Re: views of academic scientists

Reading from news:talk.origins,
wf3h <wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted:

On Apr 5, 4:14 am, Damaeus <no-m...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reading from news:talk.origins,
wf3h <w...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> posted:

tell you what: go find the study on the effects of psychological
outlook on breast cancer.

No. You just don't want to take the time to explain it in your own words
because you've just accepted someone else's word since it suits your
beliefs.\\

a cliche you've learned from some post modernist screed.

That is not a cliche. It's an observation I made on my own. But I see
that in one statement you've made a whole assload of incorrect assumptions
that go against every aspect of critical thinking. For you to make that
statement would require you to actually /see/ me learning that from
someone else, such as seeing me read or hear someone else say that before
me. I'm not sure what you see in there that's a cliche, but I didn't
learn it from anyone else.

talk about not being able to think for youself!

And you turn those incorrect assumptions into an insult.

the language of science has precision.

But apparently you're selective about what you want to be precise about.

that's why we use it.

A lot of good it does you, if you won't think as precisely as you try to
communicate. And I said think, not make wild assumptions then believe
them to the point of calling the other person a liar for denying your
conclusions.

I can't help it if you want to talk in vague, fuzzy, warm feeling
type words

What words have I used do you find warm and fuzzy?

about ideas that have a sharp, scientific meaning.

And I've said I'm not a trained scientist, but I have a general
understanding of Biology. Hell, I even scored a 98 for the first semester
of biology in high school.

that's your problem, not mine.

From my perspective, that's like you telling me that I should think for
you and adjust your perceptions to read my messages properly.

for thousands of years people tried it your way.....

What is it that you think I'm trying, and what is it that you think is "my
way"?

and it failed. sorry

What failed? For someone claiming to be so precise with language, you're
not doing a very good job of explaining yourself. All you can do is
provide search terms for Google. You can't really explain anything,
apparently, in the way a genius would. You can only explain it to another
scientist, not to an average person.

result: none.

That's the past. The past is not indicative of the future. The past is
lessons to make the future better than the past.

meaningless

Nice accuracy with language there. You just say it means nothing to you.
Which is basically saying that you don't understand.

I'll break it down for you a little. Just because the past was a certain
way doesn't mean the future will be. People expect the future to repeat
the past. But it doesn't have to. That you couldn't understand that from
the above statement says to me that you might understand the language of
science, but you don't understand the language of english.

same with prayer. no effect.

You can't say "no" effect, because not all effects were even gauged. Did
you monitor her status at the cellular level?

what was monitored was the prediction of the people who thought prayer
worked.

For that kind of test to work, you'd have to have the expectation that
prayer causes some miraculous, 100% immediate healing of all ails. Based
on that, /you/ would say that there was no effect at all. What I'm saying
is that the power of prayer could be cumulative. Pray for it over time,
and you may see your cancer mysteriously go into remission. Certainly not
an instant cure, but the effect of prayer over time has an effect on the
body that can be measured.

that's how science works.

But it wasn't a very good experiment because science unfairly expected
Samantha's magic of Bewitched to suddenly heal people. Biology doesn't
work that way, so that science set the experiment up that way says to me
that the people setting it up were either not doing it fairly, or were not
expecting the right things.

it tests predictions of theories.

When done correctly, yes.

and your crap about the 'cellular level' wouldn't even exist if you
hadn't learned about cells from scientists

I learned about cells in school. What's crap about monitoring something
at the cellular level? You, a scientist calls this crap? What is your
specific field?

do the contradictions in your position even begin to penetrate your
thinking?

There are no contradictions. You're just trying to stuff what I really am
into some kind of convenient perception package so you can insult me and
my posts. Why you're doing this... I can only assume you're tired of
dealing with idiots, so you're trying to turn me into one so you can make
fun of me. I know what I'm talking about. I just can't say it in a way
that satisifies you. So the contradictions you're seeing are not
contradictions, but assumptions that I don't really know what the words
mean that I'm using. You've got to pretend that I have some perception
you've dreamed up in order to have the view that my posts are
self-contradictory. From my perspective, they are not.

Did you monitor her blood sugar, heart rate, body temperature,
facial expressions, etc... during prayer? I'd say that the body is
having the experience of prayer and the satisfaction of hoping for
more life has a positive effect that extends life a bit more than it
would have been given otherwise. But since there's no way to know
how things turn out except how they turn out, then to say prayer has
no effect is false. Prayer, itself, is the effect. Hope is the
cause of prayer.

fine. then tossing salt over one's shoulder works just as well.

If one believes it does, there's no harm in it. It's a learning
experience. If someone tosses salt over their shoulder, for whatever
effect that's supposed to have (I'm not familiar with superstitions since
I don't believe in them), if the effect they were expecting did not
manifest after several times, they would soon learn that tossing salt over
their shoulder has no effect, so it's safe to give up the superstition and
guard against similar ones in the future until exploring them more
thoroughly.

no difference.

