*** Science Or God? ***

[karmanya]

I have to believe that there are some forces that science doesn't understand. Remember that compared to religion, modern science is nothing more than a baby. Will science reach a point where we have more answers? I believe it will. Till then all we can do is ask.
To fuel the debate- What's the difference between a person in a beta coma and a dead person?

[karnivore]

Originally Posted by mediator

But believing theories, like big bang having so much boom n that of evolution, as facts is a sign of a mind that needs plenty of help n rest.

Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.

Originally Posted by mediator

Relying on science is good! But u need to know how science goes & progresses then.

In other words, I have to know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, bla and bla. Otherwise I will have to follow some kinda herd, which, we are given to believe, is a sign of mediocrity.

Time to bring my dog back.


About the brain dead woman, there are hundreds of criticism all over the net. I will give just one.
www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2007/09/25/is_she_conscious/
A minor correction though. "Vegetative State" is not equal to "Brain Dead"

Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karnivore

Yes, believing in reincarnation/ OBE/ Spiritual Hypnosis and all kind of imaginary pink unicorns make perfect sense.

Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.

Originally Posted by karnivore

In other words, I have to know everything about physics, chemistry, biology, bla and bla. Otherwise I will have to follow some kinda herd, which, we are given to believe, is a sign of mediocrity.

Skepticism only looks good when you actually know even remotely about the subject! But heck, here we have someone who forwarded James Randi n the "randomised trials", even though having told N times that its patient specific! So, yes u actually lost complete track of ur herd.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Edited To Add: OOPS, I almost forgot. You did not "specifically ask" us to consider your links as source. Hmmmm........thinking of deleting my reference

Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?

Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.

[karnivore]

Originally Posted by mediator

Nope, not rejecting is not equal to believing! Its high time that materialists start passing a few aptitude tests now.

Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?

Uh...OK...

Originally Posted by mediator

Skepticism only looks good when you actually know even remotely about the subject! But heck, here we have someone who forwarded James Randi n the "randomised trials", even though having told N times that its patient specific! So, yes u actually lost complete track of ur herd.

Guess, you have never heard of MATERIA MEDICA. Also, I wonder, why are homeopathinc medicines sold, off-the-shelf/ over-the-counter. (Are you saying that the largest homeopathic medicine manufacturing company, Boiron is wrong and duping people ?) Don't think you are even aware of the fact, that in USA, homeopathic medicines are sold as health supplements and not as medicines. Which means, that anybody can walk in a store and buy it. *sigh*

And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies).

Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse.

Originally Posted by mediator

Well I don't think materialists are that retarded to have any problem to understand that. Do u form an exception?

Want me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?

Originally Posted by mediator

Back to ur drawing board : Can science explain everything? I wonder why my questions that I asked a long time back still haven't got any answer to them.

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

And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?]

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karnivore

Let me get this straight. You are not rejecting pink unicorns ? Instead mocking science ?

Now who told u that I'm mocking science? Not believing blindly is not equal to mocking science. Not treating theories as facts does not mean one is being unscientific. I wonder how naive materialists can be.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Also, I wonder, why are homeopathinc medicines sold, off-the-shelf/ over-the-counter. (Are you saying that the largest homeopathic medicine manufacturing company, Boiron is wrong and duping people ?) Don't think you are even aware of the fact, that in USA, homeopathic medicines are sold as health supplements and not as medicines. Which means, that anybody can walk in a store and buy it. *sigh*

And it is strange, why, when homeopathic medicines are individual specific, the homeopathic doctors would practice, clinical homeopathy or complex homeopathy or even, isopathy ? Then, there are homeopathic research that claims homeopathy works - scratch a little bit and hey presto, none of those are "individual specific". In fact, Shang et al simply repeated those non-individualised studies done by homeopaths and found the results to be -ve, but look at the criticisms, and one would get the impression, Shang et al had devised their own studies. (Not to mention that they did repeat 18 of the "individualised" studies).

Hmmm........someone seems to be so close to his herd, that he is now sniffing their arse.

Forget about "double blind" and 'randomised trials", it seems u didn't even get the basics of "proving" and medicines that fits the cases also to be asking some silly question as in bolds!

Originally Posted by karnivore

ant me to copy/paste your memorable comments ?

Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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

Ah, the faith of a materialist!

Originally Posted by karnivore

And those questions would be ? [Twice your arse has been beaten to pulp, once by @sreevirus and once by yours truly, still hungry for more?

"Mom see...I won, I won"? How cute! U r sure high on psychedelic drugs, that u r with serotonin levels on the loose again?

Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them?

I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!

[karnivore]

Originally Posted by mediator

Now who told u that I'm mocking science? Not believing blindly is not equal to mocking science. Not treating theories as facts does not mean one is being unscientific. I wonder how naive materialists can be.

Okie dokie. So you are not rejecting any pink unicorn ? In that case....

Forget about "double blind" and 'randomised trials", it seems u didn't even get the basics of "proving" and medicines that fits the cases also to be asking some silly question as in bolds!

Thats mediatorspeak for "I don't know what hell you are talking about, so I will pretend to look the other way and bring in a staw-man argument."

Good call.

Originally Posted by mediator

Ah sure, entertain me as u wish, that u will!

Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37

Originally Posted by mediator

Ah, the faith of a materialist!

Lets see now. Should I have faith in something that has given me this notebook or this internet or that aeroplane or this car or that refrigerator or this microwave oven or that fMRI or this cell phone or.....?

Hell yeah

"Mom see...I won, I won"?

Mom see...we won, we won. YABA DABA DOOOOOOOOOO.

Funny, The same old "keyboard commando" who said Dr.Novella has already explored the case of that hypnotism case is talking bt "arses" and his favourite pulp from them?

Of course, why not. I see yours splattered all over the threads you post in.

I wonder how the materialists can even live in such a narrow minded world of them, n then they hallucinate, have nightmares, think of theories as facts n think of themselves as some experts with some self-righteous opinions!

Have you been....

[sreevirus]

@mediator: And these are facts, right?

The atomic energy fissions the ninety-nine elements, covering its path by the bombardments of neutrons without let or hindrance. Desirous of stalking the head, ie. The chief part of the swift power, hidden in the mass of molecular adjustments of the elements, this atomic energy approaches it in the very act of fissioning it by the above-noted bombardment. Herein, verily the scientists know the similar hidden striking force of the rays of the sun working in the orbit of the moon." (Atharva-veda 20.41.1-3)

I can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?


Uhhhhhhhh....



Cough cough ... what was the overlord of the real 5 space?

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karnivore

Okie dokie. Post #35, #36, #37

LOL n u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge! May u cud not "comprehend" the words in very simple English.....

Originally Posted by mediator

But neways, for all those who want to take a break from this troll thread, Here's a more serious discussion,

I clearly told that people can watch much worthy/serious ongoing debate. It doesn't mean a "source" or a "reference" that I don't remember to have put up to back up my claims/posts, but a debate that one can look at instead of a troll thread.
And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will.
I hope the chicken pox is over.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Lets see now. Should I have faith in something that has given me this notebook or this internet or that aeroplane or this car or that refrigerator or this microwave oven or that fMRI or this cell phone or.....?

Oh da baby whines! SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly! Psychedelic drugs....hmmm?

Originally Posted by srivirus

I can't recall the meaning of the word scientific now! DAMN! I've developed Alzheimer's.
Oh and I just forgot what hallucination means. Gotta look that up in the OED. Oh wait, isn't that a word that mediator uses in almost all of his arguments?

Rather ur post has made me even more hungry and dig deeper into what is original! Thanx for that.

Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?

So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place! Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.

So if u r willing to discuss seriously, don't vanish next time, when I ask some questions, saying "Oh I have exams"!

Originally Posted by srivirus

Silence on our part would only encourage gullible minds who would come across these sort of debates to accept these kind of malarkey as truth. The least we can do is to play our part as skeptics and make people think twice

It wud be better if u limit ur role on to that instead of giving expert opinions and marking it with ur limited vocablury like "crap/garbage/wateva" where the peers r still exploring on the subjects, n then the materialists say "Lets wait for the peer review". But heck "Forget the peers, we shall give the expert opinions and remarks ourselves". Srivirusaya namah!

[Faun]

lolz
* Why people are recognizing the essence of Vedas ? Is it orthodox to believe in it if it works ? What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare).
* Try to learn Vedic maths. You will know how hard it was to multiply numbers in conventional ways.
* Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.
* Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.
* 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 ?
* Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.

