Welcome to the Podiatry Arena forums

You are currently viewing our podiatry forum as a guest which gives you limited access to view all podiatry discussions and access our other features. By joining our free global community of Podiatrists and other interested foot health care professionals you will have access to post podiatry topics (answer and ask questions), communicate privately with other members, upload content, view attachments, receive a weekly email update of new discussions, access other special features. Registered users do not get displayed the advertisements in posted messages. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our global Podiatry community today!

  1. Everything that you are ever going to want to know about running shoes: Running Shoes Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Have you considered the Critical Thinking and Skeptical Boot Camp, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Have you considered the Clinical Biomechanics Boot Camp Online, for taking it to the next level? See here for more.
Dismiss Notice
Have you liked us on Facebook to get our updates? Please do. Click here for our Facebook page.
Dismiss Notice
Do you get the weekly newsletter that Podiatry Arena sends out to update everybody? If not, click here to organise this.

Barbara Parks: New book

Discussion in 'Break Room' started by Cameron, Oct 13, 2013.

  1. Cameron

    Cameron Well-Known Member

    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2013
  2. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    Babs was a good student and her books are a good read. Rob
  3. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks 'toeslayer' for highlighting this.

    I do have an interest in metaphysics - albeit, to a certain level & in a certain direction i.e. the Ultimate Cause/Engineer (of the Universe - so to speak). The above cited book with associated phenomenon (i.e. poltergeists, spirits & subsequent spirit channelers/mediums etc.) does cross into the area of metaphysics I believe (in fact it certainly does when you go deep enough - to the origin/source). However, I'll admit, I struggle with the nature of the topic... not because I've had any personal experience with such things (as far as I know)... but because of the deceptive nature of the topic (to say the least). It is no doubt best I don't elaborate further on a forum/medium such as this.

    However, I am now curious... now the book has been brought to my attention (i.e. the fact the author is a Podiatrist & did these "spirits" visit her clinic???). It appears that Barbara is now a "full-time paranormal investigator" (thus not practicing anymore???).
    Wanting to know more, I attempted to check out her website... yet it appears the above cited website is not available anymore (???).
    This sort of topic reminds me of some Podiatrist in the U.S removing some kind of UFO/E.T "tracking devices" i.e. strange metals (I believe from memory) from people's lower limbs. I am also sceptical of this... more so of the interpretation of the entities being described/investigated (i.e. "ghosts of deceased people" or "aliens from another planet") on both above issues... & their subsequent deceptive relationship to each other... when one traces their origin/source. Anyway, it's a sensitive topic for those who wish to believe in the nature of such entities (particularly when one is delving into the assumed lives of deceased loved ones... & subsequently the lives of people/family wanting to know).

    Hi Dr Kidd - my chances of an answer are probably slim from you... but I try anyway (what the heck hey ;)). What is your level of belief on such things? I was a wee bit surprised you would read books of this nature. I wouldn't myself - but I'm curious in this case.
  4. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    To Ben Hur.

    I am never quite sure what to say to you. Babs was a great student and is a brilliant practitioner. A couple of days ago, I was in discussion in the lab re: creation and evolution with a bunch of 2nd year medics. This was a sensible discussion, not the rubbish I have on here from time to time. At the end of the day, I said to them your religious thoughts (and Babs' ghost have to come from there somewhere) are like your sexuality; they are nothing to do with me. At least they understood this analogy................ While it may not be recognised yet, in the area where Bab's is coming from is the physics of string theory - and I am certainly no expert in this area
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2013
  5. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Thanks for the response Rob.
    Well, just be open & honest with me... & answer questions substantiating your views. My intentions are not to be difficult Rob... or a thorn in your side. I am sincerely interested. We apparently both have a sincere interest in the origins of man (& women) but from two differing perspectives... & yes, unfortunately it is a heated topic & rather controversial.

    So the topic of Creation & evolution came up in the lab - interesting.

    I would like to be as amicable/respectful as possible Rob (hence I'm wording posts in this thread carefully)... but the "rubbish" (if you wish to see it that way) you refer to on this forum has been (in part) your concoction. I have provided every opportunity for you to explain your position via pertinent questions to your area of interest.

    Your sexuality analogy is a valid one... but not so in many cases with our history. I've endeavoured to keep religion out of the Creation/evolution discussion as much as possible (it was usually others bringing it into the discussion). As I've said before, I am an Agnostic with an interest in the Creation/evolution topic... with a desire to find the truth.

    Hmmm... string theory... well I'm all for the goal for discovering the "theory of everything" (it does make sense)... but I think we need to be careful on what fits into it & probably more importantly the interpretation thereof the elements we (many) don't yet understand. In short, Barbara is not conversing with dead people. Respectfully I disagree with what is happening (i.e. the interpretation of the phenomenon)... once again we need the evidence (as I've asked of you) for such a position. I have no doubt that her experience/intentions are sincere (as is yours) but that doesn't mean the interpretation of it is true (as in your scenario).

