+- +-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 51
Latest: JUST4TheFACTS
New This Month: 0
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 15785
Total Topics: 267
Most Online Today: 54
Most Online Ever: 201
(December 08, 2019, 11:34:38 pm)
Users Online
Members: 0
Guests: 8
Total: 8

Author Topic: Human Life is Fragile but EVERY Life is Valuable  (Read 9303 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Palloy said,
Quote
I recommend you totally abandon your faith in the non-3-D universe, because it will never yield any uncontestable assertions, and you will be going round in circles for ever, but that is up to you.

The generalization that my world view will never yield any uncontestable assertions is not accurate. I am alive. I should not be. My rib cage rotated about 10 to 15 degrees. My head was slammed back and forth against the right front side of a car windshield and the left driver's side window so hard, and so many times in a 15 second crash sequence at about 140 mph, that I would feel the pain on the left side of my head while my eyes registered my head on the right side of the passenger compartment. I should be dead. The doctor wanted to do an exploratory. Ask UB what THAT entails. They don't do that on people that make sh it up. I am living proof that miracles occur. No question about it.

Your definition of "going around in circles" is at odds with mine. Your assertion that my view necessarily negates belief in SOME empirical evidence is false. As much as you want to believe that, I do not live in la-la land.

You are the one who flat refuses to include immeasurable, but documented, spontaneous healing in your world view. And I know why. You see, you may not have pondered this, but I have. IF the ONLY WAY our biochemical machinery can be repaired is by obeying the laws of thermodynamics while remaining within the tight life range of oxygenation and homeostatic requirements in temperature ranges, pH and so on, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be spontaneously healed.

Yet, it happens. In the 3D part of our universe, these events are not reproducible on demand but, nevertheless, their occurrence is empirically documented. This is a conundrum for materialist atheists. This requires that they adopt the position that, "therefore, what we THOUGHT was healing a person when we gave them this medicine or that therapy is not accurate". But they won't do that. They instead adopt the position that it's a random event of ZERO importance to their world view. When challenged they suggest the believer go back to reading entrails or shaking sticks at the sick. I am not proposing that. Aspirin really does help with headaches. ;D   

IF Your world view really did require irrefutable evidence before you accepted something as real, you would not accept much of what you now accept ON FAITH, as real. Mine assumes irrefutability is a pipe dream. IOW, you are the one doomed to run around in tautological circles. You are the one limiting the boundary of your thoughts to an arbitrary standard of proof.

For example, if you saw a flying saucer, you would immediately get out your light speed limit assumptions and claim, "well, I'm seeing things" or "That could NOT have come from another star system so it must be some high tech toy the military has cooked up to scare the rubes with".

You have, Palloy, all sorts of road blocks to accepting the possibility of what is real and what is not because of a self imposed construct of reality. And a lot of what you believe, you cannot prove anyway. Yet you fancy that you've got reality nailed down and are keenly aware of when something cannot be part of it. That is a pipe dream.

But thanks for politely trying your best to enlighten me. Others might ask me to walk off a tall building since it's all "mind over matter" or whatever.     I disagree with your world view but know you mean well. 

   
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
I'll be watching it from Box Seats on the Other Side.

Most email applications have a Send Later function, which typically leaves the message in your Outbox until the next automatic Send/Receive.  Thunderbird also has the add-on called, surprisingly enough, SendLater, which allows you to choose a date-time for the message to be sent.  Thus if you are going to commit suicide, you can leave your goodbye email until some time after the event, to prevent interference.  You have to leave your computer on, obviously.

I can't find an add-on for emailing from the Other Side, but if we get an email from dr.hunter.s.doom@theotherside.com I'm sure we will all work it out.
Palloy,
u may be trying to help, but u r not helping here.
RE,
I understand Palloy is just trying to help, but I agree with UB.

Sure, we are all gonna die someday. If you want to get mathematically predictive about it and project a date, Palloy is the go to guy. But I have actually pondered that as well.  ;D I even have a final countdown going.  :evil4:

There is a free widget that I have on my desktop called FreeCoundownTimer http://free-countdown-timer.com/. After you set the time, date and sound for each timer, you can use a text field to write a note to yourself as a reminder about the timer's purpose. 

Free Countdown Timer offers a number of convenience features:

The timer wakes up your system from a Sleep mode.
The timer will automatically turn up the volume if you have it on mute by accident, and set a predefined volume level.

It rings bells, sounds a siren or tweets bird sounds (whatever your choice to remind you of that a date has arrived).

How many days, hours, minutes and seconds are left for all the dates are displayed any time you click on it. I use it for the dates of summer, fall, autumn, winter and the 2,140 days or so left in my prison sentence on planet earth  :icon_mrgreen:.

My math is, unfortunately, not based on any revelations from upstairs  ;D. I am rather boring and hard boiled empirical about some things, after all. I mean, you don't have experience flying airplanes and controlling air traffic because you did these things with a crystal ball  :icon_mrgreen:.

What I did was study deaths and disease in my family. Specifically, when and why did my grandparents on both sides, and my parents, die.

I even filled out a "When are you gonna die" thing on the web by entering how many years I had smoked and other stuff the bean counter actuarial folks use to jack up life insurance premiums  :evil4:. Of course, heaven forbid that these objective folks would game the data to make it look like you would DIE SOONER than they think so they can jack up the rates. No sir, no conflict of interest THERE, is there Palloy? After all, their data sets are from "reputable" sources...

But I digress. The actuarial folks claimed I have about 6 years left. SO, understanding where THEY are coming from, I figure I have a few years MORE than that. And yeah, these SAME folks that claim you have a foot in the grave and another on a banana peel are the ones who turn around and trumpet how "modern' civilization (HELLO FOSSIL FUELS!) and medicine has "increased" our life expectancy.  Of course, there is no cognitive dissonant mindfuck contradiction there, RIGHT?

Whoops, I digressed again. Mea culpa.

One of my grandmothers died from cancer around the age of 50. The other one (on my dad's side) died at 85. One of my grandfathers died at 67 of cancer (on my dad's side) and the other one died at 75. Atherosclerocis and assorted dementia complications offed the ones that didn't die of cancer. My mom died at 75 from cancer (ALL the cancers for all the above cancer victims were different cancers.). My old man died at 95.

Palloy could have great fun crunching those numbers but I keep it simple. Life expectancy in general, as has been PROVEN EMPIRICALLY, is a function how old you are at the time you crunch the numbers. Nevertheless, I KNOW that I have now outlived one grandmother and one grandfather on different sides. The next target is age 75. My dad is an outlier in the cohort that I consider of little importance to my math because his personality was that of a reptile. His world view enabled him to not worry or be bothered by absolutely anything or anybody. I've never been like that. I think people like him are those that have contributed MOST to our dystopia. Yet I accept the FACT that those people generally live longer because they are untroubled by the pain of their fellow earthlings, humans or otherwise.

After all this uncredentialed "math" on my part, I have formulated the hypothesis that I will die within a year or two of 75. So, I set my timer to that and click on it every now and then. Have a nice day.



