voice of reason and critical thought in this matter, whereas TCM advocates are the voice of belief and superstition, based on religious dogma. Quackery exists where claims are made without providing supporting data and evidence. This is not science.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    I am quite surprised that you would be so aggressive on a topic that you not only have no direct experience, so it seems, but you seem to claim that those with the most experience should be given the least credibility in preference to you, the one with the least direct experience but who is claiming the most.
    This paragraph is so rife with logical fallacy, I hardly no where to begin. First, I don't recall ever stating that in my 40 years I'd never experienced either acupuncture or other alternative medicine quackery "first hand." This is slightly ad hominem, however indirect and slight it is, but, more importantly, its a special non sequitur that mixes an appeal to authority (only those with "first-hand" knowledge could possible be in an authority to criticize) with special pleading (suggesting that this authority can only be an emic one that comes from those within TCM).

    Second, it assumes that experience with quackery somehow gives that quackery validity (appeal to authority mixed with special pleading again) when you say "those with the most experience ... "

    If this were true, then we would have to accept all manner of religious claim at its face value since there are thousands of "theological experts" who claim to have special knowledge and that they "know" their gods and their "gods intents." Indeed, we must now open ourselves up to all manner of claim from UFOs to Bigfoot to ESP and remote viewing. Where will you draw the line to this special pleading to false authority you've created?

    I considered moving these few posts by splitting the thread and creating a new topic, but changed my mind for a couple reasons. First, TCM really is a religious claim to its adherents. Second, I find Hermes' reaction to my criticism ironic, given his stance on religious poppycock earlier in the thread. I quote Hermes from the first page,
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Without science to encumber you, you can state any hogwash you want, and claim that it is based on faith, and disprovable, and other simplistic jokes. LIfe must be easy when you don't have to think. When people challenge you, you just say that they lack faith. You, however, feel free to challenge them. Yes, you are funny.
    If you cannot provide sources of evidence; citations that back your claims to the validity of TCM and acupuncture, then you are relying on the same thing the Rev was relying on: faith. That's what you anti-science types always let it boil down to: "I know it works because I believe it does." You might as well pray for your healing.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Wrong. All these medicines have been tested and for many more years than any western medicine. You think people would just make up random stuff to create placebos. Haha you are very much mistaking.
    Where are the controlled studies then? If all you have is anecdotal testimony, I can give you pages upon pages of testimony that supports the practice of blood-letting in reducing fever, curing disease, and preventing health problems. Will that testimony make it easy for you to release a few pints in a bucket next time you get the flu?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Also you should look up Kirlian Photography.
    I've actually done Kirlian photography. It isn't anything other than recording the physics of the item. To quote Hines (2003):
    Quote Originally Posted by Terrence Hines
    When the electricity enters the living object, it produces an area of gas ionization around the photographed object, assuming moisture is present on the object. This moisture is transferred from the subject to the emulsion surface of the photographic film and causes an alternation of the electric charge pattern on the film. If a photograph is taken in a vacuum, where no ionized gas is present, no Kirlian image appears. If the Kirlian image were due to some paranormal fundamental living energy field, it should not disappear in a simple vacuum
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Well if this is true [(Anecdotal evidence is the worst & most unreliable)] than why use medicine at all. Why don't we all just free our minds and heal ourselves by thinking it.
    This is one of the most absurd things I've read from you. Are you suggesting that clinical trials and testing prior to them amount to nothing more than random anecdotes? Anecdotes in quackery or other paranormal BS (religion, UFOs, ESP, etc) are a collection of comments selected from people who agree, conveniently omitting those comments from those that disagree or report negative results. Clinical trials in science take all results into context and control groups are used to evaluate the real medicine from the placebo (Wikipedia 2006). Moreover, neither the direct testers nor the subjects know who has the real medicine and who has the placebo or control (double-blind). Not only this, but many of the effects of the medicine itself can be directly observable without relying on the subject's report (blood pressure, hear rate, rash clears up, etc).

    I'm not overly interested in going point-to-point with the remaining parts of your post, mainly since I think I've made my position pretty clear and addressed them sufficiently with calls for evidence that will not be forthcoming because such data are not existent.

    I will, however, close by noting your criticisms of western medicine that include "treating symptoms" and "charging money."

    First, I agree that it is obviously beneficial to address the cause of a symptom rather than the symptom itself. However, you employ the logical fallacy (imagine that) of assuming that the quack approach is doing anything for the actual cause at all. This simply isn't demonstrable and, indeed, I cited a reference to a quack in a previous post where a study was done that revealed inconsistencies with diagnosis and treatment among these quacks (specifically acupuncture). The methodology employed by the researcher was to send the same person to different quacks, where she received different diagnoses and different treatments. How can it be assumed that a quack will be treating the cause of symptoms based on the apparent lack of veracity in their methods? Where are the data that support that a quack can find & treat a cause where medicine cannot?

    Indeed, I recall my wife's gallbladder problem a few years ago. The symptom was a sharp back pain. The doctor didn't give her some pain medicine for a back ache and send her home, he recognized the symptom and looked further and discovered through conclusive tests the gall bladder problem. Not an uncommon problem following childbirth. But this is just an anecdote, so take it for what its worth. I bet, however, that a first year nursing student could show a copy of a triage chart in which it lists a test for gall bladder given certain symptoms and conditions.

