*** Science Or God? ***

[mediator]

With reference to your links: Cure for AIDS? Dr. G. Shantakumaran would’ve been hailed as a modern day messiah and he’d have been a household name like Einstein if his claims are to be taken seriously. His work could’ve been a lifesaver for millions of HIV positive and AIDS affected people all over the world. But no. The only documentations of his works are on a few websites. And it’s not anything recent, even a year old; this guy has claimed to have cured an AIDS victim way back in 1992. If it was true, then why is it that AIDS is still spreading like wild fire? It was 1992 and his method, if true, could’ve made this world something else other that what it is now. BUT, there has still been no breakthrough. WHY? The obvious answer is IT’S FAKE.

U have been shown how modern medicine rejects many things that could have lead to a revolution and thats what I have been saying from the start, is flaw in modern medicine and science and the way it has been going! There is no secret that ayurveda has the cure for AIDS and it has been on newspapers, magazines too. Case Studies are also there. How would a revolution take place if modern medicine is rejecting many things at a dramatic rate? What even more sad is that people like u spreading rumours and their expert opinions that "It's a fake", even when it is known to work.

But thankfully many people are getting cured of AIDS, if not on a mass scale, then be it on small scale. It's again an example of pseudo-skeptic thinking or a fanatic thinking of giving unnecessary expert opinions.

Ah well, to quote Carl Sagan again, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”. It would have been indeed something extraordinary to have a real cure for AIDS. We have unfortunately not got it yet I guess.

Unfortunately for u, ayurveda has it! Keep bragging bt modern medicine, which neglects so many things, if that makes u feel better.

Science does explain why things work with practices like homeopathy and ayurveda (where even the effects of herbs and plant extracts are explained), but the problem with you is that you do not find those answers convincing because of some personal incredulity, and harp on such things are unacceptable to science.

You sure are guessing again. I don't consider memory of water as a fact to back up my statements, but as a theory which has been forwarded by scientists. But I believe in homeopathy since it has cured my incessant cough. A prolonged discussion on homeopathy here itself has even strengthened my belief since placebo cannot work on babies who get plenty of love by default and that on plants! The usual skeptic reply that homoepathy works on babies is because of placebo and that babies get "more" love and thats why get cured is simply ridiculous. What is even more ridiculous is that skeptics like James Randi testing it with usual methods of modern medicine when it has been acknowledge that "double blind" and "randomized" trials don't work. What works is that the patient be in a "thorough" examination of a homeopath who checks out not just the physical, but also the psychological factors that form the symtoms somethin that is missing in modern medicine. For further read, u can simply check out the pass history of this thread.

I'm only saying that today's modern science is not without flaws and how it shud progress. U talk about revolution of ayurveda in the case of AIDS, well atleast homeopathy is causing a lot of revolution where both doctors and patients are resorting to it and when use of homeopathy is rising tremendously. Well in "ur understanding n arguments" then, its quite real.

Back to the prejudice against the west and the white man I see. Why is it that you employ selective amnesia whenever anything goes against you? And FYI, the verses I quoted were indeed from Griffith translation. Didn’t do your homework, eh? Didn’t read well? Oh I see, you just wanted to find something in desperation. So you searched for critics of translation of the Vedas and came up with some ugly stuff about Muller. Go check sacred-texts.com again. They have specifically mentioned that they have used Ralph T.H. Griffith and Maurice Bloomfield, not Max Muller.

Now where's exactly the "prejudice against the west and white man". Care to elaborate? Having acknowledged that its no big secret that chirstian biases like Max Muller, Griffith etc are known for misleading and msitranslating the Vedas, how come u se "prejudice" there? OR do u think christian necessarliy means "white man and the west"?

Now about the line in bold. Actually go and read with ur eyes wide open this time. Not only will u find "Griffith, Bloomfield etc, but the famous Max muller" tooooo, all which are known to have mistranslated the Vedas!

Oh BTW, FYI, the nukes were created by a western white nutter named Stephen Knapp. The things that you quoted proudly were taken from one of his books titled “Secret Teachings of the Vedas”. I looked into his works and he can aptly be termed somewhat of Hinduism’s equivalent of Zakir Naik. I’m confident that you won’t find nukes in any one else’s translation either, except for Knapp’s own interpretation.

Why do u say "Western white" nutter. Now shud I reflect ur statment of "prejudice against the west and white man"? What u will find is that the peers acknowledge quite a lot of what I have been saying from the start. U keep whining of the peer review, so then go n check out what peers talk about Vedas. I have given few links itself.

"Peers", u do understand about the term. So check out!!

I do understand that. If anyone asked me to take a word about Hinduism as interpreted by Zakir Naik seriously, I’ll have a good laugh. The problem is, you are highly biased and selective in that aspect. If something goes for you, you will gladly accept it, but will be forever skeptic if something is proved against you. Even if Osama bin Laden or the Pope will extol the greatness of the Vedas, you won’t have any problem with it, because you have accepted your beliefs as reality beyond doubt. Well, Stephen Knapp doesn’t agree with Griffith, Bloomfield or Muller, but I guess you quite comfortably agree with Knapp. And ironically, you don't even know what you are agreeing to.

U r wrong! U don't undertsand why I am still discussing it here. Had I been biased, I wudn't have accepted about final theory in the first place where I thanked you, remember? But I asked a lotta questions back then, where u still shy to answer them back and vanished randomly saying "Oh, I have exams"!!

Can you stop bluffing about telling how much you have read things? I went through that PDF and that is why I told you last time that I don’t have to accept the personal beliefs of the reviewer. I only wanted the scientific flaws in the theory. The reviewer gives a lot of explanation of the scientific infeasibility of the expansion theory, but at some instances, like where he felt there could’ve been an alternate explanation which involves a knowing hand in the creation of the universe, which of course, he gives his personal opinion/belief. The reviewer obviously is influenced by some set of beliefs similar to what T159 said, a universe within a universe, a higher consciousness, etc. These are just personal beliefs of the reviewer. That said, however, the review was indeed not in agreement to McCutcheon's theories.

Can u simply answer (quote me) what I questioned instead of whining? I quoted that pdf all over. It's not hard to see that post of mine. U can then answer the other questions about Universe that I asked. So show me how great science is that it can explain everything!

You on the other hand, didn’t even know that I was quoting Griffith’s translations. Practice what you preach, oh wise one.

LOOOOL, u r going ur comrade way! What u showed about "20.41.1-3, atharveda" is by griffith, which is not the same of what I showed. What u showed is the work of griffith => a known christian bias, a person known for misleading Vedas! So before pursuing ur pseudo-skepticism again, understand how much misleadings are there already on the net.

WEll what u can do alternatively is read some "peer review" then which is sole option for u to survive on.

U shud atleast thank me for not posting for sometime n letting u celebrate the end of ur exams. Besides I don't even feel like giving petty explanations like "Exams/chickenpox" or wateva statements the materialist brigade made to generate some sympathy from me. Also, that thread was about hypnotism and where u started trolling from nowhere and deviated it altogether to a discussion regarding Vedas.

Yeah, and if I had left without mentioning anything, you’d have really been silent about how chicken I was to make a hit-and-run post, too scared to come back and answer your so called questions, right?

Guessing again? Sorry but I don't make flimsy excuses like the materialist brigade like "Chicken pox, Exam". On contrary, I have been saying from the start to take ur time and reply wheneva u want. @Sen_sunetra didn't reply for a week and I wasn't "guessing" on anything. He took his time and replied. U on the other hand were telling me something bt bulletin board etc?
I wonder why most of ur (materialist) replies aren't without "expert opinions" and "peer remarks" like "Garbage, Crap etc" even when the scientists are still looking on the matters?? U talk of peer review and give remarks urself? How sensible!

Go ask raaabo. I guess he believes that I know the rules.

And u started trolling in that "hypnostism" thread, copy and pasting the gem of meera nanda on "Vedas" and then saying u were only passing on her work? Quite a "mod" like behaviour! I don't even feel like making a complaint, but I hope u will understand and improve.

Not something that doesn’t even have a spark of semblance. 99 Vritasura’s != 99 Elements. Bones of Dadhyach != neutrons. And what I used was Ralph Griffith’s translation, not Max Mueller’s.

Both row the same canoe.

Let’s see. Empirical observations/evidences like background microwave radiation, red shift, etc. which supports the idea of the universe being denser in the past, which agreed to mathematical theories made earlier implying the occurrence of a big bang don’t account for anything for you right? Fossils discovered which shows a trait of advancement of features don’t mean anything, does it? Your problem is that you can’t even comprehend the works of astronomers and biologists to even understand what they mean. To do that, you will have to come out of the realms of ancient texts.

It was a theory that predicted the existence of objects like black holes, and they have been discovered. I guess these are all fairy tales for you right? But I guess I will no longer be a fairy tale when some nut like Knapp will retrofit that into the Vedas too.

BTW, man never needed to fly. Neither did the elephants, hence the reason you don’t see them in the sky with wings. Of course, you won't understand that, since you don't understand evolutionary biology. Recommended reading: Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion. But that is just for laymen. I think karnivore can recommend even better books.

U don't have to whine n I don't havt to repeat!

Well, if you find the theory of evolution hard to accept, what else is your answer? Oh wait, I know. Reincarnation, right? Which led to the evolution of the modern man, isn’t it? Well, I know that would be your answer, because I have seen that in so many Hindu websites, and they are in agreement to the Hindu philosophy.

LOOOL, If I don't have an answer, does it means that I have to speculate on one and others to "accept" on it? Science progress doesn't mean we necessarily and forcibly need to have an answer even if the "most satisfying" has plethora of flaws in it.

Ur mere speculations as in line in bold only tells how much frustrated u r. When n where did I say reincarnation led to evolution? ELABORATE PLEASE!

We still don’t know what happened at the beginning of time (t=0), but that doesn’t mean that answers won’t be known ever. The brightest minds on earth are at work uncovering the secrets. Science evolves.

When we view the stars, tell me do we view the future, present or the past? Answer me straight. Just like the answer u r also living in the dark and the <answer>!

Testable indeed. Still, it yielded no poitive results in a falsifiable randomized test.
From what I saw in the documentary "The Enemies of Reason", every patient taking a homeopathic medicine is getting a dose of Oliver Cromwell's urine, along with the urine and other waste of everyone else.

LOL, again a sample where instead of learning about the field itself u learn about the "skeptics talk" first! Of all the prolonged discussion u still talk bt "randomized test".
That debate was "mainly" between me n @karnivore where u contributed nothing. So understand first wht we debated instead posting uselessly!!

I did read these junk in that site. Which was precisely why I asked how you can take the properties of a mythical being like Lord Shiva as axioms in a problem of geometry? Where is the proof/implication that his five heads represent 5 dimensions? How does his three eyes represent the solid dimensions? Just because a deity has 5 heads, 3 eyes and 10 arms, it doesn’t come as any solution/proof of hypercubes. There is absolutely no parallelism, as karnivore said. If you accept it as true, then you have to accept that Lord Shiva is indeed a god who exists. And that again goes against your earlier claims of you being a spiritual atheist. Make up your mind.

I told you a statement like "Sun god is the essence of whole life on earth". And now u show u don't even undertsand statements like such. The site clearly tells about the "geomatric formats". And thats why u r a disgrace. U simply like to read skepticism and not use ur own mind in many matters. WTH !

And no, Fermat’s theorem and Goldbach’s conjecture still have not been solved.

Oh, like AIDS . U r full of guesses, that u r!

PS: Those two links that you gave in your latest reply to karnivore as food for thought only explains the why the concept of dark matter came into being. And, they only give more reasoning to the possibility of a Big Bang. If you had given those links as criticism of dark energy, then they are not doing any criticism, instead, only supporting the idea. Did you even read those food for thought?

Again ur guessing and then questioning like silly only tells how much u r an enemy of reason. I didn't give those links as criticism, but simply to ponder if Universe is predictable! U can have more food for thought likewise. But what ridiculous is, to explain something like universe on the basis of mere puzzling theories itself!


