Spell check changed my original draft from priori to priory so I mistakenly took that that I had been spelling it wrong. Had I stayed with my original spelling, there would have been a problem. I have made a statement in the thread for the benefit of those with whom I was dialoguing.
I will edit the mistakes for correction.
ABE: In making corrections I discovered that spell check only flagged it when it was capitalized which was the case in my message title. That's what threw me off.
I agree with nwr. If I'd been writing the post, I'd have used murder rather than sex with sheep as my example. It's not an accusation, it is, as nwr says, a reductio ad absurdum of the shifting of the burden of proof.
If adminmoose must hand out 1 week suspension, I volunteer to take half of that time so Jones can get back faster. Heck, I'll be spending the most of my time buried in work in the next few weeks anyway.
quote:Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims? Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it? Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses? What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence? Were your assertions lies?
quote:Why are you afraid to admit that you haven't done the science that would be necessary to develop a scientific theory?
For review, once more, from Message 4 your assertions AND your failure to support them are (emphasis added):
claim (1) ... "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" ... This is your assertion, you need to support it with some objective empirical evidence. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (2) ... "This is a high level of confidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (3) ... "This is a ... theory" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (4) ... "and support the theory with plenty of evidence" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (5) ... "The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings" ... This is your assertion, it is false until you provide objective empirical evidence that rules out other other sources ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
claim (6) ... "this is a strong theory" ... Without objective empirical evidence for assertion (3), which requires objective empirical evidence for assertion (1), you don't have a theory. Without objective empirical evidence for this assertion it cannot be strong either. Without any system or method or technique for actually applying your concept so that you can actually show whether your assertion (1) is true in any specific cases it cannot be a valid theory in the scientific sense of this terminology. Finally, in science a theory does not become strong by proclaiming it to be strong, but by repeated tested and scientifically documented validation in scientific journals. You have not provided any evidence of this. ... WHERE'S THE BLINKING EVIDENCE?
Message 100: also "If you have a strong theory, why can't you produce reams of documented objective empirical evidence to support it? If you have a scientific theory, why can't you produce ANY evidence to support it?"
Message 78: "If it is a strong theory then why can't bluegenes provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?"
Message 77: "Are you ever going to ... (a) present objective empirical evidence that spells out why a supernatural being concept, one found in religious literature, is a human invention, OR (b) admit that you have no objective empirical evidence ... WHERE'S THE EVIDENCE?
Similar questions repeated in many many other posts, all asking for the evidence to support the assertions, all unanswered
(D) note that I've said I'll answer the questions once bluegenes provides the objective empirical evidence that supports his six (6) claims.
Note that I have asked for the evidence since "Now try the topic: can you defend your theory?" (Message 4), that it was recapped\repeated in Message 78 and I haven't seen any moderator step in to ask bluegenes "for the amusement of the peanut gallery" to answer these questions.
I think bringing this thread to a close, by demanding that bluegenes actually provide the "plentiful" objective empirical evidence he should have, and claimed he had, -- or to withdraw the claims -- would be a much more productive use of moderation.
Now rather than doing your usual trick of seeking to moderate your own debates by blitzing daft accusations around the moderation threads why don't you actually engage bluegenes in the debate in question?
Try explaining why the evidence he has cited doesn't qualify without proclaiming that unsupported and unfalsifiable beliefs somehow constitute counter-evidence. Try answering his questions regarding your own nonsensical position that baseless beliefs do somehow constitute counter-evidence.
Stop hiding behind "off-topic" as if this somehow justifies your silly stonewalling.