[quote]
I challenge you to present the differing ailments possible, the different cures possible, and most importantly the perceptions of those in differing types of rehabilitation.
[quote]

Excuse me while I pick myself up off the floor.

You've thrown out this totally un-substantiated claim, and you expect your opponents to knock it down?

You're clearly unfamiliar with the rules in a debate. He who asserts first, must prove first.

By stating that this (alleged) miracle is reinforced by modern optometry, WHEN YOU DO NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT THE DISEASE WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE, you've assumed the burden of proof here - not me. It is *YOU* who is stating that all eye diseases require a two-step healing.


[quote]
Also present the percentages that each of these occur. Then we may evaluate how general or specific, how likely its was that
there is a match.
[quote]


See the above. You've already gone public with this assertion. If you did not have the percentage information worked out
before you did so, then that's your problem to solve, not your opponent's problem.

You don't get to fling an assertion out on the table, totally unsubstantiated, and then say, "I assert X. Unless you're willing to disprove me, my assertion stands." It doesn't work that way.

If you truly believe that all diseases are fundamentally two-step in nature, then there should be a medical text that sets that fact out, probably in the introductory chapter(s). Get to work.

[quote]
What I think you'll find is that visual problems break down into two broad categories, eye and brain.
[quote]

Thank you, Doctor. Just curious: how would you know all that, pray tell?

I'm asking, because the branch of medicine that deals with eye diseases is not OPTOMETRY (as your orignal post that started
the thread indicates) but OPTHAMALOGY. Optometry is the branch of medicine that deals with examining the eyes for defects
or faults of refraction (in order to prescribe corrective lenses). From Britannica:

*****
OPTOMETRY
profession concerned with examining the eyes for defects or faults of refraction. Optometrists prescribe corrective lenses or other optical aids and supervise exercise programs designed to treat problems of vision. They also examine the eyes to
detect such disorders as glaucoma and cataracts. Unlike the ophthalmologist, who is a physician with a specialization in the diagnosis and treatment of eye diseases (and who may also test vision and prescribe corrective lenses), the optometrist generally is not licensed to prescribe drugs or trained to perform surgery, though in some areas they are licensed to use topical therapeutic drugs.
*****

If you're unaware of this basic difference, it calls into question any expertise you might have on the topic. So you'll excuse me if I'm not inclined to accept your view as valid here.


[quote]
What I think you'll find is that visual problems break down into two broad categories, eye and brain. Anyone who has been blind for more than ten years or so, somehow lose the ability to process optic impulses. Retraining of the brain over a long process is pretty much a norm. Babies for example can not focus when they are born, and see things upside down as their eyes tell them. It is through experience that their brains eventually make the adjustments for them. This is hearsay,
[quote]

Indeed. And based upon this hearsay, you've made an unsubstantiated assertion that blindness is two-step in nature. You also
seem to limit this to blindness over ten years; where did Mark 8 give any detail like that? It did not.

However, to show you what I mean when I say that not all forms of blindness are two-step (eye/brain) in nature, I will give you two examples of common forms of blindness totally caused by eye defects, and not by the brain: glaucoma and cataracts.

http://www.nei.nih.gov/publications/glauc-pat.htm
http://www.nei.nih.gov/publications/cataracts.htm

[quote]
If I catch you right, you are saying that, "what if the problem was only a one step problem, then the double touch is worth
nothing as evidence." Fair enough. Still, I do think that his immediate reaction is evidence that it was a two step problem,
and not one.
[quote]

BZZT. Foul.

You are assuming the conclusion - i.e., that the healing or the miracle ever happened in the first place (as opposed to being a story in the Jesus myth).

Then you want the man's reaction to be used as proof of the legitimacy of the original event. But you haven't proven either one yet, so your reasoning is circular.

