Is Evolution the only option in a Naturalistic point of view ?

''But the point at issue is not whether it happened but how it happened.''Yeah well my reponse was more to someone who doubted that it did happen.Would you have more links about the spontaneous remission thing ?

I'll take a different approach, since you didn't understand what I meant. Simplest is used in the sense of which explanation has the least assumptions.I think my explanation of simple dissapearance as less assumptions then the one you proposed in which it has to dissapear here but then reappear somewhere else for instance.Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.

slevesque responds to me:

quote:

---

I'll take a different approach, since you didn't understand what I meant. Simplest is used in the sense of which explanation has the least assumptions.

---

That doesn't answer the question. How is the vanishing of atoms more parsimonious than transmogrification? How is the former miracle less miraculous than the latter?

quote:

---

I think my explanation of simple dissapearance as less assumptions then the one you proposed in which it has to dissapear here but then reappear somewhere else for instance.

---

This would be where you would explain why. It is not sufficient to simply assert that it is so. You must provide specifics. How is one violation of the laws of physics less parsimonious than any other violation?After all, teleportation doesn't require a violation of the conservation of matter. There's still just as much matter in the universe after as there was before. It's just distributed differently. So why is teleportation less parsimonious than annihilation?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Ok. If something disappears, it is one step to assume it did disappear, it is second step to asssume that it reappeared elsewhereAnnihilation has one assumption, teleportation has both.It is not about which is more or less miraculous, it is about which has the least numbr of assumption.

No.From a list I put together a while ago.Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. (Source)When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics."

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What? Good things don't happen to non-christians? Why would you assume being christian has anything to do with anything? Now you know two people that this happened to?I just spoke to a friend who is a radiologist. He says that though something like this is uncommon it is not rare. Spontaneous remission of cancer is not an unknown phenomenon. Tends to drive docs crazy, because peoeple start proclaiming miracles. He even knows of people that received treatment and then claim that it was some sort of miracle. No sense giving the docs and medicine any credit when you can give it all to god.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I sound arrogant because you have been given the info numerous times, but still decide to remain ignorant. Maybe you should stop and learn a little bit. It might help you in your discussions here.I can not make you learn, but maybe if you stopped and read what people told you and followed a link or two you might actually learn something. NO, NO, NO and NO.If you had just read what I posted you would see that this is wrong.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

So your god limits his miracles to illnesses? Or is it that he can't replace a limb?I am sure that this all sounds logical to you, but it is pure rationalizing in order to get reality to fit into your belief set.All these miracles you keep talking about, where is the evidence?

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

First, I would like to know where in the Bible or any other source of inspiration that you got the idea that God will only cure certain illnessess. When in the Bible did God put qualifiers on the type of illness you must have for him to consider curing you?Matthew 21:21:I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.Nowhere in there does it say "except in cases of some sicknesses such as limbs."Second, I think you are missing my point. Which is that "miracles" have never happen on a great number of diseases in which medical science would have to admit are miracles. AIDS is another good one. Millions of children in Africa are born with AIDS, but there are no reports of them being cured. Some children live longer than others, but none of them have been cured from the disease to live a long and healthy life. Or any of the dozens of genetic diseases listed belowGuide to genetic disorders | healthdirectCures only seem to happen for diseases which we know go into remission on their own(Cancer) but never happen in diseases that never go away on their own(lost limbs or genetic defects).Furthermore, the effects of prayer and belief have been studied. The Templeton Foundation(which is a strongly pro Christian research group) did a study on the effect of prayer in patients with heart disease. They found that the control group(no prayers) and the group that did not know they were being prayed for had the same survival rate. Ironically, patients who knew they were being prayed for were less likely to survive. This is a subject which has been studied and does not show a trend of miracle cures through peoples faith.Sorry - we can't find that page

