*** Science Or God? ***

[karnivore]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^^ He already has the answer......SOUL. (Piece of crap)

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

I am not a scientist... And am not in a position to experiment as well ....
This is just my theory...
Everything in science starts with theory...
And i dont see what soo funnier in my theory...
Why cant you come up with one reason?? You only look pathetic brother...putting hinderance to others vision or creativity...
And dont say thats the soul that makes the crack...
First of all i haven seen it...period...so most probably i cant explain...it...
Instead of criticing...why cant you find a explanation for it...

I think some people shud have done the basic science experiments in their primary skools. An empty glass bottle covered with a balloon on its mouth doesn't break up when u heat it even for 5 mintues. Try it.

Lets look at what u said.

It should either do with collapse of the lungs when i person dies... Or another thing is may be all the air leaving his body like air in large intestine and bowel and other place.... And increase in volume me air inside it, which would have caused the crack...

R u trying to say that the person was made to take a deep breath, asked to complete the threshold of air volume inside his body and was then put in glass chamber so that when he released the air (a little hotter) the volume expanded and in ur opinion it cracked?? Even a kid acquainted with the basic science wud have termed ur "theory" as "funny".

So if u r not a scientist, not in a position to "experiment" it as well, then how come u call it even a "theory"?? Do u even know what a theory is? Theories are based on "[SIZE=-1]observation, experimentation, and reasoning.". But in ur unique case I see only "belief", self-righteous [/SIZE]opinions and nuthing more....an exact case resembling the people who blindly believe in God. So ur post is nuthing but funny and arguing over it naturally makes u look more pathetic.

About me, u can see my vote in the poll.

^^ He already has the answer......SOUL. (Piece of crap)

I'm yet to say anything on soul dear.

 

[rohan_mhtr]

Re: ***science Or God?***

This was the same feeling I had after that incident and was eager to find scientific reason behind it but till now i dont have any explanation. My uncle is a doctor and even he cant explain this phenomenon .

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Like I said before there r various things that science can't explain coz it needs logic behind e.g homeopathy and the "blind believers" of modern-science will limit themselves to the approaches marked by it.
Read a few examples if u have the time.

 

[Vyasram]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^^^ Had you been born 1000 years ago, you would have questioned gravity and would have blamed science for being unable to explain it.

Simply because 'Modern Science' cant explain something, doesn't mean that science is false and that g0d exists. Science will provide answers for such things in the future just like it has done in the past.

Atleast, science makes more sense that religion/g0d which propagates ignorance by saying that "g0d is everything". Such people just dont want to know the truth. Religion/g0d can provide an illogical, one-time, satisfactory answer. Science offers logical, partly, half-satisfactory answers over time.

I do not believe in unproven theories like the big-bang, I only speculate them. All people who believe in science do the same. Once someone proves it on the basis of other theories/experimental proof, I will believe that. Same applies for any theory in science. Scientists dont rush up to conclusions, they provide answers only after careful analyses. No one can question E=mc^2 of F=ma. But one can question Ravana's ten heads or the Adam's apple.

Science pwns g0d. (for the moment)

 

[karnivore]

Re: ***science Or God?***

For all HOMEOPATHY fans, here's something

Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.
A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.

Read more....

Here is a model trial for homeopathy. You take, say, 200 people, and divide them at random into two groups of 100. All of the patients visit their homeopath, they all get a homeopathic prescription at the end (because homeopaths love to prescribe pills even more than doctors) for whatever it is that the homeopath wants to prescribe, and all the patients take their prescription to the homeopathic pharmacy. Every patient can be prescribed something completely different, an “individualised” prescription - it doesn’t matter.
Now here is the twist: one group gets the real homeopathy pills they were prescribed (whatever they were), and the patients in the other group are given fake sugar pills. Crucially, neither the patients, nor the people who meet them in the trial, know who is getting which treatment.
This trial has been done, time and time again, with homeopathy, and when you do a trial like this, you find, overall, that the people getting the placebo sugar pills do just as well as those getting the real, posh, expensive, technical, magical homeopathy pills.

Read more....

Here's James Randy, explaining HOMEOPATHY, and here's where he declares $1 million for anybody who can prove HOMEOPATHY is science. Those greens are still up for the grabs. Anybody interested ????????

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^^^ Had you been born 1000 years ago, you would have questioned gravity and would have blamed science for being unable to explain it.

Had I been born 1000 years ago I wud have learnt something practical like I do now instead of wasting my time on theories and faulty approaches which change when a new one comes and contradicts the previous one and hence wasting all that time in which u thought that the previous one was correct instead of thinking something of your own and independent.

I wud still question how come time is regarded as 4th dimension, since in dimensions one can move forwards and backwards both, and how come the 'relative speed' of 2 objects moving towards each other with speed of light remains equal to speed of light. An observation, a fact contradicting a physics "law'??

Atleast, science makes more sense that religion/g0d which propagates ignorance by saying that "g0d is everything". Such people just dont want to know the truth. Religion/g0d can provide an illogical, one-time, satisfactory answer. Science offers logical, partly, half-satisfactory answers over time.

I do not believe in unproven theories like the big-bang, I only speculate them. All people who believe in science do the same. Once someone proves it on the basis of other theories/experimental proof, I will believe that. Same applies for any theory in science. Scientists dont rush up to conclusions, they provide answers only after careful analyses. No one can question E=mc^2 of F=ma. But one can question Ravana's ten heads or the Adam's apple.

Science pwns g0d. (for the moment)

All I can say is your thinking ability is very limited and that u r unable to think beyond what others have already thought. I guess u shud read the whole thread again now.



Now @ill-informed-critics, it seems u haven't read ur very own article or ur sense of humour is reaching its peak. May be I shud post the comments from that page just for ur limited interest.

From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":

I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.

From an unidentified homeopathic enthusiast:

Homeopathy works and you simply are too narrow-minded to understand that this world is made up of more than the mere physical and chemical natures. You overlook the spiritual and the energetic. You are the quack.

From another homeopathic enthusiast:

What a sad sorry piece of **** masquerading as science your article is. Which drug company are you a front for? Do you know how many people die each year as a result of prescribed "scientifically validated" drugs? How many people do you murder (sorry treat) each week? How it must irk you that homeopathy is making a huge resurgence worldwide and safely treating iatrogenic and "incurable" diseases. We must start a web site to encourage people to sue doctors and drug companies for harmful side effects, lying and murder. It will be a huge counter punch to established medical quackery.

Sorry to quote the comments since I too feel that article has been published by an ignorant M.D.

may be I too shud give some links just for ur interest. Read.....
*www.taniachapman.com/whychoose.htm
*www.emaxhealth.com/60/633.html

Homeopathy has existed for about 200 years, yet reports in the media have suggested that homeopathy is the medicine of the future. Today, homeopathy is found in almost every country. In Europe, 40% of French physicians use homeopathy; 40% of Dutch, 37% of British, and 20% of German physicians use homeopathy [1]. In the United States, hundreds of thousands of people take homeopathic remedies each year. Indeed, homeopathy seems to be becoming more popular.
.
.
.
There are two points of view about homeopathy that are in conflict. One viewpoint says that homeopathy should not attempt to meet the rigorous requirements of scientific medicine. It is sufficient that there have been millions of satisfied patients during the last 200 years. Science is not relevant anyway because it rejects the concept of the energy of the "vital force" which is essential to homeopathy. This vital force is identical to the concept of vitalism -- a primitive concept used to explain health and disease. And, besides, scientific medicine is unfairly prejudiced and biased against homeopathy. Dana Ullman [3], a leading spokesman for American homeopathy, says that personal experience is much more convincing than any experiments. The emphasis on experience shows that most people simply do not understand that good science, based upon experiments, is essential to the development of knowledge.
.
.
.
.
Is Homeopathy Quackery?

In the United States, we have a motto: "If it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it probably is a duck." To what extent does homeopathy look like quackery and sound like quackery?

One clear link that homeopathy has to quackery is its supporters' use of faulty logic. The first example is known as the "test of time" argument -- the fact that homeopathy has existed for a long time shows that it is valid. But longevity does not guarantee validity. Astrology, numerology, and dowsing have been around for a long time, but they are clear examples of pseudoscience. Longevity of an idea is never a good substitute for rigorous science.

The second argument is that many people have tried homeopathic remedies and are all satisfied, so homeopathy must be legitimate. Along the same lines, we are told that the following famous and important people all supported homeopathy: The British royal family, Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Mark Twain, O. J. Simpson, Yehudi Menuhin, Angela Lansbury, and Mary Baker Eddy (founder of Christian Science). The Chinese have a saying that if a thousand people say something foolish, it is still foolish. Also a majority vote is no substitute for good science. In addition, we usually hear only about the successes, but the failures are conveniently forgotten or ignored.

A third argument is the "non sequitur." Typically, the crackpot says: "They laughed at Galileo, and he was right. Today they laugh at me; therefore I must be right." (Actually Galileo was not laughed at. Rather he was persecuted because he was devoid of a proper Christian faith to accept the correct dogma.) Homeopaths say that throughout history many great geniuses have rebelled against the prevailing wisdom; many of these were ultimately recognized as correct. Paracelsus, William Harvey, Louis Pasteur, and Joseph Lister were vindicated by history. Therefore, it is argued, Samuel Hahnemann and homeopathy also will ultimately be recognized as correct. But this argument forgets that many more who claimed to be geniuses were correctly rejected.

In the spirit of fair-mindedness, one may be tempted to give homeopathy the benefit of the doubt and simply conclude "not yet proven." However, what then are we to do when many lay practitioners report that merely writing the name of the remedy on a piece of paper, and putting this on the body of the patient results in a "cure." Even two respected national spokesmen were unwilling to reject these reports, and one of them suggested that quantum physics may ultimately explain these healings as well as those reported by patients who are given the remedy over the phone.

Read the complete thing

So @ignorant-critics I think u just googled some phrase like "Homeopathy ineffective or fake" and came up with ur sources. But u, I think, have no idea why homeopathy is worldwide popular.

Here's James Randy, explaining HOMEOPATHY, and here's where he declares $1 million for anybody who can prove HOMEOPATHY is science. Those greens are still up for the grabs. Anybody interested ????????

Tell the genius u plagiarized to be a little broadminded since science itself rejects "concept of the energy of the "vital force" which is essential for homeopathy". May be modern science cannot be homeopathy since its scope is very limited.

Its really funny to see how people who term themselves as "broadminded" fail to look at the both the sides of the thing and then blindly believr in one of them.

Neways from my vote I guess the people wud have understood by now that I'm not a god believer either.

BTW how many read that intuition link? Its well known. Does science approve it??

I think a few things are being repeated, so please read the thread again. Homeopathy was already discussed u know!!

 

[Faun]

Re: ***science Or God?***

that intuition article was a good read

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Good to know u liked it.
There r several such things to read on. But it depends how much one's brain is evolved, how much understanding he has and how much "broadminded" he is to look beyond the things that r taught to him since his childhood.

 

[karnivore]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@knowledgeable-believer

Tone is pretty loud, but as usual, without any explanation as to why homeopathy works. All i get to know is, a state-secret, that homeopathy "works" and not such a state-secret, that we are all ignorant critics and louts. Thought that the 2nd link answered that.

Anyway, I am yet to come across a very well reasoned argument as to why "Avogadro's rule" doesn't apparently apply to homeopathy. (It seems our @knowledgeable-believer hasn't heard of the defense of the homeopathy brigade in this matter).

"Vital Force" ???? Why does it remind me of something called "Aether", wrongly introduced by Newton to prove a bunch of mathematical expressions, called "Gravity" - and later successfully disproved by Einstein. Oh i get it. When u can't explain anything say something mumbo-jumbo and call it "beyond science to comprehend". Yeah, that explains everything. Its like, i introduce a mumbo-jumbo and its upto you prove it. Funny, isn't it ??

Why is it that every site that tries to "enlighten" us with some crap - intuition, in this case - has something or the other to sell. How much a commercial site, that has related product to sell, can be trusted, is open for debate (however, not on this forum). Anyway, my un-informed, ignorant view about intuition is that it is nothing but some feelings, which are based on past experience and one's understanding. Thats all that there is.
And yes, every body who stands opposite to @knowledgeable-believer, is ignorant, a fool and all those nasty words in the dictionary. It's a given.

As with "plagiarizing" and "googling", well, what to say to a "run-out-of-logic" kid's babbles.