PS : You r yet to answer the questions I asked!. Besides, I'm pretty bored with such repeating discussion and reminding u continously of what u have to answer yet to show how great science is that it can explain everything. The rest is upto u to continue, I won't mind continuing!

 

[karnivore]

Everytime I think, ok, too much gibberish to even consider replying to, our good friend, always manages to shovel in some more garbage that just, well, cracks me up. Well, he can’t help it – GARBAGE IN, is GARBAGE OUT.

Re: HOMEOPATHY

You don't have a clue as to what I meant. Don't you ? I did not mean "infinite humans", I meant "individualization" of proving subjects. And since each individual is different from others, with much claimed varying immunity levels, the results are bound to be infinite, even if tested within a finite group of people. The infinite possibilities arise from different lifestyles, varying idiosyncrasies, varying hereditary traits. Imagine the permutations and combinations.

And I think I briefed about it quite nicely. I remember having told that its not like fingerprinting. The patient needs to be under an examination of homeopath to see all the related "factors" (check out what all factors), then checkout for materia medica and if an adjustment is needed in the remedy! I wonder if materialists even put their brains unbiasedly to understand something that science cannot explain at the moment!

You are replying to an imaginary question that I have not asked. That is called a strawman argument. My question was simple. Provings are the fundamental basis for understanding, which medicine will work for which symptoms. In the process of proving, the medicine is first administered, where the potency is increased gradually, and the symptoms it generates are noted, reviewed and finally recorded in MM. But these provings are not done on "individualized" basis. In other words, there is no experimental basis to know, which psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc will illicit what symptoms in response to the medicine under consideration. So when the basis i.e. the knowledge of the symptoms, itself is not individualized, how and why does the application of this knowledge depend on “individualization” ?

AHA………finally. So if, the homeopaths are relying on symptoms, just like modern medicine, where does this thing called "individualization" fit ? AFAIK, Mataria Medica, only lists the symptoms and the possible medicines. It does not say a word about symptoms specific to an "individual" characteristic.

Do even understand the "factors" that contribute to those "symptoms". Its not just physial symptoms that modern medicine relies on! Again leading to repetitions now? Look back what we debated, use the "keyboard commando skills" and u just might get it.

and…

Its not like the modern medicine where u just list the physical conditions only and u get the name of a medicine!

also…

In general terms a homeopath will take a very detailed history from you in order to try and ascertain the complete symptom picture. Not only will they want to know your state of mind and exactly how the symptoms present, they will also want to know what makes your symptoms better or worse. Having obtained a complete picture, the homeopath will then try and match your symptoms to a particular remedy. A prescription for a simple acute problem can sometimes be done over the phone or in a very short period of time.

(Emphasis, all yours)

I fully understand the factors that contribute to the symptoms. Because I do I am asking that question. And because you don’t, you are not getting the point or pretending not to get the point. Just for example, take a look at the symptom reference of ALUMINA . It lists the symptoms right from mental to physical to men and women [surprise, surprise, just like modern medicine does]. Now, show me where does it speak of psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc that CAUSE those symptoms. [Those stuffs under “Mind” are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms].

So explain to me, how is homeopathic “individualization”, any more different than a mainstream medical practitioner asking questions to his patient to determine the symptoms as noted by modern medicine. Also explain to me how does a homeopath come to know, in total absence of any reference, “what makes your symptoms better or worse”.

Let me give an example: Suppose a plumber has symptoms A, B, C and D. And then a poet has the same symptoms i.e. A, B, C, and D. Now they go to the same homeopath. The homeopath will ask them a lot of gibberish, so as to "individualize" the patients. Then he will go search his MM. He will find that symptoms A, B, C and D "closely fit" to so and so disease and can be treated with medicine X. Now, can you please tell me how will the quack decide, if medicine X is required by both the plumber and the poet , and in which potency. And if he decides that based of varying lifestyle(hope you do realize that a plumber is bound to have a different lifestyle than a poet), they would need different medicines, where and how will he reference that medicine.

I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!
Physical, psychological conditions etc remember, that form the symptoms?

Assume, that both the plumber and the poet have all the same symptoms, recorded under ALUMINA. Now, how will your homeopath determine who would need what medicine and in which potency.

I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too.

and……

A prolonged discussion on homeopathy here itself has even strengthened my belief since placebo cannot work on babies who get plenty of love by default and that on plants! The usual skeptic reply that homoepathy works on babies is because of placebo and that babies get "more" love and thats why get cured is simply ridiculous.

A few lines above this comment, you were arguing about “individualization” and now you are talking about homeopathy on plants and babies too. Don’t you feel embarrassed to contradict yourself in every second paragraph.

Can you please explain how is this “individualization” done on the plants and babies. Oh BTW, you probably missed out on the following comments of mine at the end of post#615:

Isn't homeopathy all about "Individualization" ? At least this term has been used umpteenth number of times to dismiss all randomized and double-blinded trials. [Strangely when any of these trials yield positives, homeopaths develop a temporary amnesia and forget to point out that the trial was not "individualized"]

Can anybody please explain what is veterinary homeopathy ? Does that mean that homeopaths have learned to MOOOOOOOOOO. Because I don't see how else a cow can be conversed with. After all, homeopaths don't treat the disease, they treat the person, oops, cow.

A memorable admission at BOIRON's site [Link given already given]:

As in human medicine, the limits of homeopathy should not be ignored: parasites, fractures, foreign bodies, etc, are all cases that are not within the realm of its therapeutic possibilities.

In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?

Re: AIDS

Actually I don’t know where to begin. A few years ago, a tele-yogi claimed in a press conference that yoga can cure cancer. When IMA pressed on, the tele-yogi started claiming that “hey, I did not say that”, and then said, that he has proof and will show it to the world. We are still waiting for his “proof”.

Well, this time around we have some Dr.G.Shanthakumar, telling us how ayurveda can cure AIDS. Well, isn’t that a good news and I would personally love to see a cure. A colleague of mine got infected during a blood transfusion and he is now breathing his last few days, for no fault of his.

Anyway, ayurveda is not homeopathy. So I guess “randomized trial” and “double-blinded” trials are not a taboo. Or is it. Question is: has our doctor here conducted any kind of randomized, double-blinded trial ? Anecdotes can’t be evidence, because of hundreds of factors, placebo being one, self-limiting nature of the disease being another, wrong diagnosis, itself being yet another.

Our doctor here gives examples of only 4 patients, on the plea that all other patients did not agree of provide details. Understood. The taboo of AIDS is too much for these already dying patients. But how does he conclude that these 4 patients were cured.

NO HE DOES NOT CONCLUDE.

He only says: “Now the patient is healthier” for the first patient, “The treatment continued for 6 months in the same pattern, and patient is improving well” for the second patient, “TREATMENT IS BEING CONTINUED, WITH SLOW FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PATIENT” for the third (emphasis, his own), and finally “The same treatment continued for 1 year and the patient improves drastically without any complications yet” for the fourth.

Nowhere does he claim, that AIDS was cured – only the patients got healthier, and that can be for hundreds of reasons and that’s where randomized, double-blinded trials kick in. He also does not tell us if the treatment has been concluded or not, and it is more than likely, from the wording, that the treatment is going on. That makes this publication unethical, as well.

He continues:

“I simply assured a longer span of life, with a constitution and metabolism which functioned as close to normal as possible. Out of a total number of 104 patients I treated in the course of the previous ten years, 83 are living healthily and normally”

Firstly he does not claim, that HIV was removed from his patients body, or if AIDS was cured. Secondly, how does he know that his treatment was THE CAUSE for better health and not a mere CORRELATION? What steps did he take to remove the possible biases ? Nah, he does not answer. And 83 “CURED” patients but only 4 references ? (How in this world would any independent researcher even locate these patients, if he wished to carry out an independent fact-finding research ?) Have those 4 patients being brought to the media ? Have these patients being made subject to independent evaluation ? No answer.

Finally, what follow up measures did he take to see if his “CURED” patients are doing well ? He only claims, just like any woo-woo practitioner. How typical.

The only case where he claims that the pathological result was negative, after his ayurvedic treatment, he forgets to mention the name of the patient. Yes I know of the taboo. But the patient was cured, wasn’t he. And such a proof. Had I been in that doctor’s place I would have begged, borrowed or whatever, to bring him to the media and kick the arse of this modern medicine.

Nah, this doctor would not, cause he knows, its his arse, that would get kicked.

In the words of that English band, The Queen:

“And ’nother one’s gone, And ‘nother one’s gone, ‘nother one bites the dust”

 

[mediator]

You are replying to an imaginary question that I have not asked. That is called a strawman argument. My question was simple. Provings are the fundamental basis for understanding, which medicine will work for which symptoms. In the process of proving, the medicine is first administered, where the potency is increased gradually, and the symptoms it generates are noted, reviewed and finally recorded in MM. But these provings are not done on "individualized" basis. In other words, there is no experimental basis to know, which psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc will illicit what symptoms in response to the medicine under consideration. So when the basis i.e. the knowledge of the symptoms, itself is not individualized, how and why does the application of this knowledge depend on “individualization” ?

Aren't u done already ? First u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences n now...... WTH

Homoeopathic proving is the process in which new remedies are discovered for use in homoeopathic treatment. Provings involve provers, 'healthy' individuals taking a newly prepared homoeopathic remedy. A prover, under the sway of the remedy, is believed to exhibit symptoms that reflect the properties of the substance. The symptoms experienced by provers are collectively analysed to build the foundations of a new remedy picture.

The process of proving has been credited to the founder of homoeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann. The popular history of Hahnemann's first proving begins with his discovery of the poisoning effects of Cinchona bark. Hahnemann was struck by the similarity between the symptoms of Cinchona poisoning and the symptoms of malaria. He therefore decided to administer a dose of Cinchona Bark upon himself and record the symptoms that ensued. Thus in 1790, Hahnemann had conducted his first experiment, later termed proving.

Since the time of Hahnemann the proving process has evolved and grown into a multi-faceted mode of investigation. Methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter. The most common method is the classical or Hahnemannian proving. Of late an extension from the classical proving has been towards intuitive and scientific models.

*www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu/projects/homeopathic.htm

I fully understand the factors that contribute to the symptoms. Because I do I am asking that question. And because you don’t, you are not getting the point or pretending not to get the point. Just for example, take a look at the symptom reference of ALUMINA . It lists the symptoms right from mental to physical to men and women [surprise, surprise, just like modern medicine does]. Now, show me where does it speak of psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc that CAUSE those symptoms. [Those stuffs under “Mind” are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms].

A very general condition corresponding to this drug is dryness of mucous membranes and skin, and tendency to paretic muscular states. Old people, with lack of vital heat, or prematurely old, with debility. Sluggish functions, heaviness, numbness, and staggering, and the characteristic constipation find an excellent remedy in Alumina. Disposition to colds in the head, and eructations in spare, dry, thin subjects. Delicate children, products of artificial baby foods.

Mind.--Low-spirited; fears loss of reason. Confused as to personal identity. Hasty, hurried. Time passes slowly. Variable mood. Better as day advances. Suicidal tendency when seeing knife or blood.

Head.--Stitching, burning pain in head, with vertigo, worse in morning, but relieved by food. Pressure in forehead as from a tight hat. Inability to walk except with eyes open. Throbbing headache, with constipation. Vertigo, with nausea; better after breakfast. Falling out of hair; scalp itches and is numb.

Eyes.--Objects look yellow. Eyes feel cold. Lids dry, burn, smart, thickened, aggravated in morning; chronic conjunctivitis. Ptosis. Strabismus.

Ears.--Humming; roaring. Eustachian tube feels plugged.

Nose.--Pain at root of nose. Sense of smell diminished. Fluent coryza. Point of nose cracked, nostrils sore, red; worse touch. Scabs with thick yellow mucus. Tettery redness. Ozœna atrophica sicca. Membranes distended and boggy.