[karnivore]

Originally Posted by mediator

u win the great INDIAN laughter challenge

Ahem...where do i collect my prize ?

Originally Posted by mediator

I clearly told that people can watch much worthy/serious ongoing debate. It doesn't mean a "source" or a "reference" that I don't remember to have put up to back up my claims/posts, but a debate that one can look at instead of a troll thread.

Now its time for my favourite Panda.

SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly!

Exactly what was expected of you. The ill effects are because of how WE use our scientific knowledge. E=MC^2 can generate power and light up millions of homes or kill millions of people. How it is used is not Einstein's fault.

Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.

The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.

Originally Posted by mediator

...u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few?

I though Final Theory was dealt with.

Originally Posted by mediator

I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda.

Whats with that. Remove spirituality and it might work, at least not as bunk and baseless as homeopathy. Asprin is made from the bark of willow tree, belonging to the genus Salix. Digitalis is derived from a category of foxgrove plants. Neem is one good example. As long as its about using natural ingredients, it may work, although limited to common ailments. Complex diseases and modern viruses or bacteria can't be dealt with primitive knowledge.

There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.

So whats the big deal.

Originally Posted by T159

What science is giving us had been already Vedas (it was already there and we searched the whole universe to see that we took the million dollar worth efforts to find it instead utilizing it on human welfare)

Thats something that comes out of a bull's behind.

Originally Posted by T159

Try to learn Vedic maths.

We did invent the ZERO, and contribute to modern mathematics, but there is no such thing as Vedic maths. Maths is maths. You never hear Egyptian maths, although we are all aware of Egyptians contribution to geometry and trigonometry.

Originally Posted by T159

Science is just another cult that did more bad than good. I wonder next moment you could be sitting(or may be a part of it) on a pile of human ashes fried by WW 3.

Again, confusing the knowlege with practice.

Originally Posted by T159

Pick the best things from everything. Its not that everything except one thing is crap, its just you are too adamant.

Welcome to reality. Everything except science is indeed a big pile of BS.

Originally Posted by T159

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.

Originally Posted by T159

Lastly, we are not the supreme power here, we have limitations, may be there could be some other organ to complement it. We have a brain, heart and few other organs to judge, but still a third eye wouldn't hurt. We could be able to see the another dimension. Or may be a little bit more truth and a bit more detail, but still limited.

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.

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karnivore

Exactly what was expected of you. The ill effects are because of how WE use our scientific knowledge. E=MC^2 can generate power and light up millions of homes or kill millions of people. How it is used is not Einstein's fault.

Science is the knowledge. How we use that knowledge is entirely our choice. You are as usual, confusing the practice with knowledge.

The way you have posed the question, it seems we would be better off if we could take a million steps back to the stone age.

Your usual childish tone is less intense here. Neways, The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do. Even with the so many evidences, people like to ignore it and few even go one step beyond and call em as crap. Just like u did some research of that nuclear evidence in ANCIENT INDIA, u could have done the same for HOMEOPATHY. Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda. I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago, but it wud have been better if u had actually posted from where u copied all that stuff instead of marking it as your own. The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested! Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same. Just go back and read all that we discussed and how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy. Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.
"Limited laws"? I read laws are supposed to be universal, absolute! I won't repeat it all and agree science is the knowledge and Veda in sanskrit means "Knowledge" itself. But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!

Originally Posted by karnivore

I though Final Theory was dealt with.

I think u were down with chicken pox when I quoted that reviewer's pdf of 33 pages and asked a few questions, all of which remain unanswered!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Whats with that. Remove spirituality and it might work, at least not as bunk and baseless as homeopathy. Asprin is made from the bark of willow tree, belonging to the genus Salix. Digitalis is derived from a category of foxgrove plants. Neem is one good example. As long as its about using natural ingredients, it may work, although limited to common ailments. Complex diseases and modern viruses or bacteria can't be dealt with primitive knowledge.
There is no reason to go ga-ga about ayurveda. All ancient civilizations like the Mayans, Egyptians or Chinese all had their own medicinal knowledge based on plants and shrubs. Of course, much of it was based on placebo, but many actually worked.

And thats where u witness ignorance at its best. That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs where we have plethora of side effects and then u take another medicine to cure that! U can do ur homework well in this regard and actually learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!

Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!

The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!

We are no experts but people who hold interest in such knowledge, but just like u gave a few links to @T159, similarly u can clear ur skepticism in the forums of the relevant subjects we discussed instead of guessing and opining! So who won? I am not here to win. Are u?

[sreevirus]

Originally Posted by mediator

Oh da baby whines! SHould I also have faith in something that is depleting ozone layer, causing serious side effects, health hazards, polluting the rivers and all? And so u shud understand the reality, how science works, how things works and how ur body reacts accordingly! Psychedelic drugs....hmmm?

If I use a pencil to stab and murder someone, who is evil, me or the pencil? If you can't fugure out the obvious answer, then there is no point in taking this matter further.

Originally Posted by mediator

Like I said, I'm not here to win or defeat, feel victorious or defeated! My talk was more based on "Science is there in Vedas and was in past". I still don't see u saying anything bt Ayurveda. Cough cough Meera Nanda?

Likewise, no one is here to win or lose. But the only thing we are doing is debunking pseudoscience.

And would you let Meera Nanda rest in peace for a while? Her topic was more against superstitions among the scientific Indian people and compartmentalization of science and faith among Indians in general. Why are you trying to hold on to any twig that you find suitable?

What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing.

Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?

Like karnivore said, there has been such knowledge in every civilization, like the Mayans, the Aztecs, the Egyptians, the Chinese and Native Americans. There have been witch doctors too, and some people still believe in them, and they, like you, have their own reasoning to their beliefs, but those reasoning don't necessarily have to be rational and scientific.

I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures.

I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.

Originally Posted by mediator

So if u r done with ur exams, u can post replies to the questions that I asked u n to those where the reviewer of the Final Theory agrees. I wonder why materialists want their every question to be asnwered straight and scatter away when I ask a few? Thats not called a discussion in the first place!

How many times do I have to tell you? I read things that were scientifically critical of the Final theory. I do not necessarily have to agree with any other nonsense that a reviewer might have said. I guess I know how to filter out stuff.

Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about my exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.

Originally Posted by mediator

Cough cough the universe (observable?), the boundaries, the rotation, revolution, testabilty, dark <wateva> to name a few? I ask again do u even comprehend what a "theory" is? Most satisfying doesn't mean anything to support ur childish claims.

OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity.

and

In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

ALSO

Originally Posted by National Academy of Sciences

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

I hope you can comprehend the differences in the usage of the word with respect to the context now. Don't confuse the word theory here with its literary meaning.

BTW, no scientist worth his salt would ever come up with a scientific theory out of thin air.

Well, if a "scientific theory" didn't satisfy you, maybe you could provide a sound reasoning for that. But what is irking is that you continually fall for "theories" made up by unscientific sources and even an ounce of such stuff will make you go ballistic against more concrete ideas. Why do have this chronic problem with theories like the big bang and evolution that you keep barking about them in every other post of yours? If it is a matter of satisfaction, then only you can help yourself.

Originally Posted by mediator

Also, I have no motive to compare chinese's, mayan's or egyptian's equivalents of Ayurveda. If they had, then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few? U talk of peers and their review, then go and learn what the peers talk of the Vedas!

So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.
And did you yourself read any Vedas?

Originally Posted by mediator

The question only becomes then how unbiased u r. One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher! I agree the greatness should be shown and not merely preached blindly and that goes same for science, where some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

Heh. Talk about presumptions! I'd have been skeptical even if my mom told me so. And my school incident was just a one-day incident, where the teacher told us so during one of her lessons when I was 14 years old. And my exams are over. So stop harping about it.

I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature. These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.

Originally Posted by mediator

But if it shud be shown and not merely preached, then I guess it should also be dug deeper and explored without any unbiased and selfish attempts to falsify it. I don't think a skeptic's role is to laugh like a goon, or to give cheap remarks or opine like that, but to pour some rational and scientific thoughts and to question what he finds irrational!!

One of a skeptic’s roles is to debunk pseudoscience. I hope you didn't find my work as a just a biased tirade, because I found it hard to see anything subatomic in those verses in the Atharvaveda. One of the reasons I consulted an expert then was because one could accuse me of not knowing the Vedas well and that my judgment could be highly opinionated with wrong knowledge about what I found while searching for the verses. But still, Vritasuras are not the atoms in any element nor is the bone of a Dhadyach a neutron. Only highly biased wishful thinking can come up with an explanation (infused with some scientific mumbo-jumbo of course) that seemingly make a personal interpretation of verses in a scripture appear like modern science for anyone to see it like that. And we can all see the “unbiased scientific person” who sees it that way. (HINT: It’s not me or karnivore or legolas)


PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you.