    So the "western medicine" treats the symptoms while "quackery treats the causes" argument is pure, unsupported poppycock.

    Finally, are you suggesting that quacks are free? What TCM store can I visit in Chinatown where they give away ginko and ginseng? What acupuncturist do you know doesn't charge $90/session? I'm not saying I agree with the current state of the U.S. healthcare system -on the contrary, I'm a vocal opponent to the financial trap you can easily find yourself in should you require healthcare. But it is a complete fallacy (imagine that) to say that because it costs money the medicines must not work. This is a non sequitur on grand scale.

    Good day, Gentlemen.

    Reference

    Hines, Terence (2003). Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, 2nd ed, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

    Wikipedia (2006). Double Blind
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #171  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    to lkong, summerize plz
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #172  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    No summary available. Read or don't read. You choose.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #173  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    No. I'm say the poppycock should be replaced by real evidence.
    Sorry, but this is ridiculous. If you do not want to accept Chinese medicine, go ahead. But for you to deny then entire field just because you don't find evidence in the form that you want is ridiculous.

    Anecdote cannot be considered evidence. If so, then we should accept all manner of religious claim based on testimony of "witnesses." You seem to have a bit of a double standard on the testimony of "witnesses" in this regard. Is not your anti-religious stance, contrasted and compared with your overly credulous position on the paranormal beliefs of TCM, presenting you with a dilemma of intellectual dishonesty?
    I think that you are the one who is intellectually dishonest. You seem to have made no attempt to understand Chinese medicine, and yet you claim the right to trash it as you see fit unless and until it provides evidence in the only manner that you seem willing to recognize. It seems to me that you are taking a stand against it that borders on religious fanatacism.

    Again, I ask -implore- you to show us the double-blind study that demonstrates the validity of TCM, acupuncture, or any other form of quack "medicine."
    Yes, this is what I mean. You claim that every person treated by TCM must be recognized to be completely random and without value unless someone presents proof to you in a manner that you accept.

    I'm saying that there exists scientific studies of the claims put forth by various advocates of alternative medicine, including TCM and acupuncture, that contradict their claims and none that support them
    So what. Are you claiming that no scientist has ever done a study to support TCM? If so, then why do so many western doctors use it, and wide do so many insurance companies accept it? Is it because there has never been a study ever that gives it any credibility at all? Sure.

    with any consistency -not even from TCM proponents. I'm also saying that there are those willing to take money from believers in this bit of paranormal quackery.
    So you think that the institutions in China that promote the national study of TCM are just promoting quackery? My, but you have a very hard stance against anything that does not support you accepted view. That is dogma.

    That's what I've been saying all along: there is "zero direct evidence." None. Nada. Zilch. My opinions are irrelevant. There are no data which support the claims of TCM and acupuncture.
    Sure. And you know that there is no evidence how? Have you read the thousands of studies in China. or do you discount them as biased because they were conducted by the quacks themselves?

    There *is* no evidence gained by "people in the field" that demonstrates the validity of TCM and acupuncture. If so, where is it?
    You have rejected all evidence except for an extremely small set of potential evidence. When you claim that there is no direct evidence, you are saying only that you refuse to accept all direct evidence, unless it fits into your required formula. Otherwise, it is quackery, and all claims to direct evidence means zero, nada, zilch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You seem to think that all Chinese medical doctors are quacks.
    I wouldn't know. I'm commenting on TCM (traditional Chinese medicine). Are you suggesting that TCM is the only form of treatment and diagnosis in China? I certainly hope not. Indeed, its been largely banned for the quackery it is.
    Please provide a citation for this. This is symtomatic of your knowledge in the field. TCM is practiced throughout China. It is also becoming increasingly successful throughout the world, and for good reason. Not only do you trash it because it does not reach out to you in a manner that you deem acceptable, but you make statements such as this. I would like to see your evidence, because it seems very ridiculous as well as incorrect to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    All western scientists also quacks, by your definition, as scientists do not deal with proof either.
    This would seem to reveal your ignorance about both science and medicine. No one is suggesting that there are "proofs." I don't believe I've even used the word. This must be something in your head. I'm speaking about evidence, something which is completely absent in TCM.
    No, you are not talking about evidence at all. You are claiming that unless practitioners of TCM can provide a specific type of evidence to satisfy you, then you should be free to ignore the thousands of years of evidence that they have collected, as you consider yourself quallified to dismiss it all.

    Science is not about absolutes and dogma of religious belief in the way TCM is; it's about conditional conclusions based on evidence. The evidence shows that TCM is bunk. Science and scientists are willing to revise their position with the first double-blind study that shows differently.
    This is rather odd, I think. Since you consider, based on your denial of all of the evidence that is available in the world, that TCM is bunk, then you of course are refusing to believe that TCM makes change based on evidence primary to its growth. There are thousands of books in China on experiments that have led to changes over the past several thousand years. You claim that there is no evidence at all. That is your fault, as you close your eyes.

    Thus, science is the voice of reason and critical thought in this matter, whereas TCM advocates are the voice of belief and superstition, based on religious dogma. Quackery exists where claims are made without providing supporting data and evidence. This is not science.
    So, it is not science. Chinese medicine developed in China, and science developed in the west. Because it "is not science", you consider it to be worthless and quackery. You seem like a preacher to me.