    Based on your above point pertaining to theoretical physics... is there any room for an Intelligent Ultimate Causative Source/Entity to explain our existence... or does one cross the line when they allude to anything that may resemble the "G" word (albeit, apparently "ghosts"/paranormal activity are OK ?).

    Anyway, this is a sensitive/controversial topic as well... thus thanks again for your response Rob. Maybe one day we'll find the answers to these issues :drinks (fruit smoothies).
  6. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    It is not a sensitive topic. Evolution is a fact, and I will not debate it. What I am happy to debate is its mechanisms.

    to this end - come back to me with a cogent - and I mean cogent, argument against its various mechanisms.

    Let us start with natural selection. Then let us talk about genetic assimilation. Then the Red Queen; then what about genetic drift. What about sympatric speciation? Allopatric speciation? To name but a few.

    A word though. The classic creationist **** is to pick on a spelling mistake or some grammar issues, and to make big of them. Classic obstructive arguments - don't.

    I play science, not bollocks

  7. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Rob, this isn’t the place to be asking such questions (on this thread) – particularly when we have been through this many times before (on appropriate threads)... where you have been supplied the cogent... on many occasions... & you have not answered! However, as always I will answer you...
    It apparently is sensitive based on your past reactions (& that noted in society & academia). I struggle to understand how you could make such statements in your previous post when your past conduct has evidently contradicted such views/reasoning i.e. you won't answer questions pertinent to the driving mechanism of your belief (any associated topic i.e. comparative anatomy, geology; let alone "its mechanisms").

    We have been here & done this Rob. Here is past evidence I have attempted to discuss such issues - yet never get passed 1st base because you won't discuss/provide answers:

    - This first evidence is quite telling (i.e. telling me not to reply):
    As well as...
    As far as the Red Queen (derived from Lewis Carroll's 'Through the Looking-Glass/Alice in Wonderland') hypothesis is concerned & other evolutionary hypotheses pertaining to the "driving mechanism" (of evolution)... we have never ventured past 1st base to delve into such areas in any depth. However, speaking of the Red Queen (i.e. from Alice in Wonderland)... your incongruous conduct & contradictory logic appears to resemble hers...

    Yes, yes... we've been through the following as well before...
    ... majoring on obstructive whinging - not evidence pertaining to the real subject matter i.e. the science. The evidence:

    "Science" - hardly Rob – I’ve seen no evidence of it... & I go by evidence... unlike you (based on the above evidence!).
  8. Rob Kidd

    Rob Kidd Well-Known Member

    In the above you have deliberately mixed up pieces from several difference posts and at least two threads. I rest my case; back on the ignore list.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2013
  9. BEN-HUR

    BEN-HUR Well-Known Member

    Despite our history Rob discussing (or at least attempting) similar issues - you disappoint me we the above response. Did you even bother to check that your above facts were correct... or aren't you accustomed to such practices... happy to continue spinning your deception?

    Well the fact of the matter is, my previous post addressed two areas you were griping about in your post at # 6. That being 1: a cogent against the mechanisms of evolution; 2: your frequent whinging over your poor grammar/spelling misdemeanours (which continued in your last post ;) - but hey, you cares right? I wouldn't want to detract from the real issues here).

    Thus the quotes were used to highlight that these issues have been covered before. All quotes came from the one thread (6 quote blocks in total) - all blocked quotes were all associated with each other - meaning that they were associated with our original discussion within corresponding posts.

    The thread was: Are you a visionary? (click on this link).

    Within this one thread you will find all the above referenced quotes associated with each other at the time. Oh heck - I'll make it real easy for you & give you the post numbers & links.

    - Quote block 1 - at post 31 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=299512&postcount=31) [addressing mechanisms of evolution]

    - Quote block 2 - at post 51 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=299868&postcount=51) [addressing mechanisms of evolution]

    - Quote block 3 - at post 51 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=299868&postcount=51) [addressing mechanisms of evolution]

    - Quote block 4 - at post 87 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=300356&postcount=87) [addressing mechanisms of evolution]

    - Quote block 5 - at post 51 (again) (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=299868&postcount=51) [addressing spelling/grammar whinging]

    - Quote block 6 - at post 121 (http://www.podiatry-arena.com/podiatry-forum/showpost.php?p=300677&postcount=121) [addressing spelling/grammar whinging - that's twice in the same thread! :craig:]

    Hence the above is once again evidence counteracting your reasoning/logic. I could have used a lot more - but kept it to just one recent past thread & 6 related quotes.

    You... "rest your case" :)confused: :D)? Ok Rob - whatever. Like I've said - I go by the evidence - not deception... & this dialogue on this thread alone reveals who's using which (I rest my case).

    Oh BTW - do you honestly think I care about your ignore list Rob - really? Like I've also said Rob - that ignore function is like a double edge sword... & I am not going to ignore the deception you attempt to spin; hence I won't ignore you Rob. I'll leave it that - good bye.

Share This Page