Schizophrenia And Genetics

[Guest end3]

*admires Orbit's patience*

*thinks you are as misinformed as your buddies*

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

The problem, End3, is that your second statement is neither testable nor falsifiable; there is simply no way science could test for a correlation between "sin" and methylation.  

 

Prayer is testable, as has been proven, but the evidence does not support your first statement.

 

Do you see now, really?

[Guest end3]

 

If I pray I get positive outcomes.

 

If I sin I get methylation.

 

Hmmmm. Oh, I see now.

The problem, End3, is that your second statement is neither testable nor falsifiable; there is simply no way science could test for a correlation between "sin" and methylation.  

 

Prayer is testable, as has been proven, but the evidence does not support your first statement.

 

Do you see now, really?

 

No, I really don't. As I suggested, the Bible says pray "this way". Have heard sermons dissecting the Lord's Prayer. Also, what if we pray and we are not righteous. Prayers ANSWERED are a function of God's will.

 

Both prayer and sin are subjective and in reality, actions. So if I am understanding you right, you are saying these epigenetic research claims are crap?

[directionless]

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

End3, I think if you make clear that you aren't talking about "original sin" and "the fall" then sin is easier to study than prayer.

 

My understanding is that the results of sin are natural. God doesn't punish people for sinning, but the natural laws he created punish people for sinning. Sin is just like ignoring a traffic signal.

 

My understanding is that prayer has many forms (listening for God's guidance, waiting for his encouragement, and so forth). So you need to narrow it to prayer requests. Then the problem becomes the will of God. God must choose to answer the prayer. I doubt God would appreciate answering the same prayers over and over again as part of an experiment. "Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test."

 

So if you say that you are investigating the epigenetic effects of various behaviors such as murder, working on the Sabbath, etc. ... and oh by the way those behaviors happen to be called sins in Christianity ... I think that you could study that scientifically. Of course the results probably wouldn't be positive IMO. Maybe you can show that eating pork is bad for you, but I doubt if you can show that working on the Sabbath is bad for you.

 

Even if you can show that many of the behaviors listed as sins in the Bible cause epigenetic harm this will only give a hint that the Bible might be inspired. Christians will say God inspired these rules. Atheists will say humans learned these rules through observation and put them in the Bible. Or they might say it was ordinary luck that the list of sins in the Bible are actually harmful.

 

EDIT: Also you would need to clarify whether you are trying to show that a parent's sinful behaviors damage the health of the children, because apparently it's not clear that epigenetics are passed to children in humans. That would not make it impossible to study scientifically, but it would make it even less likely to show positive results.

 

(I know you have probably thought about these issues, but I thought it might clarify if somebody listed them out so we are all discussing the same topic. Unfortunately I am not a good communicator, so this may only confuse everybody more. )

[Roz]

RNP,

 

He's your friend, but you've got to realize by now his god glasses is preventing him to see that his whole religion's a farce like all the rest. 

 

You have a PhD in biology, and I think you've told us that when you were a christian you actually believed Noah's flood really happened as outlined in Genesis.

 

I was similar in that I believed the earth was literally created in 1 week, and that Ellen White was shown exactly how it took place when bible god gave her a vision.

 

End3's mind is still at that point where he can't help but link X, Y, and Z to his compilation of stories. 

 

 

To lurkers,

 

Notice how End3 just refuses to show proof of his god and even calls people idiots for doing so, yet he keeps saying this such as "Prayers ANSWERED are a function of God's will." 

 

Now, what's the catch-22 of prayer christians?  When your wish isn't granted, you say "god has a better plan, so he said no."  When your wish is granted, you say "see, god heard my prayers!" 

 

Christian lurkers, you've heard it often in your church about how god miraculously heals the sick.  Your own congregation members testify that god made them well again, their cancer's gone! 

 

Do you have any congregation members who are amputees, and their limbs grew back?  Were they ever encouraged by anyone in the church to "pray to jesus to restore your limbs again!" 

 

If your answer is no, think about that.  Think about why the amputee is not encouraged to "pray to have his arms and legs restored."