[quote]
However, without such evidence to the contrary, it is a strong case that matches only what happens in the instances of
complex blindness.
[quote]

No, it is not. For several reasons:
1. You have not demonstrated that complex blindness, in general, works this way at all.
2. You have not demonstrated that ALL cases and kinds of complex blindness work this way.
3. You have not demonstrated that the story of this two-step healing event in Mark is the result of a natural medical path, as opposed to being a mythic story that just grew over time


You argument boils down to this: sometimes God limited himself to working within what you claim are the biological limitations. Yet other times he did not. With such inconsistency as that, how do you think that anything is "proven"?

There were other healing miracles attested to in the gospels, miracles not related to the eyes. If one were so inclined, those miracles could also be broken down into multiple steps. For example, raising someone from the dead - there's clearly a physical component (the organs of the body) which is separate from the nervous system (brain). Keeping the body alive, or reviving it, can be done for hours after death. Yet the brain has only 5 or 6 minutes, before the neutral pathways start to collapse. Which is why we speak of "brain death" as the final arbiter of someone's death - that's the part that we can't medically reverse.

There was also a man in Mark 4 who was healed of the palsy, who could not walk. That is also a two part healing, by your
definition: (1) removal of the disease, and (2) retraining the person to use the muscles and limbs that were previously crippled. Yet do we find "multi-part healing events" for these other healings?

No.

Again: you've found a interesting coincidence between (1) modern ophthamology and (2) a bible story, and you erred by trying to use (1) to prove (2).

[quote]
My point is that reality and biology does work this way.
[quote]

Indeed? If so, then your point is wrong, and you have not presented any data to substantiate it.

As I indicated, there are hundreds of eye ailments. You cannot assume, a priori, without presenting any substantiating

evidence, that each and every one of them requires a two-step healing.


[quote]
Do you have biological evidence that says it doesn't? I would be very interested in discussing what you find.
[quote]


The burden of proof is on YOU. You made the original claim that "optometry" substantiated the miracle; I didn't make that

claim. HE who asserts first, must prove first.

Try putting a / right before the word QUOTE inside the bracket to signal ending a quote.

Since you did not try to criticize my original source in the first post, I felt that I had supported my assertion with "experts" and cases. Nevertheless, I concede that the burden of proof lies on myself at present. I'll see what I can find. I'm not an expert, but I was relying on what I thought was legit. Do you disagree that it was?

I do believe that there are other multi-miracle healings. Mark 8 is the only one to my knowledge that uses it as a platform to teach a lesson. Further, you have shown your ignorance of Jewish background to Jesus' message, therefore I will stop trying to convince you of the themes being employed around Mark and focus on only the scientific issues surrounding the narrative.

Your, "he didn't do it with other miracles, like hearing", argument is absurd. Does your professors have to illustrate a law of physics in just a certain way for you to accept it? This logic doesn't work. It's like saying "well yeah, that gravity thing worked on the rock in class, but he didn't do a physics lesson using his car as an example (even though it to falls into pot holes) so I don't believe it." A single lesson does not have to be shown in all future demonstrations.

There are other things in your arguments like these, but I have to go now. I'll discuss them later.

Your original source was D. Keith Mano, writing in the National Review. Here are the problems with that source:

1. Mano is not a doctor, he's an author.
2. NR is a conservative political magazine, not a medical journal.
3. You should include a link to the original source of your quote - so others can check it out.

Your source also is pretty flagrantly unscientific. He says "As far as I can judge this is irrefutable evidence that a miracle did occur at Bethsaida". I'm not sure that I have ever seen "irrefutable evidence" of anything like a miracle, especially one that took place 2000 years ago and for which we only have (at best) third-hand accounts.

However, it was YOUR assertion that the multi-part healing was done with deliberate intent to show a lesson.

A hidden or deeper purpose implies that Christ wanted said miracle to be *effective* in that purpose. Right?

So if that is your assertion, then you need to explain why the miracle selected was such a bad one to use.

You can't:

(a) claim that the miracle has a second, deeper purpose, and then

(b) try to back away when someone says that the alleged 2nd purpose would have been better served by performing a different miracle.