And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.

[karnivore]

Don’t you ever get tired of bluffing.

Re: Vedas;

Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.

Originally Posted by mediator

Just like people be skeptic, they can read the originals of vedas too instead of relying on some sites to "prove" their frustrated agenda.

You think Vedas are written in your high school Sanskrit. Don’t you. That’s why you expect everyone to read “the originals of vedas”, although you have yourself, not bothered to read even a translation.

Rig-Veda is the oldest of all Vedas, presumably written between 1500 BCE an 500 BCE (The time frame is a rough estimate for the entire Vedas, not just Rig-Veda). Rig-Veda itself is subdivided into 10 books and the chronologically earlier books are some of the oldest texts in human history. The Vedas were not written by one person, but by number of persons who were generations apart. The evidence is the gradual change in the syntax, grammar and dependence on local words (not to mention the different writing styles).

The Rig-Veda was written in a very ancient, actually the earliest, form of Sanskrit. Much of its grammar is lost forever. In other words, some of the hymns can’t be read without much accuracy and can be read only on the basis of some extremely complicated process of permutation and combination. It is the job of the philologists, not Sanskrit scholars, which you continue to believe. (In fact there are very few people who can read “the originals of vedas”). Let me give you an example of how difficult the job of these philologists are (and I am quoting from B.N.Narahari Archer’s “Measurement of Time”)

Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
“ purnah kumbhah ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah kalo devata tristup chandah harih om

purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
(Excuse me for not being able to put the accentuation marks)

The various translations are:

1. A full jar has been placed upon time.
Him, verily we see existing in many forms.(Bloomfield)

2. The whole of this universe is stationed in the Omnipresent God.
We, the good ones on the earth see him in various ways.(Devichand)

3. On time is laid an overflowing beaker.
This we behold in many a place appearing.(Griffith)

4. A full jar has been placed upon time.
We behold him existing in many forms.(Muir)

5. Above Time is set a brimful vessel.
Simultaneously we see Time here, there, everywhere.(Panikkar)

6. A full vessel is set upon time.
We indeed see it, being now manifoldly.(Whitney)

[Sayanah has a different translation for the sukta]

Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.

So don’t bluff.

Originally Posted by mediator

…then that again proves science was there in ancient times. How the heck we knew about the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon which still prevails today, Jantar Mantar, Iron PILLAR to name a few?

Who said there was no science in ancient times. But it was limited to as far as they could see with their naked eyes, particularly the night sky.

Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation.

Jantar mantar was built much later. And what is so mysterious about that iron pillar ? Although it is good metallurgy, it is bad ironsmith work. The iron pillar is actually pretty inferior iron. So much of slack makes it highly brittle. The Chinese had an amazingly better technique, where they mastered the art of separating the slack in the process of iron making. A good example is the Ninja sword.

So stop BSing.

Re: Medicines/ Science etc.

Originally Posted by mediator

The ill effects are also because how we form that scientific knowledge. Just to painfully repeat again, how drugs are tested!

Although, testing drugs contribute hugely to the scientific knowledge, it is actually an application of scientific knowledge of chemistry and biology. If we did not know the chemistry of the drug or the biology on which it is supposed to work, we could not have produced the drug in the first place. Testing that drug is the process of validating, that we got it right.

Originally Posted by mediator

Some tested on animals to create for humans and even among humans we have varying immunity levels, not the same.

Another useless comment. Humans do have varying immunity levels. But that does not stop homeopaths from comparing the symptoms of one human, recorded during proving, to another human, the patient. If “individualization” is all that makes the difference, then why aren’t the proving subjects considered on individual basis. Why are the symptoms recorded en mass. Because, that will create infinite possibilities, too large to deal with mediocre brains of homeopaths.

Once again, stop BSing.

Originally Posted by mediator

Getting cured and having plethora of side effects isn't called cure in the first place.

Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..

Originally Posted by mediator

That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs where we have plethora of side effects and then u take another medicine to cure that!

Yes. So, now we should throw away our ECGs and MRIs and X-Rays, and go back to stone age where people died of small pox (now they no longer do) or plague (in west, they no longer do) or …… Hail stone age.

Originally Posted by mediator

…learn something if ur agenda is not to mock Ayurveda in the first place!

I think, I had placed ayurveda a little above that junk called homeopathy. I think I had said, that ayurveda may work, although limited. I think I had said, that the naturopathy part in ayurveda has some basis.

Originally Posted by mediator

…some have a fervent faith that science can explain everything. Really? Show me and answer what I question then!

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

Originally Posted by mediator

….how much death has been caused by "modern scientific medicines" as against homeopathy.

Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.

Originally Posted by mediator

But heck a few will read "opinions" by some fanatic to show that veda are useless. I guess its a sin itself to bring in "opinions" in a debate not marked by anything factual. Meera Nanda? WTH!

The vedas are not at all useless. Show me who said that. They are a treasure trove of information about the lives, the belief, the thoughts etc. of our ancestors.

You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”.

Originally Posted by mediator

One of my friends who has some incessant "exam fever", started mocking Vedas because he had too much of it from his skool teacher !

I don’t think he mocked vedas. He ridiculed, quite correctly, the hindu apologists and their pathetic attempt to retro-fit data.

And really, you should appreciate that fact that he went out looking for answers instead sitting pretty on his arse and asking “how, when and why”, expecting the whole world to bow to his whims.

Originally Posted by mediator

I am not here to win. Are u?

Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.

Originally Posted by mediator

The same can be said for the "pink unicorns" that u like to christen that u do.

Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:

DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?

The answer can be given in simple YES or No.

Now, for some clarifications:

Originally Posted by mediator

I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago, but it wud have been better if u had actually posted from where u copied all that stuff instead of marking it as your own.

If you had actually read that post of mine, till the last line you would have come across this line:

Originally Posted by karnivore

[Valuable inputs from xenophilia.com]

Once again, you are bluffing. If you had read about “nuclear stuff some months ago”, why the hell did you then post that link, just ONE month ago (06.05.08 ), knowing fully well that it is misinformation. You are then admitting that you have made a conscious attempt to mislead people.

That makes you a lousy fraud.

Now I humbly ask the moderators – should a person be allowed to post even when he has himself admitted to intentionally, with full knowledge of the fraud, mislead people. Its one thing to believe something and saying. But it is entirely different, when one is aware of the fraud and still perpetuating it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Added later:

Before I forget, let me ask this Q

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 ?

[mediator]

@srivirus : STill asking questions and shying to respond to mine! Ah well...

Originally Posted by srivirus

What would I say about Ayurveda? It is just knowledge gained by previous generations. They might have tested stuff out. And they came to know that some plants and herbs help in healing. There is nothing further to it. These things actually work. But what really are ridiculous are the explanations that they came up at that time. The prime concern for instance is the so called Divine Origin of the Ayurvedic science. Other things like the Tridosha philosophy (Vata, Pitta and Kapha) are also unscientific to say the least. Sure the ancients could be termed as men of science who tried to come up with answers, only that the science at that time was not as advanced as it is now. The least people could do is build on such knowledge and discard the unscientific beliefs behind it. That would actually make it more convincing.

What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?

Originally Posted by srivirus

Various explanations were given as an answer to things unknown, and where something didn't seem right to the senses, they were attributed as paranormal at that time. So how about moving on? The Chinese had yin and yang, we had our own mumbo-jumbo, the Egyptians had their own answers. They can't be blamed for their answers because they really didn't know much at that time. But we know more now. Why still lurk in the dark now, trying to pull out answers from nowhere?

You r treating modern science too religiously! We need to find the answers from the dark coz its time we stop being arrogant and blind towards the success of those "mumbo jumbos"!

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
http://www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html


"Why try to pull answers from nowhere"?? Thats not a very scientific view!

Originally Posted by srivirus

I would accept that science is there in the Vedas when I get a verse which explicitly says something like "All metal conductors oppose the flow of electrons when a potential difference is applied across it" rather than "A hundred men were opposed from their march forwards by rocks in their way" which might be misconstrued as a sign for Ohm's law. The last time you where quoted stuff about nuclear technology was just another example of follies that people make up to fit science in the scriptures.