    Second, it assumes that experience with quackery somehow gives that quackery validity
    On the contrary, you are the one who has made the blanket statement that there is no evidence as it, and your reason is that no one to your knowledge has provided evidence in a manner that you are able to recognize. In other words, you claim that all of the incredible amounts of available evidence should be given zero credibility because Chinese medicine did not come to you.

    If this were true, then we would have to accept all manner of religious claim at its face value
    Now it is you who does not know the difference between religion and science. The Chinese have performed experiments for thousands of years, and they have constantly modified their field as a result. Each doctor does the same. No one keeps to a constant dogma, except perhaps you here. It seems to me that you no very little about TCM, you just dismissed it based on reading something somewhere. You claim that there is zero evidence, which is ridiculous.

    [/quote]since there are thousands of "theological experts" who claim to have special knowledge and that they "know" their gods and their "gods intents." [/quote]Calling TCM a religion because you do not consider it a science and there are no other categories shows you limitation in understanding how science and religion fit into the world.

    Indeed, we must now open ourselves up to all manner of claim from UFOs to Bigfoot to ESP and remote viewing. Where will you draw the line to this special pleading to false authority you've created?
    Oh, the slippery slope fear, it it? To you, there is religion and there is science. If TCM cannot validate itself as a science, then it must be religion, and ergo has no more validity that any other religion. This shows your limitation in understanding the nature of the world and the types of models that peoples can develop. Science is not a Chinese concept. Neither is religion.

    First, TCM really is a religious claim to its adherents.
    Wow, you are not very experience in the ways of the world, in my opinion. You are so adamant that science and religion, the 2 types of western models of nature, are the only ones that can exist in the world, and if a model that is foreign to you is not science then it must be religious. I disagree.

    Second, I find Hermes' reaction to my criticism ironic, given his stance on religious poppycock earlier in the thread. I quote Hermes from the first page,
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Without science to encumber you, you can state any hogwash you want, and claim that it is based on faith, and disprovable, and other simplistic jokes. LIfe must be easy when you don't have to think. When people challenge you, you just say that they lack faith. You, however, feel free to challenge them. Yes, you are funny.
    Yes, I understand that you do, since you seem to not have recognized that there can be more to the world than science and religion.

    If you cannot provide sources of evidence; citations that back your claims to the validity of TCM and acupuncture, then you are relying on the same thing the Rev was relying on: faith.
    Surely you are aware of large sources of evidence and citations. You simply deny them all validity. How can you ask for evidence when you have made it clear that TCM must move completely over to you or be considered worthless. You are showing the hard reaction of a relgious person.

    So the "western medicine" treats the symptoms while "quackery treats the causes" argument is pure, unsupported poppycock.
    It seems to me that you are the religious one. You are the one who claims that the only valid evidence is evidence that you are willing to accept. Youare the one who calls everything poppycock because it does not move to you. It seems to me that you are exhibiting the reaction of a hard core religious person.

    I consider it a lack of knowledge on your part to believe that every model of nature in the world must fit into one of two categories, science or religion. Based on your limited understanding of models of nature, you consider that TCM must be considered religion, and bunk, and all of its thousands of years of evidence must be denied, unless and until it presents evidence in a manner that you are willing to accept. When anyone does use TCM to good effect, you insist that it must be quackery, and that it is not possible for the effect to be genuine, because you do not understand, based on your limited manner of accepting evidence. You seem to have no knowledge of China, or of the differences in culture. You seem limited to your knowledge of the west. This is your limitation. You deny direct evidence completely because it is not backed up in a manner that you accept. This seems pretty arrogant to me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #174  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Hermes, your arguments are pathetic. You keep saying that TCM is science and that there is evidence to support it, yet you provide citations to none. You have no problem requiring *me* to provide a citation to the banning of TCM in China. Skrabanek (1985) details the various bans that have been enacted and rescinded throughout recent Chinese history. Sampson and Beyerstein (1996) reported a "crackdown" by Chinese officials on many of the charlatans making claims of Qiqong medicine.

    You keep reciting "you seem" this and "you seem" that with regard to my position on TCM and the poppycock that comes with it, but I must remark, my friend, that you seem very ignorant as to what can legitimately be called "evidence."

    Moreover, you keep reciting the mantra that TCM is proven and evidence exists that I refuse to acknowledge, but, again, I must appeal to you to reveal this mystery evidence or accept the fact that I've beaten you at this debate. Either there exist "thousands of studies" in TCM from which you can cite at least a dozen (or one?), or there aren't.

    Finally, I don't have any magic standards that have to be met as you imply. Either the advocates of TCM are able to support their claims or they can't. To date, I don't see that they can. There is no "specific type of evidence" that they need rise to except that which can be considered legitimate.

    Beyond that, claims of TCM remain the poppycock of new age nutbars who are hoping for easy fixes and are gullible enough to fall for the claims of those willing to sell them books, charge for "adjustments" and "treatments," sell them herbs of dubious content and origin, recommend treatments of inconsistent nature, and offer to "teach" them how to do it themselves for the right fee. Doubtless, however, you're one of the few who was "taught" for free and all of your "literature" was donated to you.

    Let me summarize for Zelos after all: TCM is as much bullshit as religion. Both require faith in the absence of evidence.


    References:

    Sampson, Wallace & Beyerstein (1996). Traditional Medicine and Pseudoscience in China: A Report of the Second CSICOP Delegation (Part 2). Skeptical Inquirer, 20(4): 18-26.

