Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 100

Thread: Which came first?

  1. #61
    Natarian Knight DFBATTLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    21.11.2008
    Location
    Tamriel
    Posts
    9,475

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Critter View Post
    And there it is...You just argued my point for me.
    Exactly.


    Muser 4 lyf

  2. #62
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    13.01.2009
    Location
    mbstokem
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    Exactly.
    Like I said, when you have an intelligent thought, come back.

  3. #63
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    DF there is a huge body of evidence that directly shows the law of attraction is complete nonsense. One good example is in RCTs of the effect of psychological support in the treatment of cancer (particularly breast cancer). Pretty much the theory was that if you could improve patient outlook you could improve treatment outcome, this was a scientifically plausible hypothesis. The majority of researchers performing the studies undoubtedly were expecting positive outcomes. However after about twenty years of this research it is clear that psychological support did not improve hard outcomes such as death or risk of remission. Only subjective outcomes such as for example patient pain during treatment were improved compared to control.

    This is pretty clear evidence that the "law" of attraction is nonsense. On the other hand you can find testimonials to support just about anything. For example say as a thought experiment that there is a 50/50 chance of an individuals life getting either better of worse after they begin applying the "law" of attraction i.e random chance. In this situation you'd still be able to get positive testimonials from 50% of the population who tried it.

    There is nothing wrong with being positive and it probably an important component of being happy, but expecting that the universe will simply give you everything you wish for is just immature.
    Last edited by Utisz; 03.12.2010 at 02:44.

  4. #64
    Natarian Knight DFBATTLER's Avatar
    Join Date
    21.11.2008
    Location
    Tamriel
    Posts
    9,475

    Default

    Well to your breast cancer treatment spiel, I say BS, because you can't just treat someone by saying "You're gonna be in the best health you've ever been tomorrow"... that's just f*cking stupid. True Law of Attraction is like an "inception", you have to BELIEVE it's the truth, not just halfheartedly think, "I'll be good tomorrow... Yeah right." That's not how it works. Scientists don't know how it functions, THEREFORE it must be bullsh*t, right? You can't have test subjects for the Law of Attraction unless a true master of the mind teaches them, which I don't believe to be the case (not even close!) here.


    @Critter: I just did, that's why I supported both sides of the argument, dumb***. No need to insult my intelligence over the Internet, unless you have no one else to take your stupidity out on. Thank you and goodbye.


    Muser 4 lyf

  5. #65
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    They didn't just tell them "You're gonna be in the best health you've ever been tomorrow" the studies collectively cover a range of distinct strategies designed specifically to reduce anxiety/stress and improve general mood, outlook, and alter health behavior. I said in my last post that for this example plausible mechanisms existed to why psychological support might produce an improved outcome, this wasn't a question of "we don't understand it THEREFORE it must be bullsh*t", this was a question of was there an effect there or not. Likewise "scientists" don't think the law of attractions is "bullsh*t" because we can't explain it, we think it is "bullsh*t" because there isn't a phenomenon there in the first place.

    Let's look at the 'law' of attraction what are its claims? Pretty much it boils down to the view that sincere positive thinking and beliefs leads to positive results. For example a cancer patient who truly and sincerely believed they would get better and focused on the positive aspects of there life would be expected to have an improved prognosis if the 'law' of attraction was true. This is exactly the sort of behavior the studies were designed to foster, and improvements was shown in patient outlook, some of whom I'm sure perfectly fitted the description I've just given. Hence if the 'law' of attraction was true you'd expect to see some improvement in hard outcomes in the treatment group whether there was a "true master of the mind" involved or not. What are you claiming that the 'law' of attraction only work when mind masters are present? If it is a law it should work all the time, anything else is simply special pleading. If you want to argue this nonsense then first DEFINE what you believe the law of attraction to be.
    Last edited by Utisz; 03.12.2010 at 11:25.

  6. #66
    Natarian Knight
    Join Date
    13.01.2009
    Location
    mbstokem
    Posts
    676

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DFBATTLER View Post
    @Critter: I just did, that's why I supported both sides of the argument, dumb***. No need to insult my intelligence over the Internet, unless you have no one else to take your stupidity out on. Thank you and goodbye.
    That wasn't an intelligent thought, you just proved your ignorance by proving the point that I just said.

  7. #67
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Utisz View Post
    As for Zenobia about 35% of American scientists believe in the existence of god, such a belief is not a roadblock to a successful career. You might get the occasional light ribbing from a coworker but your employer isn't going to give two shakes what your private belief is. When it becomes a problem is when ones religious convictions interfere with their work.
    That might be true.
    For example calling evolution a myth (which you have essentially done prior) in an article will garden you nothing but scorn because the evidence is so conclusive.
    Ok, what I did call a myth was the idea that mutations were responsible for creating the raw materials needed to create new species. The facts show that after a century of study in the field of genetic research, mutations only at best introduce only changes within limits, but cannot create an entirely new species.

    Your "so conclusive" evidence, is rather debatable since the "theory of evolution" is still just that...a "theory", meaning only speculation, conjecture, a guess; not a proven fact. That's obviously still a work in progress.



    Some people still believe the sun orbits the earth! (Literally)
    Proof that all the evidence in the world means nothing to some. But evidence is important to those who base their opinions on learning of such. We all have opinions, which we are all entitled to.
    If something like chance vs. intelligence, seems reasonable to you, then by all means, believe it.
    But to me, the more I examine nature and it's intrinsic design, the more reasonable conclusion is an intelligent Creator.
    That being said, let's keep researching and examining the evidence. Because there is still so much to learn about this planet and a vast universe we've only barely touched the tip of.

  8. #68
    Utisz
    Guest

    Default

    Firstly expect Reddshield to start bashing you over the head within a couple of hours for completely misconstruing the scientific meaning of the term "theory".

    Secondly there is absolutely no theoretical basis for differentiating between micro and macro evolutionary change, you might as well accept the existence of points but deny the existence of lines. Not only is species generation possible it has been demonstrated under lab conditions, one easy example in plants are polyploids which can produce reproductive isolation and substantial phenotype changes i.e. species generation. A clear example of this is the speciation event that gave rise to oenothera gigas, which serendipitously occurred as a result of a non-induced mutation during a genetic study of primroses. Likewise there are numerous reported incidents of nonpolyploid speciation events in drosophila.

    While a 'real world" example of genetic evidence for evolution that is pretty much a slam dunk is the distribution of neutral mutations in living populations, which make zero sense outside of the evolutionary framework. These are just two examples of purely genetic evidence out of hundreds. The fact that your denying evolution leave me in doubt you've even taken so much as high school biology so excuse me if I don't take your musings about the clear evidence in nature seriously.

    Your just talking nonsense.
    Last edited by Utisz; 03.12.2010 at 11:18.

  9. #69
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Utisz View Post
    there is absolutely no theoretical basis for differentiating between micro and macro evolutionary change, you might as well accept the existence of points but deny the existence of lines.

    Your just talking nonsense.
    If you really believe that, then you must believe that agnostic or atheistic scientists do not let their personal beliefs influence their interpretations of scientific findings.
    In this regard, you only mirror the many contradictory statements of the many evolutionists themselves.
    So, of course, it makes no sense to you.

  10. #70
    Thorned Warrior
    Join Date
    21.11.2009
    Location
    Illinois, USA
    Posts
    74

    Default

    REDSHEILD
    Can god create a rock that he cannot lift?
    Seriously, are you wanting a play on words?
    Last edited by zenobia; 03.12.2010 at 16:07.

Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst ... 56789 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •