Ohio Chatter DEV

HitsRus

They've done plenty of studies on prayer and found almost zero correlation with it affecting the health of individuals(or anything for that matter). Wikipedia has a great summary but feel free to read into each individual study. The reality is science is not going to waste their time on this kind of bullshit anymore.

FALSE. (why am I not surprised.)SMH.

From the article....

[LEFT]Krucoff has been studying prayer and spirituality since 1996 -- and practicing it much longer in his patient care. Earlier studies of the subject were small and often flawed, he says. Some were in the form of anecdotal reports: "descriptions of miracles ... in patients with cancer, pain syndromes, heart disease," he says."[Today,] we're seeing systematic investigations -- clinical research -- as well as position statements from professional societies supporting this research, federal subsidies from the NIH, funding from Congress," he tells WebMD. "All of these studies, all the reports, are remarkably consistent in suggesting the potential measurable health benefit associated with prayer or spiritual interventions."[/LEFT]

a new release that documents nearly 1,200 studies done on the effects of prayer on health.[LEFT]These studies show that religious people tend to live healthier lives. "They're less likely to smoke, to drink, to drink and drive," he says. In fact, people who pray tend to get sick less often, as separate studies conducted at Duke, Dartmouth, and Yale universities show. Some statistics from these studies:[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]Elderly people who never or rarely attended church had a stroke rate double that of people who attended regularly.[/LEFT]

[LEFT]In Israel, religious people had a 40% lower death rate from cardiovascular disease and cancer.[/LEFT]

Did you read anything of the article...at all?

cruiser_96

*threw

sleeper

Did you read anything of the article...at all?

I read the article. It's a shit article confusing correlation with causation. I never said coping mechanisms or positive thinking doesn't have benefits in the medical field; however the entire point was that prayer is effectively USELESS in actually solving any medical problems. If you want a medical problem solved, turn to medicine derived using the process of science rather than praying to a god who likely doesn't exist.

cruiser_96

James 5:16b

HitsRus

I want to see an experiment where they take two people, shoot them both in their femoral artery and have one person be sent to the hospital for doctors to heal and the other sent to church where an entire group just prays for them. Would you sign you or your children up for the one who gets the prayers? LOL

I can be even more juvenile than you! I want to see an experiment where 5000 people pray to hit the lottery just to see the state lottery director go bonkers!

sleeper

HitsRus;1605762 wrote:I can be even more juvenile than you! I want to see an experiment where 5000 people pray to hit the lottery just to see the state lottery director go bonkers!

Millions pray to win the lottery and I imagine someone who had prayed for a win actually won; GOD EXISTS. LOL

Believers are so delusional. Time to grow up!

HitsRus

It's a shit article confusing correlation with causation

you mean like evolution, string theory?

sleeper

HitsRus;1605772 wrote:you mean like evolution, string theory?

I don't really know much about string theory but yes there is an OVERWHELMING amount of evidence that evolution is real. I can't believe in 2014 that people still think evolution is made up. LOL

HitsRus

Millions pray to win the lottery and I imagine someone who had prayed for a win actually won; GOD EXISTS

Did I say that? ... yet that is the juvenile proof you demand. God don't care about baseball or the lottery, slick.

sleeper

HitsRus;1605775 wrote:Did I say that? ... yet that is the juvenile proof you demand. God don't care about baseball or the lottery, slick.

Does God care about the millions of children in Africa who die of HIV every year? I bet they just aren't praying hard enough! LOL

HitsRus

I tried to explain inductive reasoning to you before....you accept it for some things and not others. Is evolution a concluded fact or just a thoery?

HitsRus

Does God care about the millions of children in Africa who die of HIV every year? I bet they just aren't praying hard enough! LOL

There you go again with that stupid stuff. I've explained it to you twice. on this threaad in the past 5 days.

sleeper

HitsRus;1605779 wrote:I tried to explain inductive reasoning to you before....you accept it for some things and not others. Is evolution a concluded fact or just a thoery?

It's fact. Organisms evolve to adapt to their environment.

sleeper

HitsRus;1605781 wrote:There you go again with that stupid stuff. I've explained it to you twice. on this threaad in the past 5 days.

Not stupid. Does he care or not? Your all knowing powerful god that we cannot possible understand yet we have a book written in human language by people from him created HIV to kill millions of innocent children every year. This is the person whom you worship and want to spend the rest of your afterlife with. That is your reality.

jmog

BoatShoes;1605710 wrote:You must have missed this part:

Which you thankfully provided as proof all on your own. LOL!

Did you not see the one that had a half life of 24 days? Come on man, do I have to point out every single thing you just happen to skip over out of convenience?

You also completely ignore the fact that your original post that I quoted was 100% wrong about the Thorium isotope possibilities in the U-Pb decay chain. You 100% picked the wrong Thorium because you typed in thorium half life, saw one with a huge number to fit your belief, and copy/pasted. Come on, you can admit it when you are proven wrong, it is possible.

Let's pick easy numbers so that it is easy for you.

Let's say there is this mixture of isotopes in a Zirconium rock when the rock is first formed.

1000 Uranium 238 atoms
1000 Thorium 234 atoms
0 Lead 206 atoms

In less than 1 year the rock would contain

1000 Uranium 238 atoms
0 Thorium 234 atoms
1000 Lead 206 atoms

Just one single year...

Now, if I date that same rock using the current U-Pb dating method and current assumptions...I get a date of 2.2 billion years! Why? because I assumed that since I see no Thorium, there never was any Thorium...I see Uranium, so it must have all came from Uranium.

It is exactly like the baseball analogy I gave earlier, something (Thorium or outfielder) disappears from view and this leads to vastly different predictions/outcomes of the past origin.

It is not that hard to see how possible the scenario is when you look at it with an open mind and a little understanding of the science behind it instead of blind hatred.

pmoney25

jmog;1605814 wrote:Did you not see the one that had a half life of 24 days? Come on man, do I have to point out every single thing you just happen to skip over out of convenience?

You also completely ignore the fact that your original post that I quoted was 100% wrong about the Thorium isotope possibilities in the U-Pb decay chain. You 100% picked the wrong Thorium because you typed in thorium half life, saw one with a huge number to fit your belief, and copy/pasted. Come on, you can admit it when you are proven wrong, it is possible.

Let's pick easy numbers so that it is easy for you.

Let's say there is this mixture of isotopes in a Zirconium rock when the rock is first formed.

1000 Uranium 238 atoms
1000 Thorium 234 atoms
0 Lead 206 atoms

In less than 1 year the rock would contain

1000 Uranium 238 atoms
0 Thorium 234 atoms
1000 Lead 206 atoms

Just one single year...

Now, if I date that same rock using the current U-Pb dating method and current assumptions...I get a date of 2.2 billion years! Why? because I assumed that since I see no Thorium, there never was any Thorium...I see Uranium, so it must have all came from Uranium.

It is exactly like the baseball analogy I gave earlier, something (Thorium or outfielder) disappears from view and this leads to vastly different predictions/outcomes of the past origin.

It is not that hard to see how possible the scenario is when you look at it with an open mind and a little understanding of the science behind it instead of blind hatred.

Jmog, You may have already answered but do you believe it is possible for the earth to be billions of years old or do you think the science around aging is 100% wrong?

jmog

pmoney25;1605818 wrote:Jmog, You may have already answered but do you believe it is possible for the earth to be billions of years old or do you think the science around aging is 100% wrong?

I believe it is possible for sure, I even believe it is scientifically a more valid belief, but I wouldn't put it near 90% or 100% "most likely" scenario/belief.

If I was to put a number on it, scientifically speaking only no faith/belief, I would put it more like 75/25 in favor of old earth vs young earth with regards to where the evidence points. The problem is that MANY on both sides cherry pick their data and/or their assumptions and model the data to fit their belief instead of modeling their belief from the data.

cruiser_96

pmoney25;1605818 wrote:Jmog, You may have already answered but do you believe it is possible for the earth to be billions of years old or do you think the science around aging is 100% wrong?

Im not jmog, but there is no biblical statement that tesricts the earth to 6,000 to 10,000 years old. There is an undetermined amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

jmog

cruiser_96;1605850 wrote:Im not jmog, but there is no biblical statement that tesricts the earth to 6,000 to 10,000 years old. There is an undetermined amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Mostly correct, depending on how/who interprets that.

There is nothing theologically wrong (from what I understand) with that "gap" theory. It may cause other theological "problems" such billions of years of death before the "fall" but that is a theological discussion for those type of people, not a scientific one.

sleeper

cruiser_96;1605850 wrote:Im not jmog, but there is no biblical statement that tesricts the earth to 6,000 to 10,000 years old. There is an undetermined amount of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

And even if there was, it would all be made up anyway like everything else in the bible.

jmog

sleeper;1605861 wrote:And even if there was, it would all be made up anyway like everything else in the bible.

So are you saying that the Babylonian Empire didn't exist, didn't have a king named Nebuchadnezzar, that the Jews weren't enslaved for generations by the Egyptians, that a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist and wasn't known as a rabbi?

The whole book is just made up?

dlazz

#blessed

sleeper

jmog;1605869 wrote:So are you saying that the Babylonian Empire didn't exist, didn't have a king named Nebuchadnezzar, that the Jews weren't enslaved for generations by the Egyptians, that a historical figure named Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist and wasn't known as a rabbi?

The whole book is just made up?

Correct. There are plenty of books that use historical figures or themes in it but are 100% made up. The bible is no different and I can't believe you are older than 15 and still believe its non-fiction. Time to grow up.

cruiser_96

sleeper;1605861 wrote:And even if there was, it would all be made up anyway like everything else in the bible.

So you now you don't even believe in the Roman Empire, Israel, Galatia, Egypt, or Greece???

You can have your own opinion, but not your own truth. Good luck, and Godspeed, sleeper.

jmog

sleeper;1605877 wrote:Correct. There are plenty of books that use historical figures or themes in it but are 100% made up. The bible is no different and I can't believe you are older than 15 and still believe its non-fiction. Time to grow up.

You just proved your ignorance on the subject.

It is one thing to believe that nothing in Genesis prior to Moses is all a fairy tale, that all the "miracles" are bogus, that the future prophecies are bunk, etc.
However, to say that the parts that are historical writings are all made up is hilariously inaccurate.

Archive

Can Science and Religion co exist?