Face.--Feels as if albuminous substance had dried on it. Blood-boils and pimples. Twitching of lower jaw. Rush of blood to face after eating.

Mouth.--Sore. Bad odor from it. Teeth covered with sordes. Gums sore, bleeding. Tensive pain in articulation of jaw when opening mouth or chewing.

Throat.--Dry, sore; food cannot pass, œsophagus contracted. Feels as if splinter or plug were in throat. Irritable, and relaxed throat. Looks parched and glazed. Clergyman's sore throat in thin subjects. Thick, tenacious mucus drops from posterior nares. Constant inclination to clear the throat.

Stomach.--Abnormal cravings-chalk, charcoal, dry food, tea-grounds. Heartburn; feels constricted. Aversion to meat (Graph; Arn; Puls). Potatoes disagree. No desire to eat. Can swallow but small morsels at a time. Constriction of œsophagus.

Abdomen.--Colic, like painter's colic. Pressing in both groins toward sexual organs. Left-sided abdominal complaints.

Stool.--Hard dry, knotty; no desire. Rectum sore, dry, inflamed, bleeding. Itching and burning at anus. Even a soft stool is passed with difficulty. Great straining. Constipation of infants (Collins; Psor; Paraf) and old people from inactive rectum, and in women of very sedentary habit. Diarrhœa on urinating. Evacuation preceded by painful urging long before stool, and then straining at stool.

Urine.--Muscles of bladder paretic, must strain at stool in order to urinate. Pain in kidneys, with mental confusion. Frequent desire to urinate in old people. Difficult starting.

Male.--Excessive desire. Involuntary emissions when straining at stool. Prostatic discharge.

Female.--Menses too early, short, scanty, pale, followed by great exhaustion (Carb an; Coccul). Leucorrhœa acrid, profuse transparent, ropy, with burning; worse during daytime, and after menses. Relieved by washing with cold water.

Respiratory.--Cough soon after waking in the morning. Hoarse, aphonia, tickling in larynx; wheezing, rattling respiration. Cough on talking or singing, in the morning. Chest feels constricted. Condiments produce cough. Talking aggravates soreness of chest.

Back.--Stitches. Gnawing pain, as if from hot iron. Pain along cord, with paralytic weakness.

Extremities.--Pain in arm and fingers, as if hot iron penetrated. Arms feel paralyzed. Legs feel asleep, especially when sitting with legs crossed. Staggers on walking. Heels feel numb. Soles tender; on stepping, feel soft and swollen. Pain in shoulder and upper arm. Gnawing beneath finger nails. Brittle nails. Inability to walk, except when eyes are open or in daytime. Spinal degenerations and paralysis of lower limbs.

Sleep.--Restless; anxious and confused dreams. Sleepy in morning.

Skin.--Chapped and dry tettery. Brittle nails. Intolerable itching when getting warm in bed. Must scratch until it bleeds; then becomes painful. Brittle skin on fingers.

Modalities.--Worse, periodically; in afternoon; from potatoes. Worse, in morning on awaking; warm room. Better, in open air; from cold washing; in evening and on alternate days. Better damp weather.

Relationship.--Compare: Aluminum chloridum (Pains of loco-motor ataxia. Lower trits in water). Slag Silico-Sulphocalcite of Alumina 3x (anal itching, piles, constipation, flatulent distention); Secale; Lathyr; Plumb. Aluminum acetate solution. Externally a lotion for putrid wounds and skin infections. Arrests hæmorrhage from inertia of uterus. Parenchymatous hæmorrhage from various organs-23 % solution. Hæmorrhage following tonsillectomy is controlled by rinsing out nasopharynx with a 10 % sol.

I think u really don't even know the definition of the term psychological. Ofcors the stuffs under " 'Mind' are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms" n psychological, physical factors etc form the set of symptoms!! U really had a long talk and now u pretend as if u know nuthing bt homeopathy! Like I said skepticism looks healthy when u really know the subject.

Assume, that both the plumber and the poet have all the same symptoms, recorded under ALUMINA. Now, how will your homeopath determine who would need what medicine and in which potency.

That would obviously be decided by the homeopath. I told already I'm not a homeopath. I suggest u goto a homeopathy forum ask this question there and post the answer here. Skeptic?

A few lines above this comment, you were arguing about “individualization” and now you are talking about homeopathy on plants and babies too. Don’t you feel embarrassed to contradict yourself in every second paragraph.

Can you please explain how is this “individualization” done on the plants and babies. Oh BTW, you probably missed out on the following comments of mine at the end of post#615:

Isn't homeopathy all about "Individualization" ? At least this term has been used umpteenth number of times to dismiss all randomized and double-blinded trials. [Strangely when any of these trials yield positives, homeopaths develop a temporary amnesia and forget to point out that the trial was not "individualized"]

Can anybody please explain what is veterinary homeopathy ? Does that mean that homeopaths have learned to MOOOOOOOOOO. Because I don't see how else a cow can be conversed with. After all, homeopaths don't treat the disease, they treat the person, oops, cow.

A memorable admission at BOIRON's site [Link given already given]:

What is there to contradict in case of plants and babies? ELABORATE!! I only talked that homeopathy works on plants and animals too as per the evidences. Is that hard to understand?

And bt veterinary homeopathy, sure go ahead and ask that in a good hompathy forum if u really wanna know it as per ur use of the term "explain". Ur remark of "MOOOOO, 'person, oops, cow'" on the other hand doesn't present very well that u want to learn but make fun of it. So remove that smirk of ur face. U r only making urself look foolish.

In other words, more than half the ailments can't be treated by homeopathy. Why am I not surprised ?

Guessing again? I didn't say everything can be treated by homeopathy. Ofcors it has its limitations of what it can cure and what it can't. Neither I am saying modern medicine is useless, but the way it has been progressing that I showed a number of times. But rejecting something that has evidences, cures and its testing done by skeptics via flawed methods, is simply foolishness!

Well, this time around we have some Dr.G.Shanthakumar, telling us how ayurveda can cure AIDS. Well, isn’t that a good news and I would personally love to see a cure. A colleague of mine got infected during a blood transfusion and he is now breathing his last few days, for no fault of his.

Anyway, ayurveda is not homeopathy. So I guess “randomized trial” and “double-blinded” trials are not a taboo. Or is it. Question is: has our doctor here conducted any kind of randomized, double-blinded trial ? Anecdotes can’t be evidence, because of hundreds of factors, placebo being one, self-limiting nature of the disease being another, wrong diagnosis, itself being yet another.

Our doctor here gives examples of only 4 patients, on the plea that all other patients did not agree of provide details. Understood. The taboo of AIDS is too much for these already dying patients. But how does he conclude that these 4 patients were cured.

NO HE DOES NOT CONCLUDE.

He only says: “Now the patient is healthier” for the first patient, “The treatment continued for 6 months in the same pattern, and patient is improving well” for the second patient, “TREATMENT IS BEING CONTINUED, WITH SLOW FURTHER IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PATIENT” for the third (emphasis, his own), and finally “The same treatment continued for 1 year and the patient improves drastically without any complications yet” for the fourth.

Nowhere does he claim, that AIDS was cured – only the patients got healthier, and that can be for hundreds of reasons and that’s where randomized, double-blinded trials kick in. He also does not tell us if the treatment has been concluded or not, and it is more than likely, from the wording, that the treatment is going on. That makes this publication unethical, as well.

He continues:

“I simply assured a longer span of life, with a constitution and metabolism which functioned as close to normal as possible. Out of a total number of 104 patients I treated in the course of the previous ten years, 83 are living healthily and normally”

Firstly he does not claim, that HIV was removed from his patients body, or if AIDS was cured. Secondly, how does he know that his treatment was THE CAUSE for better health and not a mere CORRELATION? What steps did he take to remove the possible biases ? Nah, he does not answer. And 83 “CURED” patients but only 4 references ? (How in this world would any independent researcher even locate these patients, if he wished to carry out an independent fact-finding research ?) Have those 4 patients being brought to the media ? Have these patients being made subject to independent evaluation ? No answer.

Finally, what follow up measures did he take to see if his “CURED” patients are doing well ? He only claims, just like any woo-woo practitioner. How typical.

The only case where he claims that the pathological result was negative, after his ayurvedic treatment, he forgets to mention the name of the patient. Yes I know of the taboo. But the patient was cured, wasn’t he. And such a proof. Had I been in that doctor’s place I would have begged, borrowed or whatever, to bring him to the media and kick the arse of this modern medicine.

Nah, this doctor would not, cause he knows, its his arse, that would get kicked.

The only notable thing in this excerpt from ur post is that he says, "He says, 'I never cure'". I won't even guess why he says that, but what notable is ....

Ayurvedic practitioner Dr G. Shanthakumar, based in Mumbai, India, claims that ayurveda identified AIDS over 2,000 years ago. The ancient malady was termed Rajayakshma (the king of diseases) and its symptoms were identical to AIDS going by the descriptions of Vagbhata in Ashtanga Hridayam (Chikitsitam section) and its supplementary text, the Ashtanga Sangraham, as well as in another ayurvedic classic, Charaka Samhita (Nidanam section).

The major symptoms are: (1) drastic loss of weight (2) fatigue and lethargy (3) susceptibility to allergies and contagious diseases (4) skin irritations (5) bronchial disorders, often leading to tuberculosis of the lungs (6) damage to intestinal flora resulting in diarrhoea, dysentery, gastritis and (7) wide fluctuations in body temperature.

Significantly, the root causes of this disease are: (1) unhygienic sexual practices such as anal intercourse (2) indiscriminate intercourse with multiple partners (3) not cleaning the genitals after coitus (4) washing the body with contaminated or dirty water (5) bestiality, and (6) contaminated blood.
Top

Despite this, whether AIDS and Rajayakshma are the same disease is a contentious issue. Dr Shanthakumar, however, believes they are and says the treatment used for Rajayakshma can be applied fruitfully in the war against HIV/AIDS.

Initially, the patient is given tonics and rejuvenators (Rasayanams) to boost immunity levels. Subsequently, select medicines to counter the virus are administered. Ajamamsa Rasayanam (prepared from cow's milk, ghee and an extract of goat's meat) and Indukantham Ghritham are given to strengthen the system and stimulate appetite.

Later, Rasasindoor (prepared with purified mercury) is applied along with some medicines that impart strength. "This treatment regimen is followed for six months and usually shows good results, depending on the severity of the case and associated parameters," says Dr Shanthakumar. The success could be provisional, though. The virus may continue to lurk in the body, but it is unable to do further damage because of the bolstered immune response. The individual may then live out his normal life span.

If the patient begins to recover, shodhana (elimination) techniques are used to expel toxins from the body through enemas, purgation and emesis. The medications administered at this stage are not hard, hot or drastic, but soft, ghee-based and eco-friendly so that the patient withstands them with ease. As overall immunity improves, the blood is purified with cooling medications.
Top
Once the blood has been purified, a strengthening, non-vegetarian diet along with ghee preparations and soups is recommended. But spicy, oily and acidic foods are to be avoided. A little alcohol is recommended as anupana (carrier) to aid the digestive process, and also remove blockages in the blood vessels, i.e. srothorodham.

The patient is bathed twice or thrice a day with cold water, followed by applications of sandalwood paste on the body. The baths cool the body and blood while sandalwood purifies by penetrating the follicles.

"Heated blood is also said to weaken, and even destroy, the virus in some cases. If the patient is incapable of exercising or running due to weakness, then steaming (swedanam) is recommended," Dr Shanthakumar discloses.

The Healed Ones
Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month's treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

"I then became confident about treating AIDS. Through my first patient, two others came to me and were both equally successful. But I never cure. I simply assure a longer lifespan with a constitution and metabolism that functions as close to normal as possible. Out of the 64 patients I have treated in the past eight years, 43 are leading healthy, normal lives. Of course, three of my patients died, possibly because they had reached the last stage."