Well, here's something to ponder. Consider what we might call a pure philosophical theist/supernaturalist: one who believes that there is a God, that God is the author of the universe, and that God can supervene the laws of nature. Let us also stipulate that our theist is highly intelligent, since the question is not what such a man might think given such a philosophy, but what he should think.Now, my question is, to what extent should the conclusions of this theist differ from those of the naturalist?The answer is: not that much. If the supernaturalist inexplicably loses his spectacles, he will suppose, and act on the supposition, that there is a naturalistic explanation for this, just like the philosophical naturalist. In trying to hypothesize what happened to them, he will be a methodological naturalist.Unlike the naturalist, he need not reject a priori the idea that God sent an angel to bear his spectacles up to heaven, and will admit it as a philosophical possibility, but he will not attach very much weight to this. We stipulated that our theist should be intelligent, and this means that he will not commit the God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy.No, the difference between them will be that the naturalist would tend to reject positive evidence of a miracle, such as actually witnessing the angel carry his spectacles up to heaven. In that case, he would tend to dismiss it as a hallucination; if there were corroborating witnesses, he might appeal to the notion of "mass hysteria" --- or, which is psychologically more likely, he might stop being a philosophical naturalist. The supernaturalist, meanwhile, might more readily accept the observation of an angel (especially if independently corroborated) as proof that there really was an angel.When we look at the history of science, we see the attitude I have described in action. It is likely that some theists looked at a rainbow and uttered the Creationist mantra: "I don't understand it, so Goddidit" --- but their names are not recorded in the history of science. It is certain that some theists (the smart ones) looked at a rainbow, said "I don't understand it", and then went and found out.Now, the relevance to the particular question in the OP is this. Any data that are really sufficient to lead a naturalist to conclude that evolution took place ought to lead the supernaturalist to the same conclusion. He might maintain the theoretical reservation that perhaps a miracle was involved, but he would need a good positive reason to suppose that this was the most likely explanation. For a mere belief in the possibility of miracles does not lead a reasonable man to make them the default explanation for phenomena.That this is not invariably what theists conclude I attribute to two causes.First, we supposed that our theist was intelligent. This is not always the case. The God-Of-The-Gaps fallacy has a powerful appeal to the human mind.Second, of course, is the fact that theists do not usually start being theists because they have come to hold the philosophical position that I set out in the first paragraph of this post, nor are their further religious beliefs derived from these principles. Rather, they are taught from infancy to equate the existence of God and the truth about him with the correctness of their pastor's preferred interpretation of his favorite book.Nonetheless, it is the case that a thinking theist will always (provisionally) accept that the causes of any phenomenon are natural unless he has a positive reason for supposing otherwise. Hence, as I have said, any data sufficient to convince a naturalist of (in particular) evolution, should be sufficient to (provisionally) convince the supernaturalist of the same thing.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't have a dossier on it, I just knew what it was called and googled it.I have the impression that not much is known. If you think about it, it must be fiendishly hard to study. It only happens rarely, and when it does happen, by the time you've noticed that it happened it's already happened.The only way to study the mechanism in humans would be to take thousands on thousands of recently-diagnosed patients, deliberately not give them treatment, study the heck out of all of them with as many tests and observations you could make, and hope that at least one of them undergoes spontaneous remission. Issues of ethics and costs prohibit this approach.Maybe something could be done with rats.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Amelioration of 15 kiloton blast as second assumption.Anybody got a few more.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them.

No. Since slevesque posited that the miracle involved violation of the law of conservation of energy, he is obviously not positing that the mass of the tumor disappeared by being converted into energy.There are many reasons to think that his hypothesis is wrong, but clearly this isn't one of them.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I just want to say that two previous persons had already answered my question, and that I did stop and read what they told me ...I mean, you could also read what others posted so that I don't get three times the same answer. Once is usually enough with me

This is EXACTLY the type of answer I was looking for. Seriously, I think I'm gonna propose it as post of the month.Although I disagree on one point. I do think that the belief in God/Gods (the theistic position) is innate in humans, even in evolutionnary theory. The belief i na particular God/Gods is of course acquired knowledge though.