Quote
IF the ONLY WAY our biochemical machinery can be repaired is by obeying the laws of thermodynamics while remaining within the tight life range of oxygenation and homeostatic requirements in temperature ranges, pH and so on, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be spontaneously healed.  Yet, it happens.

That is a small step of progress.

If (strictly for the sake of the argument) I concede that spontaneous healing does happen, then how much more of an explanation for it do you have, over what I have?  I don't want to put words in your mouth, but isn't your explanation that "it is done by some unknowable, invisible entity, for whom breaking the Laws of Thermodynamics is no problem", while my explanation is "I can't explain it" ?

How much more do you know than I do?  It seems like your explanation doesn't have any more explanatory power than mine. It doesn't tell you that there is life after death, for instance.

There you go again. Your explanation is not simply that "You can't explain it". That is not an explanation, is it? That is an unsubstantiated claim that your world view will EVENTUALLY explain it. You flat refuse to question the basic tenets of your world view even though the empirical data out there contradicts it. Since when do you HAVE TO believe in something because no other "suitable explanation" (see ONLY physical matter and energy cause and effect is the only thing "permitted".)?

That is not an objective position. If the data does not fit the hypothesis, the hypothesis is supposed to be rejected, whether you have a new one or not.

RE, for example, actually has presented his conditions for accepting that J.C. exists. It has been tongue in cheek but at least he DID say that, if J.C. shows up at his place with some free Samuel Adams, then RE would revise his hypothesis, so to speak.

This is where I am going with this, Palloy. I DO want to talk about spontaneous healings. I DO want to present the empirical evidence. I DO want it clearly stated that the occurrence of spontaneous healing is NOT superstition and MUST BE accepted as part of our reality by any objective person, be they an atheist or not. As long as we split hairs about the frequency of the occurrence, the lack of explanations and so on, the ISSUE of the REALITY of their occurrence is placed on the back burner. Spontaneous healing is a FRONT BURNER issue for those that claim it is IMPOSSIBLE.

As to life after death, of course spontaneous healing does not prove that exists. Even out of body experiences would only prove that life OUTSIDE THE BODY is possible, not that life after death exists. We may have some faculty within the electromagnetic spectrum that allows us to "radio" our 5 senses a certain distance from the body. There are serious medical studies (many by the military, by the way) trying to figure out how that works.

Life after death is one subject; spontaneous healing is another. That's what we are after on thread, is it not?

And I do agree that many people receive spontaneous healing because of their OWN faith in their OWN power to heal without the aid or existence of a supreme being directing the show. Knarf could probably provide you with lots of evidence of faith healing power that can't be measured empirically. UB has documented some of those occurrences. He has spoken about them in the past. UB is a medical doctor. He does not do bullshit or fairy tales. I'm sure he can tell us stuff (that I am certain he can prove without a shadow of a doubt, by the way) that could make our hair stand on end!

Question: Would you consider modifying your view of reality if RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no medical science, therapy was responsible?
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution


After my last stroke the doctor was urging me to follow his advice to take three pills, three times a day for the rest of my life, so we got into a discussion about life expectancy.  He had access to a web app for doctors, which took the obvious stroke factors, age, sex, lifestyle factors, medications and so on, and came up with a prediction for percentage chance of surviving 5 years, with and without the medications.

A typical doctor, talking down to his ignorant patient, he clearly didn't realise he was talking to a mathematician/demographer who had started their working life at the Census Office.  I pointed out that as a 62 year old with a family history of heart problems, my chances of surviving another 5 years were not all that high anyway, and certainly not the 100% he was implying by not mentioning it at all.  As a smoker, I wasn't like my cohort, who probably would have been smoking for 40+ years, since I had given up for 25 years in that time and that had mostly reset the clock on that.  And as someone who made the conscious decision at 30 to live in a clean air and clean water environment, with regular exercise and low stress lifestyle ...  Anyway I managed to get him to agree that my chances had magically improved from 16% to 30%, and he didn't have data on factors that I felt improved my chances further.

So how does anyone assess what 30% chance of surviving 5 years, as opposed to 40%, really means?  The short answer is, you can't.  What actually happens to you, as opposed to the statistically average cohort member, is stochastic - dependent on so many immeasurable variables that it is effectively random.

Best just take it one day at a time, and enjoy it as much as you can.

Agreed. You can't. And you can't because it is involves too many variables for accurate prediction. Yogi Berra — 'It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.'   

But to address your exchange with the doctor, let us discuss a phenomenon that psychology (based entirely on your world view that we live in a random universe) calls, "The Illusion of Control". They call it that because stuff happens that isn't reproducible on demand and appears (i.e. "illusion"  ) to violate the "rules" of this universe, therefore, it MUST be a random event. I disagree, but let's see where they go with this.

It's a tricky subject because there ARE people that fall into the magical thinking trap from an actual illusion of control. One size fits all is not the way to approach this but the psychology folks try to do just that. They take blatant examples of people believing baloney and equate them to actual, empirically documented examples of the power of people to overcome negative cause and effect, particularly in the health care area.



Here are some bonafide examples of "Illusion of Control" from the article:

Quote
The ‘illusion of control’ is this: people tend to overestimate their perceived control over events in their lives. It’s well documented and has been tested over-and-over in lots of different studies over four decades.
 
Here’s an example:
you choose an apple which tastes delicious. You assume you are very skilled at choosing apples (when in fact the whole batch happens to be good today).

Another: you enter the lottery and win millions. You assume that this is (partly) a result of how good your lucky numbers are (in fact lotteries are totally random so you can’t influence them with the numbers you choose. Although most of us know and accept this, we still harbour an inkling that maybe it does matter which numbers we choose).

Sometimes this illusion manifests as magical thinking
. In one study participants watched another person try to shoot a miniature basketball through a hoop (Pronin et al., 2006). When participants willed the player to make the shot, and they did, they felt it was partly down to them, even though they couldn’t possibly be having any effect.

It’s like pedestrians in New York who still press the button
to get the lights to change, despite the fact they do nothing. Since the late 80s all the traffic signals have been controlled by computer, but the city won’t pay to have the buttons removed.

It’s probably just as well: they help boost people’s illusion of control. We feel better when we can do something that feels like it might have an effect (even if it doesn’t).

So it is clear that they poo poo ANY concept or idea that involves mind over matter. HOW, for example, does "feeling better" about some power we don't have "help"?

But then they show conclusive evidence that something is going on that they cannot explain randomly! Yet they try hard to shove it into their cause and effect Procrustean Bed. 

Quote
... studies find that hospital patients who are able to administer their own painkillers typically give themselves lower doses than those who have them prescribed by doctors, but they experience no more pain (Egan, 1990: What does it mean to a patient to be “in control”).

LESS PAIN is clearly NOT an illusion. But they don't want to go there, do they?  ;)

So, they surround the above with clever (and unscientific) disclaimers:

Quote
A beneficial illusion?

It’s sometimes argued that the illusion of control is beneficial because it can encourage people to take responsibility. It’s like when a person is diagnosed with an illness; they want to take control through starting medication or changing their diet or other aspect of their lifestyle.

