Schiavo Really WAS Dead!
Aaron Kinney Permalink
56 comments
Today I found a CNN article That details Schiavo's autopsy. Let's take a look at the most important part of this article. Medical Examiner Thogmartin said:
"The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain. ... This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."
Rest assured, death with dignity was the most humane and compassionate thing anyone could have given this poor woman. It's a shame it took her to long to get it. Terri's husband didn't mistreat her at all, and he obviously loved her and cared for her best interests more than anyone else did, including her parents.
To all you theists who are incensed at the concepts of abortion and death with dignity, I tell you this: It's not quantity that matters in life, but quality.
Post a Comment
56 Comments:
MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
Schiavo-like woman
speaks after 2½ years
Doctor: 'I have never seen this happen in my career'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
A Kansas woman severely brain-injured after an accident in 2002 has begun speaking – to the amazement of her doctor.
On Sept. 3, 2002, Tracy Gaskill suffered critical internal and head injuries when her pickup overturned. Doctors told her relatives that night that she probably would die by noon the next day, her grandfather, Don Gaskill, told the Ark City Traveler.
"That accident scared us to death," Gaskill said. Both Gaskill and his granddaughter hail from rural Winfield, Kan.
According to the report, the Gaskill family and many others in the Cowley County community prayed for Tracy regularly since the accident, and she had daily visits.
Not only did Tracy live beyond the day after the accident, she gradually began to improve.
Then, about three weeks ago, she spoke for the first time since the accident, about the same time she began to swallow on her own.
Terri Schiavo before her disability.
Previous to that she was fed via a feeding tube, similar to Floridian Terri Schiavo, who died in March of starvation and dehydration after the court-ordered removal of her nourishment.
"It's amazing, isn't it?" Dr. David Schmeidler told the local paper. "I have never seen this happen in my career. I've read about it happening, the severely brain damaged recovering suddenly, but never seen it – until now."
Continued Schmeidler: "She is actually able to speak and to speak coherently. In light of all this stuff on Terri Schiavo ... it makes you pause and think. For three years or so, (Tracy) was fed through a tube, then she swallowed a little bit and now she speaks."
Lynda Marshall is a registered nurse who has worked with Tracy.
"It's really quite amazing (that Tracy can speak)," she told the Traveler. "After they've been without speech and the ability to eat that long, it's very rare they're able to come back."
Marshall said Tracy will get speech therapy, continue working on improving cognitive functions and eat on her own.
Tracy received what Schiavo did not – at least in the last several years – therapy.
According to the report, in the last few months, nurses worked with her to get her to hum. Eventually, she started to speak clearly.
Asked how old she was, Tracy reportedly answered, "Twenty-nine."
"You're 30," her grandfather corrected her. "Remember, you had another birthday."
**Last week, it was reported Donald Herbert awoke from a coma and spoke for the first time in 10 years. A Buffalo, N.Y., firefighter, Herbert was severely brain injured while fighting a fire in 1995.**
was tracy in a coma?
Anon,
That article was from WORLD NUT DAILY!!! Are you fucking kidding me?????!!!
Its the fucking national enquirer of internet new you retard.
Heres a challenge: Find that same story in any respectable news outlet.
Schiavo was not in a coma whatsoever.
If you want a more thorough analysis of this issue, check it out at my blog, Kill The Afterlife.
Over there, I really get nitty gritty with it, as it relates to the afterlife quite a bit.
?It?s amazing, isn?t it??
Tracy Gaskill shows major signs of recovery after critical accident in 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GASKILL -- Tracy Gaskill, shown in a bed at Medicalodge North in Arkansas City, has amazed family members and medical professionals alike. Gaskill, who was critically injured in an automobile accident in 2002, began speaking earlier this month for the first time since the accident. (Donita Clausen/Traveler)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By FOSS FARRAR, Arkansas City Traveler
For nearly three years, Don and Stella Gaskill had hoped their severely injured granddaughter would talk again. Just recently, their prayers were answered.
On Sept. 3, 2002, Tracy Gaskill suffered critical internal and head injuries when her pickup overturned on its top. Doctors told her relatives that night that she probably would die by noon the next day, Don Gaskill said this morning.
?That accident scared us to death,? said Gaskill, who lives in rural Winfield. Tracy Gaskill also is from Winfield.
But through personalized care received at Medicalodge North in Arkansas City and the daily visits and prayers of the Gaskill family ? as well as many others in the Cowley County community ? Tracy survived and gradually got better, medical personnel say.