    Skrabanek, P. (1985). Acupuncture: Past, present, and future. In Examining Holistic Medicine, ed. by D. Stalker and C. Glymour, Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. (pp. 181-196).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #175  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Where are the controlled studies then? If all you have is anecdotal testimony, I can give you pages upon pages of testimony that supports the practice of blood-letting in reducing fever, curing disease, and preventing health problems. Will that testimony make it easy for you to release a few pints in a bucket next time you get the flu?
    I'm not sure you understand. I don't get the flu. Haven't for a few years now. Hmmm... that is strange, I have been studying Ayurveda for about that long. That is one good placebo if you ask me.

    This life span thing you speak of is interesting. Have you considered that many of these other countries are very poor. Many children being born were not intentional and not properly taken care of. I hear there is a place in Russia where people live to about 120-140 these days. Sorry I can't remember the location. Maybe you were not meant to understand in this life.



    Quote Originally Posted by mitchellmckain
    If you have something broken and bleeding then nothing can beat modern medicine at setting the bones and sowing you up. Antibiotics have been a great life saver as well
    Have you heard of bone packing. It's is a term we use in martial arts. When you practice exersizes that involve hitting limbs together and then apply what we call jau to the skin (chinese herbs soaked in alcohol). The stimulation of the nerves in these areas create small electric fields that stimulate osteocytes to produce more bone matrix. The jao is to prevent bruising.

    This same technique is used by western doctors but they needed their science to figure it out (not that this is bad). When people get broken limbs the doctor will often apply an electric field to the area to stimulate bone growth.

    If you do bone packing before you break something your bones become very dense and much harder to break. I have yet to have break a bone and I jump from ten foot high walls on a daily bases (not to mention other things). Now that I think about it I could be wrong, so I will say that I have never broken a bone and known of it.

    Also I said this before but, these old medicine practices do use surgery and stitches. Although western medicine may be better at the clean eveironment aspect and probably have more practice with the excesive use of cars these days.

    ------------------------------------------

    Like I said before I am not here to prove anything to you. That is not my way. I do not try to change people's mind but, instead try to be an example. I am my own proof. Maybe you know someone who could be your proof. Although, I would like to say there is some of what you would call proof or evidence out there in the form of studies. Yall should read about Yogis, they are quite awesome. The real good ones can control their heart beat among many other things. If you chose to ignore this realm of medicine, I guaranty you, you are only missing out (meaning there is no gain in ignorance).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #176  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Hermes, your arguments are pathetic.
    Wow, listen to you. The pathetic word, yet. Somehow this makes you believe even more in your arguments.

    You keep saying that TCM is science
    What is the point of this discussion if you refuse to read my writing and claim that I keep saying what I clearly did not say.

    and that there is evidence to support it, yet you provide citations to none.
    This is ridiculous. There are thousands of studies prodcued in China. If you are not blind, you are free to read any of them. Surely you canot tell me that they are invisible. It is not my problem, but yours, as you have already ruled them all out as having any potential validity because they were produced by people you have labeled as charlatans.

    You have no problem requiring *me* to provide a citation to the banning of TCM in China. Skrabanek (1985) details the various bans that have been enacted and rescinded throughout recent Chinese history. Sampson and Beyerstein (1996) reported a "crackdown" by Chinese officials on many of the charlatans making claims of Qiqong medicine.
    Your statement is wrong. Your contention here cannot make it right. You claim that TCM has been banned in China, whereas anyone who goes there can tell quite quickly that it is practiced everywhere, with the blessing of the government.

    You keep reciting "you seem" this and "you seem" that with regard to my position on TCM and the poppycock that comes with it, but I must remark, my friend, that you seem very ignorant as to what can legitimately be called "evidence."
    I think that the same can be said about you.

    Moreover, you keep reciting the mantra that TCM is proven and evidence exists that I refuse to acknowledge, but, again, I must appeal to you to reveal this mystery evidence or accept the fact that I've beaten you at this debate.
    A religious argument if there ever was one. You have no data to bear. To you, anything that is not science is religion, regardless of any other details, and therefore you have passed judgment. You call this winning the debate. Surely you cannot be serious that you have won a debate because you have closed your eyes.

    Either there exist "thousands of studies" in TCM from which you can cite at least a dozen (or one?), or there aren't.
    Do you seriously believe that there have never been any studies in China about TCM? Your entire argument is ridiculous on its face. Is that really your claim, that the Chinese have never performed any studies?

    Finally, I don't have any magic standards that have to be met as you imply. Either the advocates of TCM are able to support their claims or they can't. To date, I don't see that they can. There is no "specific type of evidence" that they need rise to except that which can be considered legitimate.
    You seem to have closed your eyes and then complain that they cannot make you see. You blame them for your blindness, and demand that they fix your eyesight. I don't care, but I see the problem as residing with you.

    Beyond that, claims of TCM remain the poppycock of new age nutbars
    How funny. New age is what you call something that has been around for thousands of years.

    who are hoping for easy fixes and are gullible enough to fall for the claims of those willing to sell them books, charge for "adjustments" and "treatments," sell them herbs of dubious content and origin, recommend treatments of inconsistent nature, and offer to "teach" them how to do it themselves for the right fee. Doubtless, however, you're one of the few who was "taught" for free and all of your "literature" was donated to you.
    Your clause that follows the word doubless shows the manner in which you jump to conclusions without evidence.