Throwing salt over your should, if you believe it will make you feel
better, will make you feel better, whether it has its intended effect. I
had to look it up and found this on Wiki:

Throwing salt over your shoulder is akin to blessing someone after
they've sneezed -- it's a way of keeping the devil at bay while
you're in an especially vulnerable moment.

See, that's just silly. One quick action of throwing salt over the
shoulder. But prayer is more involved, more emotional for people, so it
has a greater effect than just a quick flick of the wrist. Since they're
truly more into prayer, the inner experience of it is what causes
"comforting chemicals" to be released in the brain. It is these chemicals
which affect how the body reads and responds to itself with
self-diagnosing, self-repairing information for the immune system. And I
think the immune system does more than keep you immune. I think it's
ultimately designed to also improve the body once it can have the rest and
repose to be still...which is the point of making our lives physically
easier -- so we /can/ rest more, and repair more.

making funny faces in the mirror works, too.

If you spend more time doing it, it has more of an effect than throwing
salt over the shoulder.

anything works just as well as prayer. so does nothing.

That's true, too. Prayer is just one choice of experience over another.
But it's one that brings satisfaction to the person who owns and must take
care of their body. How they choose to do that is their own choices, and
since people who pray have about the same recovery rate as people who
don't, there's no point in being critical of those who do pray. Depends
on how much heart you put into it as to its effect. You can't really be a
praying liar.

I didn't say they were. Thinking back, I mixed some terms up, but what
got me excited was this paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA

Messenger RNA (mRNA) is the RNA that carries information from DNA
to the ribosome, the sites of protein synthesis (translation) in
the cell. The coding sequence of the mRNA determines the amino
acid sequence in the protein that is produced.[20] Many RNAs do
not code for protein however. These non-coding RNAs can be
encoded by their own genes (RNA genes), but can also derive from
mRNA introns.[21] The most prominent examples of non-coding RNAs
are transfer RNA (tRNA) and ribosomal RNA (rRNA), both of which
are involved in the process of translation.[14] There are also
non-coding RNAs involved in gene regulation, RNA processing and
other roles. Certain RNAs are able to catalyse chemical reactions
such as cutting and ligating other RNA molecules,[22] and the
catalysis of peptide bond formation in the ribosome;[16] these are
known as ribozymes.

That whole process describes to me a function in which a kind of
moment-by-moment diagnosis of your physiological state is made

i see you've inserted your own idea of what 'diagnosis' means

What do you think I think it means? Since from my perspective you are
trying to force me to hold definitions of terms I don't know.

diagnosis - a careful examination and analysis of the facts in an
attempt to understand or explain something

What's doing the careful examination is the body's own senses, including
its ability to read its own genetic code...which it can do, by some
strange miracle. The body has information about what it should be, or
else we'd be born, then instantly begin deforming into piles of faceless
flesh.

and simply made up an application that involves DNA and RNA.

No. I have said I'm trying to figure out how the body could make itself
immortal, and I think the functioning of RNA and DNA hold some clues. That
seems to be the most logical place for any immortality process to get
started.

great. anyone can play the game.

I'm not playing games.

of course, people did that for thousands of years. only they used
'demons' and 'ghosts' where you use "DNA' and "RNA'. same
difference.

I didnt make up DNA and RNA. I learned about them in biology class, and
have learned more about them over the years by reading science articles
about them. I've just cleared up yet another of your incorrect
assumptions. You thought that my idea of DNA and RNA were some strange
ghosts buzzing around my head. They're not. They've been proven to exist
by science. I'd think that someone claiming to know as much about science
would have been aware of this. -.-

, and this DNA translation process constantly works to "refresh"
your state of being.

more meaningless terms. DNA doesn't 'refresh' anything.

If DNA doesn't refresh anything, how is it that life has survived all
these years? How could we remain alive if we did not have DNA?

The coding sequence of the mRNA determines the amino acid sequence
in the protein that is produced

That coding sequence, I think, is the result of that physiological
diagnosis of the moment. It's the next instruction set to be run to
decide how to handle the body.

i disagree. i think it's people on the planets surrounding vega that
have an effect. they belong to the universal choir and are big fans of
randy travis.

That's not very likely. What happens with a person's body is most likely
connected to the sensations that person is having, and how they're
thinking. That would have more of an effect than anything around Vega.
Your idea is too new-agey for me to really consider too heavily because of
the distances involved. Or maybe you're playing games.

they do not contain the same information. they are processed
differently by the body.

Yeah. The body is doing lots of different things. So my question is
this. Is the DNA the same throughout the body, no matter what kind of
cell it is? Or is DNA from the liver different from DNA from the lungs or
the skin? Would all the DNA in these different cells have the same
genetic coding? Are black people black because their skin cells contain
genes for black skin? Or is it because their entire body is loaded with
genes that say you will have black skin?

the EXPRESSION of genes is different in different populations and
the frequency of alleles is diifferent. that's why some people
have blue eyes or brown hair.people with blue eyes have alleles
for eye color that differ from those with brown

That would have been more informative if each question had been given a
short answer. But you seem to be saying that the alleles are the same
throughout the body, but express themselves differently depending on what
body part they're working for. Alleles for intestines, then, would be the
same as the ones for eyeballs, but would behave differently since you
don't want eyeballs growing in your intestines. Is that pretty much
correct?

you wander like a drunken sailor. YOU were the one who said god's DNA
was preserved in the big bang or some other nonsense.

Yes. I was being sarcastic in a way. But you are basing your views on
experimental models ONLY.

correct. because this WORKS in our efforts to understand nature.
nature doesnt care about our psychology, our beliefs or anything
else about us. nature exists apart from us and only the
experimental method helps us understand it. if we bring our
relgiion into it we will distort our understanding of nature

I understand that. But I think an immortality process will come about as
a natural course of evolution, not by praying for it. I'm just trying to
anticipate where it would most likely start. The interaction of DNA and
RNA, based on what I /do/ understand about biology, seems to be the most
likely place.

You seem to be refusing to even speculate about an idea long
enough to take what you know already to see if you can speculate
about possible experiments that might lead in the direction of
immortality,

and you seem to think this is a new idea. when are you mystical
magical fuzzy feeling people

Another incorrect assumption. I am not a mystical, magical, fuzzy-feeling
person. I know the type you're referring to and I've dealt with those
people, myself.

ever going to learn your ideas are old, rotten, stinking, useless
and a failure?

My idea is not a failure. My idea is immortality through natural,
biological processes, not prayer. Since it hasn't happened, it's not a
failure. Evolution just isn't finished.

I can't keep track of arguments you yourself make and do not
understand.

I understand this from lots of angles. I just can't explain it from your
specific one.

my way works. your way? it was used 5000 years ago.

I said "angles" not "angels". My way has worked for billions of years.
I'm just trying to see where an immortality process might be jumpstarted
in the body.

and lit was as useless then as it is today

That we're able to have this conversation says otherwise to me. We
obviously function.

IOW you did not read what i wrote.

What I pasted /is/ what you wrote.

your own reference shows why you're a liar.

But that reference is archived on usenet. How am I a liar when the proof
is all right here in this post???

because you said i am against teaching COMPARATIVE Religion.

All I ever said was that you're against them even having their own
classroom in a public school. And I never claimed you were against
comparative religion. I accused you of believing that I thought
comparative religion should be taught in a gnostic study class. I never
said that comparative religion should even be taught in any kind of
gnostic class or a class about creationism. Comparative religion classes
belong in some sort of historical studies class, not gnostic studies.

I am not.

I'm not, either. I just think comparative religion is sort of a
side-topic from gnostic investigations because it involves studying how
other people practice a faith while you live your own truth. Gnosis is
about personal truth. Comparative religion studies is about studying how
other people live their lives now and how life was lived in the past. That
belongs more in a history class about what people did, more than what we
should do now.

I am against teaching religion as TRUTH.

I'm for teaching how religion has been practiced as truth presented by
subjective observation since we can't actually live in the past, but only
study records and archaeological evidence. I'm against teaching a
specific behavior as a truth that would bring about miraculous
manifestations.

and you distorted my words.

Where, specifically? Point out what I wrote that was a distortion... I
mean quote exactly what I wrote so I can reread it and clarify it. I'm
not trying to distort words, so you might have misunderstood me.

that's why you're wrong

Wrong about what? Please be more specific than making "wrong" just a
general statement of everything about me.

Damaeus
--
This signature space was intentionally not left blank.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: views of academic scientists
    ... of this is related to psychology nor can they be cured by psychology. ... distorts the data that is trying to be read back into the DNA. ... DNA and RNA are not converted into ... what i referenced was CREATIONISM not comparative religion. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: views of academic scientists
    ... what was monitored was the prediction of the people who thought prayer ... Messenger RNA is the RNA that carries information from DNA ... encoded by their own genes, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Biochemistry of Genetic Mechanisms
    ... RNA, the same 20 amino acids & ATP) and many identical or nearly ... guanine & cytosine) in DNA. ... protein, acts as a template for the synthesis of RNA in transcription. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: RNA World
    ... Proteins are phenotype. ... clues from present life back into the RNA world and even earlier. ... reason why you think that polypeptides appeared before DNA. ... Polypeptides offer a much wider variety of activity and much finer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: More shotgunning of ocean microbial ecology.
    ... But OOL and evolution are two very different topics, ... I see you present some additinal reasons why "RNA world" likely came ... before our current DNA world, ... did you specify a sequence of steps involved ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)