Then, about three weeks ago, she spoke for the first time since the accident, Don Gaskill said. About the same time, she began to swallow on her own.
?It?s amazing, isn?t it?? Dr. David Schmeidler said today. ?I have never seen this happen in my career. I?ve read about it happening, the severely brain damaged recovering suddenly, but never seen it until now,? said Schmeidler, the medical director at the Medicalodge. He said he visited Tracy a few weeks ago and she greeted him, ?Hi, Dr. Schmeidler.?
?She is actually able to speak and to speak coherently,? he said. ?In light of all this stuff on Terri Schiavo ? and I believe what was done in that case was wrong ? it makes you pause and think. For three years or so, (Tracy) was fed through a tube, then she swallowed a little bit and now she speaks.?
Schiavo was the severely brain damaged woman who died March 31 after spending 15 years connected to a feeding tube. It finally was disconnected, after a bitter right-to-die dispute between her husband and her parents. The case went all the way to the White House and Congress.
But everyone involved in Tracy Gaskill?s care has been pulling for her to get better ever since her accident.
?It?s really quite amazing (that Tracy can speak),? said Lynda Marshall, a registered nurse who works at Medicalodge North. ?After they?ve been without speech and the ability to eat that long, it?s very rare they?re able to come back.?
Marshall said Tracy will get speech therapy, continue working on improving cognitive functions and eat on her own.
?We?ve been assisting her with a feeding tube until yesterday,? she said.
Don Gaskill said he feels that without the personalized care his granddaughter has received at Medicalodge, she wouldn?t have made such an amazing recovery.
?In the last year and a half, she?s indicated that she knows us; she has been watching TV and smiling,? he said. ?More recently, she started nodding her head when we asked her questions. Then a few months ago, she?d laugh out loud.?
In the last few months, nurses at the Medicalodge worked with her to get her to hum, he added. Finally, she started to speak clearly.
Asked by a reporter today how old she was, Tracy answered, ?Twenty-nine. ?You?re 30,? Don Gaskill corrected her. ?Remember, you had another birthday.?
Tracy Gaskill was injured in 2002 when she lost control of her pickup truck as she was driving south on U.S. 77 just south of Strother Field, near the site of Cowley Cinema 8, according to the Cowley County Sheriff?s Department. The vehicle rolled over.
?We don?t know what caused it,? Don Gaskill said. ?We weren?t at home at the time. One of (her) brothers who had heard from the sheriff?s office called us.?
Tracy was taken by ambulance to Strother Field, where a medical evacuation helicopter airlifted her to Wesley Medical Center. Tracy is a sister of Tyler Gaskill, a photographer and office staffer at the Winfield Courier. She has another brother, Shawn, a junior at Winfield High School.
She was in surgical intensive care for about a month at the Wichita hospital, Don Gaskill said, before she was moved into the Medicalodge in Arkansas City.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a page is not working properly, or you have a comment or suggestion about this page and/or the Courier Online site as a whole, please e-mail us here at the Courier Online.
the above was from http://www.winfieldcourier.com/w050514/Wed1.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1401378/posts
By FOSS FARRAR, Arkansas City Traveler For nearly three years, Don and Stella Gaskill had hoped their severely injured granddaughter would talk again. Just recently, their prayers were answered.
On Sept. 3, 2002, Tracy Gaskill suffered critical internal and head injuries when her pickup overturned on its top. Doctors told her relatives that night that she probably would die by noon the next day, Don Gaskill said this morning.
“That accident scared us to death,” said Gaskill, who lives in rural Winfield. Tracy Gaskill also is from Winfield.
But through personalized care received at Medicalodge North in Arkansas City and the daily visits and prayers of the Gaskill family — as well as many others in the Cowley County community — Tracy survived and gradually got better, medical personnel say.
Then, about three weeks ago, she spoke for the first time since the accident, Don Gaskill said. About the same time, she began to swallow on her own.
“It’s amazing, isn’t it?” Dr. David Schmeidler said today. “I have never seen this happen in my career. I’ve read about it happening, the severely brain damaged recovering suddenly, but never seen it until now,” said Schmeidler, the medical director at the Medicalodge. He said he visited Tracy a few weeks ago and she greeted him, “Hi, Dr. Schmeidler.”
“She is actually able to speak and to speak coherently,” he said. “In light of all this stuff on Terri Schiavo — and I believe what was done in that case was wrong — it makes you pause and think. For three years or so, (Tracy) was fed through a tube, then she swallowed a little bit and now she speaks.”
Schiavo was the severely brain damaged woman who died March 31 after spending 15 years connected to a feeding tube. It finally was disconnected, after a bitter right-to-die dispute between her husband and her parents. The case went all the way to the White House and Congress.
But everyone involved in Tracy Gaskill’s care has been pulling for her to get better ever since her accident.
“It’s really quite amazing (that Tracy can speak),” said Lynda Marshall, a registered nurse who works at Medicalodge North. “After they’ve been without speech and the ability to eat that long, it’s very rare they’re able to come back.”
Marshall said Tracy will get speech therapy, continue working on improving cognitive functions and eat on her own.
“We’ve been assisting her with a feeding tube until yesterday,” she said.
Don Gaskill said he feels that without the personalized care his granddaughter has received at Medicalodge, she wouldn’t have made such an amazing recovery.
“In the last year and a half, she’s indicated that she knows us; she has been watching TV and smiling,” he said. “More recently, she started nodding her head when we asked her questions. Then a few months ago, she’d laugh out loud.”
In the last few months, nurses at the Medicalodge worked with her to get her to hum, he added. Finally, she started to speak clearly.
Asked by a reporter today how old she was, Tracy answered, “Twenty-nine. “You’re 30,” Don Gaskill corrected her. “Remember, you had another birthday.”
Tracy Gaskill was injured in 2002 when she lost control of her pickup truck as she was driving south on U.S. 77 just south of Strother Field, near the site of Cowley Cinema 8, according to the Cowley County Sheriff’s Department. The vehicle rolled over.
“We don’t know what caused it,” Don Gaskill said. “We weren’t at home at the time. One of (her) brothers who had heard from the sheriff’s office called us.”
Tracy was taken by ambulance to Strother Field, where a medical evacuation helicopter airlifted her to Wesley Medical Center. Tracy is a sister of Tyler Gaskill, a photographer and office staffer at the Winfield Courier. She has another brother, Shawn, a junior at Winfield High School.
She was in surgical intensive care for about a month at the Wichita hospital, Don Gaskill said, before she was moved into the Medicalodge in Arkansas City.
Notice that the World Nut Daily article does nothing to address the type of brain damage, the brain matter still remaining, nor does it even mention any brain scans in cmparison to Terris scans. Have you seen Terirs brain scans, anon? Its a big fucking black empty hole of a scan is what it is! Nothing there!
I would love to see what Tracy's scans showed. Probably a mostly-intanct and functional brain. Then again, I wouldnt be suprised if World Retard Daily made that whole thing up. If that story is so amazing, why doesnt CNN or MSNBC or even FAUX (whoops I meant FOX) talk about it?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7994497/
ARKANSAS CITY, Kan. - If Tracy Gaskill could, she would spend her day eating — strawberry swirled ice cream and juicy watermelons and vanilla milkshakes from Sonic.
advertisement
But most of all, Tracy would eat pizza. Supreme, she says — her one-word response recalling a popular Pizza Hut offering topped with pepperoni, beef, pork, green peppers, onions and mushrooms.
Her words delight her grandparents, Don and Stella Gaskill. Since a 2002 traffic accident damaged their granddaughter’s brain, Tracy has been silent, nourished through a feeding tube in her stomach. For about 2½ years, her daily diet through that tube has consisted of five cans of a liquid, high-calorie mixture called Jevity.
But during the past few months, Tracy, now 30, gradually began using her long-dormant throat muscles again. She laughed. She hummed. She sipped water.
Now she can talk — mostly in one-word answers that began a month ago and brought tears to her grandparents’ eyes.
And she can eat.
Critically wounded in accident
Before the accident, Tracy was a student at Cowley County Community College who dreamed of becoming an art teacher. She also worked as an aide caring for disabled children at Creative Community Living, the company that took over their housing and care after the state hospital closed in Arkansas City.
But all that seems like a lifetime ago — before the evening of Sept. 3, 2002, when Tracy rolled her pickup truck while driving between Arkansas City and Winfield. The cause of the accident is unknown.
She was taken by helicopter to a Wichita hospital, where her grandparents were told that she was critically wounded and would likely not survive past noon the following day.
Today, a poster from the children Tracy once cared for hangs on the wall beside her hospital bed at Medicalodge North. On it are pasted photos of her former young charges with a hand-scrawled message: “Hi Tracy. Thinking about you. We miss you. Everyone wishes you the best.”