Notice the subtext. That is, it is allegedly IMPOSSIBLE for ANY thought process coming from the FAITH of a sick person to heal a sick person. Those taking less pain pills were, IOW, DELUDING themselves (SEE cause and effect Procrustean Bed straight jacket).

Nevertheless, since there IS (though not predictable or easily measurable) an irrefutable cause and effect relationship between what people believe and the outcome of life events, as psychological studies have born out, these psychologists now want to go in the OTHER direction!

No, they don't want to question their world view; they want to change the term  "Illusion of Control" to "Illusion of Futility"!

Quote
Illusion of futility

So far, so orthodox. What’s fascinating is the idea that the illusion of control itself may be an illusion, or at least only part of the story.

What if the illusion of having control depends heavily on how much control we actually have? After all, we’re not always totally out-of-the-loop like the experiments above suggest. Sometimes we have a lot of control over the outcomes in our life.

This has been recently tested out in a series of experiments by Gino et al. (2011). What they found was that the illusion of control flips around when control over a situation is really high. When participants in their studies actually had plenty of control, suddenly they were more likely to underestimate it.

This is a pretty serious challenge to the illusion of control. If backed up by other studies, it reverses the idea that the illusion of control is usually beneficial. Now we’re in a world where sometimes the illusion is keeping us back.

For example, applying for more jobs increases the chance of getting one, exercise does make you more healthy, buying a new car does make you poorer. All these are areas in which we have high levels of control but which we may well be assuming we don’t.

This effect will have to be renamed the illusion of futility. In other words: when you have high control, you underestimate how much what you do really matters.

http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/02/the-illusion-of-control-are-there-benefits-to-being-self-deluded.php

The "loop" is a fascinating scientific term, is it not?  I think Cheney authored the "Theory of the Loop" sometime ago. I am anxious to hear how the psychologists define the "Loop".   
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
Question: Would you consider modifying your view of reality if RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no medical science, therapy was responsible?

I am dissatisfied with the "I can't explain it" answer as well. That's why I maintain my scepticism that miraculous events really are as described.  I don't doubt your sincerity, but it cannot be as you describe it.  The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be broken, not in any universe, how ever many dimensions it has. Universes would fall apart if the LoTs didn't apply everywhere all the time.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" and it is up to the claimant to substantiate the claims.  Once you admit that the LoTs would have to have been broken, you have to make out a strong case for something even more complex than the entire body of Physics.

I hesitate to delve into particle physics (because it can really only be described in complex mathematical language, not English), but the Standard Model was conceived circa 1960, and it predicted that some hitherto unknown sub-atomic "particles" (that are not particles in the English sense) must exist.  Since then the Top Quark, the Tau Neutrino and the Higgs Boson have been discovered.  Note that belief in the Standard Model is by Deduction, not Faith.  It is dubbed "the theory of almost everything" because it cannot yet reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Einsteinian Gravity, but no nuclear scientist doubts that the LoTs will still be there when the Theory of Everything is finally nutted out.

That's an interesting point of view considering that particle physics does accept spooky action at a distance as an (as yet) unexplainable fact that DOES NOT use any energy whatsoever to accomplish that task. The entire world of physics was forced to adopt the multiverse theory (TOTALLY lacking ANY scientific evidence WHATSOEVER) because the incredibly exquisite fine tuning of this universe argues for a creator. Just the charges of hydrogen and oxygen that make water, if they were slightly different (in either direction in either atom) would prevent the existence of life as we know it. But, by the same token, you can argue that there is more evidence for a creator super being than there is for miraculous healing, simply because the creator set all these finely tuned rules up in the first place (i.e. no miracles are allegedly necessary with such fine tuning).

I would say, sure, but miracles are documented. Also, I can get you a physicist that WILL talk in your math language to explain why there is no conflict with the violation of the rules of thermodynamics observed in spontaneous healing with the latest knowledge of the physical universe's most fundamental units.

Of course that physicist (he is not alone in that, by the way - there's a large group of them questioning the theory of evolution based on mathematical probabilities and the exquisite fine tuning of the universe) is a Christian. But not all of them are. Some of them are atheists. They just do the math, all of it.

Quote
Question: Would you consider modifying your view of reality if RE was spontaneously healed according to your strict requirements (x-rays and so on) that proved the laws of physical biochemistry in regard to tissue healing were violated and no medical science, therapy was responsible?

I am dissatisfied with the "I can't explain it" answer as well. That's why I maintain my scepticism that miraculous events really are as described.  I don't doubt your sincerity, but it cannot be as you describe it.  The Laws of Thermodynamics cannot be broken, not in any universe, how ever many dimensions it has. Universes would fall apart if the LoTs didn't apply everywhere all the time.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence" and it is up to the claimant to substantiate the claims.  Once you admit that the LoTs would have to have been broken, you have to make out a strong case for something even more complex than the entire body of Physics.

I hesitate to delve into particle physics (because it can really only be described in complex mathematical language, not English), but the Standard Model was conceived circa 1960, and it predicted that some hitherto unknown sub-atomic "particles" (that are not particles in the English sense) must exist.  Since then the Top Quark, the Tau Neutrino and the Higgs Boson have been discovered.  Note that belief in the Standard Model is by Deduction, not Faith.  It is dubbed "the theory of almost everything" because it cannot yet reconcile Quantum Mechanics with Einsteinian Gravity, but no nuclear scientist doubts that the LoTs will still be there when the Theory of Everything is finally nutted out.

Emotion, thought, matter in that order palloy. You are like someone studying a cake and describing all its physical properties according to a table of elements, but because u have not been to a bakery or seen a supermarket where the ingredients came from do not want to acknowledge the processes of baking and shopping contributing to the end product. You acknowledge there is particle physics, Which it is common knowledge shows physical matter is simply vibrating in and out of existence. That is only one end of the frequency spectrum and the end result of others. Compute these math; search under user RE for the keywords 'seeu on the other side' and 'going to the great beyond' BEFORE the onset of his condition. Now he is talking about getting insurance sorted to get surgery, which is why I dont think your focussing on dying as an inevitability here helps matters. Traditional Aborigines will get sick and die in a few days if they believe a medicine man is "singing" them or pointed a bone at them, they will also get better as soon as they hear the medicine man stopped. You could dispute pointing a bone or singing a song can kill you just like you can dispute your life insurance risk factors for about how long you should live and both times what you believe, in other words have faith in has an effect.
 
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Womb milk nourishes human embryo during first weeks of pregnancy

18:25 01 May 2015 by Andy Coghlan
 
Call it the milk of life – not breast milk, but womb milk. For the first 11 weeks of pregnancy, before the mother's nutrient-rich blood supply is plumbed in, all the materials and energy for building a baby are supplied by secretions from glands in the uterus lining.

For the first time, researchers have worked out in detail how nutrients make their way from these glands into the developing embryo. "It's like a rapidly growing building site," says John Aplin of the University of Manchester, UK.

