That too, when a person joins a clinical trial testing a new medicine, the patient doesn't have a choice whether he/she are prescribed the placebo or the medicine.
jeez I wonder why, if it took you more than 10 seconds to figure out why that is, than you should definitely go back to 8th grade.
From Wikipedia, In planning a clinical trial, the sponsor or investigator first identifies the medication or device to be tested. Usually, one or more pilot experiments are conducted to gain insights for design of the clinical trial to follow. In medical jargon, effectiveness is how well a treatment works in practice and efficacy is how well it works in a clinical trial. In the U.S. the elderly comprise only 14% of the population but they consume over one-third of drugs. Despite this, they are often excluded from trials because their more frequent health issues and drug use produces more messy data. Women, children, and people with common medical conditions are also frequently excluded. In coordination with a panel of expert investigators (usually physicians well-known for their publications and clinical experience), the sponsor decides what to compare the new agent with (one or more existing treatments or a placebo), and what kind of patients might benefit from the medication/device. If the sponsor cannot obtain enough patients with this specific disease or condition at one location, then investigators at other locations who can obtain the same kind of patients to receive the treatment would be recruited into the study. Go jump in a lake, fedr808
You appear to have muddled the double negatives, there. Something those snobs that don't like ungrammatical academic papers frown upon, because it changes the meaning. In my less pragmatic social milieu, gossip (as it's called) or ad hominum argument (in snobbier circles, when dealing with issues) is closely enough correlated with resentment that the burden of proof is on the other side of the balance. So far, we have another two of the major secular humanist intellectual types that you have not read. We have not found any, except Chomsky, that you have read (Chomsky is also unique in being quoted favorably by you, an interesting correlation). Which brings us back to the personal resentments that are the sole visible support of your opinions regarding "secular humanists" - are you sure you have identified the source of these resentments accurately? You claim to have had some unfortunate experiences with people you identify as "secular humanists", and you associate their bad character with their secular humanism, but oin what grounds did you make that identification and association, lacking (as appears) any actual familiarity with secular humanism? Even secular humanist doctors (a high percentage, compared with the general population) treating secular humanist patients. Which would be a well duh moment, except that the minds of creationists tend to produce assertions regarding "faith" and secular humanism, which seem to imply that creationists deny the existence of faith among the secular (the "humanist" part seems often overlooked, in these discussions). So - - -
that's why they whisper?:bugeye:Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! earth, you got the so wrong idea about god, whatever that could be. advanced alien technology is something, but "voice activation"? that doesn't fit in at all..
Computers and voice activated software must be a new concept to you. You must have skipped a few pages in this thread. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Ok, you don't exist, so you can't ask questions, so of course i can't answer them, no surpise. value A value B value C . . initial value=?????????????? this is where i differ with what ophiliote said. reality (an objective one) may exist, but no one person can serround it fully. you either give few details but with greater certainty, or give many details but you can't be so sure about them all, or you could be a jerk and say you know everything. so for reality, the real one, there are many scenarios which you can make up by stringing the bits which you're sure of with other bits from other sources in a certain order of preference. creating your own scenario of what YOU consider to be reality. evolution is a scenario, but the bits i've collected of evolution aren't the same as the ones you collected, our arrangement of evolution based on importance in our reality scenario are bound to be different too. it's a point of reference, one which we will never reach,(not on our own anyway, because we're a "we") like the word "perfect", it's like a scale. i never drank alcohol, did you? no.(practical answer, not theoretic.) yes and no. one can change what he makes of his preception, that answers your question? i see A and B, i make A bullshit and B fact. you take it vice versa, can't i be like you? ALSO, your reality not only changes with what you make of what you have BUT ALSO with WHAT you have, upon changing the ingredients, new recepies ought to show up recipes. one who's knowledge of god can be summarized in 4 pages, will have a different POV on the subject when reading another 4 pages, there's a limit to how many scenarios you can conjure out of a finite amount of information, that limit gets smaller the less you know, that limit may be 1 scenario. may that be a yes or no. i say the measurements are perceived. i explained this, you put god where you want within the scope of where you can. we just said everything is a "self created reality". but i said before that there is a "real reality".. that would be the most comprehensive and less biased "self created reality".. how can it be unbiased but also self created? through role playing, honesty, knowledge expansion, and most importantly, comparison and review by others..choosing the "others" is up to you. don't give yourself too much creditPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you still did not provide any tangible logic(tangible logic!:roflmao: ) for your classification of reality, work on it. then apply it to your existence.