Read it! Destroying the virus? Tested negetive after the treament?

The only case where he claims that the pathological result was negative, after his ayurvedic treatment, he forgets to mention the name of the patient. Yes I know of the taboo. But the patient was cured, wasn’t he. And such a proof. Had I been in that doctor’s place I would have begged, borrowed or whatever, to bring him to the media and kick the arse of this modern medicine.

Quite sad. But u must understand INDIAN media is such that the victim of a rape incidence is not disclosed, people have high moral backgrounds with notions like "what the families and neighbours will think"! U must understand cutural and tradition is not the same everywhere else we wud also be witnessing rape every 90 seconds like in US. If something good is there, then why even mock it? The treatment procedure is out there. Why not verify it?


Like I said, u think everything can be found using mere google search? I agree atleast the pdf of some books can be found, but not all. Show me if the "nuclear know how" which countries keep confidential and because of which Pakistan's A.Q Khan is in trouble can be found on net. Grow up!




PS : I think u missed the last lines of the previous 3 posts of mine. I say it again, "ARE materialists like u going to answer all the questions I asked or not"?
Even in the previous posts I talked bt evolution, dark energy etc asking for straight answers!! Do u wanna talk or not? or else stop ur troll. Discussion is not one way!

 

[m-jeri]

^^^^^.....

Guys stop this....

one belive other dont...no ones placing u in point blank....
hold on to your belief....thats the only thing important....

 

[karmanya]

A. Its relatively simple to test negative for HIV. That is why doctors insist on multiple tests during the first diagnosis.
B. Even allopathy has a few cases where HIV infected patients are able to live relatively normal lives.
C. obviously you would be hard pressed to find confidential documents on the web. However, this does not mean that you can't find enough information for a normal citizen on it. For a normal citizen, it is enough to know that centrifuges are used to purify uranium for reactors and weapons. Do they care what the minimum velocity to purify uranium has to be? To what purpose? Its not like they're going to find a lump of uranium on the street and say "Hey lets try and purify this".
D. Its intresting to see how this thread has digressed from science vs god to Homeopathy vs Allopathy. Please stop beating dead horses and leave this topic alone.

 

[karnivore]

Exactly what I had expected of you.

Methods of proving are highly personalised and of individual relevance to the homoeopath or experimenter.

Another web site, another claim. Now, should I take a homeopath's word for this or someone who manufactures the medicines. Oh wait, BOIRON doesn't give any information on how it conducts its provings.

More so, if indeed the provings are individualized, refer me the database that contains the medicines as, Individualised behaviour = symptoms = medicine. The only reference is MM and it follows the pattern, Symptoms = medicine.

So, other than one-liner claims, show me that provings are indeed INDIVIDUALIZED. [Of course for that you have to understand the difference between a “CLAIM” and a “PROOF”]

Now, show me where does it speak of psychological, physical, environmental or some other factors like, personal habits etc that CAUSE those symptoms.

I think u really don't even know the definition of the term psychological. Ofcors the stuffs under " 'Mind' are themselves the symptoms, not the cause of the symptoms" n psychological, physical factors etc form the set of symptoms!! U really had a long talk and now u pretend as if u know nuthing bt homeopathy

I am not sure I got your answer. You have emphasized the following [not sure if copy/pasting the entire site was necessary – yeah, I know habits die hard]:

Mind.--Low-spirited; fears loss of reason. Confused as to personal identity. Hasty, hurried. Time passes slowly. Variable mood. Better as day advances. Suicidal tendency when seeing knife or blood.

and...

Sleep.--Restless; anxious and confused dreams. Sleepy in morning.

and……

That would obviously be decided by the homeopath.

How do these quotes even come close to the vicinity of answering my question. I had asked you to show, where, MM records the symptoms on the basis of individualisation, in other words, the individual CAUSES of the symptoms.

For example, take "low spiritedness" AND “restless sleep”. Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc. How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that “low-spiritedness” and “restless sleep” due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.

Where is the reference ?

Yes individual psychological and physiological symptoms, together form a set of symptoms. But is that set unique to a disease as CAUSE or unique to the person as CAUSE or unique to a disease and person as CAUSE. I would understand if that set is unique to a disease, just as modern medicine treats a set of symptoms. But homeopathy does not treat diseases. It treats humans (and plants and cows).

So show me, how can that set of symptoms be correlated to a person. Again, where is the reference ?

Besides, you do not answer the other question: How is the process of “individualization” any more different than inquiries made by a doctor, practicing modern medicine - particularly when both will have to rely on set of symptoms.

What is there to contradict in case of plants and babies? ELABORATE!! I only talked that homeopathy works on plants and animals too as per the evidences. Is that hard to understand?

Here is the ELABORATION.

Homeopaths and their uninformed lackeys, reject all randomized, double-blinded trials, that yield negative results (not those, which yield positives) for homeopathy on the ground, that the experiments were not “Individualzed”. They claim, it is this “individualization” that separates homeopathy from modern medicine. Fair enough.

But how is this individualization done ? By ASKING various <irrelevant> questions about the patient. Now, I am sure, that the homeopaths, have not yet mastered the language of plants or babies or cows. So when they apply their medicines on plants or babies or cows, they do not (because they can not) “individualize” their treatments. But isn’t homeopathy all about individualization, and isn’t it the reason, or lack of it, that negative result yielding randomized, double-blinded trials are rejected.

So, in other words, if indeed homeopathy works on humans because, it is individualized, then it is impossible to work on plants, or babies or cows. (This follows from their own arguments). But if homeopathy works on humans, which is individualized, as also on plants or babies or cows, which are not individualized, then:

a) individualization is a sham, and

b) randomized, double-blinded, non-individualized trials are just as good.
Clear ?

…u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences

and…

..rejecting something that has evidences, cures and its testing done by skeptics via flawed methods…

I hope now you will elaborate why the James Randis and their methods are flawed. If its “individualization” that you want to stress on, then on your own account, you will be nullifying all the “positive non-individualized tests” and also the “evidence” that homeopathy works on plants, babies and cows. Lets see what excuse you can now come up with, other than, “It works, hence it works”.[Man, I hate it when I sound like you]

Like <you> said, <lackey-ism> looks healthy when u really know the subject.

And bt veterinary homeopathy, sure go ahead and ask that in a good hompathy forum if u really wanna know it as per ur use of the term "explain". Ur remark of "MOOOOO, 'person, oops, cow'" on the other hand doesn't present very well that u want to learn but make fun of it. So remove that smirk of ur face. U r only making urself look foolish.

So the cat is finally out of the bag.

The only notable thing in this excerpt from ur post is that he says, "He says, 'I never cure'". I won't even guess why he says that…

Disappointed that the colourful bubble of yours is busted, and that too, by your own link ? Besides, that bit of his comment is not in my excerpt. When I copy/pasted, I did not notice that, that bit was not selected.

Heated blood is also said to weaken, and even destroy, the virus in some cases

and…

After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

also…

Destroying the virus? Tested negetive after the treament?

(All emphases’ are yours)
I have one word for you. PROOF. Has our doctor provided any proof supporting his claim ? More over, he claims to have treated 104 patients and “CURED” 83 patients (he seems to be confused with the word CURE, for once he says he has ‘CURED’ and then he says “I NEVER CURE”), but claims negative test for HIV in only 1 case, which he does not support with any evidence, i.e. the actual pathological report.

I was going to make the same points here, but @karmanya beat me to it:

A. Its relatively simple to test negative for HIV. That is why doctors insist on multiple tests during the first diagnosis.
B. Even allopathy has a few cases where HIV infected patients are able to live relatively normal lives.

Not few cases, but many. Current allopathic treatment enables a AIDS infected person to live a lot longer, and much healthier life, than was possible even 5 or 6 years ago.

U must understand cutural and tradition is not the same everywhere…

I think I recognized the problem…

The taboo of AIDS is too much for these already dying patients.

But, what you are intentionally avoiding to answer is, why hasn’t any evidence been provided ? No body has to know the patients name at all. He could have presented the patient to media as “anonymous” (and you very well know how it can be done for AIDS patients have been interviewed on Indian TV channels, as well) or given the details to independent doctors who could have easily verified his claims. Has he done that ? Has he made his data available to them ? Hell, has he even recorded any data ? Has he agreed to any randomized, double-blinded trials ?

All he has done is claim. Something which any tom, dick or harry can very well do.

If something good is there, then why even mock it? The treatment procedure is out there. Why not verify it?

Yes, even people claim to see ghosts. So lets waste public money and find out if it exists or not. I am not against verification or research. I am indeed against chasing wild goose on public money.

Like I said, u think everything can be found using mere google search?

Anything that is made available on-line can indeed be “found using mere google search”. But I do understand your frustration. Every link that you are posting is turning out to contain errors and misinformation, and we are detecting it by only casually skimming through and 2-sec googling. I can understand why that tsunami is raging over your tiny serotonin pool. But you can save yourself all this humiliation, if you, yourself do a little bit of research before clicking on that “Reply” button. Just a suggestion. You can continue to do what you do and merrily ignore that.

Show me if the "nuclear know how" which countries keep confidential and because of which Pakistan's A.Q Khan is in trouble can be found on net.

and…

please give atleast the evidences of "fossils" of each n every species that might have "gradually" evolved! Can Humans fly? I want an answer with a high degree of cetainty to mark it as fact.

I have always wondered, do the new born babies think ? Thanks to you I not only now know that they do think, I also know what and how they think. Well, @karmanya has answered to the point, anyway.

I think u missed the last lines of the previous 3 posts of mine. I say it again, "ARE materialists like u going to answer all the questions I asked or not"? Even in the previous posts I talked bt evolution, dark energy etc asking for straight answers!! Do u wanna talk or not?

Let me first answer it in your own words, although paraphrased. And bt <all the questions you asked>, sure go ahead and ask <those> in a good <science> forum if u really wanna know <those> as per ur use of the term "<answer>".

Anyway, here’s 24 myths about evolution - BUSTED. And I got this by e-mail, just today. One more gap - PLUGGED.

And I think I have answered, quite clearly, what I think of big bang, evolution, dark wateva, as, this = that. What more do you want ? Nevertheless, here’s some more clarification, which excludes evolution:

Are those theories facts ? NO
Are there any basis for those theories ? YES
Are there evidences for the basis ? YES
Are those evidences observable and testable ? Hell, YES

You have suggested me to grow up. Nah, I won’t suggest that. Growing up is beyond you. But perhaps you can still wake up.

Please stop beating dead horses and leave this topic alone.

Agreed, point taken, keyboard locked and keys thrown away.

 

[mediator]

More so, if indeed the provings are individualized, refer me the database that contains the medicines as, Individualised behaviour = symptoms = medicine. The only reference is MM and it follows the pattern, Symptoms = medicine.

Sorry dood, seems u r hard of reading. I already said I'm not a homeopath to continuously entertain ur silly questions that r not for learning basis but to promote mindless skepticism or fanatacism. U must understand what skepticism is, and when it look "healthy"! Besides, u forgot bt the "adjustments" of the prescription that I have been talking of.

How do these quotes even come close to the vicinity of answering my question. I had asked you to show, where, MM records the symptoms on the basis of individualisation, in other words, the individual CAUSES of the symptoms.

For example, take "low spiritedness" AND "restless sleep". Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc. How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that "low-spiritedness" and "restless sleep" due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.

Again an instance of mindless skepticism! "Low spiritedness", "restless sleep" are not reasons but symptoms! Why a person gets "low spirited". Its not "like" "losing gf etc", but may be because of "losing gf". Why he gets "less sleep", is not "like insults" but may be "becoz of insults"!

U sure know how to troll indefinitely!

Here is the ELABORATION.

Homeopaths and their uninformed lackeys, reject all randomized, double-blinded trials, that yield negative results (not those, which yield positives) for homeopathy on the ground, that the experiments were not "Individualzed". They claim, it is this "individualization" that separates homeopathy from modern medicine. Fair enough.