That same poster has followed Tracy from the surgical intensive care unit where she spent a month to the select specialty hospital room where the then semi-comatose Tracy had the ventilator removed. It remains on display at the long-term care facility where she now lives.
'The brain is an amazing thing'
Unlike Terri Schiavo, who was in a persistent vegetative state, Tracy eventually showed signs that she recognized people and was aware to a limited extent of her surroundings. But she couldn’t speak.
Her doctor, David Schmeidler, has made no significant changes to her medication. He credits her ability to communicate again to her constant care and to occupational and speech therapy. But, most of all, her doctor credits prayer.
While Schmeidler doubts that Tracy will ever fully recover, he believes that with intensive therapy she will continue to improve.
“The brain is an amazing thing,” Schmeidler says.
In February, the Gaskills found renewed hope as they followed news reports of another Kansas woman who began talking 20 years after a brain injury. They prayed for a similar miracle for Tracy.
Like the Gaskills’ granddaughter, Sarah Scantlin had been mostly oblivious to the world around her. Sarah was an 18-year-old college freshman on Sept. 22, 1984, when she was hit by a drunk driver as she walked to her car after celebrating with friends at a club.
Sarah had started talking in mid-January, though she asked staff members not to tell her parents until Valentine’s Day to surprise them.
But by early February, Sarah could not wait any longer and made the phone call that thrilled her parents, sparked intense media coverage and brought hope to families of other brain-injured patients.
'We always had hope'
For almost three years, the Gaskills have visited their granddaughter every day. Don comes every morning, Stella every evening. Tracy’s mother died the year before the traffic accident. Tracy’s father has his own serious health problems and doesn’t live nearby.
advertisement
About a month ago, Don had just returned home when he got his own long-awaited phone call. It was Tracy.
“She said, ’Grandpa.’ That did it,” Don says. He would learn later that Tracy had also told him on the phone that she loved him.
He didn’t hear that part — he was crying too hard.
Stella cried too as she phoned family and friends to tell them the news. And she says she hasn’t quit crying yet.
“We have more expectations, more hope than before,” Don says. “Only God knows what will happen from here. We always had hope that this day would come.”
'A happy ending'
Soon, the feeding tube to Tracy’s stomach will be removed. The injectable tube that staff also used just days ago to feed her pureed food by mouth also sits unused in her hospital room’s sink.
Now each passing day brings more improvement in Tracy’s condition — more words, perhaps even a new food to rediscover.
In recent weeks, she had her first cookie in three years — oatmeal raisin. She had a taste of fresh watermelon. An aide stopped in briefly to bring her a promised vanilla milkshake from Sonic.
The staff even muses that Tracy might be able to handle pizza now.
Her family hopes that, like Sarah Scantlin’s recovery, Tracy’s story will hearten the families of other brain-injured patients.
“A happy ending,” Stella says.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
cadman, I know you didn't read my article. :) i find that to be common around here..
aaron, who's the retard now? also you did not read the article as usual...
So anon, you got a few more obscure links for the article, but where is the info on the brain damage itself? How does her brain damage compare to Schiavos?
Was Terrys brain even 1/10th as deteriorated as Schiavos was? Where is a brain scan pic? I contend that, due to material depednecy of consiousness and the actual brain organ, that Tracy had a relatively intact brain without the extensive damage and deterioration of neurons that Schiavo did.
I posted an quote from the autopsy medical examiner who discussed the level of deterioration that Schiavos brian suffered. Where is the equivalent evidence for Terry? They got to have some kind of scan or xray or quantification of the damage, right?
wow i didn't know msnbc was obscure! Amazing aaron. tell us something new?
You are the retard anon, for posting a WND article in the first place. Obviously you read that site regularly. Hey I also got copies of the Daily Sun and Enquirer and Weekly World News that you might be interested in!
Also, you posted shit about feeding tubes and prayers. You posted nothing relevant or in comparison to the info that I posted. I posted the link and one quote from the medical examiner about the condition of Terris brain. You did nothing of the sort. Your article says Tracy suffered brain damage but it goes into no detail.
You need to keep relevance here. Lets examine the merits of each case in quantifiable terms: In the amount of damage to each persons brain.
Anon, do you think that a brain can be as damaged as Schiavos and still have full conginition return? In other words, do you think that you could melt your brain to mush and still hold a conversation and pay your bills etc? Yes or no?
Not to mention that you violated copyright law like 4 times already. Retard.
Hey anon, Can you quote me where I called MSNBC obscure? I dont remember doing that.
I called your winfieldcourier and villagevoice links obscure IIRC.