Please don't make me laugh. You want vedic terminology to be the same as that of modern science n then have the same assumptions and theories?? Do u even understand who a skeptic is?

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

Originally Posted by srivirus

I had asked you before and I ask you before and I ask you again, do you know who was the person who came up with the idea of nukes in the Vedas? Or did you just copy-paste stuff from some random website.

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?
http://www.melbournearya.com/stateme...my_beliefs.htm
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/l...vedol-0-X.html
http://www.hknet.org.nz/plastic-max-page.html
http://veda.krishna.com/encyclopedia/indology.htm

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

Originally Posted by srivirus

How many times do I have to tell you? I read things that were scientifically critical of the Final theory. I do not necessarily have to agree with any other nonsense that a reviewer might have said. I guess I know how to filter out stuff.

Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?
Neways, how about giving straight answer to my questions then, that I quoted from the reviewer's pdf? I said it then, I kept saying it which was met with some unusual reply like "Oh, I have exams" and so I say it now, "Answer the questions I asked!". Show me, how great modern science is that it can answer everything!

Originally Posted by srivirus

Oh BTW, this is a bulletin board. Posts made are not going anywhere. So even if someone can't answer anything immediately doesn't mean that the other should stop posting stuff altogether. So if you have something worthwhile to say, quit being so concerned about my exams and blurt out whatever you have to say. People can come and see later and reply when they do have time. If you think being civil and giving a reason for absence is an excuse to chicken out, then you are hallucinating yourself.

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. Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???

Originally Posted by srivirus

OK, time for a refresher course in SCIENCE. The word theory in this context is a "scientific theory". So, from Wikipedia

Lolz, when will the materialist brigade ever learn? Using wiki again? Guess I too shud start using wikis and diggs.com i nevery post of mine now. But neways, here from the wiki page u linked....

Originally Posted by wiki

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. For the scientist, "theory" is not in any way an antonym of "fact". For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theories commonly used to describe and explain this behavior are Newton's theory of universal gravitation (see also gravitation), and the general theory of relativity
In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is not necessarily based on facts; in other words, it is not required to be consistent with true descriptions of reality. This usage of theory leads to the common incorrect statements. True descriptions of reality are more reflectively understood as statements which would be true independently of what people think about them.

Do u even undertsand the meaning of lines in bold? And here u r treating all those theories as if it were a fact. Get ur facts straight first and then think what a skeptic role shud be. Ur mere guesses of how a skeptic shud be is itsef a theory!

Originally Posted by wiki

Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.
.
.
.
In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections, inclusion in a yet wider theory, or succession. Commonly, many more specific hypotheses may be logically bound together by just one or two theories. As a rule for use of the term, theories tend to deal with much broader sets of universals than do hypotheses, which ordinarily deal with much more specific sets of phenomena or specific applications of a theory.

Of several competing theories, one theory may be superior to another in terms of its approximation of reality. Scientific tests of the quality of a theory include its conformity to known facts and its ability to generate hypotheses with outcomes that would predict further testable facts

And science can predict the future of Universe, can it predict Universe itself, can it predict whats beyond it? Are u saying modern science likes to go by some abberation?
It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL
On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!

Originally Posted by srivirus

So? Every civilization had scientific minds. The answers/inventions they came up with are nothing supernatural, to be in awe of.
And did you yourself read any Vedas?

Who is saying about supernatural stuff? Materialists have a very bad habit bt guessing. And yeah, u must understand that the Vedic collection is toooo large to be read by any one person and I'm not that old yet! But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?

Originally Posted by srivirus

Heh. Talk about presumptions! I'd have been skeptical even if my mom told me so. And my school incident was just a one-day incident, where the teacher told us so during one of her lessons when I was 14 years old. And my exams are over. So stop harping about it.

U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.

Originally Posted by srivirus

I never mocked the Vedas for the content in them, and I never will, if it is viewed as a work of art. What is ludicrous is the rigid belief system built around it and the pile of trash that people come up with, with their wishful thinking after reading it. No one in their right mind can or should accept back-fitted science in literature. These are just things that unscrupulous masochistic people come up with to satisfy themselves about the righteousness of their religion, the brilliance of their ancestors, and the glory of their nation and to have a false and grim satisfaction in their nationalist pride. And to top it off, it proves absolutely nothing except how one can whine about having everything in the past before things were invented or discovered.

But I think true way of science doesn't reject what can be tested, reproduced or has successes for many years!

Originally Posted by srivirus

One of a skeptic’s roles is to debunk pseudoscience. I hope you didn't find my work as a just a biased tirade, because I found it hard to see anything subatomic in those verses in the Atharvaveda. One of the reasons I consulted an expert then was because one could accuse me of not knowing the Vedas well and that my judgment could be highly opinionated with wrong knowledge about what I found while searching for the verses. But still, Vritasuras are not the atoms in any element nor is the bone of a Dhadyach a neutron. Only highly biased wishful thinking can come up with an explanation (infused with some scientific mumbo-jumbo of course) that seemingly make a personal interpretation of verses in a scripture appear like modern science for anyone to see it like that. And we can all see the “unbiased scientific person” who sees it that way. (HINT: It’s not me or karnivore or legolas)

Amazing, and when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science, the herd of materialists is treating it as a "pseudoscience"!

Originally Posted by srivirus

PS: I think this is the 5th, 6th or 7th time that I'm asking you. Since you put so much faith in the claims of vedicganita.org, then how is something mythical like Lord Shiva the overlord of the real 5 space? And how does it prove any mathematical problem? Any answers? Considering the fact that you claim to know so much about it, and assuming that you have read it through, the answer should've been a piece of cake for you.

And I thought u were having exams! But neways, I told u to read the whole site, but it seems u have bad habit of reading between the lines or a first few paras!

The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
Sr.No

Idol of Lord Shiv

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1
Five heads Five dimensions
2
Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3
Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4
Heart Origin / Centre
5
Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6
Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)


U also have the relation between the dimensions! Shud I paste everything? You will find it well, not nonsense, if u read it to the end. You don't even understand what a theory is. Why am I not surprised!

And PS: this is more than the 5,6,7th time I'm asking you, are u going to answer the questions I asked or not? I hope u don't have exams!

Originally Posted by srivirus

And you still haven't clarified your stance on the nukes yet.

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Earlier you had declared that @sreevirus’s effort has made you dig “deeper into what is original”. That’s a BS. Forget digging deep. You haven’t even scratched. If you had even scratched, you would not have continued with this vedic nonsense.

Can u quit whining....ever?

Originally Posted by karnivore

Atharva-Veda (XIX; 53)
“ purnah kumbhah ityasya mantrasya bhrgu rsih sarvatmakah kalo devata tristup chandah harih om

purnah kumbho dhikala ahitas tam vai pasyamo bahudha nu santam om tatsat ”
(Excuse me for not being able to put the accentuation marks)

The various translations are:

1. A full jar has been placed upon time.
Him, verily we see existing in many forms.(Bloomfield)

2. The whole of this universe is stationed in the Omnipresent God.
We, the good ones on the earth see him in various ways.(Devichand)

3. On time is laid an overflowing beaker.
This we behold in many a place appearing.(Griffith)

4. A full jar has been placed upon time.
We behold him existing in many forms.(Muir)

5. Above Time is set a brimful vessel.
Simultaneously we see Time here, there, everywhere.(Panikkar)

6. A full vessel is set upon time.
We indeed see it, being now manifoldly.(Whitney)

Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?

Originally Posted by karnivore

Note the wide difference between the translation. Next time when you say something like read “the originals of vedas”, try to figure out if most of your favourite hindu apologists have themselves read “the originals of vedas”. I know some have, but the most do not even have a clue. They all depend on Griffith’s translation, although Griffith’s work is not a scholarly work, but was aimed at Victorian era English speaking Indian middle class.

So don’t bluff

Do u even understand why the difference occurs? U could have atleast Sourced what u copied from. Like I said, skepticism is fine when u know even remotely on the subject!

Every one can see whose bluffing!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Show me an evidence of our knowledge of “the color of planets, the distance between earth, sun and moon”. If vedic astrology is anything to go by, then it talks of only five real planets (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) all of which can be observed with naked eyes. Also it is based on the notion that earth is the centre of the universe, proving, that they were not aware of its rotation.

http://www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
http://ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
http://sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
http://www.lovearth.net/108.htm

U can easily find more with that "keyboard commando" skills of urs!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Although, testing drugs contribute hugely to the scientific knowledge, it is actually an application of scientific knowledge of chemistry and biology. If we did not know the chemistry of the drug or the biology on which it is supposed to work, we could not have produced the drug in the first place. Testing that drug is the process of validating, that we got it right.