But how is this individualization done ? By ASKING various <irrelevant> questions about the patient. Now, I am sure, that the homeopaths, have not yet mastered the language of plants or babies or cows. So when they apply their medicines on plants or babies or cows, they do not (because they can not) "individualize" their treatments. But isn't homeopathy all about individualization, and isn't it the reason, or lack of it, that negative result yielding randomized, double-blinded trials are rejected.

So, in other words, if indeed homeopathy works on humans because, it is individualized, then it is impossible to work on plants, or babies or cows. (This follows from their own arguments). But if homeopathy works on humans, which is individualized, as also on plants or babies or cows, which are not individualized, then:

a) individualization is a sham, and

b) randomized, double-blinded, non-individualized trials are just as good.
Clear ?

Lol, again a waste/repitions! Care to explain the questions I asked in the previous posts itself? Show me how greate modern science is now.

I hope now you will elaborate why the James Randis and their methods are flawed. If its "individualization" that you want to stress on, then on your own account, you will be nullifying all the "positive non-individualized tests" and also the "evidence" that homeopathy works on plants, babies and cows. Lets see what excuse you can now come up with, other than, "It works, hence it works".[Man, I hate it when I sound like you]

Like <you> said, <lackey-ism> looks healthy when u really know the subject.

JAmes Randi seems to be lunatic who doesn't even understands the basics of homeopathy and thus it seems talks of $1 million since he knows "randomized" and "double blind" methods, (that don't adhere to homeopathy), will fail. Besides, you actually sound like James Randi!

Disappointed that the colourful bubble of yours is busted, and that too, by your own link ? Besides, that bit of his comment is not in my excerpt. When I copy/pasted, I did not notice that, that bit was not selected.

I think having tested -ve and detroying the virus is itself a lotta work done. LOL, u talk big....."busted"! Besides, u had some AIDS victim in ur victinity. Get him treated! Modern medicine or ayurveda?

(All emphases' are yours)
I have one word for you. PROOF. Has our doctor provided any proof supporting his claim ? More over, he claims to have treated 104 patients and "CURED" 83 patients (he seems to be confused with the word CURE, for once he says he has 'CURED' and then he says "I NEVER CURE"), but claims negative test for HIV in only 1 case, which he does not support with any evidence, i.e. the actual pathological report.

Skepticism is not bt having all the homework in hand! What genuine is, that he has given the precise method of the treatment, given symtoms and what all needs to be done. Why not verify it?

You seem to be too much speculative that he is "confused" when he says, "I NEVER CURE". LOL, many scientists are theists too. Does that add to ur confusion?
But if u wanna entertain, then u can contact him and enlighten us about the reports!

Yes, even people claim to see ghosts. So lets waste public money and find out if it exists or not. I am not against verification or research. I am indeed against chasing wild goose on public money.

Ur replies r quite predictable now. Besides ayruvedic medicines and treatments don't even cost that much as modern medicine does that u r whining bt the money all over.

Anything that is made available on-line can indeed be "found using mere google search". But I do understand your frustration. Every link that you are posting is turning out to contain errors and misinformation, and we are detecting it by only casually skimming through and 2-sec googling. I can understand why that tsunami is raging over your tiny serotonin pool. But you can save yourself all this humiliation, if you, yourself do a little bit of research before clicking on that "Reply" button. Just a suggestion. You can continue to do what you do and merrily ignore that.

Its not called frustration, but entertainment! This debate has quite nicely been debated over n ur merely repeating!
Your skepticism is nuthing but a mere attempt to mock homeopathy affirmed by ur remarks and expert opinions bt homeopathy all over. You r not trying to learn neways!

I have always wondered, do the new born babies think ? Thanks to you I not only now know that they do think, I also know what and how they think. Well, @karmanya has answered to the point, anyway.

Skeptics don't just rely on google searches neways. Do u think in INDIA science/medical journals and all such publications are published on the net? Understand that everything in INDIA is not published on net.

I know i wrote that algorithm and it works. But who wrote the DNA coding ? Is that another life above us ? or is it a matrix or is there other world ?

Nature wrote it through a process of natural selection. There is extremely dim probability for another life above us
OK, you are watching to much science fiction movies. Its all natural selection. And rest assured there is no matrix other than one in which Keanu Reeves starred.

Shared misconceptions:

Everything is an adaptation produced by natural selection

Natural selection is the only means of evolution

Natural selection leads to ever-greater complexity

Evolution produces creatures perfectly adapted to their environment

Evolution always promotes the survival of species

It doesn't matter if people do not understand evolution

"Survival of the fittest" justifies "everyone for themselves"

Evolution is limitlessly creative

Evolution cannot explain traits such as homosexuality

Creationism provides a coherent alternative to evolution

LOL, thats what u call "busted by ur own article"!

U don't appreciate or read well of what I had posted.

TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISED

by Randy Alcorn
(with additional editing by Jim Darnall)

I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

6. Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived.
The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

8. Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures.
Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

9. Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology.
When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

10. The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins.
Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

BTW, where r the fossils of creatures "evolved gradually" of "each n every" stage? The email u showed, doesn't answer that question anyways! The process is "gradual" remember!

Are those theories facts ? NO

But we see u n ur materialist brigade treating it as one with statment like "we had one common ancestors, we evolved from.....this n that", "big bang...already had much of it" and u sire, "Its all natural selection"!

Are there any basis for those theories ? YES

Two of them i.e big bang n evolution are already flawed!

Are there evidences for the basis ? YES

Tell me when u r done explainin bt the "revised flaws" n giving evidences of that "gradual evolution"!

Are those evidences observable and testable ? Hell, YES

Big Bang is testable? LOL

What about my other questions? U forgot it seems, or read it but kept it aside thinking I'll forget or pretend not to have read them. But neways,

1. Is Universe rotating?
2. What is "beyond" Universe?
3. If there is anything beyond, then is Universe revolving like everything else?
4. Where did all of this come from?
5. What is the fate of the Universe?
6. Why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs?
7. "Puzzling" Dark matter, dark energy? Yet it likes to explain the ever expanding universe on that basis?
8. Can science explain "the placebo effect"?
* Why fanatics rely on existing skepticism as a source of their skepticism, instead of first learning the field itself?

Here's for the reviewer's pdf. I hope u have read that pdf!

More questions will come if we start warming up on such discussion!

Agreed, point taken, keyboard locked and keys thrown away.

You r too emotional for that, with serotonin levels on the loose and I can predict that u'll return! => KARNIVORE RETURNS!

^^^^^.....

Guys stop this....

one belive other dont...no ones placing u in point blank....
hold on to your belief....thats the only thing important....

I agree completely. But I wonder why people call for "peer review" in many cases and then stumble upon giving remarks and expert opinions by themselves alone like "Its garbage/crap/pink unicorn", forget the peers.

A recent survey on Indian scientists, by Institute for the Study of Secularism in India, reveal to us, the personal faiths and belief of these scientists.

* 50% scientists believe in homeopathy. [WTF ?]


* 49% believe in prayer. [WTF ?]


* 16% believe in faith healing. [WTF ?]


* 14% believe in vastu and astrology.


* 10% believe in palmistry.


* 8% believe in reiki.


* 6% believe in numerology.


I would, however like to see, how these percentages look among the general population. Then, we can actually put a meaning to these percentages. Without a basis for comparison, interpretation may be very subjective.

As we know that a study in US revealed something very similar. But comparing to the data obtained from the general public, the picture became a little clearer.

Post 585.

I don't understand why do people have to append acronyms like "WTF" if they r frustrated and demonstrate such samples! Skepticism is fine, "peer review" is also fine as long as u don't blindly acccept it, as blind acceptation canot help in progress of science anyways, and then make remarks out of ignorance. The picture is really hilarious : i ask for "peer review, but its crap/garbage/<insert mocking word>".


PS : STILL WAITING for answer to my questions

 

[karmanya]

Originally Posted by karnivore
How do these quotes even come close to the vicinity of answering my question. I had asked you to show, where, MM records the symptoms on the basis of individualisation, in other words, the individual CAUSES of the symptoms.

For example, take "low spiritedness" AND "restless sleep". Those can be for a whole host of reasons, like missing a promotion, losing a gf/bf, losing a favourite book, insults, etc. How in the hell, will a homeopath know, that "low-spiritedness" and "restless sleep" due to missing a promotion or due losing a gf/bf or due to insults, will require separate medicines of different potencies or they will require the same medicine of same potency.

originally posted by mediator
Again an instance of mindless skepticism! "Low spiritedness", "restless sleep" are not reasons but symptoms! Why a person gets "low spirited". Its not "like" "losing gf etc", but may be because of "losing gf". Why he gets "less sleep", is not "like insults" but may be "becoz of insults"!

U sure know how to troll indefinitely!

Do you even know how to read?

Skepticism is not bt having all the homework in hand! What genuine is, that he has given the precise method of the treatment, given symtoms and what all needs to be done. Why not verify it?

You seem to be too much speculative that he is "confused" when he says, "I NEVER CURE". LOL, many scientists are theists too. Does that add to ur confusion?
But if u wanna entertain, then u can contact him and enlighten us about the reports

So you want us to catch HIV, visit a quack and get wierd treatments just to "verify" randomn rants?
And we're speculative because he constantly contradicts himself. He claims to have "cured" 83 out of 104 people and then he turns around to say "I don't cure".

Lol, again a waste/repitions! Care to explain the questions I asked in the previous posts itself? Show me how great modern science is now.

Modern science is so great that even homeopaths rely on blood tests given by modern medicine and modern science to prove their so called success stories.

1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

Because it's complex you assume that someone had to create it? what are you, twelve?

Natural selection is the only means of evolution

Yes natural selection is not the only means of evolution, theres also artificial selection, drift, and a variety of other factors.

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

Planaria developed eye-spots and various creatures have eyes, if that isn't an obvious proof of evolution, then call me crazy.

Big Bang is testable? LOL

Yes it is. ever hear of something called the LHC?

Why should the universe have to revolve? just because fish in a pond revolve, does the pond revolve as well?

The universe came from a point of infinite temperature, pressure and density. The steady state theory has already been disproved.

Science can't explain thoughts and beliefs, but can religion? Does any holy book say, you think because of "XYZ"?

Why is it that when anyone stops putting blind faith in wierd half cooked mumbo-jumbo you call it skepticism? Why don't you just come out and say "You're stupid because you don't agree with me!" and start bawling like a little baby?

 

[karnivore]

Sorry @karmanya, I had to unlock my keyboard, and thanks for being able to see through his willful misrepresentation of my statements about homeopathy.

I still think I need to re-clarify my position, on evolution, where again, a comment made in the passing, has been used, to flog his reincarnated horse.

I am fully aware of this amazing process of nature called evolution and how it happens, that is, as much as a layman can understand. That reply to @T159's comments, was made in the passing and there was obviously no need for me to get into the details of evolution. Unfortunately (for me, and fortunately for you), @T159 never got around to ask for an explanation, which I would have gladly given/ posted links, and then, it would have properly clarified what I had meant.

I understand, that it was one of your rare moments under the sun, when you read that New Scientist article. I am sure, if you were, yourself aware of the fact that evolution is not just natural selection, you would have pointed that out, a long time ago. So enjoy that sun shine, for as long as it lasts.

It is also very strange that a self-claimed ATHEIST, is quoting an Intelligent Design theorist to point out the alleged flaws of evolution, where, the theorist is actually implying that it is GOD, that is responsible for everything. In addition to your lack of understanding of evolution, it seems, that you have absolutely no clue as to what is atheism. (Or are you a THEIST, pretending to be an ATHEIST ?)

Sorry could not resist this:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/creationist.gif

Besides, from your demand, that fossil of each and every species be shown to you, it is clear, that you neither seem to understand paleontology and geology nor do you appreciate the difficulties of finding the fossils. The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution. The fact that E-Coli bacteria are seen to evolve, in the lab, following the predictive path, is more than enough proof of evolution(That is evolution tested in lab). The fact that bacteria are getting antibiotic resistant is enough proof of evolution, as well.