    Let me summarize for Zelos after all: TCM is as much bullshit as religion. Both require faith in the absence of evidence.
    If you wish to disbelieve in TCM, I don't really care. But for you to claim that it is completely absent any evidence at all is ridiculous. Your use of the word evidence is a subjective definition that you made up out of nowhere for this. You pretend that there have never been studies about TCM, ignoring the thousands that are available in hundreds of analytical books available at the book store. You claim that TCM has been banned, when anyone with open eyes can see that it is increasing in popularity around the world, as well as being quite healthy in China. You have made many allegations that I consider completely ridiculous. Your comparison of TCM with religion shows that you are blind. TCM uses the outcome of experience to alter its form. It is based on a detailed and organized understanding of relationships in nature. ALL practitioners of TCM use the same fundamental principles on which to base their research. Yet you claim that it is identical to religion. I am quite surprised by the vehemence of your completely illogical position on this. If you think that TCM is identical in structure to religion, then it is clear that you really have zero understanding of it. It takes little effort or understanding or skill to make blanket assertions as you have.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #177  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I ask again: what is the evidence. Cite your favorite study. You say there are many. I only ask for one. The claim is yours as is the burden of proof.

    Barring your inability to produce a single study, the debate is over and you've clearly lost.

    TCM is poppycock.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #178  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Again, I ask -implore- you to show us the double-blind study that demonstrates the validity of TCM, acupuncture, or any other form of quack "medicine."
    Skinwalker,

    You claim that TCM is religiouos bullshit, completely devoid of evidence of its utility. Of course there is lots of evidence, but you do not consider it to be valid evidence. You have made it clear that the only that it can be recognized as science is if supporters were to perform double blind experiments and those experiments were to support their contentions.

    Therefore, I have a question to ask you. I have been reading about two theories on the spreading of our species around the world, the so-called out of africa and the multi-regional theory. I wonder if you consider that both of these are pure religious bullshit promoted by charletans and quacks. If you believe that one of these is a scientific theory, I would appreciate your pointing to a double blind experiment that can convince me that it is science and the other is religious bullshit.

    While we are at it, I am interested in string theory. Is this science or religious bullshit. I would appreciate it if you would point me to a double blind experiment that would show it to be science and not religious bullshit.

    I wonder if most of what passes as science is nothing more than relgious bullshit, according to your definition. You stated that TCM is religious bullshit unless and until a double blind is performed showing its validity. You do not seem to care about methodology, but only about double blind approved results.

    Can you give me an example of any field that you do consider to be science and not religious bullshit? I ask because most of cosmology, as well as many other fields of "science" do not use double blinds.

    You do not seem to care about the process involved behind TCM. I could understand if you claim that it is poor science, for example because you do not approve of the premises that it follows. However, I cannot understand how you can call it nothing but religious bullshit simply because you believe that the practitioners have not lived up to your standards in presenting evidence. How can you differentiate between science and religion only on the basis of double blinds?

    To me, there are fundamental differences between science and religion. It seems that you have two pigeon holes, and if you are unwilling to call something science then you call it religion, and therefore bullshit. You do not seem to be interested in the methodoly involved, but only in your acceptance of results. If that is the case, then moat cutting edge science has not yet, if ever, been supported by double blinds. Are you going to call it all religious bullshit until such time as you are convinced by a double blind?

    Most of science is eventually falsified. Does that make it relgious bullshit? How can you place such an empahsis on supporting evidence and so little on the methodology involved?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #179  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    I ask again: what is the evidence. Cite your favorite study. You say there are many. I only ask for one. The claim is yours as is the burden of proof.

    Barring your inability to produce a single study, the debate is over and you've clearly lost.

    TCM is poppycock.
    You are quite funny. The debate is over and you have lost. What a joker you are trying to be. Does this ever work for you?

    There are thousands of studies. Are you saying that if I present a study that you will accept it as proof? If not, then we have produced nothing, as you can continue to claim that it does not meet your perfect high standards, and there fore has no merit. Next time that you make a point, I hope that you have double blinds to present to support your position, so that no one laughs at you for presenting religous bullshit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #180  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    National Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine (NAAOM)
    Box 62
    Tarrytown, NY 10591
    (914) 332-4576
    75776.1734@compuserve.com

    This is a place where you can ask for this research you seak. Although I am still not sure why you want it so much.

    I am not sure if I am supposed to site where I got this so I will just in case.

    A book called "the whole mind" edited by Lynette Bassman, PH.D.
    Chapter 12 by Kevin V. Ergil, M.A., M.S., L.Ac., F.N.A.A.O.M., F.A.A.P.M. and William Prensky, O.M.D., L.Ac.

    Have fun.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #181  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Barring your inability to produce a single study, the debate is over and you've clearly lost.
    Who has lost? If not me than do I get a red ribbon for second place?
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  82. #182  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Again, I ask -implore- you to show us the double-blind study that demonstrates the validity of TCM, acupuncture, or any other form of quack "medicine."
    Of course there is lots of evidence, but you do not consider it to be valid evidence.
    Show us all this "evidence" and lets discuss it first before you continue to make assumptions about what I may or may not consider valid. If you have a valid study with valid methods and results, it'll be worth talking about. But you refuse to share your "lot's of evidence."

    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    You have made it clear that the only that it can be recognized as science is if supporters were to perform double blind experiments and those experiments were to support their contentions.

