Recent Comments

1. about 9 hours ago on Adult Children

   Oops… I forgot to click on “Reply”, so you would be notified. The sources you asked for are in the post above ^

2. about 9 hours ago on Adult Children

   “independent from any counter-claims, which obviously should have supporting sources as well but aren’t really at the heart of this discussion.”

   Well, that’s more honesty than I expected. You admit that the counter-claims should also cite sources, but I don’t think the reason nobody is asking for those sources is that I made the original claim. I think it’s more likely to be confirmation bias. People don’t cast doubt on the validity of a study if they agree with the results, only if they disagree. But, whether I’m wrong or right about that, you did answer the question, as I requested, so here are some sources. None of these is probably the same study as the one I read about 15 or 20 years ago, but they are similar.

   The first link is to a review of 23 trials about “distance healing” (not just Christian prayer). Thirteen of those trials (57%) showed a positive outcome of prayer. (Remove the spaces to make this and other links work).

   wWw . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pmc / articles / PMC2802370 / #

   The next link lists a number of studies with mixed results.

   wWw . ncbi . nlm . nih . gov / pmc / articles / PMC6027017 /

   The titles you mentioned:

   Prayer and healing: A medical and scientific perspective on randomized controlled trials – PMC

   Outcomes of Intercessory Prayer for those who are ill – PMC

   Both of those sites have links to other studies.

3. about 11 hours ago on Lola

   Yes, I could hear him then. I pointed out to him that it was a video chat, and he moved the phone.

4. about 12 hours ago on Adult Children

   Like I said before, I was posting from memory. But I looked it up online (something you or anyone else could do if you were truly interested in seeking the truth), and I found online sources that include the missing numbers people are complaining so much about. I will post these sources (or at least try to if I can get the links to work) if you can answer one question first. I have been asked by you and others here for sources and details of the study I was referring to, but those who have claimed that studies show that prayer doesn’t work have not been asked for such details. Why? If you can tell me why these details are so important only for studies that show that prayer works, but not for studies that show that prayer doesn’t work, then I’ll post a list of links to sources for what I say.

5. about 13 hours ago on Adult Children

   “not an explanation of anything”

   You’re right. It isn’t an explanation of anything. But you claimed that it was. Your full post was:

   “Explanation for the reading impaired: way to miss a point completely.”

6. about 14 hours ago on Adult Children

   “P.P.E. comes across as one who reads one thing and then interprets it to have said what they want; the reply to the Dawkins quote being a perfect example.”

   This from someone who thinks that “way to miss a point completely.” is an explanation?

7. about 14 hours ago on Adult Children

   “Exactly so.”

   Exactly NOT so. My memory doesn’t affect whether something is reliable or not.

8. about 14 hours ago on Adult Children

   If you did that, the experiment would be worthless. For the results to be valid, everything would have to be the same for both groups, except for prayer, including the healthcare they receive. Either both groups would receive good healthcare, or neither group would receive any healthcare. That’s exactly what was done in the experiment I mentioned. Both groups received the same quality of healthcare at the same hospital, and they avoided the placebo effect by not telling the patients whether they were being prayed for or not.

9. about 14 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

   “The clock did not slow down, time did. It is relative, not a constant.”

   That doesn’t make sense. You can stretch something and make it longer, or cut part of it off and make it shorter, but you can’t change length, nor can you change the units we use to measure length. Length is a phenomenon that can’t be changed. We can use centimeters, meters, inches, feet, or other units to measure length, but those units are constant, and we can’t change them. Volume is a similar phenomenon. We can pour water into a container and change the number of liters, quarts, or other units that we have, but we can’t change the phenomenon we call “volume”, and the units there are also constants.

   Time is a phenomenon, just like length or volume. We can use seconds, minutes, or other units to measure time, but those units are constants, with definitions based on specific conditions. The units don’t change if the conditions change, and time is a phenomenon that can’t change, any more than length or volume. In the experiment I mentioned, it must have been the clock that was affected, since nothing else can change.

10. about 15 hours ago on Calvin and Hobbes

    “ However, then you have to ask, why did the clock “slow down?” What effect could cause that?

    I’m not an expert in this field, so I can’t answer that exactly, but it seems logical that if you change the conditions under which the caesium that the clock runs on is kept, then you would change the frequency, and thereby the clock, just like if you change the temperature of the meter bar.