Just a reminder, $ 1 million is waiting

 

[sreevirus]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@ mediator, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters.

On topic.
The language of science is considered to be mathematics. A theory would be considered if it falls in line with mathematical expressions which are based on some axioms. Considering this aspect, I would like to remind you somthing nothing would be scientifically accepted if observations cannot be scientifically (mathematically, to be precise) proven.

Moving on, @ mediator, from your post, you quoted:

From a Californian who runs seminars teaching people "how to reduce stress by finding their natural breathing pattern":

I am very open minded. I would use drugs, surgery whatever it takes . . . but I feel homeopathy has value and the word "fake" is counterproductive and judgemental. I feel you have not researched the many scholars around the globe that are researching the quantum biological perspective. A few key biophysicists are gaining knowledge that there are subatomic fields that interpenetrate and structure the molecular level. These fields can directly relate to how homeopathy works. YOU DO NOT NEED ANY MOLECULES OF THE SUBSTANCE IN THE REMEDY TO AFFECT THESE UNDERLYING FIELDS. A SUBATOMIC WAVE FIELD THAT IS CARRYED BY THE WATER OR SUGAR IN THE REMEDY IS INTERACTING WITH THE SUBATOMIC FIELDS UNDERLYING THE PHYSICAL MATTER OF THE PATIENT. The problem is our limited technology can only measure a limited band of the energy spectrum. WE ARE NOT THAT ADVANCED AS A CIVILISATION. JUST WATCH THE NEWS.

This is just a claim. If there is a real mathematical proof of subatomic wave-field interacting on a patient, then scientists wouldn't have been so skeptical. Instead the claim would have been a lot more credible. For the rest part, the claim is, just a claim.

Now I would also like to gather attention around claims where people falsely say are backed by science. They use scientific language (like the subatomic wave field here) to back up something unscientific (interaction of it with the patient, again unproven). The use of scientific jargon (or should I say scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo) sure would catch the attention of gullible people because, what can I say, science is after all, science, and has a certain respect to it.

@ mediator, you have just put claims of some individuals, you have not put forth any scientific proofs. Your method is unscientific. So people have claimed that they have been abducted by aliens on UFOs, but then how credible can they be? You said homeopathy is popular. But so are astrology, tarot cards, palmistry, numerology, etc. Popularity does not make anything credible to science. You would, at any given time or place, find more superstitious people than skeptics. And these people would rather believe in made up stories than things backed by evidence.

Coming to science, I would say that you should watch the 3-part series The Elegant Universe (I saw it on google video). It explains a lot about string theory. I'm talking about string theory here, because I was reminded by your post of the series, where they tried to explain string theory. String theory has a mathematical proof. But it is not observable. There are still debates going on about it, but it is credible, because its based on the solution to different equations. The theory is controversial because strings can never be observed. On a scale, if an atom is compared to the solar system, then a string would only be the size of a tree on earth. Where does that lead us to? Strings can never be visible to us. But their existence can be debated, because their foundation is scientific. But can you say the same about homeopathy or astrology? Claims are made, but there are no scientific proof. Why do you think James Randy's challenge has stood on since 1964?

I would urge (once again) fans of alternative medicines to watch Richard Dawkins' The Enemies of Reason [1] [2] (wikipedia). It is truly enlightening.
Here are the closing quotes of Dawkins:

In ayurveda or clairvoyance, homeopathy or astrology, we are confronted by those who deny evidence of the real world and instead bend reality around a dogmatic belief system, handed down by tradition. Skeptical, rational inquiry is always the best approach. We don't have to follow the herd and buy into trendy, untested health fads, we don't have to be swayed this way and that by media-driven health scares. Instead , we can think independently, be truly open minded - that means asking questions, being open to real corroborated evidence. Reason has liberated us from superstition, and given us centuries of progress. We abandon it at our peril.

 

[naveen_reloaded]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Awesome...
Well said...
Right from first line!
In those days theory where made and later only scientific proof were been shown to prove a theory...and providing theory need not necessarily be accompanied by am experiment by the same person...!
Its called theory coz there isnt a credible proof to back it up...
So understand it...first...
I am just saying that when a person dies...the volume inside the lung may be released and could POSSIBLY create a possitive pressure or a relative change in pressure than the surrounding ...we all any unbalanced pressure or force tries to maintain a equilibrium...and so to normalise the pressure ,the glass could be broken...
AND THIS IS A THEORY...
undertand it first...

Again 1+ for the first line in sreevirus prev post..

 

[Vyasram]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Had I been born 1000 years ago I wud have learnt something practical like I do now instead of wasting my time on theories and faulty approaches which change when a new one comes and contradicts the previous one and hence wasting all that time in which u thought that the previous one was correct instead of thinking something of your own and independent.

I seriously doubt that.

Here's your problem. You are like feeling like WTF, when someone talks about science. Science is not history or religion, science is bound to change when someone discovers something new. You dont get 100% results at one go. You go 90%, 99%, 99.9%,99.99%........... and u will never reach 100%. FFS, change ur attitute towards science. You want to everyone to start science anew, from fire? . Fine, in that case no one go beyond discovering friction. Science needs continuity between scientists of one generation and the next. They learn the already discovered facts with proofs in a short time (read school) , so that they can go on and research on their own with the aid of what they have learnt. And they find contradictions on what they have studied at school and find answers for it. If scientists were like 'you', they would have got nowhere. Einstein was able to frame laws on relativity because Newton discovered the laws of motion already.

I wud still question how come time is regarded as 4th dimension, since in dimensions one can move forwards and backwards both, and how come the 'relative speed' of 2 objects moving towards each other with speed of light remains equal to speed of light. An observation, a fact contradicting a physics "law'??

Yes, it contradicts, once. It contradicts Galilean velocity addition.

Relative velocity = ( (v1)^2 + (v2)^2 + 2(v1)(v2)cos@))^0.5

this eqn is strictly valid only when v1,v2 << velocity of light

All those contradictions can be broken by Einstein's velocity addition

By this theory, relative velocity cant exceed the velocity of light. It goes like this. Consider m1 and m2 moving in opposite directions with velocities 0.5c and 0.5c. If their relative velocity is 1c,

then m1 would appear to m2 as having infinite mass( by relative mass theory) and hence has infinite kinetic energy, which is impossible( since the total energy in the world is quantised)

so, here's the formula for einstein velocity addition.

*hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html


Like I said " Science is moving from 90% to 99%"

I wont say that Einstein's velocity addition is complete. Contradictions would appear in the future and someone would provide another answer and take science to 99.9% completion.


My suggestion: Learn science before blaming it. U shouldn't hate something simple because you dont get it

All I can say is your thinking ability is very limited and that u r unable to think beyond what others have already thought. I guess u shud read the whole thread again now.

Running out of ideas to get one over me? That's a desparate comment.

 

[mediator]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@ mediator, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters

Look at the post above u, and look at the posts of the supporters of both science and God. Yes this is a debate a healthy one where people are trying to induct their "scientific beliefs" and self righteous theories. I won't characterise an opponent for his belief in god either unless it degrades mankind and creates terror. BTW see this debate healthy debate already in gutters that u wud like to clean......

*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=381553&postcount=194
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=381920&postcount=196
*www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showpost.php?p=382035&postcount=198

I don't understand why mods don't clean that thread first inspite of my persistent remindings. BTW where did I characterize? If calling someone ignorant for his hilarious theories and "blind belief" in something that is flawed itself, then sorry to tell this thread has already become a big gutter where theists have been characterized constantly.

The language of science is considered to be mathematics. A theory would be considered if it falls in line with mathematical expressions which are based on some axioms. Considering this aspect, I would like to remind you somthing nothing would be scientifically accepted if observations cannot be scientifically (mathematically, to be precise) proven.

Since u bring up mathematics as a base of modern science. Then I wud like u to read the complete thing first and that means the whole site.

Now I would also like to gather attention around claims where people falsely say are backed by science. They use scientific language (like the subatomic wave field here) to back up something unscientific (interaction of it with the patient, again unproven). The use of scientific jargon (or should I say scientific sounding mumbo-jumbo) sure would catch the attention of gullible people because, what can I say, science is after all, science, and has a certain respect to it.

Who said not respect it. Bu the problem lies in blindly accepting it. The practise of telling the state of a person remotely and telepathically is not new. It has been practised in ancient eras too. But I'm not in neways blaming science that it can'texplain as to how such a thing can happen. Science needs logic.
But if u r telling that Dr.Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, is telling that just to win some gullible souls, then I obviously feel sorry for u and think that u r far from reality.

The questions which should be addressed are as to why the modern mathematics is held up, why its logic recoils upon itself and why there are mathematical problems, logical knots and mental blocks at all in the modern mathematical approach?



Well known problems of modern mathematics may be cited as:


1. Everywhere continuous but nowhere differentiable functions
2. Hypercubes 1 to 7 increase but hypercube 8 onwards decrease
3. Space Filling Curves
4. Riemann Hypothesis
5. Goldbach's conjecture
6. Fermat's Last Theorem



Isn't it that these problems are there because of the axioms accepted by the modern mathematics?



And then follows a question as to whether Vedic mathematics is in a position to help the modern mathematics to come out of its mental block and to un-tie its logical knots and to solve the problems?



The Vedic geometric concepts worked out in the books of Dr. Kapoor promise us geometric comprehensions of our existence phenomenon transcending our existing three space format. The real four and higher spaces formats of Vedic comprehensions are new wonderful worlds of very rich mathematics which may ensure us powerful technologies and much potentialised disciplines of knowledge. The basic comprehension pointed out is the way the cosmic surface constitutes and binds the solid granules as synthetic solids manifesting in the cosmos.



Dr. Kapoor is attempting to reconstruct the discipline of geometry as a discipline based on Vedic concepts. He has designated this discipline as Vedic Geometry. His results has added a new dimension to the dialogue initiated with the interpretation of the Ganita Sutras and their potentialities brought to focus by Swami Bharti Krisna Tirthaji Maharaj.



Dr. Kapoor's conclusion is that this all is there only because of the acceptance of the geometric entity (monad) admitting no parts, and "1" has no predecessor. To overcome this, as per him, the modern mathematics needs Vedic mathematics' help to shift from monad without parts to a monad admitting parts. The eliptic equations format y^2=x^3 is bound to give a conceptual slip and this, as per him, can be well glimpsed by chasing the format of this equation on simplex format to see how it is deceptive to appear to be so while as whole numbers artifices parallel to the dimensional frames is well evident inequality. As such, there is a need for the modern mathematics to re-address to itself about the need for re-settlement of the basics to come out of the mental blocks and logical knots to un-tie the knots and to transcend the blocks and to be face to face with the wonderful worlds of reality awaiting ahead with all potentialities of their structural richness. The parallelism between artifices of whole numbers 1 to 26 and 26 sporadic groups is there because of the cosmic surface within the solids.



The recent academic research attempts and teaching experiments with the help of Vedic mathematical operations demonstrate their potentialities to provide the desired help.



The research results are bringing us nearer the traditional acceptance as that Vedas are written on the rays of the Sun. Vedic mathematics, science & technology is the mathematics, science & technology of the way the nature maintains grand unification of the existence phenomenon on the Earth through the rays of the Sun. It is in this grand design of the nature the individual Vedic mantras are impulses of consciousness. This design maintains the continuity of the life within human frame and beyond through the natural intelligence embedded in the human mind and in the rays of Sun. This continuity and parallelism when chased promises new wonderful experiential domains about new realities and the wonderful domains to unfold for us new disciplines of mathematics, science & technology.



Vedic sounds are multidimensional domain frequencies from within the particular dimensional frame as the structure of that domain. When the sounds are pronounced, the frozen frequencies get initiated and the self-organizing power of the Vedic sounds set the frequency's potentialisation process into action. It is this process whose utilization is the aim of different Vedic scriptures.



Rig Ved Samhita is the first Vedic scripture. It is the first book of the mankind. The mathematics precedes the composition of Rig Ved Samhita. Vedic Mathematics helped to transform the universal set of knowledge as a speaking language and in the process it itself as well transformed as such and assimilated its identity into the Vedas.



Within Vedas, all discipline of knowledge transform their identity and get assimilated into the single discipline of organization of knowledge on geometric formats. Vedic geometry and mathematics as such help us to work out these formats.