During pregnancy, the lining of the uterus behaves quite differently to normal: the glands start storing large amounts of glucose as glycogen, which is then secreted to nourish the embryo during its first 11 weeks.


After this time, the mother's blood supply delivered via the umbilical cord takes over and the "womb-milk" secretions dry up. But how the glycogen and other materials for baby-building were transported to the embryo and placenta was a mystery until now.

Vital nutrients


To investigate, Aplin and his colleagues examined womb, placenta and embryonic tissue donated by women who had chosen to terminate their pregnancies. The samples came from all stages of early pregnancy, so the researchers were able to analyse how they changed over time.

By using a staining dye, they were able to see wherever glycogen was present in the tissues. They found that it was abundant in the recesses of the womb lining, where it is broken down into smaller molecules. These molecules then diffuse into a cavity just outside the placenta, known as the intervillous space. From there, they are absorbed into the placenta.

"Once the sugar is there, some is used straight away as energy to help the embryo grow, and the rest is reconverted to the storage molecule, glycogen," says Aplin.

The team also tracked the transport of substances called glycoproteins. These are vital for growth because as well as containing sugar fragments, they contain protein that can be broken down into amino acids – the building blocks from which tissue is assembled.

Precarious state

Aplin says that in the first crucial weeks, womb milk is the embryo's only source of nourishment. This is no accident: at the beginning of a pregnancy, the placenta is much larger than the growing embryo, so the pressure of arterial blood would likely dislodge the embryo from the wall of the uterus. Only by 11 weeks or so is it big enough to withstand and accept its mother's blood.

Next, Aplin and his colleagues hope to investigate how a mother's diet and other factors, such as smoking, affect the build-up of glycogen in the womb lining. "It could be that these trigger settings in the embryo that affect the risk of obesity or diabetes in life," he says.

"The first few weeks of pregnancy is a critical phase for embryonic development," says Graham Burton of the University of Cambridge, whose team discovered in 2002 that the uterus lining – not the mother's bloodnourishes the embryo.

[/color]"Our understanding has been revolutionised over the past decade by the discovery that nutrients are supplied by these glands in the uterus lining during the first trimester – the so-called 'uterine milk'," Burton says.

The latest research adds new insights into the enzymes that help deliver glucose across cell membranes to the embryo and placenta, he adds.

Journal reference: Placenta, DOI: 10.1016/j.placenta.2015.01.002
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27460-womb-milk-nourishes-human-embryo-during-first-weeks-of-pregnancy.html#.VUZzBWctHm4

Agelbert NOTE: So, the FACT that what goes on in the first 11 weeks to keep the fetus alive is NOT an accident, but a very deliberate REQUIREMENT involving placental growth biochemical math, means, uh, WHAT, exactly?

I did a term paper on what that means in zoology before all the above was known. The point I made to the class, a point that had the female pre-med students squirming  ;D, is that BOTH the fetus AND the placenta are NOT part of the female bearing the new life form. In fact, the new life form is a type of parasite.

WHY? Because, even in 1986, it had been clearly established, by studies of pregnant mammals (of several species, not just humans), that the pulmonary (gas exchange), hepatic nutrient uptake and renal waste disposal functions of the placental fetal life support system WILL successfully attack the host pregnant female for the benefit of the embryo.

IOW, bone loss and malnutrition effects will manifest in the pregnant female long before the fetus is affected simply because the placental machinery (tiny fingers in the in va gin ated arterial blood vessels surrounding the uterus) gets whatever it needs, even to the point of demineralizing host bones.

It's ALL business. That business is the clear priority of the placenta to keep the fetus alive and growing over the health of the host. It is the placenta, not the pregnant females' endocrine system, that sends the biochemical signals to get her mammary glands to produce milk at a certain point in the pregnancy. It is the placenta that keeps the pregnant female's immune system from attacking the "parasite" feeding off of her by some clever biochemical tricks to fool the host into thinking the fetus is not a separate entity.   

The critter in there is NOT a part of the female host FROM THE START. It is HUMAN and it is separate and it has a placental space suit to take care of BUSINESS. The host CAN, of course, kill the tiny human with modern technology. The fetus is a parasite and will tax the health of the host if said host cannot get proper nutrition. In fact, there are many species of mammals that cannot get pregnant UNLESS they have a certain level of nutrition. I'm sure TPTB are working on applying that to the "useless eater" humans out there  ;). But there is NO WAY anybody can claim scientifically that the fetus is a "part" of the body of the host.

The above new scientific discovery just underlines the fact that, ALREADY in the first 11 weeks, the human embryo/fetus is an individual, separate from the mother.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2015, 07:31:34 pm by AGelbert »
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
Quote
... dependent on so many immeasurable variables that it is effectively random.

... let us discuss a phenomenon that psychology (based entirely on your world view that we live in a random universe)

Whoa - you have turned "effectively random" (for one person) into "a random universe".  That is the exact opposite of what I believe, and I'm pretty sure you know that.  You would also know (about me) that I would have little truck with what psychologists say.

Quote
they want to change the term  "Illusion of Control" to "Illusion of Futility"!

That isn't what they say at all - "the illusion of control itself may be an illusion, or at least only part of the story". They are saying if you have little control, you feel like you have more, and if you have lots of control, you feel like you have less.  You do them an injustice by laughing at them for something they didn't say.  If it mattered, I would look at the experiments they performed, and how many people actually fitted their profile - I doubt it would be 100%, or anything like it.  But when it gets translated in English simple enough for the average reader, all that statistical doubt gets lost.

When doctors over-prescribe pain killers, it is likely because too much won't hurt, while too little will (and might also cause themselves to be dragged out of bed in the middle of the night to re-prescribe).  Everybody responds differently to pain-killers, and the patient is the best arbiter, not the doctor.  So no need to invoke the Illusion of Control, or faith, there.

Quote
That's an interesting point of view considering that particle physics does accept spooky action at a distance as an (as yet) unexplainable fact that DOES NOT use any energy whatsoever to accomplish that task. The entire world of physics was forced to adopt the multiverse theory (TOTALLY lacking ANY scientific evidence WHATSOEVER) because the incredibly exquisite fine tuning of this universe argues for a creator.

That's a complete misunderstanding on multiple fronts.  Do you seriously think the term "spooky action" popped out of a mathematical equation?  Out of ALL sub-atomic physicists trying to feel their way through a difficult problem, SOME have suggested way-out theories, but the rest just smile politely and carry on with their own theories. 

Compare that with when Einstein postulated the the universe wasn't 3-D (like Newton said), but 4-D with the 3 Length dimensions plus Time, adjusted to make it also a Length dimension by multiplying it by a speed "c" (Time x (Length/Time) = Length).  The outcome of such a universe is that nothing go faster than that speed c, and that a key axiom, that Mass is constant, that was so obvious that Newton never even mentioned it, is wrong!  A mind-blowingly different theory, but quickly accepted by all who could understand it.  If Newton had kept up with things from the other side, he would have agreed too.

There is no "exquisite fine-tuning" of fundamental constants.  They are what they are, that's all, and that makes the universe like it is (and thank goodness for that).  It doesn't "argue for a creator", there is no argument there at all.

