2007 Rapture?

Started by Shakyamunison65 pages
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Near death simply means that the person did not [B]stay dead. It does not imply that the person never experienced death for any protracted period. [/B]

You are mistaken. Show me a medical document that agrees with your assertion.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Near death simply means that the person did not [B]stay dead. It does not imply that the person never experienced death for any protracted period. [/B]

The wording is clearly wrong then, as it should be a "death experience" if they factually died, yet came back.

Do you have verifiable/documented proof that a person was dead, brain dead and then came back?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20050521/ai_n14636549

while a touching story, it doesn't prove brain death

brain death as a concept and brain death as a term are much different.

the term is given once an EEG no longer reads activity. EEGs can't detect a small amount of activity

I would be willing to bet he did not get an fMRI and the is no way to do individual neuron measurements.

its not impossible, though I would think it highly unlikely. It all depends on the nature of memory, and especially considering this child was very young at the time of the accident and thus had a very plastic brain, the specific damage could have naturally repaired itself in ways not possible once a person has a fully developed adult brain.

Originally posted by inimalist
while a touching story, it doesn't prove brain death

brain death as a concept and brain death as a term are much different.

the term is given once an EEG no longer reads activity. EEGs can't detect a small amount of activity

I would be willing to bet he did not get an fMRI and the is no way to do individual neuron measurements.

its not impossible, though I would think it highly unlikely. It all depends on the nature of memory, and especially considering this child was very young at the time of the accident and thus had a very plastic brain, the specific damage could have naturally repaired itself in ways not possible once a person has a fully developed adult brain.

I would expect skepticism from an atheist (in the face of documentation).

Originally posted by Robtard
The wording is clearly wrong then, as it should be a "death experience" if they factually died, yet came back.

Do you have verifiable/documented proof that a person was dead, brain dead and then came back?

Be that as it may it still does not mean what you describe.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I would expect skepticism from an atheist (in the face of documentation).

That's not scepticism, it's knowing how to read properly.

The baby wasn't dead, they just couldn't find any brain activity. It was still breathing, circulating, heart beating.

I have no idea what your definition of 'dead' is but it certainly is not that of a rational person if you are using that story as an example.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I would expect skepticism from an atheist (in the face of documentation).

actually, as a practicing neuroscientist my beliefs about magicians in the sky have very little to do with my reaction to that.

If you want to tell my why it can't possibly be due to neuro plasticity in the early stages of development I'd be glad, however, I assume you will be just as willing to get into a real scientific debate in this thread as in the creation vs evolution thread

please stop bastardizing a magnificent system. The Doctors in that story deserve medals, and at the very least all of the credit. Not something that is a fairy tale.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's not scepticism, it's knowing how to read properly.

The baby wasn't dead, they just couldn't find any brain activity. It was still breathing, circulating, heart beating.

I have no idea what your definition of 'dead' is but it certainly is not that of a rational person if you are using that story as an example.

There is somatic death and there is brain death, both have certain criteria.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/death.html

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is somatic death and there is brain death, both have certain criteria.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/death.html

WOW

the very definition you post mentions nothing about measuring brain activity...

meaning that it is very likely that the child had brain activity and it might not have been measured.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
That's not scepticism, it's knowing how to read properly.

The baby wasn't dead, they just couldn't find any brain activity. It was still breathing, circulating, heart beating.

I have no idea what your definition of 'dead' is but it certainly is not that of a rational person if you are using that story as an example.

http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=9130

Originally posted by inimalist
WOW

the very definition you post mentions nothing about measuring brain activity...

meaning that it is very likely that the child had brain activity and it might not have been measured.

Why is skepticism so unbecoming?

God warned about people who tried to predict the raputre...

[Edit] The Bible (Paul) warned about people who tried to predict the rapture.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why is skepticism so unbecoming?

why is dogmatism so delusional?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/dsp.cgi?msg=9130

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Originally posted by leonheartmm
why is dogmatism so delusional?

hystericalclapping

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Uh...I don't get it. My link supported what I asserted, but what does your url support?

Originally posted by inimalist
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Check your site. All I get is a setup window.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There is somatic death and there is brain death, both have certain criteria.

http://www.bartleby.com/65/de/death.html

A response which is spectacularly irrelevant.

I don;t suppose it occurred to you that the most likely- indeed, the only reasonable- explanation is a misdiagnosis?

We're still very fuzzy on the exact parameters of death. Literally speaking, by definition 'death' is the point of no return but we can only try and measure that point by analysing symptoms and that can be erroneous.

You will note that no-one has ever, EVER returned from, say, having their head ripped off. In every single case you try and quote, we have whole and functioning bodies where clearly the situation is simply that the brain was thought to be dead but actually wasn't. It happens.

Your idea that these people actually are dead and are returning to life is simple nonsense.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
A response which is spectacularly irrelevant.

I don;t suppose it occurred to you that the most likely- indeed, the only reasonable- explanation is a misdiagnosis?

We're still very fuzzy on the exact parameters of death. Literally speaking, by definition 'death' is the point of no return but we can only try and measure that point by analysing symptoms and that can be erroneous.

You will note that no-one has ever, EVER returned from, say, having their head ripped off. In every single case you try and quote, we have whole and functioning bodies where clearly the situation is simply that the brain was thought to be dead but actually wasn't. It happens.

Your idea that these people actually are dead and are returning to life is simple nonsense.

Answer me this then...has anyone ever returned from say...crucifixion?

Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Answer me this then...has anyone ever returned from say...crucifixion?

Now, Now my friend. According to mythology Jesus was not human. 😉