Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest end3]

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

The outcome is not what this conversation is about at the moment....but glad you recognized it as being "tested".

[disillusioned]

I'm jumping in here, but there actually have been a number of studies investigating intercessory prayer and healing. The consensus has thus far been that there is no clear correlation between the two.

 

This wikipedia article is fairly well sourced and refers to a number of such studies for those who may be interested. As you were...

[moanareina]

 

 

Prayer has been tested has it not?

 

Ummmm....oh.

 

For a tiny little moment in this 18 page thread it seemed as if you had opened up and started to do some real reasoning and looking for answers to the questions of science and all...and now this? Really? Tested?

 

So tell us how do you test prayer?

With the scientific method.

So you can really claim it has been tested.

All I can think of prayer about prayer having been tested is the placebo effect, some psychologic effect on the one praying and the one who knows has been prayed for.

 

Sorry end, but is this really all you can come up with?

I am honestly astonished.

Wow.

 

Jesus lady, there have been probably countless real studies to determine if prayer works. Could we speculate on a mechanism if a study showed a positive outcome. Yes, I guess.

 

Again, any of you DEFINE how this doesn't meet the science requirement.

 

 

Sorry man, but I am no Jesus lady. Please treat me as a person. Thanks.

 

And as I say, placebo effect. Positive outcome can come from a positive mind and attitude that is a result of praying...and that is placebo effect. Or have you a study on how prayer works to grow back an amputated leg or arm?

[moanareina]

And for what it's worth, I haven't even begun to look into epigenetics.....so please don't think I am anywhere close to done.

 

Have you even looked into genetics? Maybe you should start there.

[moanareina]

 

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

The outcome is not what this conversation is about at the moment....but glad you recognized it as being "tested".

 

 

Aha it is not? So why bring it up then?

[Guest end3]

 

 

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

The outcome is not what this conversation is about at the moment....but glad you recognized it as being "tested".

 

 

Aha it is not? So why bring it up then?

 

Hello, BAA's last post and my response to said post? Part of the MANY pages of this diatribe were devoted to the locals saying that what I was theorizing COULD NOT BE EVEN CONSIDERED SCIENCE...or tested blah blah....followed by beating down another that said "why not".

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

The outcome is not what this conversation is about at the moment....but glad you recognized it as being "tested".

 

 

Aha it is not? So why bring it up then?

 

Hello, BAA's last post and my response to said post? Part of the MANY pages of this diatribe were devoted to the locals saying that what I was theorizing COULD NOT BE EVEN CONSIDERED SCIENCE...or tested blah blah....followed by beating down another that said "why not".

 

Well, what you are theorising can not be even considered science or tested.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

I wish I had the reference for this, but just last week I read about a double-blind test of prayer with cancer patients. Prayer did not improve the patients' outcomes, and there was no difference in outcomes between the control and experimental group. So yes, End, prayer has been tested. And failed.

The outcome is not what this conversation is about at the moment....but glad you recognized it as being "tested".

 

 

Aha it is not? So why bring it up then?

 

Hello, BAA's last post and my response to said post? Part of the MANY pages of this diatribe were devoted to the locals saying that what I was theorizing COULD NOT BE EVEN CONSIDERED SCIENCE...or tested blah blah....followed by beating down another that said "why not".

 

Because you can't operationalize "original sin"'s effect on a gene, that's why. The prayer study operationalized positive outcomes. The two are different.

[Guest end3]

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

[Guest end3]

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

[moanareina]

 

Hello, BAA's last post and my response to said post? Part of the MANY pages of this diatribe were devoted to the locals saying that what I was theorizing COULD NOT BE EVEN CONSIDERED SCIENCE...or tested blah blah....followed by beating down another that said "why not".

 

 

You wonder why that is? Because what you are theorizing is can not be even considered science or tested. You got this right. And if you would actually study genetics and science you would also see why not. And it is actually what we try to explain here. But beating down? No. Beating down is something else and it is not happening here.

[moanareina]

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

 

What are you talking about?

 

So when you pray you get positive outcomes. What does that mean? Do you win the lottery? Does someones arm grow back after being amputated?

 

If you sin (whatever that means...) you get methylation?

[Guest end3]

 

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

 

What are you talking about?

 

So when you pray you get positive outcomes. What does that mean? Do you win the lottery? Does someones arm grow back after being amputated?

 

If you sin (whatever that means...) you get methylation?

 

Ma'am, if you can't follow this, I'm afraid you can't follow. If you see no parallels to prayer investigations, then I can't help you...I don't think.

[moanareina]

 

 

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

 

What are you talking about?

 

So when you pray you get positive outcomes. What does that mean? Do you win the lottery? Does someones arm grow back after being amputated?