So, the true (see arrogance, hubris, stubbornness and appalling ignorance piled on top) Palloy emerges.
 
Absolutely every discussion with you devolves into hairsplitting BULLSHIT posed BY YOU to AVOID the overall poverty of your logic and the paucity of your "evidence" for BELIEVING the fairy tales you have been brainwashed with.

Not only do you have ZERO interest in logical debate, despite your disingenuous appearance of a willingness to do so, when you can't "make your points", you stoop to ridicule, appeals to authority and nuanced ad hominem typical of university prof snark.   


 

A day in the life of Palloy and MattS when they discover one of their own credentialed poobahs does not tow the "RELIGION of evolution" line or the "LIFELESS particle physics and RANDOM (but oh, so luckily fine tuned because one of the zillions of multiverses HAD to be! LOL!) UNIVERSE" line or the "BELIEF in the power of mind over matter is SILLY" line (and so on).

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Palloy said,
Quote
There is no "exquisite fine-tuning" of fundamental constants.  They are what they are, that's all, and that makes the universe like it is (and thank goodness for that).  It doesn't "argue for a creator", there is no argument there at all.
Quote
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." (2)
Quote
George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word." (3)
Quote
Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming". (4)
Quote
Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose". (5)
Quote
Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing." (6)

Quote
John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in." (7)
Quote
George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?" (8)

Quote
Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory." (9)

Quote
Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan." (10)

Quote
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance." (11)

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the
Quote
strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." (12)
Quote
Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine." (13)

Quote
Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries." (14)

Quote
Stephen Hawking (British astrophysicist): "Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God." (15)
Quote
Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." (16) Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics of ChristianityThe Physics of Christianity.
Quote
Alexander Polyakov (Soviet mathematician): "We know that nature is described by the best of all possible mathematics because God created it."(17)
Quote
Ed Harrison (cosmologist): "Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God – the design argument of Paley – updated and refurbished. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one.... Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline toward the teleological or design argument." (18)

Quote
Drs. Zehavi, and Dekel (cosmologists): "This type of universe, however, seems to require a degree of fine tuning of the initial conditions that is in apparent conflict with 'common wisdom'." (21)

Palloy, you do not have the remotest idea of what you are talking about. 

Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life?


By Anil Ananthaswamy on Wed, 07 Mar 2012

SNIPPET:

Quote
The laws of physics and the values of physical constants seem, as Goldilocks said, “just right.” If even one of a host of physical properties of the universe had been different, stars, planets, and galaxies would never have formed. Life would have been all but impossible.

Take, for instance, the neutron. It is 1.00137841870 times heavier than the proton, which is what allows it to decay into a proton, electron and neutrino—a process that determined the relative abundances of hydrogen and helium after the big bang and gave us a universe dominated by hydrogen. If the neutron-to-proton mass ratio were even slightly different, we would be living in a very different universe: one, perhaps, with far too much helium, in which stars would have burned out too quickly for life to evolve, or one in which protons decayed into neutrons rather than the other way around, leaving the universe without atoms. So, in fact, we wouldn’t be living here at all—we wouldn’t exist.

Examples of such “fine-tuning” abound. Tweak the charge on an electron, for instance, or change the strength of the gravitational force or the strong nuclear force just a smidgen, and the universe would look very different, and likely be lifeless. The challenge for physicists is explaining why such physical parameters are what they are.

This challenge became even tougher in the late 1990s when astronomers discovered dark energy, the little-understood energy thought to be driving the accelerating expansion of our universe. All attempts to use known laws of physics to calculate the expected value of this energy lead to answers that are 10120 times too high, causing some to label it the worst prediction in physics.

“The great mystery is not why there is dark energy. The great mystery is why there is so little of it,” said Leonard Susskind of Stanford University, at a 2007 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “The fact that we are just on the knife edge of existence, [that] if dark energy were very much bigger we wouldn’t be here, that’s the mystery.” Even a slightly larger value of dark energy would have caused spacetime to expand so fast that galaxies wouldn’t have formed.

That night in Hawaii, Faber declared that there were only two possible explanations for fine-tuning. “One is that there is a God and that God made it that way,” she said. But for Faber, an atheist, divine intervention is not the answer.

“The only other approach that makes any sense  is to argue that there really is an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes out there and we are in one,” she said.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2012/03/is-the-universe-fine-tuned-for-life/

Agelbert NOTE: AND, the "sense" they are making about "an infinite, or a very big, ensemble of universes" is TOTALLY LACKING IN ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOVER except the Excedrin headaches atheists get from where the ACTUAL EVIDENCE of FINE TUNING POINTS TO.  ;D
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
... physicists were left to explain the startling fact that the positive and negative contributions to the cosmological constant cancel to 120-digit accuracy, yet fail to cancel beginning at the 121st digit.  :o   

Curiously, this observation is in accord with a prediction made by Nobel laureate and physicist Steven Weinberg in 1987, who argued from basic principles that the cosmological constant must be zero to within one part in roughly 10120 (and yet be nonzero), or else the universe either would have dispersed too fast for stars and galaxies to have formed, or else would have recollapsed upon itself long ago.

The Anthropic Principle

In short, numerous features of our universe seem fantastically fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life. While some physicists still hold out for a "natural" explanation, many others are now coming to grips with the notion that our universe is profoundly unnatural, with no good explanation other than the Anthropic Principle—the universe is in this exceedingly improbable state, because if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to discuss the fact.

They further note that the prevailing "eternal inflation" big bang scenario suggests that our universe is just one pocket in a continuously bifurcating multiverse.

Inflation cosmology, by the way, got a significant experimental boost with the March 17, 2014 announcement that astronomers had discovered gravitational waves, signatures of the big bang inflation, in data collected from telescopes based at the South Pole.

In a similar vein, string theory, the current best candidate for a "theory of everything," predicts an enormous ensemble, numbering 10 to the power 500 by one accounting, of parallel universes. Thus in such a large or even infinite ensemble, we should not be surprised to find ourselves in an exceedingly fine-tuned universe
. ::)

But to many scientists, such reasoning is anathema to traditional empirical science. Lee Smolin wrote in his 2006 book The Trouble with Physics:

We physicists need to confront the crisis facing us. A scientific theory [the multiverse/ Anthropic Principle/ string theory paradigm] that makes no predictions and therefore is not subject to experiment can never fail, but such a theory can never succeed either, as long as science stands for knowledge gained from rational argument borne out by evidence.

And even the proponents of such views have some explaining to do. For example, if there are truly infinitely many pocket universes like ours, as physicists argue is the case, how can one possibly define a "probability measure" on such an ensemble? In other words, what does it mean to talk of the "probability" of our universe existing in its observed state?

http://phys.org/news/2014-04-science-philosophy-collide-fine-tuned-universe.html

Agelbert NOTE: In a less erudite manner, but using exactly the same logic and facts that science has at its disposal, I have made the same arguments to Palloy, all of which he flat refuses to accept as even valid "arguments", never mind the multiplicity of physicists and astronomers that have made them.