But since I have linked you to the new find in the evolution of tetrapods, here is an updated, gradual evolutionary road map of the tetrapods:
*i180.photobucket.com/albums/x31/trash609/ventastega.jpg
Source

If you have further questions to Dr Ahlberg, about his new find, you can directly ask him. He has opened a thread at Talkrational.org.

I know, nothing is enough. Just tried.

Re: Theory

Well, @karmanya, if he has ever clicked on any of the links that I have provided, then, I am sure he has heard of Large Hadron Collider (LHC). What eludes him is the basic understanding of the enormity of those three words, and why the scientists all over the world are so excited about it (There is every reason for us, as Indians ,to be proud of the project as well, because, some of the vital chips are made, here in India ). But what is this LHC looking for ?

With the collision of two nuclei, man will create a speck of energy window, within a very very tiny volume, equivalent to one million times the temperature in the interior of the sun. Indeed, the universe, a microsecond (a millionth of a second) after its birth from the Big Bang, according to conventional wisdom, must have been in this state. So, LHC is having a “peep” into the very early stages of the creation of the universe and, of course, into the history of its evolution through space and time since then. And now, 14 billion years later on this planet, we shall mimic that primordial epoch. Colliding proton with proton, one can trace back to even earlier times of the universe, coming even closer to the Big Bang.​

He is so detached from reality, that he does not realise, that the world has zipped passed him long time back and he has missed the bus, probably for good.

Now....
​

Nevertheless, here’s some more clarification, which excludes evolution:

Are those theories facts ? NO
Are there any basis for those theories ? YES
Are there evidences for the basis ? YES
Are those evidences observable and testable ? Hell, YES

Note carefully, that this argument, excluded EVOLUTION, but strangely enough, you have still considered it in your reply.

Anyway, that is not the point. The point is, that you have completely misinterpreted that argument because you did not realise that I was actually providing a regressive argument - starting from theory back stepping to provability of evidence. In other words, THEORY, which has a BASIS, which has EVIDENCE, which can be OBSERVED and TESTED. Read in proper english, it would be, observable and testable evidence forms the basis of the theory. Those comments could not be replied to, individually, as you have done, intentionally or otherwise, because, that simply would not make any sense at all.

Example:
THEORY = Big Bang,
BASIS = Expanding Universe and Left over of the Bang (among others)
EVIDENCE = Red Shift (evidence of expanding universe), background microwave radiation (evidence of left over of the Bang)
TESTABILITY = Red Shift and Microwave Radiation have been tested on numerous occation.

One can only do so much to bring a horse to the well - the rest is upto the horse.

BTW, congratulations, you got your prediction right. (Finally, you got something right)

 

[karmanya]

Correct me if I'm wrong, how is red shift proof of the theory? red shifting was just used to explain why we can't see residual light. the fact that residual light from the initial big bang remains is proof of the possible validity of the theory.

 

[karnivore]

^^ Only that you are absolutely correct that red shift is not the proof of the Big Bang theory and I have, also, never said that. I have referred to Red Shift as the proof of the expanding universe, which <i.e. the expanding universe> forms one basis for the theory of big bang.

If you would pardon me for quoting Wiki,

An observed redshift due to the Doppler effect occurs whenever a light source moves away from the observer, corresponding to the Doppler shift that changes the perceived frequency of sound waves.

In the context of expansion of universe,

Observations of distant galaxies and quasars show that these objects are redshifted—the light emitted from them has been shifted to longer wavelengths.....That space is undergoing metric expansion is shown by direct observational evidence of the Cosmological Principle and the Copernican Principle, which together with Hubble's law have no other explanation.

From, A Brief History of Time, by Hawkins

It was quite a surprise, therefore, to find that most galaxies appeared red-shifted: nearly all were moving away from us! More surprising still was the finding that Hubble published in 1929: even the size of a galaxy’s red shift is not random, but is directly proportional to the galaxy’s distance from us. Or, in other words, the farther a galaxy is, the faster it is moving away! And that meant that the universe could not be static, as everyone previously had thought, is in fact expanding; the distance between the different galaxies is changing all the time.

I must put a rider here. Redshift is not Doppler shift, which is often referred to in this context.

It is tempting to refer to cosmological redshifts as Doppler shifts. This choice of interpretation has in the years since Hubble's work led to an unfortunate misunderstanding of big bang cosmology, obscurring one of its most mysterious beauties. As noted with a hint of frustration by cosmologists such as Steven Weinberg and Jaylant Narlikar and John Wheeler, "The frequency of light is also affected by the gravitational field of the universe, and it is neither useful nor strictly correct to interpret the frequency shifts of light...in terms of the special relativistic Doppler effect.".

 

[mediator]

So you want us to catch HIV, visit a quack and get wierd treatments just to "verify" randomn rants?
And we're speculative because he constantly contradicts himself. He claims to have "cured" 83 out of 104 people and then he turns around to say "I don't cure".

Again an expert opinion? I wonder why people call others a "quack" so casually and the treatments as "garbage/crap/pink nicorn/wierd treatments/etc" which come under alternative medicine. Guess u don't even read what he says.

The Healed Ones
Dr Shanthakumar first treated an AIDS victim in 1992: "About eight years ago, an AIDS patient met me. I applied the ayurvedic therapy keeping his symptoms in mind. He would collapse with high temperature once a week, though he did not harbor malarial parasites. After a month's treatment, the fever and shivering subsided. After three months, his weight increased from 43 kg to 48 kg. After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

"I then became confident about treating AIDS. Through my first patient, two others came to me and were both equally successful. But I never cure. I simply assure a longer lifespan with a constitution and metabolism that functions as close to normal as possible. Out of the 64 patients I have treated in the past eight years, 43 are leading healthy, normal lives. Of course, three of my patients died, possibly because they had reached the last stage."

Read Carefully!

Modern science is so great that even homeopaths rely on blood tests given by modern medicine and modern science to prove their so called success stories.

Modern science is so great that yoga,ayurveda,homeopathy etc are rising everyday! Besides, I'm not here to mock modern medicine like the funny materialists here who r present to mock the alternative medicine like a fanatic. I'm simply saying that modern medicine is not without its flaws.

Because it's complex you assume that someone had to create it? what are you, twelve?

I'm not playing an apologist for the creationist theorists! When did I ever say that "someone had to create it", or are u blind? I'm not a theist either! U gave me a pretty good laugh though, but it seems u don't appreciate philosophical questions very well.

Planaria developed eye-spots and various creatures have eyes, if that isn't an obvious proof of evolution, then call me crazy.

Fine, U r crazy! U don't undertsand very well when a theory needs to be considered as a fact which the materialist brigade here is fond of treating many as such.

Yes it is. ever hear of something called the LHC?

Don't make me laugh. U r telling as if it has been used many times. So don't babble already! Also tell what existed before big bang then.

Why should the universe have to revolve? just because fish in a pond revolve, does the pond revolve as well?

Amazing of how ridicilous the replies can be! Since science shud be able to explain everything, then it shud be able to measure the boundaries of universe tooo. If not then tell, why there is no boundary, if yes then whats beyond that boundary. And so does it revolve? Ur analogy with pond atleast tells, that pond has a boundary! If u simply can't answer then there is no need to speculate ether. Its fine with me.

The universe came from a point of infinite temperature, pressure and density. The steady state theory has already been disproved.

O really? and whats the proof?

If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. This idea has been considered in detail back in time to extreme densities and temperatures, and large particle accelerators have been built to experiment on and test such conditions, resulting in significant confirmation of the theory. But these accelerators can only probe so far into such high energy regimes.

Without any evidence associated with the earliest instant of the expansion, the Big Bang theory cannot and does not provide any explanation for such an initial condition. The theory accurately explains the general evolution of the universe since that instant.

Sorry for givin Wiki but a few people like to read wiki.

Further, I wonder why "puzzling dark energy" is being used to explain the "faster" expanding universe!

Science can't explain thoughts and beliefs, but can religion? Does any holy book say, you think because of "XYZ"?

Again, I'm not playing an apologist for religion either. But why can't science explain thoughts, beliefs, intelligence etc?

Why is it that when anyone stops putting blind faith in wierd half cooked mumbo-jumbo you call it skepticism? Why don't you just come out and say "You're stupid because you don't agree with me!" and start bawling like a little baby?

Some fine guy used digg.com article in FIGHt CLUB to base his opinions or shud I even say that it was "his" skepticism? Another day a wise guy called for James Randi without even "learning" bt homeopathy etc. How sensible!

So its not as if those "anyones" are stopping to put blind-faith in those "half-cooked mumbo-jumbo" which u opine quite wisely, but criticing something without even reading bt those "mumbo jumbos" is quite absurd neways!

Do you even know how to read?

And I was wondering why u r posting randomly. Don't mind, but it seems u too r just here to troll.
@karmanya : If u think words like "baby, 12 yr old etc" are gonna provoke me then u can pack ur bags already! I wasn't thinking to reply to ur road side comments, but here I'm mostly repeating of what I said earlier. So stop trolling if u can't read the two threads from the start, that I asked u to read. Its not like I'll entertain anyone who jumps in an already heated debate and then whines over making the discussion start from t=0. U r next post will tell itself how much u have read the 2 threads. Besides, my discussion regarding science has just started as previously materialists brigade was going one way. So u may start from here discussing science.

Besides, from your demand, that fossil of each and every species be shown to you, it is clear, that you neither seem to understand paleontology and geology nor do you appreciate the difficulties of finding the fossils. The fact that whatever fossils have been found, have CONFIRMED to the prediction, is more than enough proof of evolution. The fact that E-Coli bacteria are seen to evolve, in the lab, following the predictive path, is more than enough proof of evolution(That is evolution tested in lab). The fact that bacteria are getting antibiotic resistant is enough proof of evolution, as well.

So now u r whining bt the difficulties! "wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm. Besides, the E.coli experiment is just to witness how the bacteria "evolves" but doesn't show it turns to more complex life forms! Even so, we see birds flying. Why couldn't the humans fly n still remain the most intelligent species? Lets wait n watch the E.Coli for some more years?

If you have further questions to Dr Ahlberg, about his new find, you can directly ask him. He has opened a thread at Talkrational.org.

I know, nothing is enough. Just tried.

Thats more sensible actually!

EVIDENCE = Red Shift (evidence of expanding universe), background microwave radiation (evidence of left over of the Bang)

And since the universe supposedly big banged, its expansion shud have been slowed which some hypothesize to be due to gravitational effects?? But note its expanding even faster and now the scientists pour in some "dark energy"! So note there are flaws toooo!
Some flaws to be pondered over. With many thought provoking qustions, the obvious question becomes "Did it ever banged that big"?


And how about answering the remaining questions as well or shud I goto another site that might be told by u and start questioning there? Take ur time and on a second thought @madjeri's word reflect on my mind. Its ur wish.

 

[karmanya]

a.

Again an expert opinion? I wonder why people call others a "quack" so casually and the treatments as "garbage/crap/pink nicorn/wierd treatments/etc" which come under alternative medicine. Guess u don't even read what he says.

I call them quacks because i've tried all of the wierd acupuncture, homeopathy and various other **** for my asthma. Never worked.
b.

Read Carefully!

I'd suggest you follow your own advice instead of paraphrasing and removing quotes out of context.
c.

Some fine guy used digg.com article in FIGHt CLUB to base his opinions or shud I even say that it was "his" skepticism? Another day a wise guy called for James Randi without even "learning" bt homeopathy etc. How sensible!
So its not as if those "anyones" are stopping to put blind-faith in those "half-cooked mumbo-jumbo" which u opine quite wisely, but criticing something without even reading bt those "mumbo jumbos" is quite absurd neways!

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. Do you even know what skepticism means?
d.

I'm not playing an apologist for the creationist theorists! When did I ever say that "someone had to create it", or are u blind? I'm not a theist either! U gave me a pretty good laugh though, but it seems u don't appreciate philosophical questions very well.