[Roz]

DL, he backtracked from his original statement: 

 

http://www.usatoday....mmune/12947505/

Just skimmed this, but one would speculate that we could make a case for loving everyone as we may be finding out that we may be predestined in some manner and even to "sin". Thinking this fits the fallen world/ original sin/ epigenetic research.....basically the whole nine yards.

-End3

 

He's trying to safe face.

 

And DL, from your statement:

 

"
My understanding is that prayer has many forms (listening for God's guidance, waiting for his encouragement, and so forth). So you need to narrow it to prayer requests. Then the problem becomes the will of God. God must choose to answer the prayer. I doubt God would appreciate answering the same prayers over and over again as part of an experiment. "Thou shall not put the Lord thy God to the test." "

 

Why not the hindu gods?  Let's see if you can make a better claim for the christian god as opposed to me making a similar claim for the hindu gods.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

I was hoping that you'd confine yourself to the topic at hand, which is the very one you began this thread with - original sin and epigenetic research.  The side-issue of prayer and the results for/against it is just that... a side-issue.We can come back to it if you like, but can't we please stay with the topic under debate? 

 

Original sin and epigenetics.

 

I've declared that I consider science to be a viable tool to understand the natural world.

I've also declared that I'm open-minded to the possibility that science can be a tool to understand more than that.  But now the onus is on you to use the scientific method to make your case about original sin and epigenetics.  The scientific method, End.  That's what you need to deliver on.  

 

Please consider this.

Yours is a scientifically run workplace.  You work with science, doing science on a daily basis.  You have scientifically valid protocols and procedures.  You follow set procedures and don't make mental jumps when trying to find how many parts-per-million a certain element is present in your samples.  You follow established methodologies and don't make leaps of faith when checking and calibrating your instruments.  Thinking logically and analytically should be easy for you.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, ok?)

 

So can you transfer your skills from the lab to this forum?

You must have precise working definitions of what you try to detect in your samples, right?  You must have precise working definitions of how certain chemical compounds show up under ultraviolet light?  You must have precise definitions of what a benzene ring is, what a ester is and what a halogen is?  When it comes to chemical abundances, to isotopes and to trace elements, you must have precise definitions of what these things are, how the occur in nature, how you can detect them and so on, yes?  That's what we need from you about original sin and epigenetics.

.

.

.

 

Look, I'll read and pay close attention to whatever you write End...

 

...PROVIDED that it IS science.

.

.

.

 

If you claim that science can be used to detect original sin and/or it's genetic effects or it's genetic side-effects, then don't leave us to fill in the blanks and the gaps and the jumps in your mental processes.  Show us the whole process, from A to Z!  Not just  dictionary definitions or isolated case histories or what might be possible.  You don't use "maybes" and "might be's" and "could be's" in your lab, do you?  So don't ask me and don't ask us to accept them as bona fide science here. 

.

.

.

 

You have the floor, End.

 

Please persuade us, using science.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

BAA,  Why did I know you would deflect.   Why are there just a remote few of you that can be honest.  Thankful for those people because it builds relationships. 

[moanareina]

BAA,  Why did I know you would deflect.   Why are there just a remote few of you that can be honest.  Thankful for those people because it builds relationships. 

 

 

???

 

Being honest all the time.

[Roz]

BAA it's impossible for End3 to make any headway linking his original premise together (schizophrenia -> original sin).

 

So he's doing what all creation scientists do.  Ken Ham, the guys over at ICR, they all do the same damn thing. 

 

"Ooooh, look at how x and y are incredibly designed, so naturally the designer is god!"  End's doing his own variation of the same old tune, and at the same time calling those who see it dishonest idiots.

 

It's quite amusing and sad to see a post-graduate man use elementary school logic, but he's been backed into a corner and is now desperately trying to save whatever face he can.

[bornagainathiest]

Using the quote function, please show me where I deflected, End.

[bornagainathiest]

Oh... and please show me HOW I deflected.

 

If you accuse me of doing a certain thing, can you now demonstrate HOW I did it?

[Guest end3]

Using the quote function, please show me where I deflected, End.

I'll make the effort.