He has no argument, so he cleverly pretends I'm the one without one.  That's a tired fallacious debating technique. 

Klas konchen, gaspadine. (excuse my lousy Russian for "gentleman, class dismissed."  8)).
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Why the Universe Is the Way It Is

Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe


For physical life to be possible in the universe, several characteristics must take on specific
values, and these are listed below. In the case of several of these characteristics, and given the intricacy of their interrelationships, the indication of divine “fine-tuning” seems compelling.

1. Strong nuclear force constant
2. Weak nuclear force constant
3. Gravitational force constant
4. Electromagnetic force constant
5. Ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant
6. Ratio of proton to electron mass
7. Ratio of number of protons to number of electrons
8. Ratio of proton to electron charge
9. Expansion rate of the universe
10. Mass density of the universe
11. Baryon (proton and neutron) density of the universe
12. Space energy or dark energy density of the universe
13. Ratio of space energy density to mass density
14. Entropy level of the universe
15. Velocity of light
16. Age of the universe
17. Uniformity of radiation
18. Homogeneity of the universe
19. Average distance between galaxies
20. Average distance between galaxy clusters
21. Average distance between stars
22. Average size and distribution of galaxy clusters
23. density of giant galaxies during early cosmic history
24. Electromagnetic fine structure constant
25. Gravitational fine-structure constant
26. Decay rate of protons
27. Ground state energy level for helium-4
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 2
28. Carbon-12 to oxygen-16 nuclear energy level ratio
29. Decay rate for beryllium-8
30. Ratio of neutron mass to proton mass
31. Initial excess of nucleons over antinucleons
32. Polarity of the water molecule
33. Epoch for peak in the number of hypernova eruptions
34. Numbers and different kinds of hypernova eruptions
35. Epoch for peak in the number of type I supernova eruptions
36. Numbers and different kinds of type I supernova eruptions
37. Epoch for peak in the number of type II supernova eruptions
38. Numbers and different kinds of type II supernova eruptions
39. Epoch for white dwarf binaries
40. Density of white dwarf binaries
41. Ratio of exotic matter to ordinary matter
42. Number of effective dimensions in the early universe
43. Number of effective dimensions in the present universe
44. Mass values for the active neutrinos
45. Number of different species of active neutrinos
46. Number of active neutrinos in the universe
47. Mass value for the sterile neutrino
48. Number of sterile neutrinos in the universe
49. Decay rates of exotic mass particles
50. Magnitude of the temperature ripples in cosmic background radiation
51. Size of the relativistic dilation factor
52. Magnitude of the Heisenberg uncertainty
53. Quantity of gas deposited into the deep intergalactic medium by the first supernovae
54. Positive nature of cosmic pressures
55. Positive nature of cosmic energy densities
56. Density of quasars during early cosmic history
57. Decay rate of cold dark matter particles
58. Relative abundances of different exotic mass particles
59. Degree to which exotic matter self interacts
60. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) begin to form
61. Epoch at which the first stars (metal-free pop III stars) cease to form
62. Number density of metal-free pop III stars
63. Average mass of metal-free pop III stars
64. Epoch for the formation of the first galaxies
65. Epoch for the formation of the first quasars
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 3
66. Amount, rate, and epoch of decay of embedded defects
67. Ratio of warm exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
68. Ratio of hot exotic matter density to cold exotic matter density
69. Level of quantization of the cosmic spacetime fabric
70. Flatness of universe’s geometry
71. Average rate of increase in galaxy sizes
72. Change in average rate of increase in galaxy sizes throughout cosmic history
73. Constancy of dark energy factors
74. Epoch for star formation peak
75. Location of exotic matter relative to ordinary matter
76. Strength of primordial cosmic magnetic field
77. Level of primordial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence
78. Level of charge-parity violation
79. Number of galaxies in the observable universe
80. Polarization level of the cosmic background radiation
81. Date for completion of second reionization event of the universe
82. Date of subsidence of gamma-ray burst production
83. Relative density of intermediate mass stars in the early history of the universe
84. Water’s temperature of maximum density
85. Water’s heat of fusion
86. Water’s heat of vaporization
87. Number density of clumpuscules (dense clouds of cold molecular hydrogen gas) in the universe
88. Average mass of clumpuscules in the universe
89. Location of clumpuscules in the universe
90. Dioxygen’s kinetic oxidation rate of organic molecules
91. Level of paramagnetic behavior in dioxygen
92. Density of ultra-dwarf galaxies (or supermassive globular clusters) in the middle-aged universe
93. Degree of space-time warping and twisting by general relativistic factors
94. Percentage of the initial mass function of the universe made up of intermediate mass stars
95. Strength of the cosmic primordial magnetic field
96. Capacity of liquid water to form large-cluster anions
97. Ratio of baryons in galaxies to baryons between galaxies
98. Ratio of baryons in galaxy clusters to baryons in between galaxy clusters
99. Rate at which the triple-alpha process (combining of three helium nuclei to make one carbon
nucleus) runs inside the nuclear furnaces of stars
100. Quantity of molecular hydrogen formed by the supernova eruptions of population III stars
101. Epoch for the formation of the first population II (second generation) stars
102. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that are processed by the first stars (population III stars)
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 4
103. Ratio of ultra-dwarf galaxies to larger galaxies
104. Constancy of the fine structure constants
105. Constancy of the velocity of light
106. Constancy of the magnetic permeability of free space
107. Constancy of the electron-to-proton mass ratio
108. Constancy of the gravitational constant
109. Smoothness of the quantum foam of cosmic space
110. Constancy of dark energy over cosmic history
111. Mean temperature of exotic matter
112. Minimum stable mass of exotic matter clumps
113. Degree of Lorentz symmetry or integrity of Lorentz invariantce or level of symmetry of spacetime
114. Nature of cosmic defects
115. Number density of cosmic defects
116. Average size of the largest cosmic structures in the universe
117. Quantity of three-hydrogen molecules formed by the hypernova eruptions of population III stars
118. Maximum size of an indigenous moon orbiting a planet
119. Rate of growth in the average size of galaxies during the first five billion years of cosmic history
120. Density of dwarf dark matter halos in the present-day universe
121. Metallicity enrichment of intergalactic space by dwarf galaxies
122. Average star formation rate throughout cosmic history for dwarf galaxies
123. Epoch of rapid decline in the cosmic star formation rate
124. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by dwarf galaxies during the first
two billion years of cosmic history
125. Quantity of heavy elements infused into the intergalactic medium by galactic superwinds during the
first three billion years of cosmic history
126. Average size of cosmic voids
127. Number of cosmic voids per unit of cosmic space
128. Percentage of the universe’s baryons that reside in the warm-hot intergalactic medium
129. Halo occupation distribution (number of galaxies per unit of dark matter halo virial mass)
130. Timing of the peak supernova eruption rate for population III stars (the universe’s first stars)
131. Ratio of the number density of dark matter subhalos to the number density dark matter halos in the
present era universe
132. Quantity of diffuse, large-grained intergalactic dust
133. Radiometric decay rate for nickel-78
134. Ratio of baryonic matter to exotic matter in dwarf galaxies
135. Ratio of baryons in the intergalactic medium relative to baryons in the circumgalactic media
136. Level of short-range interactions between protons and exotic dark matter particles
137. Intergalactic photon density (or optical depth of the universe)
138. High spin to low spin transition pressure for Fe++
Part 1. Fine-Tuning for Life in the Universe 5
139. Average quantity of gas infused into the universe’s first star clusters
140. degree of suppression of dwarf galaxy formation by cosmic reionization

http://www.iloveatheists.com/top_100/challenge_category/Creation/challenge_answer/289
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
December 12, 2013 Issue

Miracles happen in medicine 
 


By Dr. Victor S. Sierpina

The other day, a lovely 81-year-old patient, let’s call her Edna, an active community volunteer, came in to see me after a bad fall.