"Hey anon, Can you quote me where I called MSNBC obscure? I dont remember doing that. "
"So anon, you got a few more obscure links for the article..."
I had already posted the msnbc article...
I posted it in reference to your village and republic links. I had not yet seen the MSNBC link. Besides, the MSNBC link says nothing about the state of her brain or the extent of the damage in comparison to Terris.
And this part of the article you posted really sticks out to me anon:
"© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. "
Hey! I just saw this new post. Good job Aaron. Of course this presupposes a physicalist view of the body, but who cares?
Aaron, I read what you wrote to Anon:
"Anon,
That article was from WORLD NUT DAILY!!! Are you fucking kidding me?????!!!
Its the fucking national enquirer of internet new you retard.
Heres a challenge: Find that same story in any respectable news outlet."
Wheren't you the moral police? You were the one chiding me for ad hominems. You're a hypocrite. Remember, you said that if someone resorts to ad hominems then that is because they don't have an argument. Hey, Aaron, they tell me that self-refutation is the worst form, is that true?
Paul said:
"Wheren't you the moral police? You were the one chiding me for ad hominems. You're a hypocrite. Remember, you said that if someone resorts to ad hominems then that is because they don't have an argument. Hey, Aaron, they tell me that self-refutation is the worst form, is that true?"
I thought about this issue you raised as I was typing it. I excused my ad hominem for a few reasons.
1. Anonymous is anonymous, and this is a disresepctful and cowardly way to engage others in a comments section that allows names without registration.
2. Anonymous put in straight WND propaganda as his first post.
3. Anonymous violated copyright law numerous times.
4. Anonymous didnt even present an argument or any original thought of his own. He merely pasted other peoples work onto the site like a spammer.
5. I have often talked about attacking arguments and not arguers, but anonymous DOESNT EVEN PRESENT AN ARGUMENT! You on the other hand Paul, DO present arguments of your own.
All of these things made me lose all respect for him and I decided he was deserving of ridicule due to his poor behaviour.
You on the other hand Paul have only posted as anonymous when you were banned from the blog, so it doesnt count against you. You also have not violated the copyright of intellectual works of others to any significant degree IMO. You also are someone that I met in person and know who you are, and you were respectful to me when we did meet in person.
In a nutshell Paul, I dont have a problem with you. I only have a problem with your beliefs. That is why I am quick to ridicule your religion but not you personally. Whatever we disagree on, I do not consider you a moron nor do I consider you a spammer or one of those trash-site readers, like the WND crowd.
But I do have a problem with anonymous personally and I judged him to be deserving of such ridicule.
Paul said:
"Hey! I just saw this new post. Good job Aaron. Of course this presupposes a physicalist view of the body, but who cares?"
The burden of proof for material existence has been met. The burden of proof for immaterial existence has not. I can provide evidence to support my position; it is falsifiable. The immaterialist position regarding Terri Schiavo has no evidence; it is not falsifiable. I discuss this at length in the various posts at my Kill The Afterlife blog.
"The burden of proof for material existence has been met"
Since materialism is an absolute, that's not very difficult. The only burden is to show that minds exist, which is trivial.
CADman I got them setup as links here for you. Good job on not posting the entire articles in here by the way. Good to see someone respects intellectual property.
Timesonline.co.ok article
New Scientist article
Franc said:
Since materialism is an absolute, that's not very difficult. The only burden is to show that minds exist, which is trivial.
Exactly :)
Okay I fucked up. that times article I linked for CADman was the wrong one.
Here is the correct one!
Hey Aaron, funny to see you rationalize your ad-hominem. Have you ever thought I don't consider you to have provided arguments and so according to you I was justified? Also, you are the fallacy king. Just because anonymous posted something from world nut does not autolatically mean it's not true.
Also, I find it funny you think you have proven physicalism in your sophmoric blog. That would come as a surpirise to many professional philosophers, even physicalists!
Tell you what, why don't you send your proof to Kim or Dennett or Churchland and see what they think.
You're a goofball Aaron. I can say that because you're a coward and don;t present arguments. :-)
Franc said:
"Since materialism is an absolute, that's not very difficult. The only burden is to show that minds exist, which is trivial."
Aaron chimed in: "exactly."
Paul notices that Aaron said: "I can provide evidence to support my position; it is falsifiable."
Hmmm, it's absolute but it's falsifiable. What a gang of morons we have here.
Furthermore, Tremblay argues for materialisms necessity, but then it's also falsifiable. Jokers!