Here are the closing quotes of Dawkins:

In ayurveda or clairvoyance, homeopathy or astrology, we are confronted by those who deny evidence of the real world and instead bend reality around a dogmatic belief system, handed down by tradition. Skeptical, rational inquiry is always the best approach. We don't have to follow the herd and buy into trendy, untested health fads, we don't have to be swayed this way and that by media-driven health scares. Instead , we can think independently, be truly open minded - that means asking questions, being open to real corroborated evidence. Reason has liberated us from superstition, and given us centuries of progress. We abandon it at our peril.

I'm in no way ridiculing modern science. But I'm quite convinced that modern science also is not without flaws.

Ayurveda, homeopathy are the fields whose medicines "work". It is well known that in humans alone, our immune systems are not quite the same. Your immune level may be stonger than mine.

@ mediator, you have just put claims of some individuals, you have not put forth any scientific proofs. Your method is unscientific. So people have claimed that they have been abducted by aliens on UFOs, but then how credible can they be? You said homeopathy is popular. But so are astrology, tarot cards, palmistry, numerology, etc. Popularity does not make anything credible to science. You would, at any given time or place, find more superstitious people than skeptics. And these people would rather believe in made up stories than things backed by evidence.

Like I said before you need to come out of the closet set by modern science and need to think beyond it. There have been various side effects of the modern medicine, prescribed drugs causing deaths. Shud I say, modern medicine is not effective?? Shud I ask in the same logic how credible is modern medicine then??

Now what has UFO abduction has to do in this topic?? I guess u r not being "broadminded" now.
Sometime back the apollo moon landing was marked as real. It even became a subject in the student's course books. But now it has become a subject of controversy. What do u call that?

Read...

Alternative medicine, chiefly various Ayurvedic therapies and Chinese techniques are becoming increasingly popular both in the land of their origin and the Western societies. As in other fields of applied sciences, modern medical science also has failed to resist the onslaught of corruption, consumerism, and utilitarian motives. The deterioration in medical ethics, coupled with the limitations of modern scientific medicine in curing many diseases, has prompted many westerners to find alternative in the Eastern traditional methods of therapeutics. While globalization of economy, easy exchange of scientific knowledge, and a big leap in information technology have helped the spread of scientific medicine, it is equally true that eastern ideas and culture have also made their impact on certain section of western community.


Ayurveda is one such cultural exchange, which the Westerners feel might provide them with a holistic approach to their health problems. Ayurveda appears to profess a more humane approach towards the illness, which the modern medical practitioner appears to lack. Patients feel that modern medical science has become too commercial, almost to the point of being labeled as unethical. In addition to the sophisticated gadgetry, the patients need tender loving care as well. Ayurveda practitioners may not have remedy for every illness or malady, but their approach towards the patient appears more kind and natural. The treatments prescribed also bring the patients in touch with the nature by way of herbal and plant medicines, seasonal do's and don'ts, diet and exercises with desirable emphasis on life style modification. Aromatherapy, massage, and similar simple, albeit sometimes costly and time consuming, techniques bring confidence in the heart of the patients. In addition, recent surge in the interest in science of spirituality - Vedanta and Yoga - has also contributed to the revival of Ayurveda in East and the West.

Moreover, as traditional Chinese and Indian systems of medicine overcome restrictions of their respective national boundaries, we are witnessing a tremendous spurt in publication of very good books on "Alternative modes of therapy". These books contain valuable insights in basic theories and practices of Eastern traditional medicine. Subject matter of such books is quite varied. There are books that deal with specific Ayurvedic therapeutics, for instance aromatherapy and natural oils. Many of the books compare and elaborate 'origins and development' of these systems giving us interesting insights into the basic philosophical foundation of the two great civilizations. While the Chinese system is based on the philosophical concepts of Tao and Yin-Yang, the Indian system is related with Samkhya philosophy of origin of manifest and non-manifest universe. Chinese medicine rests on the dynamic pillars of 'five substances', namely: Wood, Fire, Earth, Metal, and Water; while Vata, Pitta, and Kapha are well-known Tridoshas on which whole of the Ayurveda is based.

When these two great ancient systems are put side-by-side and studied in their totality one notices much similarity in them. These similarities are more clearly perceived in the basic philosophical concepts of two civilizations. Differing climatic conditions, geographical peculiarities, and cultural disparities led to differences as far as diagnostic techniques and therapeutic procedures are concerned. Socio-political influence is a later addition that brought about more differences in these two systems of medicine.

In both the systems, use of herbs and plant medicine is quite significant. But the meridian theory based on the flow of life principles - Yin and Yang - brought in the use of acupuncture and acupressure in Chinese mode of treatment that is not so clear in Ayurveda. Significantly, however, Ayurveda considered holistic approach to maintain individual and social health, and hence Yoga exercises, diets, and regular and simple life style find dominant place in this system.

The Ayurveda

The Ayurvedic system of medicine is based on the ancient knowledge contained in Atharvaveda. It deals with the totality of individual and social health including preventive and curative aspects. In fact Ayurveda is a way of life based on certain emphasis on diet, life-style, and Yoga practices suitable for an individual according to his/her constitution. The constitution, in turn, is determined on the basis of the predominance of or loss of equilibrium in one or more of the humor, viz. Vata, Pitta, or Kapha. Based on the symptoms produced due to excess or deficiency of particular dosha, the vaidya or Ayurvedic practitioner chooses remedial measures in the form of herbs, plant medicine, salts of metals, etc.

Ayurvedic therapeutics has evolved into many branches for the benefit of the patients; heavy metal salts, dried extracts of medicinal herbs and plants, Panch-Karma (five way) therapies for cleansing, etc. are but a few to name.

Panch Karma (lit. Five acts) is a special techniques related to rejuvenation, cleansing, and healing practices. These five actions or procedures are 1) Shodhana - Principle practice, 2) Vamana - Emesis therapy, 3) Virechana - Purgation therapy, 4) Vasti - Enema therapy, and 5) Uttara Vasti - Douching. These procedures are advocated to the person depending upon his/her body constitution, chronicity of illness and other factors. The idea is to cleanse the body of excess of specific bodily humor: dosha and malas - toxic wastes of metabolism. Through these 'Pancha Karma therapies the person attains the balance of the three doshas thereby regaining health.