 

If you sin (whatever that means...) you get methylation?

 

Ma'am, if you can't follow this, I'm afraid you can't follow. If you see no parallels to prayer investigations, then I can't help you...I don't think.

 

 

OK, again. Why this Ma'am stuff? Just talk to me like you talk to a person. Thank you.

 

Then what am I not following?

As I said prayer can have an effect and it is called placebo. Placebo is a real effect, it has been shown in studies that it works...but it also has it's limits.

 

Really end. Go study science, genetics, placebo effect. Before you go on and tell me how you could not help me. Actually there is no need for you to help me

The only thing where there might be help needed would be in understanding your mental jumps because they leave people here wonder what the hell you are talking about...once in a while. And while I actually keep up the conversation anyways I guess that shows I do have quite some patience. Just saying. And am taking you and your concerns serious. If you get frustrated because we don't accept your claims about original sin and genetics etc. that is your problem.

[Orbit]

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

[Roz]

It's interesting how one christian puts something like "test prayer" as a viable scientific experiment (End3)

 

While another christian (A1 sauce from the other thread) says "you can't test god!"

 

Both are two christians who believe in the same god.  Both have the same faith that their same god is real.  And both claim that the same book (the bible) is the word of the same god.

 

Now both are declaring two opposite things here.  Is End3 violating his bible verse saying "don't test god?"  Is A1 being the hypocrite and taking this passage the wrong way?

 

I would imagine that both talk to the same god through the same prayer mechanism, so why is End3 suggesting to "test god" and A1 saying "you can't test god?"

 

...

 

Or are they just two human beings desperate enough to cling to their own individual concepts of god and proving their god isn't real?

 

[Guest end3]

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

[Orbit]

 

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

 

But there is not a clear causal chain--you are assuming the cause.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

 

But there is not a clear causal chain--you are assuming the cause.

 

No, that is the point of the experiments done....it's their results...markers or no markers based on specific behaviors.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

 

But there is not a clear causal chain--you are assuming the cause.

 

No, that is the point of the experiments done....it's their results...markers or no markers based on specific behaviors.

 

Redneck Prof needs to explain the technical biological limitations to you, I can't say more beyond what I've already said. If original sin exists we cannot find it on a gene. The supernatural can't be measured or found in the natural world, by definition.

[Guest end3]

Ok, I think I see where we are crossing. You are saying cause being God vs. man's behaviors?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

 

But there is not a clear causal chain--you are assuming the cause.

 

No, that is the point of the experiments done....it's their results...markers or no markers based on specific behaviors.

 

Redneck Prof needs to explain the technical biological limitations to you, I can't say more beyond what I've already said. If original sin exists we cannot find it on a gene. The supernatural can't be measured or found in the natural world, by definition.

 

Yes, I agree, but we have chemical change as a result. The questionable part is the definition of sin or definition of prayer. If we are still missing each other, apologies, I am trying to understand.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

 

 

And prayer doesn't fall into the same religious family as sin?

In operationalizing, no they are not the same. In the prayer study, patients could deviate from their prognosis or not and this could be measured. There is no gene for "original sin" therefore no way to measure it. If original sin existed as a genetic feature, which it doesn't, then you could---but it doesn't so the whole enterprise is impossible. You can't find the supernatural in the natural world, by definition.

 

That is not what I am understanding. Methylation would be like the prognosis in this case....it is either there or not. A chemical marker that can be observed.

 

But there is not a clear causal chain--you are assuming the cause.

 

No, that is the point of the experiments done....it's their results...markers or no markers based on specific behaviors.

 

Redneck Prof needs to explain the technical biological limitations to you, I can't say more beyond what I've already said. If original sin exists we cannot find it on a gene. The supernatural can't be measured or found in the natural world, by definition.

 

Yes, I agree, but we have chemical change as a result. The questionable part is the definition of sin or definition of prayer. If we are still missing each other, apologies, I am trying to understand.

 

Prayer is defined. It is a well known human activity. Sin is defined as breaking religious law. The issue is that there is no relationship between, say, lying ( a sin), and genetic damage. Could you do a before and after test of genes? Sure. Take a sample, lie, take another sample. But I can guarantee you won't find anything.

[Guest end3]

Prayer is defined. It is a well known human activity. Sin is defined as breaking religious law. The issue is that there is no relationship between, say, lying ( a sin), and genetic damage. Could you do a before and after test of genes? Sure. Take a sample, lie, take another sample. But I can guarantee you won't find anything.

Prayer is no more in some separate group than sin. The Bible talks about how to pray and prayers of a righteous person vs. not. So we can't specifically define prayer.

 

Edit: We would have to define righteous just like we would have to define sin.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

*admires Orbit's patience*