Philosophical questions? You posted some random article, and i replied. theres no philosophy involved.
e.

Don't make me laugh. U r telling as if it has been used many times. So don't babble already! Also tell what existed before big bang then.

You asked a question. to try to prove your point by asking if the big bang was testible, you obviously thought that you were picking something so implausible that it would make karnivore seem stupid. As it is, you fell on your face so you try to divert attention.
f.

Amazing of how ridicilous the replies can be! Since science shud be able to explain everything, then it shud be able to measure the boundaries of universe tooo. If not then tell, why there is no boundary, if yes then whats beyond that boundary. And so does it revolve? Ur analogy with pond atleast tells, that pond has a boundary! If u simply can't answer then there is no need to speculate ether. Its fine with me.

I never said science is complete, while the universe expands its virtually impossible to define a clear cut boundary. There may not be much proof to say that the universe doesn't revolve, but you're not exactly overflowing with proof to say that the universe does revolve.
g.

O really? and whats the proof?

please avoid ambiguous statements. Reasons for rejection of the steady state theory are numerous, the most simplistic being gravity. Read "a brief history of time" and "the theory of everything" by stephen hawking for further articulation. If you're asking about the point of infinite curvature, density and pressure that is THEORIZED to have existed before the big bang, i agree there is no proof we have because classical physics disintegrates when t ~> 0, however what i fail to realise is why religious people can so blindly put thier faith in God(an abstract concept) but can't even think of accepting that there might be something correct in a theory that is not only plausible but probable.
h.

And I was wondering why u r posting randomly. Don't mind, but it seems u too r just here to troll.
@karmanya : If u think words like "baby, 12 yr old etc" are gonna provoke me then u can pack ur bags already! I wasn't thinking to reply to ur road side comments, but here I'm mostly repeating of what I said earlier. So stop trolling if u can't read the two threads from the start, that I asked u to read. Its not like I'll entertain anyone who jumps in an already heated debate and then whines over making the discussion start from t=0. U r next post will tell itself how much u have read the 2 threads. Besides, my discussion regarding science has just started as previously materialists brigade was going one way. So u may start from here discussing science.

you so obviously didn't get the point i was trying to make there so i won't even bother elaborating.
i.

And since the universe supposedly big banged, its expansion shud have been slowed which some hypothesize to be due to gravitational effects?? But note its expanding even faster and now the scientists pour in some "dark energy"! So note there are flaws toooo!
Some flaws to be pondered over. With many thought provoking qustions, the obvious question becomes "Did it ever banged that big"?

At the end of the day everything needs further work, science constantly evolves, a long time ago science thought the world was flat, now we know different. Even early christianity believed that jesus was mortal, current day christianity says he was a god.
We don't have all the answers yet, but we will. I'm sure of it.

Please try to be more lucid with your responses from now on, you say we haven't answered your questions, have you considered that your responses are so unintelligible that we don't even know what your questions are?

 

[karnivore]

So now u r whining bt the difficulties! "wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm

Oh....so you think that fossils are cooked in a chef's kitchen in a microwave oven and all we have to do is look up the menu and order one, or is it that fossils grow on trees and plucking is all we need to do, or is it that fossils fall from sky ?.....I keep forgetting which one.

And which fossil do not seem to confirm. If you are talking about Nebraska man, then it is a noted and admitted error, while Piltdown man was a hoax. Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.

Besides, the E.coli experiment is just to witness how the bacteria "evolves" but doesn't show it turns to more complex life forms! Even so, we see birds flying. Why couldn't the humans fly n still remain the most intelligent species? Lets wait n watch the E.Coli for some more years?

That is exactly what is so wrong with your understanding of evolution. (That however does not stop you from directing others to learn about the subjects, they talk about).You think, that evolution is all about turning into complex life form (amoeba today, rats tomorrow; rats today, jackass tomorrow) and the path it follows is linear. Not at all. You may take a look here or here or......nowhere.

A comment summarizes, in one line, what you are essentially saying:

But it didn't turn into a bird so it's not evidence for evolution.

The ignorant and stupid have spoken.

Some flaws to be pondered over.

One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot, OOOOPS, "Chaotic" theory.

Some memorable comments of Andrei Linde

What my theoretical argument shows......is that we can't rule out the possibility that our own universe was created in a lab by someone in another universe who just felt like doing it.

MUHAHAHAHA....TEEHEEHEEHEE......AHAHAHAHA.....OHOHOHOHO......
[Man,I didn't know that there were so many kinds of LOL.....up until now, that is]

...a wise guy called for James Randi without even "learning" bt homeopathy...

When you replied that you are not a homeopath doctor, I figured that the answer was pretty fair. After all, you are not a homeopath doctor and expecting you to answer every single question about homeopathy, is not fair. Thought I would not ask any more of those questions to you anymore. But I stand corrected now. If someone, whose only claim to the knowledge of homeopathy is that, he was once cured by it, can have the right to defend homeopathy and lecture others to "learn" about it, then someone, who was not cured by this shite, has also every right to criticise it: And so I continue asking the questions I had raised earlier.

1. Are provings "individualized" ? If yes, first prove it and then show how are the symptoms recorded in terms of cause-effect reasoning.

2. If non-individualized treatments work on plants and animals, then why should non-individualized trials, yielding negative results, be rejected ?

3. What is difference between homeopathic "individualization" and inquiries made by a practitioner of modern medicine, particularly, when both of them will have to rely of symptoms ?

"More questions will come if we start warming up on such discussion."

I'm not playing an apologist for the creationist theorists!

Thats exactly what you are playing, by quoting creationist's arguments as flaws of evolution. I don't blame you of course. No self respecting scientist disagrees with the theory of evolution and so no valid scientific criticism, questioning evolution itself, is available - other than self-criticism to fine tune the understanding. As a result, when you are googling for the flaws, you are ending up on creationist sites and with their idiotic arguments.

That happens when someone googles with his favourite blinkers on.

 

[mediator]

I call them quacks because i've tried all of the wierd acupuncture, homeopathy and various other **** for my asthma. Never worked.

The same goes for my cough. Simple modern medicine ain't worked and homeopathy worked. So shud i say modern medicine is quack. I have given more about mdoern medicine in the previous posts that u might have missed n I hope won't make me repeat!

I'd suggest you follow your own advice instead of paraphrasing and removing quotes out of context.

Stop trolling if u can't read. Those were psychological symptoms that they r.

I don't even understand what point you're trying to make. Do you even know what skepticism means?

It seem u don't. To be even skeptic of some subject, I believe u need to know and shud have read that subject. Its not like I will raise my doubts before reading anything over.

Philosophical questions? You posted some random article, and i replied. theres no philosophy involved.

First u ask where r my questions, then I tell u to read the threads, then I even give my questions clearly since the materialists were shying to debate them. Now u say I posted some random article? LOL. So, "where did all of it come from?". The only thing u did, is giving some remarks like "12 yr old, baby" and at wateva similar level u could think of.

You asked a question. to try to prove your point by asking if the big bang was testible, you obviously thought that you were picking something so implausible that it would make karnivore seem stupid. As it is, you fell on your face so you try to divert attention.

You don't get fast. Atleast karnivore showed that "I will have a surprise". That will be discussed, when it "will be". So don't whine already! It seems u didn't read the thought provoking article on Big Bang theory neways.

I never said science is complete, while the universe expands its virtually impossible to define a clear cut boundary. There may not be much proof to say that the universe doesn't revolve, but you're not exactly overflowing with proof to say that the universe does revolve.

Like I said, u shud have read the threads when I said it first. It only helps make u look, well, not foolish. I'm not giving any proof, but simply asking questions and I hope u appreciate that its the questions that helps science to progress. A few here say that "science can explain everything". Therefore u have my questions! Some say " wateva can be explained is science", so shud we narrow ourself to that "wateva" and neglect everything else?

please avoid ambiguous statements. Reasons for rejection of the steady state theory are numerous, the most simplistic being gravity. Read "a brief history of time" and "the theory of everything" by stephen hawking for further articulation. If you're asking about the point of infinite curvature, density and pressure that is THEORIZED to have existed before the big bang, i agree there is no proof we have because classical physics disintegrates when t ~> 0, however what i fail to realise is why religious people can so blindly put thier faith in God(an abstract concept) but can't even think of accepting that there might be something correct in a theory that is not only plausible but probable.

Exactly my point of view! Its a theory which theorizes something that cannot be marked as "fact". What it "theorizes" is just 'probable' and is "based" on something 'factual'. But there r arguments that reduce that probability also and obviously we don't have evidence yet.

Besides, can u stop with that God thing?

At the end of the day everything needs further work, science constantly evolves, a long time ago science thought the world was flat, now we know different. Even early christianity believed that jesus was mortal, current day christianity says he was a god.
We don't have all the answers yet, but we will. I'm sure of it.

I have nuthing against ur "faith"

Please try to be more lucid with your responses from now on, you say we haven't answered your questions, have you considered that your responses are so unintelligible that we don't even know what your questions are?

N I asked u to read from beginning! Besides, I have given the questions clearly this time if u cared to read them and materialists missing them deliberately in the past, becoz of which I had to recompile it for newcomers like u.

Oh....so you think that fossils are cooked in a chef's kitchen in a microwave oven and all we have to do is look up the menu and order one, or is it that fossils grow on trees and plucking is all we need to do, or is it that fossils fall from sky ?.....I keep forgetting which one.

U can simply stop whining.

And which fossil do not seem to confirm. If you are talking about Nebraska man, then it is a noted and admitted error, while Piltdown man was a hoax. Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.

Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete", though there r other arguments against the evolution theory too that u missed!!

That is exactly what is so wrong with your understanding of evolution. (That however does not stop you from directing others to learn about the subjects, they talk about).You think, that evolution is all about turning into complex life form (amoeba today, rats tomorrow; rats today, jackass tomorrow) and the path it follows is linear. Not at all. You may take a look here or here or......nowhere.

LOl, u think I didn't know of the articles u linked here n there? Earlier one of the materialist brigade member talked of a common sea ancestor of all vertebrates, then another shows up E.Coli as an evidence of evolution. It seems the materialist brigade is hard of synchronizing itself!

No organism has to be perfect. For example, many taxa (like some mosses, protists, fungi, sharks, opossums, and crayfish) have changed little over great expanses of time. They are not marching up a ladder of progress. Rather, they are fit enough to survive and reproduce, and that is all that is necessary to ensure their existence.

And finally if its not a ladder, then where did all of the creatures come from?

One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot, OOOOPS, "Chaotic" theory.

Some memorable comments of Andrei Linde

LOL, it seems u don't even try to undertsand the question! Let me rephrase, the questions of one u call "One more IDiot, OOOPS, IDist and one more crackpot". Since u call Andrei Linde "idiot, crackpot etc" then it seems u must be knowing more than him to honour him as such. So then enlighten me about some his questions (@karmanya, u tooo).....

1. If you work out the physical equations governing the big bang, they predict that such a universe would be very small, even though we can see that our universe is large. One way to gauge the size of a universe is to talk about how many elementary particles it has in it - how many electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on are present. When I look out of my window, the matter I see is made up of perhaps 1088 elementary particles, but a typical theoretical big-bang model envisions a universe with only 10 elementary particles in it! This is perhaps the most serious problem with the big-bang model. It gives a false prediction about the size of the universe. For a number of years, this mathematical flaw in the big-bang theory was not taken seriously by many scientists.

2. But even if a big-bang universe is of the proper size, the theory doesn't explain why different regions of the universe resemble each other. In a big-bang model, it could just as easily have happened that most of the galactical matter would wind up, say, in only one half of the sky, but we can observe that in our universe, the distribution of distant galaxies is uniform in every direction.