And boom, the plethora of side effects!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Another useless comment. Humans do have varying immunity levels. But that does not stop homeopaths from comparing the symptoms of one human, recorded during proving, to another human, the patient. If “individualization” is all that makes the difference, then why aren’t the proving subjects considered on individual basis. Why are the symptoms recorded en mass. Because, that will create infinite possibilities, too large to deal with mediocre brains of homeopaths.

Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit? Guess ur brain still looms at large having so much trouble understanding even the basics!
But neways let me put in brief and very simple terms if u still didn't understand all that huge dscussion this last time.
I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit". For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Say this to a person whose only hope of living is dialysis, or chemotherapy or one who has done a laser surgery or…..

Sure, those who wish to live simple and natural life and those who don't want to spend the huge $$$$ on modern medicine are already coming to INDIA for ayurvedic treatments, resorting to yoga and spiritual life and homeopathy!
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs.

So stop bullshiting!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Yes. So, now we should throw away our ECGs and MRIs and X-Rays, and go back to stone age where people died of small pox (now they no longer do) or plague (in west, they no longer do) or …… Hail stone age.

I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!

Originally Posted by karnivore

I think, I had placed ayurveda a little above that junk called homeopathy. I think I had said, that ayurveda may work, although limited. I think I had said, that the naturopathy part in ayurveda has some basis.

I understand u r quite a peer!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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

Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?

Originally Posted by karnivore

Forget about harming the body, homeopathy effects the body just as water does. No sane person would claim that distilled water kills.

Someone told me the difference between a skeptic and a fanatic and that a fanatic wont listen no matter how much evidence u give to him. I'm only witnessing the latter with an aim to demolish this wonderful field of homeopathy, just because science can't explain it at present!

I wonder why both doctors and patients are resorting to homeopathy and natural treatments?

Originally Posted by karnivore

You keep repeating the name “Meera Nanda”, and how she is wrong, but don’t give any evidence of her error. Well, how would you. You don’t have a clue of what she writes about. It will take your entire life time to understand what “post-modernism” is. Only then, you can begin to understand “Meera Nanda”.

Originally Posted by meeraji

What we have here is pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science.

U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Yes, I want to win over LIES. I want to win over MISINFORMATION. I want to win over HYPOCRISY.

Nice jokes out there.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Whatever that may mean. Let me ask you once again:

DO YOU ACCEPT PINK UNICORN ?

The answer can be given in simple YES or No.

Funny, that when explanied bt homeopathic techniques and all, u first talked bt "double blind" and "randomized" trials. Next when told bt "best case fit", u talk about infinite possbilities. Its like minimum to maximum, the extremes.

So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?

I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, not rejecting doesn't means accepting! And if the evidences are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Once again, you are bluffing. If you had read about “nuclear stuff some months ago”, why the hell did you then post that link, just ONE month ago (06.05.08 ), knowing fully well that it is misinformation. You are then admitting that you have made a conscious attempt to mislead people.

Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.

I dunno how many times, u said it bt wud like to reflect in a humble way "Stop bullsheeteeng"!! Besides, adding something in extra large fonts isn't gonna synchronise my serotonin levels to the randomly up n down shooting levels of urs!

Guess this peaceful discussion, is bringing me closer to Vedas with the help of some pseudo-skeptics or shud I say fanatics?

And hence, entertain me as u wish that u will. I hope u understood bt that homeopathic forum link that people can watch instead of that troll thread and not confusing it anymore with some "source" or reference! My memorable moments? Indeed!



I again ask the materialist brigade, will they ever answer the questions that I asked or just keep asking? One did for spirituality, one for homeopathy, one for Vedas and none for what I asked! WTH .

[karmanya]

This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.

[karnivore]

^^ Welcome to mediator land. But, hell, you can see the veil ?

Originally Posted by mediator

Bloomfield, Griffith etc known for their mistranslations?

And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.

Originally Posted by mediator

Do u even understand why the difference occurs? U could have atleast Sourced what u copied from. Like I said, skepticism is fine when u know even remotely on the subject!

I think I gave the answer as to why the difference occurs. Because of the antiquity of the language, because much of the rules of grammar and syntax are lost forever and one has to depend on a cocktail of permutations and combinations.

I did mention the author and the piece from where I had copied that part. I did that so anybody can google around and find the original piece - just like you have done. I seriously doubt, if you have actually gone through the entire article.

Originally Posted by mediator

http://www.vibrantskin.net/2/p14a.htm
http://ashoktiwari.tripod.com/eved.html
http://sanatandharma.tripod.com/index.html
http://www.hindusarise.com/achievements.htm
http://www.lovearth.net/108.htm

Quotes many famous authors, Max Mullar, being one, and famous scientists, Carl SagaN, being another. Isn’t it nice to see Max Mullar, so hated for “mistranslation”, being quoted in an apologist site. Oh I get it, he said something that suited our horsetard. Temporary amnesia. But it is equally disgusting to see Carl being bundled with those horsetards. How wonderful it is to cherry pick quotes.

The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.

Originally Posted by mediator

And boom, the plethora of side effects!

And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………

And boom, average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……

Originally Posted by mediator

Infinite humans does not mean infinite possibilties. Its not like fingerprint. "Provings" and best case fit?

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

I hope u know the meaning of "materia medica", that u do. The homeopath chooses a medicine based on the symptoms of the patient and cross checks with the materia medica and prescribes the medicine that is a "close fit". For that, subsequent examination of the case is necessary to determine the correctness of the remedy, dose and to make any adjustments in the remedy, dosage, treatment plan.

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.

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.

So let me summarize. Provings are not “individualized”, Mataria Medica is not “individualized”, but the practice is “individualized” and the doctor has no reference of his “individualized” patient’ ailment. Wonderful dog$hit.

Originally Posted by mediator

Sure, those who wish to live simple and natural life and those who don't want to spend the huge $$$$ on modern medicine are already coming to INDIA for ayurvedic treatments, resorting to yoga and spiritual life and homeopathy!
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/200...runc_sys.shtml

First u defy nature and then whine! I think world is realising that science with spirituality makes perfect sense! But here r a few who talk of psychedelic drugs.

Sure modern treatment costs. That’s precisely the reason why people are turning to alternative meds, not because alt. med. works. Then, who is doing the follow up ? No one.

Let me say this once again:
Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.

Originally Posted by mediator

I think u can do side along with Max muller,griffith etc. I certianly didn't say that. Funny materialists!

Tch Tch Tch. Aren’t those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?

All those explanations are based on Griffith’s translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
Care to explain:

Originally Posted by mediator, post#613

That "primitve" knowledge holds the key to "actually" cure a patient, not like a few modern drugs

How does “that primitive knowledge” hold “the key to actually cure a patient.” (Errrr…you do realize that, “that primitive knowledge” did not involve understanding of virus or bacteria or did not involve pathological tests)

Originally Posted by mediator

I understand u r quite a peer!

Peer of whom ? Certainly not yours [would rather put a bullet in my head]

Originally Posted by mediator

Finally we r starting to here the golden words. Can u now tell why it doesn't/can't explain everything?

I don’t think this is the first time that I have said this (if you only bothered to be a little attentive). The reason is simple. Because of our limitations. We are gradually overcoming these limitations and accordingly science is gradually progressing. No body claims we know everything that is there to know.

Originally Posted by mediator

Someone told me the difference between a skeptic and a fanatic and that a fanatic wont listen no matter how much evidence u give to him. I'm only witnessing the latter with an aim to demolish this wonderful field of homeopathy, just because science can't explain it at present!

That someone probably never debated with you. Errr……evidence has been given ? When, where, how ? Shoot……we have been sleeping all the while. Oh I get it. You are referring to anecdotes and claims.

Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.

Originally Posted by mediator

U forgot what I replied with back in that thread!

So, “pseudo-science in its purest form, that is, religious dogma, lacking rigorous scientific evidence and plausibility dressed up as science” means she was referring to the effects of BRAHMI ? You couldn’t be further from the truth. But that’s what happens when you cherry pick comments, without reading anything else, and forming opinion on that basis. You will be surprised to know, that she does not entirely dismiss ayurveda. So go back, get her book, read it through and see what she means by that comment. Then come back and start debating. OK.

Originally Posted by mediator

So then, in ur understanding, if something is fact, then other must just be a fiction. Isn't it? Big Bang, evolution, dark wateva, universe, side effects (modern medicine "cures"?). Fact or fiction? Accept : Yes or no?