You're still here, first-grader Paul ? Geesh. Talk about persistence.
Paul said:
You're a goofball Aaron. I can say that because you're a coward and don;t present arguments. :-)
Actually I have presented arguments. Just because you say I didnt doesnt mean I havent. I contend that, on the contrary, you havent even provided refutations of the arguments I have presented in many of these blog entries.
Paul said:
Paul notices that Aaron said: "I can provide evidence to support my position; it is falsifiable."
Hmmm, it's absolute but it's falsifiable. What a gang of morons we have here.
Clearly you arent the one presenting the argument. You dont understand what Im even saying here. When I talked about falsifiability, I was referring to the consciousness-brain dependency. When Franc talked about absolutes, he was talking about material existing.
The consciousness-brain dependency is falsifiable and not an absolute, but material existence is an absolute.
Nice try with your moron insults and claims of me being sophomoric and not presenting arguments. At least Im the one that sticks to the arguments when it comes to debating with you.
What is it you have to support your superstitious immaterialist beliefs? Oh thats right, a material Bible and your own material imagination. And Im the joker, huh Paul? You need to grow up out of your silly cultist magick Jesus beliefs Paul. You believe in a stupid superstition that was invented by ignorant sheep herders with too much time on their hands. I imagine all the drug use you experimented with made it tough for you to seperate imagination from reality. Hows that for ad hominem?
Welcome, lucinda sans!
Paul said:
Hey Aaron, funny to see you rationalize your ad-hominem.
At least I actually have reasons for it and only do it under speciic circumstances. You ad hominem for the hell of it because it makes you feel good. Great way to follow in Jesus' footsteps.
Have you ever thought I don't consider you to have provided arguments and so according to you I was justified?
Yes. But that wasnt the only reason I gave for my ad hominem. Besides, I happen to not consider you to have any decent arguments for Jesus/God, nor have you provided any decent refutations. You didnt have anything to fight my faith articles with, nor my attack on the problem of induction. Regardless of the merits of my writings, you didnt even address them directly. All you did was bitch and moan that I didnt read enough, as if that somehow automatically made my arguments wrong. Nice try.
Also, you are the fallacy king.
At best, I am the fallacy prince. The king title would go to you. Your argument about non-sensory-perception logic is this: "Those who dont admit an inherent awareness of God outside sense perception are liars!"
Ridiculous. Unfalsifiable. And I could make a polar opposite argument for atheism that would be just as strong (or should I say weak) as yours.
Paul: "Hey Aaron... you are the fallacy king."
Nope, couldn't be unless Aaron hails from the lineage of Van Til and Bahnsen. I believe Bahnsen passsed this crown down to another Christian. You don't think they'd pass their mantle down to a non-believer, do you?
Aaron: "I happen to not consider you to have any decent arguments for Jesus/God,"
Same here. None that pass the Geusha test anyway.
Aaron: "nor have you provided any decent refutations."
Not of anything important, anyway.
Aaron: "You didnt have anything to fight my faith articles with,"
He does have a habit of rushing into battle completely unarmed, doesn't he?
Aaron: "nor my attack on the problem of induction."
You're right again, Aaron: Paul had nothing intelligent to say on this issue either.
Aaron: "Regardless of the merits of my writings, you didnt even address them directly. All you did was bitch and moan that I didnt read enough, as if that somehow automatically made my arguments wrong."
I noticed that, too.
Aaron: "Your argument about non-sensory-perception logic is this: 'Those who dont admit an inherent awareness of God outside sense perception are liars!'"
Well, according to Romans 3:4, every man is a liar. Which, if we took this seriously, would mean not only that Paul Manata is a liar, but so is the apostle Paul who wrote the epistle to the Romans in the first place. Clearly, the bible disqualifies itself as an authority.
Paul Manata, I've never posted to you before, but I've read many of your arguments here with AK and some others. I understand you are an apologist who is going for his masters. Is this correct? I live across the street from an apsiring apologist. She has gone to several seminars in Texas (we live in Indiana)and is quite serious about becoming one. She is the only contact I have had with apologetics. I wondered what kind of stuff they teach you guys in those seminars. I mean, Apologetics is the art of pursuading atheists, agnostics, pagans, and the like into joining your fold. Is this a correct interpretation? I myself am an atheist. From what I have read of your comments so far, I would say you have done little but launch ad hominem attacks yourself, followed by many arguments that involve circular reasoning. Is this what they teach you? To upset atheists to give you the upperhand or something? Changing the subject also seems to be a trick of yours. Lastly, I find it difficult to believe anyone atttempting a master's degree should be this bad at spelling and grammmar. I would give you the benefit of the doubt, but this seems to be a regular occurence in your writing. Speed reading and typing can only account for so much.