Before the 'Pancha karma' therapy, certain preliminary rejuvenative preparations are needed. These are called Shamana therapies. These include massage - Abhyanga and Snehana, and fomentation - Svedana. Following the 'Pancha Karma' treatments, third phase of healing is advocated. This includes diet, exercises, Ayurvedic herbal tea and other preparations, and plant medicines specifically designed for each person. These are essential to sustain the results of previous treatments. Although promising, the procedures described are cumbersome and require trained persons to carry them out. Added to this is a novel way of treating the patients with 'essential oils' which are the fragrant essences distilled from the various parts of the plants, viz. root, stem, leaves, flowers, fruits, bark, or the whole plant. This is also called as aromatherapy.

Until the advent of modern scientific way of study, any system that gave relief to patient from his/her symptoms used to be designated as a therapeutic system. Whether the system was properly analyzed, researched, and organized did not matter much. Subsequently, with the development of modern medicine, the system that did not give observable, predictable, and reproducible results was relegated to background. Thus faith healing, naturopathy, Ayurveda, Chinese medicine, and homeopathy all were beaten back during the onward march of modern medicine.

Thus, many 'scientifically oriented persons' look at Ayurveda with skepticism. But it is futile to compare Ayurveda and Modern medicine. As regards Ayurveda today, any attempt to seek scientific rational explanation based on the statistical data, laboratory investigations and study of the cases on double blind trial etc. will be of no avail. This science will take longer time to come with scientific explanations for its effectiveness. But one thing is common to both: Both modern medicine and Ayurveda attempt to give relief to the suffering patients.

Medical Science and spirituality

Despite all such modern and ancient modes of therapies, it is all too natural to find human body falling ill from time to time and old age crippling the body frame. This is true for whole humanity. Pain and fever are common symptoms, almost universal. Control of infectious diseases and prolonging life through modern interventionist mode of therapy has lead to improvement in life expectancy. But with it have come many age related degenerative and neoplastic diseases. Thus, heart disease, stroke, and cancer have become the leading causes of mortality. Moreover, chronic diseases of kidneys, lung, brain, liver, joints, etc., and stress related psychosomatic illnesses cause significant morbidity in general public.

Some spiritually oriented researchers, for example the group led by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, lead us towards clearer understanding of physiological, psychological, socio-economic, and spiritual factors in the development of these diseases and restoration of health. They emphasize the point that, in the last analysis, ill health is caused due to our forgetfulness - Pragya Aparadh - of our true nature; our estrangement from the source: the universal consciousness.

These authors come out nicely with the meaning and importance of health based on the interpretation and teachings of the Vedic Literature. They provide guidelines for maintaining a balanced psychophysiology and life-style. But most of all, it is about inner discovery, about realizing that as health unfolds, so does vitality, happiness, and many other positive attributes we all seek. Growth of supreme health and growth of higher state of consciousness go hand in hand, and this together leads to growth of complete psycho-physiologic integration.

The key to positive health is to develop such physiological state that would be able to sustain and express higher state of consciousness. This can be achieved by practicing meditation, leading life according to the principles of Ayurveda, and giving due consideration to vastu-sastra, jyotish, etc. Due to this changed vision and approach, our excessive concern for physical health shifts to spiritual health. This shift of focus towards supreme health 'becomes a delightful journey of discovering the infinite possibilities of our inner nature.'

A thorough analysis of Vedic meaning of consciousness and relative states of consciousness is essential for common man to accept and understand Ayurveda as a science. Some spiritually inclined physicists define the ultimate consciousness as the unified source beyond the subatomic level of modern physics. Thus, they try to relate to a particular way of interpretation of Vedic Literature. The reader not acquainted with the concepts of Vedanta, Samkhya, or related Indian philosophical traditions, may find it difficult to comprehend such interpretation and philosophical basis of Ayurveda. But as a serious and deliberate study, particularly when undertaken under the guidance of an expert teacher, such research will be extremely useful to scholars and honest seekers of the truth.

In the last couple of years many books related to Ayurveda and Alternate systems of Medicine were published, both in the east and the west. This article is a synopsis of these books, and points to the changing trends in the approach to health in the West.

So if u have read the articles given, u wud have realised that we can increase the immunity of the body and do many extraordinary things, like controlling heartbeat for which Indian yogis are popular for and which amazes the west, by knowing our inner nature. Now again read what homeopathy, ayurveda deals etc with.

But, I guess u wont understand such things as ur approach is too "scientific" and science declares a person dead when his heart stops.

Read more

*www.indiandermatology.org/research/evidence-based-ayurveda

I dunno why the "broadminded" people are going by the stereotypical "scientific" approach. The west known for such sicentific approach ridiculed accupuncture, a traditional chinese system but now accupuncture centers are available in US also. Then they ridiculed yoga, a traditional INDIAN system. But now AFAIK, almost 50% of US practices Yoga.

Coming to science, I would say that you should watch the 3-part series The Elegant Universe (I saw it on google video). It explains a lot about string theory. I'm talking about string theory here, because I was reminded by your post of the series, where they tried to explain string theory. String theory has a mathematical proof. But it is not observable. There are still debates going on about it, but it is credible, because its based on the solution to different equations. The theory is controversial because strings can never be observed. On a scale, if an atom is compared to the solar system, then a string would only be the size of a tree on earth. Where does that lead us to? Strings can never be visible to us. But their existence can be debated, because their foundation is scientific. But can you say the same about homeopathy or astrology? Claims are made, but there are no scientific proof.

Modern science!!

Here's your problem. You are like feeling like WTF, when someone talks about science. Science is not history or religion, science is bound to change when someone discovers something new.

Keep saying that if it makes u feel better.

You dont get 100% results at one go. You go 90%, 99%, 99.9%,99.99%........... and u will never reach 100%. FFS, change ur attitute towards science. You want to everyone to start science anew, from fire? . Fine, in that case no one go beyond discovering friction. Science needs continuity between scientists of one generation and the next. They learn the already discovered facts with proofs in a short time (read school) , so that they can go on and research on their own with the aid of what they have learnt. And they find contradictions on what they have studied at school and find answers for it. If scientists were like 'you', they would have got nowhere. Einstein was able to frame laws on relativity because Newton discovered the laws of motion already.

Since u mentioned Einstein, Here a quote from him,
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!

Yes, it contradicts, once. It contradicts Galilean velocity addition.