First, why would, “other” be fiction, if “something” is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.

Second,
Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.

Physicists will use the LHC to recreate the conditions just after the Big Bang, by colliding the two beams head-on at very high energy.

Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
Universe = Fact
Side Effects = Fact
Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

Originally Posted by mediator

I thought I told pretty clearly plenty of times, not rejecting doesn't means accepting!

Can you please tell me the meaning of “NOT REJECTING”. Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.

Originally Posted by mediator

And if the evidences are there and researches going on genuinely and seriously then one is simply too foolish to reject them.

What……come again………did you just say “EVIDENCE”. Errr………Well, here is the evidence. I have seen a pink unicorn. It was grazing in my backyard. All my neighbours have seen it. I took a snap, but unfortunately the pink unicorn did not appear on the snap. We are doing some serious research. We have invited some scientists from Jadavpur University to do the research for us. But it is a secret research.

Now, do you “NOT REJECT” the pink unicorn ?

Originally Posted by mediator

Do u even understand what I posted! Compare and Take ur time to understand.

Make me understand:

Originally Posted by mediator, post#613

I had read the same what you posted on "nuclear" stuff some months ago

If, some months ago, you had read whatever I had posted, debunking this link, then why did you post that link on 06.05.08, being aware of the fraud ????
Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?

Originally Posted by mediator

What is ridiculous about the explanation and how is it unscientific "to say the least"?

Good question. What is NOT ridiculous about the explanation and how is it scientific “to say the least”

Originally Posted by mediator

Can Ayurveda Cure HIV/AIDS
Alternative Therapies to AIDS cure
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
http://www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html

…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.

Originally Posted by mediator

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

OHO……anecdotes and claims = evidence. OK. Point taken and forgotten - thankfully.

Originally Posted by mediator

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?

…but those nuke thingie and all are based on Griffith’s translation. *scratch*

Originally Posted by mediator

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

I guess you will not reject the scientific evidence in, say, I don’t know……, say BIBLE or KORAN

Originally Posted by mediator

…can it predict Universe itself…

Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does “predict Universe” mean ?

Originally Posted by mediator

….when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science,

You mean, your peers……

Originally Posted by mediator

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1 Five heads Five dimensions
2 Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3 Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4 Heart Origin / Centre
5 Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6 Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)

It is precisely the question that we are asking. What is the basis of this parallelism. Numerical coincidence can’t be the basis. [Because the number 5 and 3 appear quite a number of times. There is no point in pick-n-chose, because then one has to explain those numerics in their respective context as well] So what is the basis. Why is head = dimension, or eyes = solid dimension [BTW, 3 eyes each on 5 heads would make 5 x 3 = 15 eyes, and the author conveniently neglects this], arm = boundary components, heart = origin (this makes sense, though), and the rest………only lord shiva knows.

Originally Posted by mediator

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karmanya

This thread seems to have degenerated into a bunch of thinly veiled insults. Frankly speaking mediator, I can't even tell what your questions are.

There are 2 threads in FIGHT CLUB. One is this one and other about hypnotism. Please read the 2 from beginning.

Originally Posted by karnivore

And yet, most of the links that you give, use Griffith as their reference. CCCHOOO CCCHWEEEEET.

Is that a peer review?

Originally Posted by karnivore

I think I gave the answer as to why the difference occurs. Because of the antiquity of the language, because much of the rules of grammar and syntax are lost forever and one has to depend on a cocktail of permutations and combinations.

And u were told about the mistranslations and misleadings by a bunch of christian biases. And when the peers acknowledge that Sanskrit the language with most scientific formation of words and grammer, still present today, u r guessing much its rulez of grammar and syntax are lost forever? WTH!

Originally Posted by kanrivore

Quotes many famous authors, Max Mullar, being one, and famous scientists, Carl SagaN, being another. Isn't it nice to see Max Mullar, so hated for "mistranslation", being quoted in an apologist site. Oh I get it, he said something that suited our horsetard. Temporary amnesia. But it is equally disgusting to see Carl being bundled with those horsetards. How wonderful it is to cherry pick quotes.

The sites contain numerous out of context quotes, wishful interpretations and misinformation to make it look like good science. Typical.

Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.

Originally Posted by karnivore

And boom, no polio, no chicken pox, no plague, no hepatitis C, no………

And boom, average age of human reaching over 70 in medically advanced countries……

And No AIDS?? Besides I would like to read the research that says about the line in bold. Also, do u even understand what contributes to a longer life expactancy?
Here, This might get u a clue. Speaking of which u must understand how the major population in INDIA simply lives and struggles to earn a bread. Poverty, illiteracy? I think u r not even acquainted to the reality. Even yoga is not widespread among villages and rural areas. Understand how much it is practised in US and some other developed countries. It is well known that the more health conscious u r, the more u respect the nature and live accordingly, the better is ur life expactancy!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

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.

Repetition. U cud have simply refreshed ur memory on the past discussions instead of zeroing in on t=0 discussion i.e from the start. Pseudo-skeptics!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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

Originally Posted by karnivore

Sure modern treatment costs. That's precisely the reason why people are turning to alternative meds, not because alt. med. works. Then, who is doing the follow up ? No one.

Let me say this once again:
Failure of modern medicine is not the proof of homeopathy. Homeopathy will have to prove itself on its own account.

Oh well, it seems u only read where I quote u whereas they like to form some kinda team here.
Scottish Doctors Say "Nay" to Modern medicine
http://www.natural-health-informatio...-medicine.html

Google for more!

Originally Posted by link

It is a sad fact that virtually 100% of ALL medical education (both under-graduate and post-graduate) is paid for either directly or indirectly by the pharmaceutical industry. As such, the industry can control the educational agenda and our doctors are now taught little except how to control the symptoms of disease, preferably with long-term drug use. It is not the Doctors themselves that are at fault, but the pharmaceutical marketing system that trains them.

Now lets think about what that means.

EVERY Doctor, regardless of his / her own convictions, is taught that the way to treat disease is to use drugs, often without even considering the underlying causes of the disease.

Examples

* High blood pressure (hypertension). Modern medicine uses various drugs to drop the blood pressure - without considering why the body had elevated it in the first place.
* Angina - Modern medicine uses drugs to "cover-up" the symptoms of angina and other forms of heart diease, without telling you you can actually reverse the damage that is causing it!
* High Cholesterol - modern medicine uses drugs to artifically force lower cholesterol levels, without thinking about WHY the body raised them in the first place (clue: it is a defensive mechanism!)
* Depression - modern medicine dopes adults and (increasingly) kids with toxic drugs to cover up pyschiatric / psychological issues that are caused by malnutrition, plain and simple. (specifically, a chronic lack of omega-3 fatty acids)

Yet the few who are prepared to speak out against these giant corporations are shunned by their own colleagues, whose blinkered, self-serving attitudes are exactly what their pharmaceutical bosses want to see. Take these examples.

1. Dr Weston A Price, who proved beyond all doubt that the chronic diseases we have seen emerge in the 20th century are largely caused by our increasingly poor nutrition, and that in 26 separate "primitive" societies, these diseases DO NOT EXIST - until you give them a Western diet! He was IGNORED by modern medicine.
2. Dr Linus Pauling, one of the few people EVER to win TWO Nobel prizes, who showed not only that ischaemic heart disease is nothing more than chronic scurvy (Vitamin C deficiency), but that ALL CHRONIC DISEASE is caused by mineral deficiencies. Modern medicine ridiculed his results without even studying them, but has no answer to his success in treating patients.
3. Dr Mary Enig (author of Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol), one of the pioneer scientists involved in assessing the role of various fats in heart disease and cancer in the 1950s, who proved that saturated fats (in butter, cheese, eggs and meat) PROTECT against these diseases, whilst the unnatural hydrogenated vegetable oils used in margerines (and virtually all prepared foods) CAUSE the very problems they are supposed to prevent. She was shunned by the modern medicine establishment and all research funding was withdrawn, despite the fact that the evidence fully backed her up.

And these are just a few examples from many cases where modern medicine is so entrenched in its pharmaceutical-based "symptom treatment" paradigm that it has totally lost all interest in PRVENTING disease, which is exactly what Natural Medicine is all about.

As if they weren't enough, the pharmaceutical industry, through its pressure group, Codex Alimentarius, is now trying to ban the very minerals and vitamins that can prevent and treat disease - fight it!

So what can you do about it?