3. Then come the philosophical questions. What came before the big bang? How did everything appear from nothing? Another philosophical problem with the big bang is, Why does it happen that our universe worked out to be the way it is? Why, for instance, do we have three dimensions of space and one dimension of time? The big-bang theory offers no satisfactory answers. We can begin to resolve the puzzles in the context of the theory of the self-reproducing, inflationary universe.

4. Well, maybe you can get energy from the new universe? No, you can't get energy because of the law of energy conservation. The new universe gets its energy internally, and the energy has to stay inside there. We can't get in, we can't use the energy, but maybe we can do like we do with our children: we teach them and we live on in them. Maybe we can give knowledge and information to the new little universe.

So with LHC, I think we r "creating" a Universe like situation, with some "external energy". Don't u think so?


And here r the final words from Andrei Linde that seems to be the same of what I have been saying....

I don't entirely think of this possibility as a joke. Even if something seems counterintuitive, you must be honest and follow the thought line and not be influenced by the common point of view. If you agree with everything everybody else thinks, you never move.

When you replied that you are not a homeopath doctor, I figured that the answer was pretty fair. After all, you are not a homeopath doctor and expecting you to answer every single question about homeopathy, is not fair. Thought I would not ask any more of those questions to you anymore. But I stand corrected now. If someone, whose only claim to the knowledge of homeopathy is that, he was once cured by it, can have the right to defend homeopathy and lecture others to "learn" about it, then someone, who was not cured by this shite, has also every right to criticise it: And so I continue asking the questions I had raised earlier.

And so u do agree, that people have the right to criticise modern medicine. After all modern medicine has its flaws too. Besides u didn't tell me, if u'll get ur friend or whoever was infected in ur victinity, treated with "modern medicine" or try ayurveda!

And sure I will very well try to answer ur questions bt individualizations that u ask as I'll read more bt homeopathy. But as I said, I'm no homoapath and it wud be actually wise of u to "learn" the deeper concepts if u ask it on some homeopathic forum itself!

Thats exactly what you are playing, by quoting creationist's arguments as flaws of evolution. I don't blame you of course. No self respecting scientist disagrees with the theory of evolution and so no valid scientific criticism, questioning evolution itself, is available - other than self-criticism to fine tune the understanding. As a result, when you are googling for the flaws, you are ending up on creationist sites and with their idiotic arguments.

U r whining often as compared to discussing on science! I'm obviously not debating in favour of creationists as I wud ask that same question to them i.e "Who created God"! But many scientists it seems ask the same question "where did it all come from". And if u find those arguments that conflict with ur beliefs as idiotic, then all I can say is that u r pretty full of urself like a typical fanataic who laughs at what other person questions against his beliefs instead of giving fine answers and laughs at everything else also which don't adhere to his beliefs! Ur ridiculous appendings of "WTF" and "crap/garbage/etc" like I showed simply tell the whole story!

That happens when someone googles with his favourite blinkers on.

Fixed for u!

 

[Faun]

lolz...nice explanation @mediator

Infact some people don't want to be in unknown, let the scientists discover for them, provide a theoretical explanation and then if possible a practical explanation based on the set of premises already known and some new assumptions includes with consistency checking.

@Karnivore
matrix wasn't from the movie (i have a better theory to explain our origin), matrix in general means that the whole thing we are is a mesh where we are working for some other upper life form. Just like the several tissues working inside our body for us.

Even energy can change from particle to energy state.

 

[karnivore]

Oh....so you think that fossils are cooked in a chef's kitchen in a microwave oven and all we have to do is look up the menu and order one, or is it that fossils grow on trees and plucking is all we need to do, or is it that fossils fall from sky ?.....I keep forgetting which one.

U can simply stop whining.

Thats medaiatorspeak for, "I have once again put both my feet in my loud mouth, this time upto the knee, and I don't know how to get those out"

"wateva fossils" do not seem to confirm..

And which fossil do not seem to confirm....Can you please give examples where fossils don't fit in as predicted.

Rise from the oceans to land, and than land to air, The wings that evolved "gradually", the fins that formed "gradually", the human form that rose "gradually" i.e fossils of each n every stage. The question is not if it "fits", but if the fossil's discovery is "complete"..

Errr.....weren't you supposed to show me "wateva fossils", that "HAVE BEEN FOUND", which "do not seem to confirm" to prediction. Instead, what you have done is point at the missing links, which are fossils, that HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND. How dumb can that answer be.

I meant, that "wateva fossils" that have been found, confirm to the predictions, which are based on accurate understanding of evolution, and to which the latest find, Ventastega, confirmed. Nobody claims that all fossil records are complete. Nobody claims that all missing links have been linked up. But what IS claimed is that all that have been found show a gradual evolution, and I have already given you the example of tertrapods.

...then another shows up E.Coli as an evidence of evolution

And that E.Coli experiment is not evolution because..........

Oh silly me, because, those bacteria did not turn into a bunch of hippos.

And finally if its not a ladder, then where did all of the creatures come from?

Yes keep your questions as vague as possible. Are you referring to beginning of life itself or the diversity of life. If it is the beginning of life you are referring to, then the "THEORY OF EVOLUTION" is NOT an explanation for the biginning of life, but an explanation of how life has evolved or is still evolving. If it is the diversity you are talking, then there are plenty of reasons, primary of which is natural selection. Instead of making snide remarks, read those links, particularly TalkOrigin. You will find those answers. You can refer to any book by Richard Dawkins, as well, if you are willing to learn, or you can simply ask random questions picked from creationist s(h)ites.

PSSST......don't tell anyone. But I have a theory where those creatures came from. They were carried in a large douche bag, by a super giant storkosorous, all the way from a black hole in the 3rd Universe, spinning like a top on someone's commode.

Since u call Andrei Linde "idiot, crackpot etc" then it seems u must be knowing more than him to honour him as such. So then enlighten me about some his questions

Enlightenment is something that has a different meaning in mediotorland. Nobody claims that theory of Big Bang is perfect from "P" to "T". The theory has its problems, least of which is the Bang itself. Inflation theory does explain homogeneity, but does a lousy job with background microwave radiation. And even if Inflation theory is right, it would still need a CREATOR, which will further need to be CREATED.......and Mr Occam will be more than glad to shave off that creator with his favourite razor.

What happened before Big Bang cannot be explained by science. Because, data regarding whatever existed before Big Bang, would be lost with Big Bang. And unlike pseudoscience, science needs raw data to work on. No data, no science and hence no answer. Linde correctly calls these questions to be philosophical, cause he knows better than you, that no science can explain those questions. You, on the other hand, still don't get it and expect science to answer those questions.

First you seek philosophy in evolution, which is science all the way, and then look for science to answer philosophical questions. "Dumb" is a word, that does not even come close to describe your answers.

And no, LHC will not create a universe in lab, but will create the physics that existed immediately after the Bang. And if that physics is created in accordance to the prediction, it will be the second direct evidence of the Bang, after microwave radiation, and Linde et al, will have to put their *bleep* back into their pants. Frankly, I can't wait to see their faces.

And yes those final words of Mr Linde are same as a crackpot, who expects the whole of science to change its paradigm just to accommodate his figment of imagination, and who for some unknown reason, does not get his ideas peer-reviewed. (OOOOH, that dreaded word)

So don't whine already! It seems u didn't read the thought provoking article on Big Bang theory neways.

It may provoke thought in you.....it only provokes shite in us. Too bad.

A few here say that "science can explain everything"

Ahem....misrepresenting my quotes again. Naughty, naughty.

Science DOES NOT explain everything. But if anything CAN explain something, then it is science.

This was THE explanation to an earlier comment of mine, which you have conveniently ripped out of context.

No science does not explain everything. But, science can explain everything.

And so u do agree, that people have the right to criticise modern medicine. After all modern medicine has its flaws too. Besides u didn't tell me, if u'll get ur friend or whoever was infected in ur victinity, treated with "modern medicine" or try ayurveda!

Of course I do agree that modern medicine is not above criticism. If you have cared to keep track of modern medicine, then you would have seen, how this criticism is carried on by the peers. And again, nobody claims that modern medicine is all free from its flaws. But modern medicine is the best that you can get, in spite of all its flaws.

That colleague of mine will probably not see the turn of this year. But he has already lived about 4 years more than was previously expected - all thanks to modern medicine. So what did he gain in these 4 years. Well, for one thing, he got to see his kid, crack WBJEE and get admission to Jadavpur University to do his engineering. So, probably he will die with at least some peace. Again thanks to modern medicine.

And sure I will very well try to answer ur questions bt individualizations that u ask as I'll read more bt homeopathy. But as I said, I'm no homoapath and it wud be actually wise of u to "learn" the deeper concepts if u ask it on some homeopathic forum itself!

So, even you are ignorant about the practice that you are rooting for. Shouldn't you be ashamed of yourself that you still continue to ask us to learn about things which even you, yourself have no clue of. When, your are yourself not informed enough, how can you even judge, if we are wrong or not ? Somking pot, again ? So stop being a lousy hypocrite.

Firstly, on this forum, you are the only one who is debating stubbornly in favour of something, which, by your own admission, you are not aware of. So the questions were directed at you. Secondly, how in the hell do you know that I have not asked those questions to a homeopath, on any homeoPATHETIC forum. Thirdly, stop BSing, take a lesson in MOOOOOeopathy, come back and then continue debating. Till then don't spill your brains all over the thread.

U r whining often as compared to discussing on science! I'm obviously not debating in favour of creationists as I wud ask that same question to them i.e "Who created God"! But many scientists it seems ask the same question "where did it all come from".

It is irrelevant if you are debating in favour of creationists or not, but what is indeed relevant is that you are using the same arguments that those morons use to prove that GOD is the answer to all. Comments like, "The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence." or "They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created." are not criticism of evolution, but arguments in favour of GOD theory. And people who confuse "entropy theory" with "evolution" or expect amoeba to turn to man, are anything but scientists .You are just turning out to be a fine specimen of preposterus ludicrus (See picture above, post#631)

..nice explanation @mediator

Indeed so. Too bad, that to give his explanations he has to constantly, twist, misquote, misrepresent, misinterpret and make out of context reference to our quotes, and in the apparently simple process of replying, shows a dying need to get himself enrolled in a kindergarten, not only to relearn English, but to learn how not to contradict himself in every second line or second paragraph or second post.

Infact some people don't want to be in unknown, let the scientists discover for them, provide a theoretical explanation and then if possible a practical explanation based on the set of premises already known and some new assumptions includes with consistency checking.

So tell us...what have you discovered lately or about that theoretical explanation that you have provided, that took the wold by storm.

i have a better theory to explain our origin

So have I, about those pesky pink unicorns. They have now started to steal all our jackfuits. Grrrr......

 

[Faun]

isn't the language limiting you, beside we have different interpretations.

i haven't discovered anything, or may be its there waiting for the time I assemble it together.
*i269.photobucket.com/albums/jj44/visio159/11507823438155bx-1.gif

watch this video and see how deceiving it can be:
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvVfcyVCdNA

 

[karnivore]

isn't the language limiting you, beside we have different interpretations.

Agreed again. But if you leave one liners, then the prospect of different interpretations rises exponentially.

i haven't discovered anything, or may be its there waiting for the time I assemble it together.

I know very well that you have not discovered anything and I also know, you prefer faith over evidence. I have no problem with your personal believe, as long as you don't try to force it on to others.

watch this video and see how deceiving it can be:
*www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvVfcyVCdNA

End of the month, out of bandwidth, will watch later.

 

[Faun]

Agreed again. But if you leave one liners, then the prospect of different interpretations rises exponentially.

am too lazy to write essays

I know very well that you have not discovered anything and I also know, you prefer faith over evidence. I have no problem with your personal believe, as long as you don't try to force it on to others.

I prefer my instincts. Try it, it never fails
Faith and evidence are a term too vague to believe, but it works within assumptions and majority approach
If you want to explore then start from yourself.

End of the month, out of bandwidth, will watch later.

as u wish

oh and for the matter of unknown, we are seeking out other planets whereas we don't know what lies beneath Oceans