    Therefore, I have a question to ask you. [...]
    Nope. Not going to do it. You're deflecting my question of "where's the evidence" with your new fallacies of strawmen and red herrings.

    I'll not entertain your anti-science rants any longer unless you decide to share you evidence with us. Clearly you are ignorant to the workings of science. I and others in this forum are more than willing to share their experience and knowledge, but it would be pointless if you already have conclusions to which you seek only that information which validates. If it comforts you to be a "winner" in this debate, then by all means. Accept your victory.

    You've given many claims and provided no evidence, but if you're willing to call that a victory, its yours. You're the winner.

    I'm sure all will agree.

    I'm still interested in seeing you resolve the contradictions you've presented in this thread with regard to your credulity. You claim to be skeptical of religion in this thread, but then buy into poppycock like TCM without any evidence that you deem important or significant enough to share with the rest of us.

    Blind faith without evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  83. #183  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Where are the controlled studies then? If all you have is anecdotal testimony, I can give you pages upon pages of testimony that supports the practice of blood-letting in reducing fever, curing disease, and preventing health problems. Will that testimony make it easy for you to release a few pints in a bucket next time you get the flu?
    I'm not sure you understand. I don't get the flu. Haven't for a few years now.
    Nor have I. I think the last time I had the flu (or anything similar to it) was in 1995. I can't remember the time before that. I get flu shots every couple of years... basically if its convenient. I don't use any paranormal alternatives; don't pray; don't particularly pay attention to what I eat.

    I wonder what kind of conclusion could be drawn from that? The answer is: none whatsoever. But if you did get the flu, would you accept a blood-letting? There's plenty of testimony that it works. George Washington even had it done at least once, though it probably killed him.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Hmmm... that is strange, I have been studying Ayurveda for about that long. That is one good placebo if you ask me.
    This is called magical thinking. Nothing more. There are baseball players that attribute their winning streaks to wearing the same unwashed underwear each game. Same faulty logic.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    This life span thing you speak of is interesting. Have you considered that many of these other countries are very poor.
    Of course they're poor. This is one of my biggest complaints about western medicine: that its expensive. I don't defend that. But I'm not criticizing the politics and economics of real medicine; I'm criticizing the bullshit of pseudoscience. But when someone buys the medicine and gets them to poor, indigenous peoples, their infant mortality rates decline and lifespans increase.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    I hear there is a place in Russia where people live to about 120-140 these days. Sorry I can't remember the location. Maybe you were not meant to understand in this life.
    People hear a lot of things. Many repeat them. Magical thinking and paranormal belief are human characteristics and can even be argued to have been an evolutionary advantage at one time. But in modern society its time to put away folk medicine; folk science and folk religions and get on with the business of science and progress.

    And if you don't get it in "this life," there are no others to try it. This one is it and there's no reason to believe otherwise (Respond to that one in another thread please).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  84. #184  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I have no doubt that one day you will understand. Whether you get your evidence or not. Although, I would not be suprised if it was from your evidence. Seeing as how that is what made me understand.

    Just so you know. I am not a quack, as you call them. I am not involved in some thousand year old conspiracy. My eveidence is found in me and my friends. If you think I am living off some placebo than let's hope this placebo lasts forever because I don't ever plan on getting a flu shot. And a friend of mine would hate to have his back pain return after it is fully healed.

    Well I'm spent. I think I will go read more about my wonderful world of "poppycock".

    I would like you to please understand that my intentions are true. If that means anything to you.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  85. #185  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Quote Originally Posted by Hermes
    Therefore, I have a question to ask you. [...]
    Nope. Not going to do it. You're deflecting my question of "where's the evidence" with your new fallacies of strawmen and red herrings.
    Your entire argument is a red herring.

    I'll not entertain your anti-science rants any longer
    It is you who is doing all of the ranting and all of the anti-science talk. You are the only talking about relgious bullshit, quacks, and charletans. You are the only one who is ranting here. You are also the only one who is anti-science, as you show here.

    Clearly you are ignorant to the workings of science.
    You seem to be the one who is ignorant of science. Your determining factors have little to do with science, and quite a bit to do with your anti-religion rant.

    I and others in this forum are more than willing to share their experience and knowledge,
    A red herring. You are more than willing to rant about things that you clearly know nothing about.

    but it would be pointless if you already have conclusions
    Yes, that is certainly you here.

    to which you seek only that information which validates. If it comforts you to be a "winner" in this debate, then by all means. Accept your victory.
    Wow, look at you. You seem to be interested only in who wins. You have claimed victory multiple times. I have not, because it is meaningless. Now you throw your behavior on me. Nice try though.

    I'm still interested in seeing you resolve the contradictions you've presented in this thread with regard to your credulity. You claim to be skeptical of religion in this thread, but then buy into poppycock like TCM without any evidence that you deem important or significant enough to share with the rest of us.
    So, after all of my postings, it seems that you have not read them or do not understand my position in religion.

    Blind faith without evidence.
    This does seem to be your position, I agree.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  86. #186  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    I would like you to please understand that my intentions are true. If that means anything to you.
    Hey, if it works for you, go for it. As you probably saw from reading my blog (what did you think of cellular therapy, btw?), my concern is about those willing to take money from others who genuinely need medical care.