Relative velocity = ( (v1)^2 + (v2)^2 + 2(v1)(v2)cos@))^0.5

this eqn is strictly valid only when v1,v2 << velocity of light

All those contradictions can be broken by Einstein's velocity addition

By this theory, relative velocity cant exceed the velocity of light. It goes like this. Consider m1 and m2 moving in opposite directions with velocities 0.5c and 0.5c. If their relative velocity is 1c,

The science u believe in it seems is "limited" right in front of ur own eyes!!

My suggestion: Learn science before blaming it. U shouldn't hate something simple because you dont get it
Running out of ideas to get one over me? That's a desparate comment.

Nice one from someone sooo "scientific". I wonder how many homeopathic, aurvedic pills u and ur circle takes!!.
My suggestion : Open up ur brains before ridiculing something sooo blindly just becoz u don't have any independent outlook of ur own. ANd BTW, I'm not hating science or blaming it blatantly, but simply saying science is filled with flaws and believing such "modern science" ignoring the flaws beneath is nuthing but just like being a blind theist!!

Now @scientific-unbeliever.

Tone is pretty loud, but as usual, without any explanation as to why homeopathy works. All i get to know is, a state-secret, that homeopathy "works" and not such a state-secret, that we are all ignorant critics and louts. Thought that the 2nd link answered that

Anyway, I am yet to come across a very well reasoned argument as to why "Avogadro's rule" doesn't apparently apply to homeopathy. (It seems our @knowledgeable-believer hasn't heard of the defense of the homeopathy brigade in this matter).

Why is it that every site that tries to "enlighten" us with some crap - intuition, in this case - has something or the other to sell. How much a commercial site, that has related product to sell, can be trusted, is open for debate (however, not on this forum). Anyway, my un-informed, ignorant view about intuition is that it is nothing but some feelings, which are based on past experience and one's understanding. Thats all that there is.

I thought u already knew how homepathy works. But as usual u make me do ur homework. PLease read now and don't ask the next time and like it is said, humans too have different immune levels and thus its not necessary that a medicine working effectively on one is bound to work the same on others.

"Vital Force" ???? Why does it remind me of something called "Aether", wrongly introduced by Newton to prove a bunch of mathematical expressions, called "Gravity" - and later successfully disproved by Einstein. Oh i get it. When u can't explain anything say something mumbo-jumbo and call it "beyond science to comprehend". Yeah, that explains everything. Its like, i introduce a mumbo-jumbo and its upto you prove it. Funny, isn't it ??

Duh, by the lingo u use, it doesn't take long for anyone to comprehend that I'm debating with brainwashed, narrow minded teenager who can't even understand that science and spirituality are different things. So yes, "vital force" and matter of spirituality are beyond science to comprehend and this "mumbo-jumbo" is simply too enormous for your brain to grasp!!

U can atleast glance in the world of yogis which is filled with unscientific surprises. But hey, u won't...until and unless ur scientific doods do it first!! u just like to follow em don't u?? If u wanna follow, then atleast follow 'broadmindedly'.

Thats all that there is.
And yes, every body who stands opposite to @knowledgeable-believer, is ignorant, a fool and all those nasty words in the dictionary. It's a given.

As with "plagiarizing" and "googling", well, what to say to a "run-out-of-logic" kid's babbles.

Just a reminder, $ 1 million is waiting

Ignorant a nasty term in dictionary? Where did u get this? I certainly didn't call u a fool?? Or u believed urself as such? I guess u r being an entertainer now, but certainly I'm finding interest in other's posts.

And yea, I wud like to reflect the mod here....
"@ karnivore, in a debate, characterizing an opponent is considered below the belt tactics. I would like you to exercise some restraint on this. Don't throw a healthy debate into the gutters."!!

 

[karnivore]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@uber-openminded-super-knowledgeable-wise one,

These pearls of wisdom are killing me, really.

Also known as "like cures like," the Law of Similars is a central tenet of homeopathic medicine....It remains somewhat unclear why this type of "like cures like" is effective

Wow, they don't understand the central tenet of their own art, yet they have the gall to argue. Typical.

Homeopathy, instead, attempts to work with the body's natural immune system rather than to suppress it

How exactly, may i dare to ask ????

It is still unclear HOW HOMEOPATHY WORKS. All i, again, get to know is that it works.

OK fine, it works and frankly i don't care how it does. I just need to know one answer. WHAT HAPPENS TO AVOGADRO'S RULE DURING SUCCUSSION ?? I know for sure, that it doesn't go on a vacation.

For a medicine to work, first it must be capable enough to work. How in the hell, with that much of succussion, does a compound, or shall i say a virtually non-existent molecule of the compound, retain its remedial power, is all that i am asking. (Its almost like asking how exactly the positions/locations of planets effect our future lives)

So far, not a single member of the homeopathy-brigade could come up with a reasonable answer. (But make no mistake, they do have an answer, which is equally, if not more, bizarre than homeopathy itself. I am surprised, that the wise one has not yet locked horns on that issue.)

Again, $ 1 million is still up for the grabs

 

[Vyasram]

Re: ***science Or God?***

@mediator

Look dude, I have mentioned in every post that science is limited. But the limit decreases and science tends to 100% completion over time. Science constantly improves.

Religion/g0d is made up ( like fiction) and it is 100% complete by default. No one can question the story in 'Harry Potter' and even if one asks, Rowling can make up an answer.

Now, ur onto ayurveda/siddha medicine. A lot of people I know have taken them and got good results. Those medicines are prepared by careful research in SCIENCE and then administered. But the researches are so paranoid that they wont let out their formulae to the outside world. That's why it looks like a miracle to you, though it isnt. Allopathy isn't the only medicine out there.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!

I respect his research work. But doesn't mean that I respect whatever he said.

And no I dont blindly believe 'modern science'. I believe some parts(those that are proved beyond doubt using logic/experimentation/equations) because I and the entire world think they are true and I speculate the rest(theories without solid proofs). And you want to 'delete' everything that has been discovered up until now coz it has minor,ever-decreasing 'flaws'(some of the flaws you pointed out in previous posts aren't flaws, its u who doesn't get it) in it.

Some people want to kick out science from the world just because you want to( just like some people hate f@gs for no reason). Maybe they didn't like science at school and failed in it.

