This will be considered simply a Medical Mystery (WOOOOooooOOOooooOOOoo).

It will be considered as that until god comes down from heaven while playing an epic and massive riff with a 10 chord guitar WHILE farting on the face of Stephen Hawkings.

That's pretty impressive, seems like her time hasnt come yet.

That is just amazing. This woman could teach David Blaine a thing or two

There are many things that science cannot yet explain, Whether this is divine intervention is impossible to say, but anything like this that leaves people scratching their heads can only ever be a good thing.

As for Hawking, the best bit for me would be if God came down, cured him and then said "By The Way, Keep Up The Good Work." That really would be a win-win situation. Science and religion could then truly co-exist

The weak stitch in any moral fabric: humans.

I have expressed my discomfort at Creationism (and religious fanaticism in general) on these boards before, but what cracks me up about those who have completely rejected religion is that they refer to themselves as "free thinkers". I'm sorry, but the very idea of forcing everyone to abandon their faith is not free thought. My faith (and trust me, it is there) is my business. I'm not about to have some idiot with a couple of pounds of gelignite strapped to his arse tell me what to think, let alone a load of bearded boffins who think the solution to global poverty is to wipe everyone out with airborne ebola. It seems that one side is as bad as the other.

BTW Myself, I'm in the "No" camp regarding cloning. I don't subscribe to any organized religion, but I still have my beliefs, and I feel that mankind really has attained a level of power that he is not yet ready for. The ability to both create and destroy life artificially scares the shit out of me, frankly. We are not gods, yet as a race we strive to become so. We have learned to communicate, we have discovered much about the universe, we have cured diseases, yet we have massacred and enslaved millions of our own kind.

"Now we're all sons of bitches." - Ken Bainbridge, director of the first successful atomic bomb test

I guess what we should ask fanatics would be "Why does god need you to do X*?"

*X of course being whatever they insist is their holy charge

So, both science and religion are hereby placed in a framework of some kind. Within it, balance in important and cooperation appears to be foremost of the desirables. A (rather difficult) question to ask here is: what is the nature (or language) of that framework? Is it a religious, or more of a scientific contextual frame? My opinion is: the claim that science and religion must cooperate is itself made defensible by choosing this 'outer' framework, which is perhaps 'religious', perhaps neither religious nor scientific, but in any case not scientific..

I see science and religion as the same thing.  All of science and math is based on axioms, otherwise known as assumptions.  Both require faith, but "different" kinds of faith.  However, all of these words are "relative".  Religion requires faith in perceptions other than physical.  Science requires faith in only the physical perceptions.  Neither is proven, both are entirely relative to the individual.

One way I try to explain this to other people, and hopefully open up their minds, is to say, if we have an infinitely long equation, or infinitely long series of infinitely long equations, if even one variable is unknown, then we do not know the true value.  For each "thing" in existence, we only have a tiny (null in respect to an infinite universe or infinite nothingness "outside" of existence) understanding of it.  We think that something is either true or false, while missing (inf - k) of the equation.  In an absolute perspective, in order to know even one thing in existence to be absolutely true, we must know everything else -- even one missing variable could dramatically affect the end truth value. 

This is very interesting to me, because if you think about it, we have a thought process to determine whether something is true or false.  Imagine being an absolute being and just knowing without any requirement for logical deduction.  However, it is also my view that humans are unfit to use logic, and should only be used by an "absolute" being; yet an absolute being would have no use for it.  Humans assume the truth values of everything -- perceptions, our reasoning process, the basis on which we even "begin" thinking.  Logic, as we have defined it, dictates that nothing can be proven based on an assumption, otherwise we could make statements like "The sky is made of walruses" and require no proof -- it would simply be true.

Yet this method of reasoning is more sound that any other.  Any method of human reasoning, since it based on assumptions, has a hole in it -- even this statement, and this one, etc.  Every thing in existence, if thought about hard enough, opens the door for an infinite paradox.  So the best, most infallible arguments are those of either infinite length (to cover all holes in human logic) or ones that never happened.

To expand upon the idea of paradoxes, think about this:
If human reasoning does have its basis in assumptions, then human reasoning results in unknown truth values.  By that reasoning, human reasoning is illogical; however, these statements are based on human reasoning, so they too must be illogical -- and so on, and so on, etc, etc -- infinite paradox.

And this is the thing so many people fail to realize when they make their pigheaded statements.  People are dumb, plain and simple.  We are hypocrites, we contradict ourselves the moment we open our mouths, and we are blind to it.  This is under the law of logic.

Under faith and understanding and belief in faith, we are no longer subject to this, since we recognize all of our knowledge as faith and no longer have to prove it to the harsh god, logic.

All we have are relative truths, so I don't like it when I hear atheists attacking peoples of "faith", when atheists have a "god" and set of unproven beliefs just like anyone else.  Their god, logic, is so blatantly attacking their very beliefs, but they don't see it.  But I guess you could say their god might be "relative logic", and they deny the existence of "absolute logic" as part of their beliefs.

The same is true for "religions".  They cannot attack atheists for their beliefs.  My belief is that people need to stop attacking each other's beliefs, and understand that no matter how much something seems to be "factual" (atheists) it is still entirely up to one's perception and reasoning process that make it so.

I'm biased, though.  I tend to be very harsh on atheists attacking a person's beliefs than I am on a religious person attacking an atheist.  I see atheists who attack religions as "more" hypocritical.  That is a relative term, and from an absolute perceptive, they are both hypocritical.  But I am one of those dumb humans, and I am willing to admit I know nothing.  When someone thinks they known something, then their argument is based on their relative understanding.  One can use the argument that their "facts" are based on assumptions.  This will result in them yielding either way if they are not pigheaded.  #1: the "fact" that their "facts" are based on assumptions shows that their "facts" aren't factual.  #2: they see the "fact" of #1 and use it against the argument, but they can only do this if they assume #1 to be true, thereby nullifying both arguments, and again yielding unknown truth values.  So we all know nothing at all... even this statement we don't know if it is true or not, so we don't even know whether we don't know anything...

Logic is useful from a practical sense, and logic should be practical in its application.  Logic works so long as the process produces the expected result repeatedly.  The basis of mathematics and all other "hard" sciences is repeatability and rational outcome.  Yes, there is assumption, but so long as the results remain consistent over time then the assumptions and the logic based upon them are useful.  For example, gravity.  Things fall to the earth.  We can observe this.  The longer we observe it, the more comfortable we are with the principle as being fairly constant.  Mathematics, physics, and chemistry rely on predictable rules in order to function, otherwise technology could not function, and nor could biology either since biology functions based on these same principles.

Where you get into trouble is making the assumption that because the rules are one way here, that this is the only set of rules, and that the rules cannot ever be different elsewhere or at a different time.  Man tries his best to describe and explain the universe with the tools he has available, but the dangerous trap to fall into is expecting that because some aspects of the universe can be described and explained with logic that all aspects must be explainable, and more so, explainable in the same manner.  One rejects the possibility of irrationality and paradox being part of existence.  Thus, when confronted with a paradox or some other irrational quality, the tendency is to reject it out of hand since it does not fall within one's expectations.  Occam's Razor is commonly cited as a means to dismiss all but the ordinary and easily observable.  Man's mistake, and it stems from his arrogance, is in assuming that the universe must play by his rules.  Why should it?

To bring the topic full circle, dismissing specific events as miraculous is one thing.  Dismissing the possibility of the miraculous has quite different implications.