The swelling and lack of mobility in her upper arm made me suspect that she had broken her humerus, the big bone in the upper arm. I based this nearly certain assessment on my many years of primary care and emergency room practice.

Since I don’t have X-ray eyes, I ordered an X-ray while our hardworking staff simultaneously arranged for a visit to orthopedics for the requisite splinting.

Imagine my surprise and relief later that morning to find the X-rays were normal. No fracture at all.

When I called Edna to report this happy outcome, she told me she had prayed fervently on the way to Radiology and was quite sure this prayer had had its desired effect, that things would be normal.

Of course, I could have dismissed her personal miracle, but I chose instead to reflect on this story and share it with you. Every doctor knows his or her fallibility, the limits of both our art and science. We can always be wrong though we constantly study and try not to be.

Quote
Something left out of medical school curriculum is the realm of miracles. The medical field is primarily driven by a view of the world that can be called scientific materialism.

In this world, experiences like Edna’s are foreign. We just don’t teach our students and residents to consider miracles as realistic or even remotely possible or relevant to the care of the sick or dying.  :(



I recently came across a quote by one of my favorite authors, C.S. Lewis:

Quote

“Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible. If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion.

If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say .

What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience.”

So the realm of the supernatural, including the occurrence of miracles, is routinely left out of modern medicine training and practice. None of that kind of superstitious thinking for us! Yet every doctor in practice for any significant amount of time has experienced the occurrence of mystery and the unexplainable in the lives of his or her patients.

Among the challenges to current thinking are the many documented cases of unexplained healing. Dr. Andrew Weil’s book “Spontaneous Healing” is a log of numerous cases that cannot be accounted for by our contemporary medical science.

One poignant example was a 10-year-old boy, call him Steve, with a usually fatal osteosarcoma. This is a bone cancer usually treated by amputation of a limb. This treatment, the standard of care, was reasonably and responsibly recommended by a top cancer center doctor in New York.

However, rather than having the recommended amputation of his leg to save his life, Steve and his parents declined this option. Instead, they chose to return to the supportive community of his family, friends and home in a remote Idaho town. There, they would let things run their course.

In the view of his cancer doctors this was a suicidal choice, maybe even child neglect. Without treatment, he was expected to die, likely in a year or less.

Many years later, a researcher on spontaneous healing found Steve. Despite the grim prognosis, the boy with bone cancer was in his 20s, alive and well, and cancer free.

When the researcher contacted Steve’s cancer doctor in New York to verify the original diagnosis, she was initially greeted professionally and pleasantly.

However, once she told him that this former patient was still alive despite not taking treatment, the doctor cursed and slammed down the phone on her.


Apparently, the occurrence of such a surprising healing, perhaps best described as a miracle, was an unacceptable shock to his belief system.

While I certainly do not recommend ignoring a doctor’s advice, especially with a life-threatening disease like cancer, in this case, something miraculous happened. No one, not even the patient and his family had the least idea how his unexpected survival might have transpired.

Maybe miracles are normal, natural and occur all the time. Only our failure to believe in them keeps us from recognizing how ordinary they are and how regularly they occur.

If you are ready, open yourself to the unexpected, the unknown blessings and the personal healing that some call miracles. You won’t see it until you believe it.

Dr. Victor S. Sierpina is the WD and Laura Nell Nicholson Family Professor of Integrative Medicine and Professor of Family Medicine at UTMB.

http://www.utmb.edu/impact/archive/article.aspx?IAID=1245
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Quote
UB: You do not state this is what you believe, as nobody does believe this. but lets grant you there are an infinite number of universes and this one randomly got it just right for matter to form.

I really only intended it to show that the "only other explanation" that was quoted, was hardly a well thought through statement (unlikely), or a carefully crafted misquote of Faber by Anil Ananthaswamy and re-quoted by AG.  Since we are in a universe where matter formed, of course the fundamental constants are right for matter to form, and of course that looks odd.

If you want to hazard a guess as to the cause of the oddity, then my explanation is one explanation, but it could only be substantiated by Faith because there is no evidence either way.   Another explanation might allow various specific combinations of constants that produce various kinds of matter.

Cosmologists get a kick out of dreaming up zany new ideas, Hoyle was renowned for this.  I'll leave it in the "no evidence" basket until someone comes up with something better. Anything that requires Faith is automatically not better.

Your belief that no amount of fine-tuning data serves as evidence for an Intelligent Designer requires faith. You are making an ideological commitment to something beyond your control and (I assume) the outcome of which matters to you based on what evidence you have (or, in your case, the "lack" of evidence you perceive).

As UB mentioned, the physical constants of this Universe are only the tip of the fine-tuning iceberg. You also have to account for the fine-tuning of our galaxy, solar system and planet, which cannot be explained away by an infinite multiverse non-hypothesis. Then you have to account for the fine-tuning of the biochemistry required for life on our fine-tuned planet. Again, multiverse is a non-starter here.

As AG has clearly shown, almost all agnostics and atheists AGREE that the Universe appears to be designed for life (human life especially). Then the question becomes whether they choose to believe abstract theoretical multiverse musings or their lyin' eyes. The former is quite obviously intended to avoid conclusions of ID at all costs. Make no mistake, this is faith. It is faith in an almost insurmountable resistance to the idea of God and everything this idea represents or implies.

The fact that this came up on a thread about RE's health problems and the possibility of "miracles" is telling...

RE, I know you don't exactly buy into this, but... :exp-angel:

"Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,c
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me."


Best of luck with the operation! 
     

Isn't amazing how Palloy flat refuses to view himself as a faith based fellow? There is nothing intrinsically wrong in being a faith based fellow. However, when said faith refutes documented biochemical events evidencing the violation of the laws of thermodynamics involving spontaneous healing based on his studied rejection of all "extraordinary claims" that refute his faith based world view (that faith = Illusion of Control/Delusion/Silly), his studied rationality is patently irrational.

C.S. Lewis had it nailed down quite well.

Quote
“Every event which might claim to be a miracle is, in the last resort, something presented to our senses, something seen, heard, touched, smelled, or tasted. And our senses are not infallible.

If anything extraordinary seems to have happened, we can always say that we have been the victims of an illusion.