 

[kalpik]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Remember, just because something is beyond our understanding today, doesn't mean we wont be able to understand it ever! Remember, people once thought the earth was flat

 

[ray|raven]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^Reminds me of K from M.I.B:

1500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that people were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

 

[kalpik]

Re: ***science Or God?***

^^ Right on! That's what i meant

 

[sreevirus]

Re: ***science Or God?***

Since u bring up mathematics as a base of modern science. Then I wud like u to read the complete thing first and that means the whole site.

When did I say mathematics was the answer to everything? Maths is a powerful tool in the aid of science. I do know that maths has a lot of limitations. Even division by zero is not defined. But there have been workarounds to that limitation (it was my maths professor who told me that many things in calculus came to be because of this anomaly). I'm not a mathematician, only an engineering student (and a bad one at it). There would be innumerable things in maths that I can never even comprehend in my lifetime. But by directing me to a site dealing with vedic mathematics, what do you want to prove? Maybe they did find an answer to some problems. And your point is?

Aah, but then again…
From your post…

Dr. Kapoor's conclusion is that this all is there only because of the acceptance of the geometric entity (monad) admitting no parts, and "1" has no predecessor. To overcome this, as per him, the modern mathematics needs Vedic mathematics' help to shift from monad without parts to a monad admitting parts. The eliptic equations format y^2=x^3 is bound to give a conceptual slip and this, as per him, can be well glimpsed by chasing the format of this equation on simplex format to see how it is deceptive to appear to be so while as whole numbers artifices parallel to the dimensional frames is well evident inequality. As such, there is a need for the modern mathematics to re-address to itself about the need for re-settlement of the basics to come out of the mental blocks and logical knots to un-tie the knots and to transcend the blocks and to be face to face with the wonderful worlds of reality awaiting ahead with all potentialities of their structural richness. The parallelism between artifices of whole numbers 1 to 26 and 26 sporadic groups is there because of the cosmic surface within the solids.
.
.
.
.
The research results are bringing us nearer the traditional acceptance as that Vedas are written on the rays of the Sun. Vedic mathematics, science & technology is the mathematics, science & technology of the way the nature maintains grand unification of the existence phenomenon on the Earth through the rays of the Sun. It is in this grand design of the nature the individual Vedic mantras are impulses of consciousness. This design maintains the continuity of the life within human frame and beyond through the natural intelligence embedded in the human mind and in the rays of Sun. This continuity and parallelism when chased promises new wonderful experiential domains about new realities and the wonderful domains to unfold for us new disciplines of mathematics, science & technology.

Vedic sounds are multidimensional domain frequencies from within the particular dimensional frame as the structure of that domain. When the sounds are pronounced, the frozen frequencies get initiated and the self-organizing power of the Vedic sounds set the frequency's potentialisation process into action. It is this process whose utilization is the aim of different Vedic scriptures.

It is unscientific to mix philosophy/mythology/metaphysics with pure mathematics. Maybe vedic mathematics did solve some problems (I have read about solutions to quadratic and differential equations, using vedic numerical techniques), but the above post is a little too much pseudoscientific.

Who said not respect it. Bu the problem lies in blindly accepting it. The practise of telling the state of a person remotely and telepathically is not new. It has been practised in ancient eras too. But I'm not in neways blaming science that it can'texplain as to how such a thing can happen. Science needs logic.

And I presume you also believe in mythical monkeys who could fly. Did you really go back 2000 years into the past to witness it? What other “proof” do you have other than some “testimony” in some ancient book? This hardly even stands out as an argument. Of course science needs logic. Saying that you should believe in any claim made by any odd guy out there without an iota of reason or logic is what I would say, is ignorance.

But if u r telling that Dr.Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, is telling that just to win some gullible souls, then I obviously feel sorry for u and think that u r far from reality.

There have been many a person who have had prestigious degrees and have committed frauds. Not that I’m directly putting a question mark on your Dr. Mona Lisa Schulz, M.D., Ph.D, but as a skeptic, I do have my reservations. And oh, you don’t need to feel sorry for me, thank you very much. The term reality is relative I would say. It can vary from people to people with varying perspectives and points of views. Going by that perspective, even I could be feeling sorry for you. But does it matter?

Like I said before you need to come out of the closet set by modern science and need to think beyond it. There have been various side effects of the modern medicine, prescribed drugs causing deaths. Shud I say, modern medicine is not effective?? Shud I ask in the same logic how credible is modern medicine then?? .

Modern scientific medicine is passed after various tests. There are different subjects just dealing with it (toxicology, for example). Of course, you could argue that ethics are broken here and there (I would never justify the tests on innocent people that turned fatal). But they are known to deliver in most cases. But is there a surety when it comes to alternative medicine? You are expected to believe whatever is told to you, and the cure, if it does happen, is uncertain.

Now what has UFO abduction has to do in this topic?? I guess u r not being "broadminded" now.
Sometime back the apollo moon landing was marked as real. It even became a subject in the student's course books. But now it has become a subject of controversy. What do u call that?

You put claims by individuals. Going by that approach, I gave an example about claims by some other individuals who are convinced that they have been abducted by aliens. I don’t think it’s a complex thing to even explain, but since you asked…

And the Apollo hoax is just what you can say is a phenomenon you can observe in people (I for one, took it with a pinch of salt). Just put up something which might be remotely true, and people can lap it up easily. There are so many other hoaxes doing rounds. Some people believe in aliens landing on earth. Some don’t believe in the Holocaust.

Goes back to what I said: Reality can be highly relative. It all depends on your perspectives, ideas, beliefs, and what you want to believe.

Modern science!!

Yes, modern science. Find it hard to believe?

Since u mentioned Einstein, Here a quote from him,
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ....Understand what it means!!

I believe it was Einstein who also said:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determined by laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the action of people. For this reason, a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by a prayer, i.e. by a wish addressed to a Supernatural Being.

- Albert Einstein, 1936, responding to a child who wrote and asked if scientists pray; quoted in: Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffmann

More on Einstein’s beliefs: *atheism.about.com/od/einsteingodreligion/tp/Einstein-on-a-Personal-God.htm


PS: @ mediator, a lil bit off topic...the ID is sreevirus. I know, I know, the name sucks, but I was just a crazy little teenager at 16 when I joined here. Gotta change the ID.