Paul Manata, I offer the last post as constructive criticism. I am not trying to attack you. I just feel the best way to appeal to an atheist is to not insult his/her intelligence. You won't get very far winning anyone over by insulting them. I've seen some of them have insulted you as well, and you have defended yourself in those situations. That is fine. I would defend myself as well. But I wouldn't expect to win anyone over (especially at an atheist website) by being impatient and rude. And as an aside, why did your religion choose the term "apologetics"? It seems to imply the obvious. That being your position of apologizing for your religion. It sounds as bad as passionately suffering.
nope, boywonder, that's not what they teach us, i.e., to persuade atheists.
I don't get serious on the blog comment sections but usually just like to upset the sheeple.
I have more serious entries on my own blog as well as publicly debating an atheist. I was not unprofessional there.
Anyway, thanks for your concern. Sorry I didn't impress you.
oh yeah, sorre fo my bad gramar and spellin
Hey, did Paul mention he's an expert in linguistics, too?
Hey CADman,
Its so funny to see her parents disagreeing with the autopsy. Her parents lost all credibility with me a longgggg time ago.
Her parents obviously dont have her best interests at heart...they have THEIR OWN best interests at heart. This is because they wanted to keep her technically alive on machines at all costs forever. I understand that a parent would dread to see their own child die, and it is a horrible thing for the parent, but in this case, it was much better for Terri to pass on with dignity instead of being a freak invalid on a machine.
No suprise that fox news did the story there.
So CADman, in order to make a link you gotta do it like this. Just replace the [] with <> in the syntax.
[a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/
0,2933,159733,00.html"]Fox News Link[/a]
So if you do it correctly with the <> tags, it will look like this:
Fox News Link
CADman,
If you want to learn about HTML coding, go to this site:
http://www.htmlgoodies.com/
check out the primer section first...specifically the html section. It will teach you everything you need to know about making links, doing things like bold and italics and blockquotes and all that stuff. its pretty easy.
See
Scientific Proof of God
Ummm, anonymous, that is a terrorism link that only ASSERTS of a scientific proof of God. It does not provide the proof.
I took the liberty of clicking on links to find this scientific proof. Your web site claims that Hammond wrote a paper for the Noetic Journal Vol. 4 Issue. 3 called "The Scientific Proof of God", but when I went to the actual Noetic Journal website, it says that the article is titled: "Psychology Detects Quantum Brain Gravity". Hmmmmmm. Something isnt matching up!
Anyway, the paper from anons website cites a combination of quantum gravity and a discrpeancy between theoretical growth of humans vs. actual growth of humans to be a "scientific proof of God".
Non Sequitor?
At any rate, I have a trump card to play. It is called the First Law of Thermodynamics, or the law of the conservation of matter/energy. It states that matter/energy can never be created nor destroyed, but only change forms. Matter/energy is eternal and has no creator.
Even if this "scientific" paper from Hammond actually proves an entity or force out there, the paper does nothing to identify this force as a conscious one. The "scientific" paper even quotes the Bible in numerous occasions!
And to top it off, a quick Google search of hammond takes us to Francs insolitology page, where they debunk this bullshit rather quickly.
Enjoy this link, anon:
Insolitology - Hammond
And I even found another page where a writer points out the unscientific nature of Hammonds claims by showing that when Hammond claims he "CANNOT BE WRONG" that this is not a scientific claim, nor a proof. Ouch.
SPOG critique
So anon, why dont you explain to us in your own words what Hammond's proof is. Why do you believe/agree with Hammond? What is your analysis of his arguments, and can you please describe it to us in the way that you understand it?
Aaron
"1. Anonymous is anonymous, and this is a disresepctful and cowardly way to engage others in a comments section that allows names without registration."
If there is the ability to log a name without registration, and I can use any name I want, then what is the difference. Maybe, do you think that I click Anon for the ease of one clock posting...duh
And yes Hammond is a nut job, I just thought with the way you approach subjects around here you would have fun with it, and I was correct
If there is the ability to log a name without registration, and I can use any name I want, then what is the difference.
You should already know the answer to that question.
Maybe, do you think that I click Anon for the ease of one clock posting...duh
Youre lazy and you act like youve got something to hide. You should be well aware of what kind of reactions youre "anonymous" behavior will attract. But then again, you regularly read WND, so....
aaron spits out, "But then again, you regularly read WND, so...."