The answer is very simple - make sure you are informed about your health problems, and make sure your Doctor, or other health care professional is informed too. If your Doctor doesn't undestand the importance of nutrition, find another Doctor who does.

* Establish a routine of basic nutrition, which in many cases is enough to stop many "chronic diseases" in their tracks.
* If you already suffer from a "chronic disease", don't just accept lifelong treatment, find out which deficiencies are implicated and (if basic nutrition for a few months doesn't do the job) correct them, you will be amazed at the results. Contact us for more information
* Be prepared for the long term - most "diseases" take years to develop, they WILL take time to recover from too.
* Join the Alliance for Natural Health, who are working to undo the illegal Eurpoean Directive on Food Supplements (ESPECIALLY if you are in the USA - the EU law is a prototype intended for the US to follow)

Live with the nature and njoy! I can give u more with such data, if u want. Whats the point even after such prolonged discussion?

Besides, homeopathy has proved quite a lot for 200+ yrs save science cannot explain it right now. I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too. Placebo? Oh common, babies are already cared too much I guess! Modern medicine it seems is ignoring tooo much at present. But some people it seems do have that giant gullible bone and herd instinct too much.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Tch Tch Tch. Aren't those sites, you linked to, quoting Max Muller and Griffith ?

All those explanations are based on Griffith's translation.[Or have you again posted links without actually reading those ? CCHOOO CCCHWEEET]. So decide first. Are you accepting Griffith or rejecting. If you reject Griffith, then you have to, sadly, reject that explanation of hypercube and that nuke thingie as well.
Care to explain:

Tch Tch. Take ur time and read correctly this time. I'll show it like I always do when ur comprehension fails u!

Originally Posted by karnivore

I don't think this is the first time that I have said this (if you only bothered to be a little attentive). The reason is simple. Because of our limitations. We are gradually overcoming these limitations and accordingly science is gradually progressing. No body claims we know everything that is there to know.

And the things that are yet to know, have evidences for them be rejected? Again I say, understand how science progresses!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Homeopathy is indeed wonderful. Wonderfully stupid.

Again a peer review? Peers might be abusing themselves to have such a blind fanboy following in their herd!

Originally Posted by karnivore

First, why would, "other" be fiction, if "something" is fact. Please explain, in the context of my understanding.

Ur understanding is quite absurd and u treat it as if there exists only "yes" or "no"! Thats why I asked, if its not a fact, then in ur understanding, it must be a fiction. Answer straight Do u treat all those theories as facts : Yes or NO?

Originally Posted by kanrivore

Second,
Big Bang = Theory, and there is a surprise waiting for you in the coming years.

I am delighted! Lets see if the questions can be answered. Funny materialists, instead of answering they like to entertain, "u will have a surprise"!

Read this
http://www.engadget.com/2007/08/16/g...peed-of-light/

And if that goes true, I guess much of the modern physics will fail instantly n the bland cheerleading by the materialists.

Originally Posted by kanrivore

Evolution = Fact, if not, then please explain how a virus becomes antibiotic resistant.
Dark wateve = Dark Matter is theory, Dark Energy is hypothesis to explain the increasing speed of expanding universe.
Universe = Fact
Side Effects = Fact
Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

Evolution = Then 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.
Other questions though not what I had thought can be found here.

Dark wateva = Skeptics like to discard the evidences of homeopathy and love to accept the hypothesis and theories? LOL, Answer straight. Dark wateva : fact or fiction? In ur understanding ofcors!

Side effects = Person not cured! Whats the guarantee that the orginal disease will not resurface? Are we treating the symptoms or the disease? Why do we witness large number of deaths in modern medicine as against homeopathy? U r so annoying!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Modern medicine cures = Fact. [I would love to see when you have a cardiac arrest what do you resort to, modern medicine or alternative ?]

Like I said, I am a spiritualist, a person who likes to go with the nature and not take psychedelic drugs and toilet cleaners. To add, I'm a vegetarian! I wonder if I will have any cardiac arrest in the first place! I may be willing to donate an organ though.

I think u r only getting emotional, asking questions like "What will u do if....". May be I shud ask, what will u do if u get AIDS, what will u do if u go out of $$$$. So don't raise silly questions.

Originally Posted by karnivore

Can you please tell me the meaning of "NOT REJECTING". Although I am not new to mediator land, I am still learning the rules.

Down to English basics now? The mediatorland is quite compassionate towards such people.

Originally Posted by karnivore

What……come again………did you just say "EVIDENCE". Errr………Well, here is the evidence. I have seen a pink unicorn. It was grazing in my backyard. All my neighbours have seen it. I took a snap, but unfortunately the pink unicorn did not appear on the snap. We are doing some serious research. We have invited some scientists from Jadavpur University to do the research for us. But it is a secret research.

Now, do you "NOT REJECT" the pink unicorn ?

Funny. Is the case happening again n again, with similarities? "Secret" has no meaning! What is happening can it be confirmed, world wide? U don't even produce analogous examples!
The definition of the "pink unicorns" that u have formed in ur mind, as so clear from the example, don't even match of what u call "pink unicorns" in this discussion.

Originally Posted by kanrivore

Make me understand:

I surrender!

Originally Posted by karnivore

If, some months ago, you had read whatever I had posted, debunking this link, then why did you post that link on 06.05.08, being aware of the fraud ????
Now, should I call the paramedics to get that foot out of your mouth or would you use HOMEOPATHY ?

You aren't much of a skeptic are u. Firstly, google seems to be a convenient way to confirm ur skepticism, isn't it, on issues related to archeology? Secondly, plagurizin skepticism isn't much of skepticism. Thirdly, how come the case of the name "francis taylor" is judged by a mere "google search". How sane is that??. WTH
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=3090274

Originally Posted by karnivore

…and pigs can fly and pink unicorns graze in my backyard.

U can stop trolling if u have nothing better to say. Homeopathy is rising and its going to rise even further beyond!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Do you even understand what you are asking. Can you please explain what does "predict Universe" mean ?

Sigh making me repeat again! "Boundaries of universe", "rotations if any", "revolutions if anything beyond universe", "Where all of it came from", "all the phenomena, are they even testable" to name a few? In short "predict universe"? I had asked this last time toooo! You r making me yawn now.

Food for thought!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/ma...cosm-m17.shtml
http://hetdex.org/dark_energy/discovery.php

Originally Posted by karnivore

It is precisely the question that we are asking. What is the basis of this parallelism. Numerical coincidence can't be the basis. [Because the number 5 and 3 appear quite a number of times. There is no point in pick-n-chose, because then one has to explain those numerics in their respective context as well] So what is the basis. Why is head = dimension, or eyes = solid dimension [BTW, 3 eyes each on 5 heads would make 5 x 3 = 15 eyes, and the author conveniently neglects this], arm = boundary components, heart = origin (this makes sense, though), and the rest………only lord shiva knows.

LOl, may be u didn't get that the site actually explains the connection between the dimensions and it is quite clear in doing so! And materialists like u will keep making remarks like "only lord shiva knows"! There r a lotta such poetic references, hymns etc in puranas, Vedas which I think is really beyond the materialists to comprehend!

Originally Posted by karnivore

……and it was based on Griffiths’s translation. [CCCHOOOO CCHWEEEEEET]

LOOOOOL. And what do u think @srivirus posted was from? Err, griffith?
That what happens when u start replying in favour of other comrades. Then u oughtta know what he had spoken exactly!
So stop lying.

PS : AGAIN I ask, Show me how great modern science is and answer all the questions I ask. Why is the materialist brigade keeping its mum?

[karnivore]

Originally Posted by mediator

Actually those apologists sites tell what and how of the destruction of INDIAN texts and who all had an agenda and part in it.

How much can those sites be trusted. I have only given a cursory look, and voila, already an anomaly.

Unfortunately for you, Cosmos is a book which I have read and also possess

Originally Posted by vibrantskin.net

"It is the clearest image of the activity of God which any art or religion can boast of."

Carl Sagan does not say that in that book.

Now read carefully, particularly the part bolded

Originally Posted by vibrantskin.net

"The Hindu religion is the only one of the world's great faiths dedicated to the idea that the Cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite, number of deaths and rebirths.It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma, 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still."

What impression do you get ? That the author of the site has quoted Sagan word for word. At least there is no indication of any edit or anything. Once again read that part bolded. Now read the original

"It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, no doubt by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology"

Four simple words left out without any indication of edit. Four simple words that clear up Sagan's position. Four simple words, that imply "coincidence". Four simple words that would not look good on an apologist site that is desperately trying to shoe-horn data into the ancient text and trying to justify.