    TCM and other "alternative" treatments are among those who take money from unsuspecting, credulous people who are simply seeking hope, help, and health. They do it with $29.95 books, seminars, newsletters, subscriptions to internet sites and bogus classes.

    I've no doubt there are aspects of TCM that have some legitimate value and are worthy of proper investigation, but most of it is simply baloney.

    Human cultures around the world have had the benefit of thousands of years of trial an error to find natural solutions to real-time problems. The bark of a tree whose name eludes me at the moment produces a quinine-like substance that can prevent malaria. But the same shaman that "prescribed" tea from this bark probably also "prescribes" other substances which have no, or even deleterious, effect on the "patient." This sort of thing has been documented time and again (and I'll provide citation if anyone is truly interested).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  87. #187  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Hermes, You win.

    No more pathetic bullshit from you tonight. You've failed to produce any evidence for your wild claims about TCM and you keep going on an on about about this mystery evidence. The religious nutters where right about you and your arguments, by the way. They lack any logical coherence and are rife with fallacy. You are affronted when I point out that you clearly have lost the debate then affronted when I tell you you've won.

    Clearly you wish only to argue and not engage in any intellectual discussion, otherwise you would have avoided so many logical fallacies and stuck to the facts. But since there are no apparent facts to back your wild claims you stick to what works for you: bitching and crying about how nobody understands you.

    If you come up with some useful data to offer as evidence, perhaps I'll respond. Perhaps you'll even win me over as I'm not too proud to revise my position given valid evidence. Or, perhaps I'll simply refute it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  88. #188  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    You are very sneaky.

    I am sorry but I did not read anything on cellular therapy. It sounds interesting though, if you would like to explain.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  89. #189  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    651
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    No more pathetic bullshit from you tonight.
    You are quite happy to provide what you call pathetic bullshit.

    The religious nutters where right about you and your arguments,
    I am quite surprised that you are no only so vehement about calling things bullshit, but about your whole opinion that all followers of religion are full of bullshit. What an odd opinion that is clearly not at all scientific, no matter how much you might claim to be superior.

    Clearly you wish only to argue and not engage in any intellectual discussion,
    Sure, you would put this on me, rather than on you. You are the one who comes out swinging with all of TCM is religious bullshit, and that there is only one type of evidence in the world that you will accept for TCM, no matter what evidence you would accept for other disciplines. Now you are saying that this is your polite way in trying to invite intellectual discussion. You have no interest in the methodology, which is what science is all about, but care about only one specific type of evidence that proves quality. Do you use this criteriom as the sole criterion for evaluting whether other branches of learning are science or "religious bullshit", or are you a hypocrit?

    I know that you will think that it does not constitute evidence, but the NIH and the WHO clearly think that acupuncture has value.

    National Institutes of Health consensus statement supports acupuncture
    http://www.healthy.net/LIBRARY/Artic...tm#Conclusions
    Press release: http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/nov97/od-05.htm

    The World Health Organization (WHO) recognizes the use of acupuncture:
    http://www.edsonacupuncture.com/NIH.htm#WHO

    Although I do not claim that I would use his words, here is a guy who claims that people like you who demand double blind studies as the only valid evidence that TCM is science as opposed to "religious bullshit", as you so eloquently call it, are full of it.
    http://www.lightparty.com/Health/Hea...tMedTruth.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  90. #190  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    Hey, if it works for you, go for it.
    I assume this means you understand. For that I am thankful.

    I am sorry, I do not feel that I am truly qualified to give any proof of these medicines besides what I have already said. You may be able to tell, I am still just a student (I guess we all are but, I really am).
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  91. #191  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    I was reminded of this book a read a while back while reading in a different thread. I has a bit on Acupuncture. Acupunture points have a lower electrical resistance, certain neurotransmitters are produced (serotonin, norepinephrine), dilated blood vessels, electromagnetic fields showing points on the body, etc. Interesting but, not much detail.

    The book is The Field by Lynne McTaggart. Page 55 if you want to look it up. I'm a bit busy but, I may look at some of the references.

    Here is one reference that looked promising:
    B. Pomeranz and G. Stu, Scientific Basis of Acupuncture (New York: Springer Verlag, 1989)

    I haven't looked at it yet, just wanted to put it up if anyone is interested.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  92. #192 Zelous you have made my point in one sentence 
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    as i see it religion answers no question with proof
    science answer all relevant questions, eventually <--- NOTICE THIS
    Zelous you have made my point in one sentence. The sad thing about the ultra true Lilly white statement above is that while scientists ridicule unproven crack pot theory's , and pat each other on the back , with all their "yes man" heads profanely nodding (or should that read BOBBING) up and down, intoxicated by their delusional drug of main line science THEORY, and peer group acceptance, they, these pompous bastards, are all living the biggest lie of all!

    So , as you say zelos, some day science will get it right, just as the gods have all along. However, for now, if you live in your Orwellian box ,believing the lies that you were indoctrinated in to believing from K 1 , and be a good citizen doing the gestapo walk and paying your taxes, staying in your boxed in thinking mode, as well as your real box that government expects people to live eat die and defecate in , until they die, If you do all these things , you will die ignorant and lost , having lived your life (and much, much worse) you afterlife addicted to lies.

    have a nice revroswell day all.

    Ps this reply wasnt directed personally to Zelous, it was directed to all of those who are afraid of ideas and seek to harm those who have the greatest truths, and most profound answers in the history of the world, like Jesus Christ, who died for you, and I.

