In an earlier reply, you state that you use your own heart and conscience.

Uh, there are English versions of the Bible besides the one published in the year 1611.

Whether I use the Koran, the Tanakh or the New Testament, the standard that I use is independent of my heart and my conscience.

A person's heart can be corrupt, and a person's conscience can be seared.

Anyway, it would be futile for me to discuss morality with another person if that other person is not using the same standard that I am using.

How do you know that those verse you quoted aren't "corrupted"?

Yes. It was put into writing long before I was born.

So, yours is a subjective standard. Well, at least you are honest about it. Thank you.

So, it is the laughter that you object to. Now that I understand. I would not have laughed.

I am still waiting for someone to address my last question.

What standard do you use to determine what is moral and what is not moral?

After all, the topic of this thread pertains to morality.

Let's just say for a minute that it's true....that homosexuals are going to hell. Is this something to be happy about? These people are laughing at the thought that someone would burn in hell for their sexual orientation. It makes me sick.

(No, I do not believe homosexuals are going to hell. I was just pointing out how truly sick this is.)

No, it is your lack of knowledge. The meaning of my statement is clear, I said Sun burns cause the trauma, which causes the mutations which causes the cancer. I used fewer words, but the meaning is the same. What I said was EXTREMELY simplistic, hence why I posted sources for more detailed information in the hopes that anyone who was interested would read it. Instead of reading any of it, you made your statement.

Your question should have not made any conclusions if you did not understand the pathways of mutation, which you dont.

This is just you trying to defend your ignorance and nothing more, you are playing word games in defense of ignorance.

You fail at critical thinking and logic repeatedly. Even if I was wrong, the answer is to withhold judgement until you understand what is and is not correct. Clearly not at all what you do. You take what people say, ignore digging into the subject matter and make sweeping conclusions from ignorance.

This is not personal for me, I and just making an observation that you consistently blame other people for your lack of understanding and get snippy when anyone points it out to you.

Also this was your question
You asked specifically what was the cause of HIS skin cancer. I answered what the cause of HIS skin cancer was . . . that does not mean that ALL skin cancer MUST originate in that same way. Your logic is fallacious on almost every count, and you dont even see it.

This is what critical thinking is all about, trying to be precise with understandings, and making sure that all conclusions are well founded in the specific context applicable.

I am not a cancer researcher, or doctor, or anyone who studies cancer in any real depth, its fully possible I have no clue what I am talking about, however your terribly sloppy logic and complete lack of critical thinking make it impossible for you to be able to know one way or the other.

Do you know what happens when a scientists has determined that something may be the cause of a disease. They attempt to falsify that assertion, ie they try to prove themselves wrong. They explore every pathway that could create an incorrect conclusion. This is what quacks will avoid like the plague.

Do you know what happens when a scientists finds examples of things like skin cancer and have nothing to indicate it may have been caused by sun burn, or really any other mechanism they believe to be true?

They try to find out if it could be another cause for the same disease, becuase not all things have a single cause. Your assumptions ignore all of these distinctions, and you wonder why people call it out.

I am not trying to make you feel bad, and so it should not be taken personally, but you have serious issues with science, and any attempt to disabuse you of those issues should be seen as someone trying to help you.

People like peter and volant do not help at all. They are even worse, it almost appears they have a specific motivation to spread misinformation, and enjoy nothing better than trolling science. The naturalnews article was a great example. Don't have a real argument . .. just post some "facts" about the failures of science to discredit that which refutes you.

If anyone really thinks these kinds of tactics are intellectually sound they need some time with a philo of science course, and some remedial study.

A documentary, and newspaper articles are not evidence. If they offered data then we could use that data, but just showing that other hold the same opinion is not evidence.

This is part of the problem, you just do not understand science at all.

Your the one posting this stuff, that makes it your claims, so yea show us the evidence!

Scientific studies have been done on only a small fraction of the quackery. There is just so much quackery, its a better use of time and resources to educate people about the way that quacks operate in general, rather than play whack-a-mole with every single quack.

I could claim that drinking water that's been placed in a special red jar then left in the sunlight for minutes will cure the measles.

I invent some ******** about vibrational energy, how we are mostly water, how measles resonates at a certain frequencies, etc etc, and sell tens of thousands of vials of this water.

You come in and do an expensive, time consuming study to show I'm full of ****.

But next week Bushido steps forward and says: you did your study at a different altitude. The sunlight needs to be conditioned by passing through the atmosphere just so, and embarks on his quack campaign.

So you come in and do an expensive, time consuming study at the same altitude to show how Bushido's quack treatment is based on lies.

The Metal says: Aha! See here? The special effect also depends on special qualities of the local water...

Rinse and repeat as above, you show that his quackery is false.

Then Bravalady says: Oh, wait! Clearly the negative, skeptical thoughts of the researchers were interfering with the vibrational cohesion of the quantum cellular transitions!

Whack-a-quack never ends!

Creating arbitrary quack remedies is to easy.

IMO, sensible people will not believe the claims of quacks without quality studies being done to show that their methods work - rather than saying "Well....prove it doesn't work!"


--------------------

Now, as far as Rife is concerned.... Rife himself (I'm told) made some wrong claims in support of his work, such as the claim that all cancer was caused by bacteria and viruses.

It is true that bombarding a diseased region with certain kinds of energy can be helpful in treating the disease, and in that sense Rife was on to something... but his over-simplifications and grandiose claims rightfully earned him some measure of disdain from more sensible people.

I don't know enough about Rife or the drama between him and his colleagues to comment further on that (for all I know, his ideas may have been rejected wholesale without an objective investigation)...

...either way, his name would still be strongly associated with quackery because of the quacks that have exploited his name in the promotion of their worthless products. Whether or not Rife successfully killed some bacteria in his lab, some of the devices being sold in recent decades, with his name on it, are self-evidently worthless. People have died as a result of trusting the quacks selling and using these devices.

The scientific and medical communities have been researching and using various ways forms of therapeutic bombardment for many, many decades - without the burden of quack-style thinking. They have made a great deal of progress - but this doesn't validate the claim that Rife machines are cancer cure-alls.

I highly doubt that will work. That relates mostly to cd/dvd drives. It sounds to me like the hard drive is bad or the enclosure has given up the ghost.

Sorry, I haven't looked at this post of mine in forever. If my computer won't recognize it, how can I get my data back?

why this is on the subject of god creating man,this is a very good question "why did God give men breast nipples if we can't produce milk?"

What's wrong with using a laser to ablate tumors?