 

The conversation had deviated to post whatever it was that you said, paraphrasing, that science was just the key to one door, and not a key that we could use to unlock or test the supernatural. So that is the issue at hand IMO, not original sin. I will be glad to go back to original sin after we have discussed this if you would like Otherwise, I tend to think you do not really wish to have a conversation.

[Guest end3]

 

BAA,  Why did I know you would deflect.   Why are there just a remote few of you that can be honest.  Thankful for those people because it builds relationships.

 

 

???

 

Being honest all the time.

 

It's my personal feeling M, that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hide behind your attitude. Again, that is just my feeling. I do not know you that well, or at all really.

[Guest end3]

BAA it's impossible for End3 to make any headway linking his original premise together (schizophrenia -> original sin).

 

So he's doing what all creation scientists do.  Ken Ham, the guys over at ICR, they all do the same damn thing. 

 

"Ooooh, look at how x and y are incredibly designed, so naturally the designer is god!"  End's doing his own variation of the same old tune, and at the same time calling those who see it dishonest idiots.

 

It's quite amusing and sad to see a post-graduate man use elementary school logic, but he's been backed into a corner and is now desperately trying to save whatever face he can.

And Roz, lol, you are somewhat like a parrot that sits in the corner and won't shut up....."Squawk....lurkers", "Squawk, were we ever this dumb, squawk". "Ssquawk, Roz hates a babykiller".

[Roz]

Prayer's been found as having no impact at all, but End3 disregards studies like this and instead clings to his own superstitions.

 

In one regard, End3 is right, prayer is indeed a testable hypothesis, and it was tested. 

 

But End3 loses the larger picture, that it has proven to be a non factor in actual testing.

 

1) “Intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications.”

2) “Patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse.”

Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/05/15/study-concludes-intercessory-prayer-doesnt-work-christians-twist-the-results/#ixzz399D4wIv7

 

The christian's desperate attempts to score any argument points is apparent.  He still clings to his superstition, disregarding what it says about slavery, rape, genocide, the impossible accounts of Noah's flood, the many revisions/different compilations of it through the centuries, etc.

 

He will still cling to it because "yes, prayer can be tested!"  Just don't ask about the results.

[Roz]

 

BAA it's impossible for End3 to make any headway linking his original premise together (schizophrenia -> original sin).

 

So he's doing what all creation scientists do.  Ken Ham, the guys over at ICR, they all do the same damn thing. 

 

"Ooooh, look at how x and y are incredibly designed, so naturally the designer is god!"  End's doing his own variation of the same old tune, and at the same time calling those who see it dishonest idiots.

 

It's quite amusing and sad to see a post-graduate man use elementary school logic, but he's been backed into a corner and is now desperately trying to save whatever face he can.

And Roz, lol, you are somewhat like a parrot that sits in the corner and won't shut up....."Squawk....lurkers", "Squawk, were we ever this dumb, squawk". "Ssquawk, Roz hates a babykiller".

 

 

And End3, I do hate people who advocate child murder, child rape, and genocide.  You're like that modern day Fascist trying to defend Nazi scientists in WW2.

[bornagainathiest]

That's not a deflection, End.

In post # 342 (which you quote from) I was describing my position on the issue to Directionless. 

(I still hold to that position.  You haven't yet persuaded me.)

.

.

.

 

You then objected to it, in # 343.

.

.

.

 

I then replied to you in # 344, asking you to persuade me. That's an open-minded and fair invitation for you to persuade me that I'm wrong.  If I'm asking you to persuade me of something, then I haven't yet been persuaded have I? 

 

You haven't yet swayed me from my current position, so I'm holding to it... UNTIL YOU DO.

 

That's not a deflection of any kind, End.

 

I sincerely hope you can see that.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Roz]

He can't BAA, it's futile.  God glasses make people of all IQ levels blind.

[bornagainathiest]

Easy... Roz!  Easy.

 

If he goes back thru the posts he can see who did what, when and how.

 

I'm hoping End can see that I can hold my p.o.v. UNTIL I'm persuaded otherwise.

[Guest end3]

That's not a deflection, End.

In post # 342 (which you quote from) I was describing my position on the issue to Directionless. 