If we hold a philosophy which excludes the supernatural, this is what we always shall say .

What we learn from experience depends on the kind of philosophy we bring to experience.”

C.S. Lewis
Quote
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley


Ashvin,
Thanks for showing up. You are better at poking holes in irrational arguments disguised as reasonable and logical ones than I am.   ;D



Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
Good Newz! The Neck Pillow helped!  :icon_sunny:

This was the first morning in about a week I didn't wake up with my feet feeling numb and able to walk OK right out of bed.  I can wait and see what turns up with the Pros From Dover in Atlanta running the study and not rush in to Anchorage to get carved up this week.  :icon_sunny:

RE
Excellent! 

 
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution
GOOD NEWZ

I got a "secure" email from the Surgical Scheduling lady from the Doc's office, requesting my Medical Records.

Those secure email sites are a PIECE OF ****!  I tried twice to respond inside the system and never saw my sent mail in the sent folder.  Besides that, file sizes on attachments limited to 20MB.

So **** the security bizness here, I went back over to my regular email, copy/pasted her ACTUAL address (which shows on the "secure" screen), then I uploaded my Medical Records to **** Google Drive and turned on the File Sharing there.  LOL.   Added HOT LINKS to these files into the email so all they gotta do is click the link, and POOF full Medical Records! I also CCed the Doc himself with this email,  since his actual email addy is in the Study Proposal AG dug up and he is the first one I contacted on this.

I ALSO went into the MRI CD and collected up a couple of images, which I had to do a screen capture of because they store these files under some weird proprietary format.  They also make it **** difficult to search these CDs.  I added the Snapshots as a File Attachment to the email also.  :icon_sunny:

I doubt any patient ever got them records this fast.  LOL.

I inquired in the mail as to what my financial obligations are if I am accepted for the Study, how long I will have to stay in Atlanta, how often I will need to return there for followups, etc.

Now wait and see what they say.

RE

I expect they won't charge you a nickel. WHY? Because they have a vested interest in controlling the study participant behavior as much as possible and they stand to make a ton of money from the sale of the Nucel.

However, post op they MIGHT try to get you to buy a bone fusion accelerator, a device that sends out a frequency of around 76hz to use for about 30 minutes a day. They claim that it excites a protein in the Igf family that, in turn, makes the osteocytes multiply faster and achieve quicker bone fusion.

They DO want to look good and that device IS FDA approved.  ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLz8sC1HO5M&feature=player_embedded

I still swear by cat purring (25hz and the 50hz harmonic they produce) that, according to an oft repeated quote by Veterinarians, "You put a few cats next to a bag of bones for few days and the bones fuse together."  .




Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

AGelbert

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32574
  • Location: Colchester, Vermont
    • Renwable Revolution

Moan, huff, puff, SIGH...  :P I really should have moved that table and the fridge a little closer to my chair (AND bed) BEFORE the procedure. :(

RE,
This may have some utility in making your post op life easier as well as shorten your recovery time. The person involved is not an ACDF patient so some of the tips might not apply. I'm sure that you can tailor the list to your needs once you put your thinking cap on in regard to your post op convenience. I scratched out items on the list that I believe do not apply to you or are rather useless, as well as expensive  :icon_mrgreen:.

Also, any heavy lifting pre-op measures to make post-op life easier (like raising your bed on blocks) should obviously NOT be done by you, but somebody that comes to your place and does it for you.  8)

Originally posted by LCMiller, who had a four level fusion.

Post op surgery tips:
-raised toilet seat
-shower chair
-long handled reachers/grabbers
-handicap rails put in shower
-long handled back brush for showering
-shower mat so you don't slip
-soap on a rope, or liquid soap for showering
-extra bed pillows to prop your back up when side lying and for between your knees and down to ankle
-remove all throw rugs so you don't slip or trip on them
-elastic shoelaces for shoes that tie, or slip ons
-straws for drinking while laying down
-a stack of good books, magazines, or small crafts to keep you busy
-go to movie rental store and/or library and make a list of what you will want to watch/read during your recovery
-if you have cable, get a couple of movie channels Agelbert NOTE: I refuse to pay for being propagandized.  ;D
-put new batteries in the remote control
-a walkman with your favorite music
-have all your clothes and pjs easily accessible
-prepare meal ahead of time and keep in the freezer
-get paper plates, napkins, and plastic silverware so you have less clean up to worry about
-keep prescriptions close by
-check your drawers around the house, and if they stick, use a bar of soap to make them glide easier
-re-arrange cabinets, refrigerator etc. to have the things you will need to use at a height that won't cause you to bend
-if you'll be wearing a brace, wear it for a while pre-op to get used to what it's like to get around in it
-raise your bed on blocks for ease in getting in and out of bed
-move your computer to your bedside so you can keep in touch with all your cyber friends
-have lots of extra cotton t-shirts or tank tops to wear under your brace.
-make sure your clothes will fit over a brace
-teach your significant other, or kids to work the washer and dryer
-build a platform for the clothes dryer. It has been raised up approx. 2ft. I can just reach in and pull out with no strain, when I am more healed.
-Make sure that all the liquids you drink are in light weight containers.
-Also make sure if you have pets that you have help in feeding them or walking them if you have a dog that requires such. You should not bend over to feed and water your pets. I used a very low computer chair with wheels and very carefully leaned over to feed my cat. I didn't bend, I leaned. It was quite a trick, but I figured out how to safely do it.

------------------
20 years intermittent back pain - no treatment sought
Nov 2001 - herniated disk - Right leg radiculopathy
Jan 2002 - Chiropractic care
Mar 2002 - MRI, X-Rays, Oral steroids
Apr 2002 - L4/L5 Microdiskectomy
Sept 2002 - PT, Oral steroids
Oct 2002 - MRI, Xrays - Failed Back Syndrome
Apr 2003 - TFESI, EMG, MRI
Diagnosis - DDD - foraminal narrowing, disk bulges, osteophytes, ligamentum flavum hypertrophy, active marrow edema, levoscoliosis, retrolisthesis, scar tissue encompassing L5 nerve root, disk height diminished, abnormal EMG results for left leg
Sept 2003 - Discogram with Xrays, CT Scan.
Tentative date: Nov.18 - 2 level 360 degree fusion surgery

Read more: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/back-problems/19953-post-surgery-tips.html#ixzz3ZlEEaOXi
Rob not the poor, because he is poor: neither oppress the afflicted in the gate:
For the Lord will plead their cause, and spoil the soul of those that spoiled them. Pr. 22:22-23

 

+-Recent Topics

New Pandemic? by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 19:36

Money by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 16:15

Resisting Brainwashing Propaganda by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 14:36

🚩 Global Climate Chaos ☠️ by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 12:19

Future Earth by AGelbert
03 Apr, 2020 12:08

Doomstead Diner Daily by Surly1
03 Apr, 2020 07:53

Darwin by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 23:47

Comic Relief by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 23:12

Corruption in Government by AGelbert
02 Apr, 2020 22:25

The Big Picture of Renewable Energy Growth by AGelbert
01 Apr, 2020 23:13