But how do you know this aaron? I was looking for the article that I had originally read on msnbc and searched for it and that is the one that came up first.
YOu got me though with the copyright issue.... good going... whatever relevance it has, who knows.. but you got me..
'anonymous' is a fine example of what Christians are like! I applaud him/her for making clear why 'living for the lord' doesn't really make somebody a better person.
hey Jerry Falwell-
I'm another anonymous. can you help me out? I want to rape women and have no problems with it, should I hold to social evolution and bio evolution to appease my conscious?
hey, the Apostle Paul said he wished some people would cut their wankers off. Jesus called people dogs, sons of satan, and broods of vipers. So, when we act namby-pamby you pull out one thing, and when we speak strongly you pull out another. So, you make it clear why holding to atheism does't imply your a consistant non-hypocrite.
how bout dem apples?
anonymous AKA Paul Manata...
I appreciate you pointing out the contradictory statements and teachings of the apostle Paul, Jesus, and the Bible in general. It really is a bunch of shit.
Thanks for the help!
I couldn't help but notice the title, "Schiavo Really WAS Dead!"
Is there no one else who finds it strange that aaron thinks dead people can move and breathe?
religious moron, I mean anonymous said:
"Is there no one else who finds it strange that aaron thinks dead people can move and breathe?"
Call me crazy, but I think aaron was referring to the fact that christian wackos didn't recognize that 'the lights were on, but nobody was home' while Schiavo lay there with less than half a brain in her head.
Really funny point though....
anon said:
I'm another anonymous. can you help me out? I want to rape women and have no problems with it, should I hold to social evolution and bio evolution to appease my conscious?
Social evolution will not serve as a justification for your immoral desires, for social evolution os pro-life, not anti-life. Social evolution as you call it would be something like this: "I will not sacrifice myself for anyone else, nor will I sacrifice anyone else for me" because social evolution recognizes the importance of individual rights and respect for others just as you respect yourself.
If you are looking for justification for those heinous desires, you should turn to the Bible... you know, the part where God instructs his people to slay everyone except to keep the virgin women for themselves...
anon said:
I couldn't help but notice the title, "Schiavo Really WAS Dead!"
Is there no one else who finds it strange that aaron thinks dead people can move and breathe?
In the title, I was referring to the earlier post about Terri written by Francois Tremblay, where he made an argument that Terri was already dead. By Franc's standards, the autopsy agreed EXACTLY with what Frank contended: conscious/mental death.
aaron said:
"If you are looking for justification for those heinous desires, you should turn to the Bible... you know, the part where God instructs his people to slay everyone except to keep the virgin women for themselves..."
LOL!!! How about dem apples?
I forgot about that little gem...
"In the title, I was referring to the earlier post about Terri written by Francois Tremblay, where he made an argument that Terri was already dead. By Franc's standards, the autopsy agreed EXACTLY with what Frank contended: conscious/mental death."
hmmm now because terri didn't seem to be conscious yet can move around, breathe etc she is considered dead but we still had to kill her by starving her to death. interesting point of view.. guess she wouldn't just 'really' die so we had to starve her...
since she was mentally dead, maybe we could get a blog entry on how she was able to move around, breathe, etc... remember that she's 'conscious/mentally' dead and remember what those actions are controlled by...
"Social evolution will not serve as a justification for your immoral desires, for social evolution os pro-life, not anti-life. Social evolution as you call it would be something like this: "I will not sacrifice myself for anyone else, nor will I sacrifice anyone else for me" because social evolution recognizes the importance of individual rights and respect for others just as you respect yourself."
what exactly is 'social evolution'? You speak as though it's a person since it can 'recognize the importance of individual rights' and 'respect'. Could you introduce me to social evolution?
anonymous, could you please introduce me to a talking plant or a speaking donkey? That would so rock! Those OT folks had all the luck. Plants, donkeys, free virgins...good times!
I didn't say the body that was called "Terri Schiavo" in 1985 was dead. I SAID TERRI SCHIAVO WAS DEAD. There's nothing hard to understand here.
"I didn't say the body that was called "Terri Schiavo" in 1985 was dead. I SAID TERRI SCHIAVO WAS DEAD. There's nothing hard to understand here."
This is the problem i'm having understanding what you guys are saying franc.. You are materialist right? So what part of her died? Her brain had to be working if her body was working unless you want to postulate that kidney's etc don't need a brain to work.
<< Home