    ; { >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  93. #193  
    Forum Isotope Zelos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,755
    my mind isnt closed, i am open minded to things that have > 0 chance of bieng right, then it can be 10^-9999999% chance its right but its still a possibility. God is a 0%. why? becuase there is no mathematical formula for it, nor any emperial evidence.

    You cant say you know the truth unless you can emperial prove it. truth can be proven, faith cant.

    when it comes to my afterlife i dont care about it, becuase its illogical there is any. To many biological difficulties to be solved and there is no evolutionary advantage for it to evolve it even if it were possible. The goverment have nothing to do with my thinking
    I am zelos. Destroyer of planets, exterminator of life, conquerer of worlds. I have come to rule this uiniverse. And there is nothing u pathetic biengs can do to stop me

    On the eighth day Zelos said: 'Let there be darkness,' and the light was never again seen.

    The king of posting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  94. #194  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Who has lost? If not me than do I get a red ribbon for second place?

    Hey Da bob, you shouldn't even be in that race, Lost? 2nd place? hell, you have won and finished the race,
    Well you being like a Indy car and "they" being like ..ummm a tricycle jock...ahhhh' ... it is difficult for a Open wheel Indy car to slow down to tricycle and crayons speed, eh?

    its difficult to answer a questions if the intended recipients do not under stand the question, even if we disregard its simplicity. Pure truth needs no explanation to a open mind, and a average intelligence.

    So now you may extrapolate what you wish if, and when, you read my long and exponentially multiplied explanations on this forum to a few Nazis.

    ZZZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMMMMMM


    this reply should be read with tongue in cheek, while the content is oh, so f%% true, the presentation is a bit sarcastic...



    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  95. #195  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    religous nutter? yeah that would be me, and I thank God(s) and big Albert E (who along with Jesus and my father) my Heros, being religious and spirtural.

    The nutter part> if that sets me apart from the homouious masses as well as guieds me to the truth of the universe I welcome that as well.

    psssssst' ..... It has enlightened me, where, once, I saw only death and decay, darkness and the harmful spirit of human species , religious revelation has somehow rescued me from the ugly black goo of secular humanism that my spirit had been become marred. Trouble is, I am still a sinner in gods eyes , (filthy rags in his eyes according to scripture), and, while rescued, I'm still stuck in the goo up to my gonads.

    At least, from here I can see the universe( temporal universe) from a higher and truthful perspective, and see that man has some redeeming qualities, and that there is a reason we are here in this planet, and that all is not lost.....yet.

    have a nutter kinda religious day...

    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  96. #196  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    Religious nutter? yeah that would be me, and I thank God(s) and big Albert E (who along with Jesus and my father) my Heroes, being religious and spiritual.

    The nutter part> if that sets me apart from the homogenous masses as well as guides me to the truth of the universe I welcome that as well.

    psssssst' ..... It has enlightened me, where, once, I saw only death and decay, darkness and the harmful spirit of human species , religious revelation has somehow rescued me from the ugly black goo of secular humanism that my spirit had been become marred. Trouble is, I am still a sinner in gods eyes , (filthy rags in his eyes according to scripture), and, while rescued, I'm still stuck in the goo up to my gonads.

    At least, from here I can see the universe( temporal universe) from a higher and truthful perspective, and see that man has some redeeming qualities, and that there is a reason we are here in this planet, and that all is not lost.....yet.

    have a nutter kinda' religious day...

    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  97. #197  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    6
    Zelos you can't spell worth shit, no matter how smart you think you are. Ignorant about being ignorant smart about being smart.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  98. #198  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    First, welcome to The Science Forum. Enjoy your stay.

    Second, I'd like to remind you that not everyone is here who has English for a second or even third language.

    Third, casual use of profanity, while not expressly against the rules, is discouraged since this is meant to be a forum for all ages.

    Thank you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  99. #199  
    Forum Sophomore REV ROSWELL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    OHSOVERYFAREASTTENNESSEE
    Posts
    153
    First, welcome to The Science Forum. Enjoy your stay.

    adrenalinefix36

    .In my opinion this forum is religious phobic and unfairly biased against free expression, in any case I would agree that for the kids sake, even though shit isn't so bad in my book , as most third graders world consider mild, we should refrain, from using the profane, just in case there are any K1 students reading this.

    Be aware that a dual standard exists here, oh and the politically correct English intolerant detail, I think the science forum originates in china or north Korea at times, just watch your Ps and Q's pat the secular humanists on the back bob your head up and down like a goofey yes man, and please don't attempt to speak about ID or god in any form unless you keep it in a small box labeled DANGER GOD SPOKEN HERE!!!!!



    !!!!!!DANGER, DANGER DANGER !!!!!!

    If you read the above and insist on making religious statments or have an orginal idea, put on your mental kevlar, but dont shoot back as they cannot take what they serve.

    make sure that if you are allowed to speak of religion , you do it in at least three languages. Hey systran has translators for free online.

    Although filled with truth this reply was written tongue in cheek, and is a parody of the science forum....relax its humor, not serious...well...........maybe a bit serious....

    ; } >
    SPACE TIME IS THE BLOOD OF GOD
    Reply With Quote  
     

  100. #200  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Please. Feel free to mention ID and gods of all kinds.

    But if making any claims about these, be prepared to back them up with logical arguments instead of pseudoscience and mythology.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •