Evidence for God from Science

The study was repeated a couple times and no correlation was found. A qualification for a good scientific experiment is that it must be repeatable.
It could be sheer coincidence if the patients that were picked to be in the prayer group had better odds of survival for instance than the ones in the non-prayer group in the inital study rather than fraud.

JF wrote:So you think it is the real deal? You think this study was real and not entirely a hoax?

You'll have to make up your own mind, but I see no hard reason to consider it a hoax.

One must wonder why it is still in a prestine journal when CSICOP reckoned it would be removed. This in itself is evidence against the credibility of CSICOP's words. Now CSICOP don't have a response about why it was published, but my response is that it was published because it passed the peer-review process which is setup to filter out inauthentic studies. Therefore I place my faith in the hands of the peer-review process, more than some secular conspiracy theory that only has persuasive rhetoric rather than real compelling evidence.

One can only think that it would have certainly been taken out the medical journal if indeed it was everything CSICOP cracked it out to be. The fact that it hasn't been taken out, says you can trust the study more than CSICOP in my opinion.

Kurieuo.

vajaradakini wrote:The study was repeated a couple times and no correlation was found. A qualification for a good scientific experiment is that it must be repeatable.

That the results of an experiment must be repeatable in order to qualify as acceptable? Why does macroevolution get a free ride then... By the way, have you got links to the repeated studies? If they exist, I'd be interested to know the differences or similarities between them.

Now the thing about the miraculous is that they're not meant to happen. If "miracles" normally happened, or could be repeated under certain conditions at whim, then discussion of them would be pointless.

vajaradakini wrote:It could be sheer coincidence if the patients that were picked to be in the prayer group had better odds of survival for instance than the ones in the non-prayer group in the inital study rather than fraud.

It could be a big coincidence, and I wonder why CSICOP didn't simply take this approach? Yet, it seems that by the seriousness they have (and other skeptics) treated the study. This leads me to conclude that the result is quite astonishing in and of itself.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:That the results of an experiment must be repeatable in order to qualify as acceptable? Why does macroevolution get a free ride then...

It doesn't. There aren't real experiments that can be done with it, but the theory is tested in other ways, such as through unearthing fossil evidence. If there was a fossil that was completely out of place then they would have to change the theory to encompass the new find.

By the way, have you got links to the repeated studies? If they exist, I'd be interested to know the differences or similarities between them.

I read it in the paper some time ago. Tomorrow I migh ttry to dig up some online refrences, but i doubt I should be procrastinating as much as I already am (4 assignments due tomorrow of which I have finished two... eep)

Now the thing about the miraculous is that they're not meant to happen. If "miracles" normally happened, or could be repeated under certain conditions at whim, then discussion of them would be pointless.

Well, then the entire study is rather pointless. As miracles only happen on the whim of god, which may not mean that only certain people are to be saved, then it is pointless to make a scientific study out of it. It woudl be dishonest to only include the studies where it worked, and if you can't count the studies where it doesn't work as god not wanting them to happen at that time then well... We're at a loss.

It could be a big coincidence, and I wonder why CSICOP didn't simply take this approach? Yet, it seems that by the seriousness they have (and other skeptics) treated the study. This leads me to conclude that the result is quite astonishing in and of itself.

Some people figure that if they give the opposition an inch, they'll take a mile. You can often see such examples on young earth creationist websites if you wish to see the christian side doing such things as well. Oh my, the abuses of science there... and of course, I don't think a single phd on those websites has a phd in anything remotely related to biology or biochemistry or anything that would qualify them to make scientific commentary on the subject.

vajaradakini wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:That the results of an experiment must be repeatable in order to qualify as acceptable? Why does macroevolution get a free ride then...

It doesn't. There aren't real experiments that can be done with it, but the theory is tested in other ways, such as through unearthing fossil evidence. If there was a fossil that was completely out of place then they would have to change the theory to encompass the new find.

Exactly my point, it is still accepted despite any "change" making the evolutionary tree with branches into more of a lawn.

vaj wrote:Some people figure that if they give the opposition an inch, they'll take a mile. You can often see such examples on young earth creationist websites if you wish to see the christian side doing such things as well. Oh my, the abuses of science there... and of course, I don't think a single phd on those websites has a phd in anything remotely related to biology or biochemistry or anything that would qualify them to make scientific commentary on the subject.

And this effects or matters to me because? My point still stands that CSICOP could have taken a different approach to "not given an inch" (specifically the one you mention—coincidence). The fact they didn't reveals many think the study is significant by itself if true.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Exactly my point, it is still accepted despite any "change" making the evolutionary tree with branches into more of a lawn.

...you expect it to be a nice neat little development with no dead ends? How many family members do you have who have never reproduced and are thus dead ends on the branch of your family tree? Extrapolate that from an individual to an entire species (who may have been wiped out by disease or drastic environmental change or perhaps like the dodo... human interference)

The fact they didn't reveals many think the study is significant by itself if true.

Well, with the way people carry on about it as though it's proof of god or some such. Some people do think it's such a big deal. Would you be defending the study if it meant nothing?

vajaradakini wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Exactly my point, it is still accepted despite any "change" making the evolutionary tree with branches into more of a lawn.

...you expect it to be a nice neat little development with no dead ends? How many family members do you have who have never reproduced and are thus dead ends on the branch of your family tree? Extrapolate that from an individual to an entire species (who may have been wiped out by disease or drastic environmental change or perhaps like the dodo... human interference)

I'm not talking about "dead ends", I'm talking about convergence, the punctuated appearance of species... the tree becomes more like lawn rather than the gradualism a tree represents. But I think the discussions becoming side-tracked—we shouldn't be talking about evolution here...

vaj wrote:

The fact they didn't reveals many think the study is significant by itself if true.

Well, with the way people carry on about it as though it's proof of god or some such. Some people do think it's such a big deal. Would you be defending the study if it meant nothing?

Actually, I'm only defending to correct the "propaganda" JesusFreak linked to at the start. He believed the reference to it within an article should have been removed, and challenged the credibility of the study. I contacted Rich about it on JF's behalf, Rich looked into it and found the criticism wanting, he posted a response back to me, I looked into it further myself, and then I simply passed the results back here.

Perhaps I should have just deleted the original post, and that way, there wouldn't have been any need for any kind of rationale or defense for its use? But then GodandScience (although I'm not responsible for the articles on the website), would have been accused of "dodging the issue," or "closed-mindedness." Either way it's lose-lose I suppose.

Kurieuo.