That, my dear friend, is called cherry picking quotes, that is called mis-information. That is a fraud. Your kinda site, run by one of your peers. You can use it for your source. But remember, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT.

You can thank your lord shiva, that i have lost all interest in your useless links. Otherwise i might just read those sites more closely and kick some more arse.

[sreevirus]

Originally Posted by mediator

You r treating modern science too religiously! We need to find the answers from the dark coz its time we stop being arrogant and blind towards the success of those "mumbo jumbos"!

I’m treating science in the best possible way I can. You, on the other hand, don’t even know the basics of it.

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.

Now don't give me the usual crap about the west not accepting Indian achievements; people are not so cruel to not acclaim medicines that work. Why would anyone want to deprive the millions of people who are suffering from a potential cure? I could think of the answer that you'd formulate in your mind: a conspiracy theory to continue sales of drugs right? Nah. It doesn't work that way.

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

Please don't make me laugh. You want vedic terminology to be the same as that of modern science n then have the same assumptions and theories??

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

Do u even understand who a skeptic is?

The question is, do you?

Originally Posted by mediator

U must understand that neglecting the things which have evidences, have success rate and which science cannot understand or doesn't come understand the set of modern scientific vocublary is not how science progresses.

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

And so I checked out. U actually gave the link to sacred-texts.com where along with "Max Muller", the christian bias known for "mistranslating and misleading" people on Vedas, a few others similar souls have contributed to those mistranslations! WTH, and u call urself a skeptic?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

Nukes in Vedas or not. It is actually getting interesting for me to delve deeper into the reality. For skeptics like u shud understand that there exists fraud by other religions to mistranslate the Vedas also.

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

Can u stop lying now even after exposing how much u have read that pdf u linked?

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.

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

Originally Posted by mediator

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?

Originally Posted by mediator

Who made u a mod here anyways? U talk of bulletin board, do even know the forum rulezzz???

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

BTW, if you have a problem with me, don’t hesitate to use the report button. I’m not the only mod here, nor am I a sole evil dictator. Maybe if I went wrong somewhere, the concerned people might take action against me.

(Sssh! It’s a secret, don’t tell anyone. I told raaabo that I was a blind follower of Raaaboism, and he made me a mod)

Originally Posted by mediator

Lolz, when will the materialist brigade ever learn? Using wiki again? Guess I too shud start using wikis and diggs.com i nevery post of mine now. But neways, here from the wiki page u linked....

Yeah, I suppose I should take a leaf out of your book and start taking references from personal opinions of some Tom, Dick or Harry out there with a website. Science and scientist and their works, RIP.

Originally Posted by mediator

Do u even undertsand the meaning of lines in bold? And here u r treating all those theories as if it were a fact. Get ur facts straight first and then think what a skeptic role shud be. Ur mere guesses of how a skeptic shud be is itsef a theory!
.
.
And science can predict the future of Universe, can it predict Universe itself, can it predict whats beyond it? Are u saying modern science likes to go by some abberation?
It is not even testable, or has proof for its t=0, has flaws, but the "skeptic" says "Its the most satisfying"! LOL

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.

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.

And I guess the universe was created by Brahma who himself was born out of Vishnu’s navel. So long, science!

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

On the other hand homeopathy is testable, has success rate etc save science cannot explain it at present! Oh don't repeat bt Placebo now, I already discussed bt it!

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

But it seems u don't even know about the attempts to mistranslate the vedas and mislead the world, do u?

I did. And I saw the attempts in which the nukes were described.

Originally Posted by mediator

U r just a disgrace to the skeptics batch, and let me tell I'm not abusing before u start guessing again.

You are a disgrace to the so called spiritualists who call themselves intellectual. I ain’t abusing either.

Originally Posted by mediator

Amazing, and when the peers themselves acknowledge that Vedas is a collection of wonderful science, the herd of materialists is treating it as a "pseudoscience"!

Any rational being would term Knapp’s work as pseudoscience. Only you and your peers can see anything otherwise.

Originally Posted by mediator

The "geometric message" of this enlightenment can be decoded in terms of the following complete parallelism between the idol of Lord Shiv and geometric setup of Hypercubes-5.
Sr.No

Idol of Lord Shiv

Geometrical set up of hypercube-5
1 Five heads Five dimensions
2 Three eyes Solid dimensions / 3-space as dimension of 5-space
3 Ten arms Ten hypersolid boundary components (A5:10A4)
4 Heart Origin / Centre
5 Lord of Lord Shiv 6-space as origin of 5-space
6 Dwadas Adityas 12 hypercubes-5 as (12 Suns) boundary of hypercube-6 (A6:12A5)

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.

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

Originally Posted by mediator

I think that atharveda article is more real, wondering bt the all those mistranslations at large. But ofcors some skeptics can help!

Of course you’d think so, otherwise it would mean that you have actually learnt that it was unscientific and would have to admit to it being wrong. But you won’t. Its all Stephen Knappaya Namaha now I guess.

Originally Posted by mediator

I was told fanatics don't even try to get it. Indeed!

True indeed. You don't.



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?

[Dark Star]

Ok just for instance I agree to both of you ... People with firm Believe and people without faith in GOD>.

God is everywhere , God save his Child..Ok.. So where was GOD when WTC Blast off .. Where was god when Bombay Bom Blast take off.. Now you will save it was all pre-written.. People usually say Bhagwan ki Sharan me sab thik hota hai..

Then what happened to GOD when Varanasi Blast held ?It was inside the campus of Sankat Mochan Mandir.. Was GOD sleeping ? OR what ?

Hindu Religion is baseless. SOmetimes they say GOD Is everywhere then at the same time .. The wander several part to worship GOD ? Is this you called Sense ? GOD is everywhere in everypart.. GOD is one.. Then whats the use of creating Temples and staues ? Just pray a mere stone.. That wouldn't please GOD ?/

There are questions that won't satisfy people.. I don't believe in hypothetical assumptions.. My Mom daily used to send me to nearby Temple.. I do visit the temple daily ! But is it really needed ! If you don't have faith then its all for nothing...

Current Scenario is that GOD = the best way to earn money. .. Curse me buts its truth.. Being a Varanasi guy I had visited several Temples. ANd those Pandits won't allow you to touch GOD if you pay less Dakshina. WHy don't GOD punish them if GOD exists..

Bhagwan sabko dand deta hai ! Well what you can say about Daud Ibrahim , Bill Laden and many more.. Those currup politicians. the tears of the poor are all for nothing.. We will keep praying but all in vain..

I won't question the existence of GOD people have faith.. Let them have.. But one day or so they will say "Kya Bhagwan Hain " ? Well beleive inwhat you want to sbut until there are proof its all in vain ..

[mediator]

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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"!!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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.

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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>!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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 !

Originally Posted by srivirus

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!

Originally Posted by srivirus

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

Originally Posted by mediator

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” ?

Originally Posted by mediator

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…

Originally Posted by mediator

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

also…

Originally Posted by quoted by mediator

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”.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

I wonder how homeopathy works on plants and babies too.

and……

Originally Posted by mediator

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]:

Originally Posted by Boiron

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]

Originally Posted by karnivore

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

Originally Posted by link

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.

http://www.fhsc.salford.ac.uk/hcprdu...omeopathic.htm

Originally Posted by karnivore

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].

Originally Posted by alumina

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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?

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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 ....

Originally Posted by link

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?

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by link

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”]

Originally Posted by mediator

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]:

Originally Posted by MM

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...

Originally Posted by MM

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

and……

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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 ?

Originally Posted by mediator

…u ridiculously brought James Randi, then talked about evidences

and…

Originally Posted by mediator

..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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by link

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

and…

Originally Posted by link

After ten months, he tested negative for HIV.

also…

Originally Posted by mediator

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:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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

I think I recognized the problem…

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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…

Originally Posted by mediator, earlier

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.

Originally Posted by mediator

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.

Originally Posted by karmanya

Please stop beating dead horses and leave this topic alone.

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

[mediator]

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

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.

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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?

Originally Posted by karnivore

(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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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.

Originally Posted by link_24_myths

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.

Originally Posted by link

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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"!

Originally Posted by karnivore

Are there any basis for those theories ? YES

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

Originally Posted by karnivore

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"!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by karnivore

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!

Originally Posted by madjeri

^^^^^.....

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.

Originally Posted by karnivore

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:


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:

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 ?

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

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.