This statement is in the same category as: Maybe you would like to tell us about genetic abnormalities without all this bullshit about DNA. Maybe you would like to tell us about stellar evolution without all this bullshit about Hertzsprung-Russel diagrams. Maybe you would like to tell us about the success of the German blitzkreig without all this bullshit about Clausewitz and Liddell-Hart. The sentence is rendered meaningless by your conflation of terms which lie in wholly different categories. You want concrete - I have several water colours painted by my father. They are 'real', they are not a figment of my imagination. They exist. They were created from his imagination, but that does not make them imaginary. You seem to be talking nonsense - is that how you use your imagination? You have stated exactly the same thing I did in slightly different words. So, by your perception, you are also a generator of brain farts. If you can't see these are semantically identical positions perhaps you should take a course in philosophy, or language, or English comprehension. You are the one who brought in imagination. Let's start again. There is likely a reality. Our restricted sensory systems means we are aware of only a portion of that reality. Our ability to fully understand what we are perceiving means that our appreciation of the full reality is even more restricted. Some individuals (creationists as an example) impose even further restrictions on what they can perceive and understand. All these give versions of reality. None of them involve imaginary worlds. Perhaps if you spent less time imagining things you would get closer to reality.
No it does not. Because you try to equalize brain farting on non-existing phenomenons to existing mechanisms and their explanation models. Invalid comparison. Your father's paintings are expression of your father's imagination. The colours, brush, and other material your father use are chemical components. The artistic points of those paintings can only be understood and appreciated by your father and those who can share the elements of your father's imagination. They find their values only by those who can appreciate this imagination. And I have no doubt of existence of human imagination. They have developed through certain evolution and they require specific material code (human DNA) in order to perform. You are giving me a specific software (human thought, imagination) which necessarily demands certain brain hardware. Show your father's precious paintings to non-human creatures such as animals and plants, and note their reactions. Exactly. I can see the identical positions, that's why I agreed with farting part. Can you see the difference between what exist and what does not? God, philosophy, English comprehension, or the meanings of your father's paintings can only be some gasoline for those brain farts... I thought you were going to define each levels of "reality" staying within the initial titles. If you want to expand (or narrow) them according to your own context, you are welcome: You can not see an atom, or galaxy through your naked eyes, and you can not make sense out of them without using certain models, expressions, calculations or formula. Yet what you are trying to do is to understand what is going on in reality, which can be observable, measurable, and be manipulated when conditions or tools are available. Seeing those atoms or galaxies, collecting data out of their interactions or existence also depends on certain devices such as telescopes or electron microscopes. Your organic sensory system, or your actual brain capability can not be enough to find out every single mechanism in real universe. But today's understanding is at least much more advanced than people who lived a thousand year ago. This sentence did not make its full impact in terms of making a sense. But I will try to develop it (without fully appreciating it): "Our ability to fully understand what we are perceiving" means that you are completely packing up the reality according to your perception level. Because you should ignore the fact that we have actual limits in terms of understanding the entire reality, of which I understand the working mechanism of entire universe. I agree this bit... This could make sense if OP was for example about "how creationists restrict their thoughts about reality". However, OP was about evidence argument between creationists and non-creationists. I don't want to call creationists as "people who restrict their thoughts about reality". Quite opposite, their understanding of "reality" is much richer than mine: They can imagine and believe things that can not be proven by material measurements or effects. They can see what I can not see. So in their eyes, I must be the one who is not able to "feel" their God (or my god). This is impossible. No human can perceive things without imagining in their brain. Some of them are automated due to continuous repetition and learning throughout one's life, and some of them require extra effort especially if they are new or strange phenomenons and/or ideas. But humans live in their universe of imagination. There is no other way. That's why we need scientific and material experiments to check out the reliability of our imagination. So your hypothesis "if you spent less time imagining things you would get closer to reality" is nonsense. You can only provide more and different tools for your imagination, but you can not think anything, let alone reality.
You say either and I say either You say neither and I say neither Either, Either Neither, Neither Let's call the whole thing off.
It depends on the kind of trial and the instudy results. Not all studies require a control group. Also, if the treatment is proving significantly positive and there is a control group and the control group is at risk, it is not unheard of to switch the control group over to the treatment to prevent them from being injured from their status as controls. Likewise a study can be terminated early if there is a risk which materializes in the test group. Also things are not tested in humans until there is significant evidence of potential benefit with minimal risk. Yes its still reseach and so there can be unexpected results, but it is not a shot in the dark. The bottom line is that the trial must minimize risk to the patients involved no matter what their level of participation. Yes I have sat on a research ethics review panel for research on humans.
Actually all you need is afoil hat and you are completely protected from their mind control beam. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So you have experienced enough gods to know what their chacteristics are? You've experience discerning true gods from merely powerful non god beings? I'm sure it was a fun experience for you, but I think you are underestimating the issue of how do you know? Perhaps some bored celestial/demonic being is jerking you around.
No worries. Once you get your protective hat you'll see how you were being manilpulated into that opinion. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