(I still hold to that position.  You haven't yet persuaded me.)

.

.

.

 

You then objected to it, in # 343.

.

.

.

 

I then replied to you in # 344, asking you to persuade me. That's an open-minded and fair invitation for you to persuade me that I'm wrong.  If I'm asking you to persuade me of something, then I haven't yet been persuaded have I? 

 

You haven't yet swayed me from my current position, so I'm holding to it... UNTIL YOU DO.

 

That's not a deflection of any kind, End.

 

I sincerely hope you can see that.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Ok, I would like to discuss it if you have time.

 

Do you think testing prayer is valid. And if so, why please.

[directionless]

 

Using the quote function, please show me where I deflected, End.

I'll make the effort.

 

The conversation had deviated to post whatever it was that you said, paraphrasing, that science was just the key to one door, and not a key that we could use to unlock or test the supernatural. So that is the issue at hand IMO, not original sin. I will be glad to go back to original sin after we have discussed this if you would like Otherwise, I tend to think you do not really wish to have a conversation.

 

Maybe you ought to start a fresh thread on defining and testing "supernatural"? That would be an interesting discussion IMO.

 

I disagree with the idea that supernatural is simply undiscovered natural. I think supernatural is randomness that is somehow controlled from outside the natural world.

 

One of my physics professors said that a piece of chalk could theoretically quantum-tunnel through an eraser except that it would be extremely unlikely. Probability and randomness are fundamental to quantum mechanics (not that I claim to understand QM much ). Everything is made of tiny particles that behave randomly.

 

IMO supernatural is when we cannot predict the result of something in the natural world - even if we know as much as possible about the state of the natural world and the natural laws. But also believing in supernatural means to believe that this fundamental uncertainty reflects the will of something outside the natural world (God, human spirit, etc.)

[directionless]

^ If you start a thread on supernatural, maybe it would have a better chance of being interesting if you start it in a forum with stricter moderation?

 

In my experience it's hard to discuss supernatural because people tend to ridicule the discussion without actually listening and thinking.

[bornagainathiest]

 

That's not a deflection, End.

In post # 342 (which you quote from) I was describing my position on the issue to Directionless. 

(I still hold to that position.  You haven't yet persuaded me.)

.

.

.

 

You then objected to it, in # 343.

.

.

.

 

I then replied to you in # 344, asking you to persuade me. That's an open-minded and fair invitation for you to persuade me that I'm wrong.  If I'm asking you to persuade me of something, then I haven't yet been persuaded have I? 

 

You haven't yet swayed me from my current position, so I'm holding to it... UNTIL YOU DO.

 

That's not a deflection of any kind, End.

 

I sincerely hope you can see that.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

Ok, I would like to discuss it if you have time.

 

Do you think testing prayer is valid. And if so, why please.

 

 

 

Once again I must politely request that you stay on-topic, End.

 

You opened this thread with the issue of original sin and epigenetics and prayer testing is (imho) a side issue that should be dealt with, either later or elsewhere.  

 

So... Yes, I do have the time to discuss original sin and epigenetics with you.

As I wrote earlier, you have my attention and you now know my position (I described it to Directionless on # 342) on the issue.  Please persuade me, using logical argument, evidence, data and science that I'm wrong.  I'll read and digest your arguments.  I'll examine your evidence and your data.  I'll closely inspect the science involved.  Please persuade me.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

^ If you start a thread on supernatural, maybe it would have a better chance of being interesting if you start it in a forum with stricter moderation?

 

In my experience it's hard to discuss supernatural because people tend to ridicule the discussion without actually listening and thinking.

We have discussed that in the past D.....A lot of stuff gets turned into "stuff" in this sub-forum. I think the frustration lies in not addressing specifics. It's important to me that we consider prayer studies as legitimate to make my point. Then I am disappointed when that specific is not discussed....and routed back to original sin. I'm sure they feel the same frustration.

 

To supernatural: I don't like the word and think it could fall in to all the ideas you mention. Bottom line, perhaps it our natural merge into another "natural" situation? Natural being defined by that particular set of laws. Good question. The Coliseum is more strict and less tolerant to beating people up instead of legitimate response.