the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)

The most important questions are in the yellow section, and relate to the basis of your arguments against my theory on this thread.

Do you think that the SB concept of an Earth supporting giant turtle is a figment of the human imagination, or do you think there's a real one?

Do you think that the well documented evidence for human evolution effectively falsifies the SB concept of the three brothers who created the first two humans from logs, and shows them to be a figment of the human imagination?

Do you think that the theory that the earth is between 4 and 5 billion years old is not a scientific theory because the unsupported "anti-thesis" of omphalism has not been falsified?

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some human beings"?

Do you think that scientific theories are "illogical" and not scientific theories if they are based on inductive reasoning?

Your arguments in this thread are all based on your apparent belief in those last two. If you can't answer "yes", your arguments are all destroyed. If you answer "yes", you will be wrong in both cases, and you will have demonstrated that you don't understand the basics of science. You're stuck.

Do you think scientific theories become non-existence if people tell lies in silly charts?

Do you know of a confirmed source of the supernatural concepts we humans have in our minds other than human invention?

These questions are all on the topic of the theory.

quote:

---

Humans can and do invent SBs.

We have not established the real existence of any SBs external to the human mind, so human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Therefore: Inductive theory: All supernatural beings are the product of human imagination.

---

You are now apparently claiming that an unknown universal truth is an alternative known source of supernatural beings.

Unsupported claims don't weaken scientific theories.

RAZD writes: You don't have a theory.

This is your claim, based on two beliefs that you keep expressing. (1) That scientific theories can't exist without falsifying unsupported contradictory claims. This would mean that there are no scientific theories. (2) That it's "illogical" and invalid to use inductive reasoning to establish theories. This also would mean that there would be no scientific theories, only facts.

You may not be capable of understanding this, but your two false beliefs described above are the basis of your arguments that I don't have a theory.

RAZD writes: It is also vividly demonstrated by your absolute complete and utter failure to even begin to demonstrate your methodology\system\process for determining whether supernatural beings are products of human imagination or real experiences ... other than assumption of the conclusion.

See point (1) above. Give just one example of one individual who is known to have experienced, even just once, a real SB that actually exists outside human brains. You can't, can you?

The conclusion, a theory, is a result of inductive reasoning. The SBs concepts in our minds have only one known source, that of Tinkerbell, the YEC god, and the giant who built a causeway that's actually a volcanic formation. Human invention.

Scientists have no way of distinguishing an individual adult animal found in the wild that was born of another animal from an individual adult animal found in the wild that previously was conjured magically out of a hat, or created at the whim of some gods who decided some extra rabbits were needed to feed the local foxes. But, as with the real communicating SBs, we have no known example of a single magically produced animal, and Pasteur's law + evolutionary theory are not damaged by unsupported claims of origins. The animals are assumed, by inductive reasoning, to come from their only known source.

Some religious people believing that the ex-nihilo creation of animals once happened does not weaken any scientific theory, just like all unsupported religious beliefs (your Hindu hypothesis for example).

I shouldn't have to keep explaining this. Has it occurred to you that you might be out of your depth, and taking up a straightforward hobby like golf might be more in keeping with your talents than discussing science on the internet?

RAZD writes: Because I haven't seen the need [to falsify the theory] yet, because you don't have a theory.

: Are you implying that you could demonstrate the existence of a real SB beyond all reasonable doubt at any time you "see the need to"? My theory predicts that you wouldn't be able to demonstrate that on this thread even if someone offered you a million dollars to do so.

RAZD writes: If it is a strong theory then why can't you provide any objective empirical evidence to support it?

I have. It's hardly my fault that you don't understand what objective empirical evidence is. You seem to think it has to involve Hindu beliefs, for some strange reason. It doesn't. Just repeatable observations.

RAZD writes: Curiously, the Hindu hypothesis also remains unfalsified, and it is just as supported by evidence as your pretend hypothesis, so by your "logic" it must also be a strong theory -- or your logic is erroneous.

Really? Which SB descriptions are known to be "aspects" of a known "universal truth", or a known real extant SB?

Human invention of SBs is known to all of us (we can all do it at will, for a start).

RAZD writes: why don't you answer the questions….. Why are you unable to present evidence to substantiate your claims?

I have. Your apparent position that religious beliefs are evidence rather than the repeatable observations I've made is not scientific. It's nuts.

RAZD writes: Why do you need to ask questions if you cannot provide the evidence necessary to support your claims and be DONE with it?

Again, you can't blame me for your inability to understand the evidence presented that human invention is the only known source of SBs. I've explained why I keep asking you two important questions at the beginning of the post, and in previous posts.

RAZD writes: Why did you not present overwhelming evidence on your first or second post, as you claimed to posses?

When something is the only known source of a described group of things (like clouds of raindrops and adult rabbits of baby rabbits) the evidence that all of the group come from that source is overwhelming, and easily understood by all intelligent people.

If I remember correctly, the early posts were mainly about trying to explain to someone the difference between scientific theories and facts, and your incompetence is hardly my fault.

RAZD writes: What prevents you from providing objective empirical evidence?

Nothing.

RAZD writes: Were your assertions lies?

No.

Now, stop pretending you understand science, and answer my questions, which are aimed at seeing if you're qualified to discuss science at an adult level on the internet.

Do you think that scientific theories are weakened by unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict them, like omphalism and "supernatural beings communicate with some people"?

Do you think that theories established using inductive reasoning are "illogical", and therefore cannot be scientific theories?

Your posts throughout this thread indicate (very strongly) that you should answer "yes" to these two questions. There's no point in you repeatedly claiming that I have no theory, or that it's weak, without answering these questions intelligently. At present, it has the same value as a ten year old making the same claim of "no theory (which he might well do with brightly coloured posts and flashing text).

RAZD writes: You really need to stop misrepresenting my positions.

I'm representing them very accurately. You're clearly not capable of understanding their implications.

RAZD writes: I have shown you that there is no significant difference in the construction of your hypothetical conjecture and the Hindu hypothesis, nor is there any difference in the amount and quality of evidence available (all subjective, except some objective documentation for the Hindu premise).

You're a fantasist.

1) Humans can and do make up SBs.

2) Human invention is the only known source of SBs.

Inductive theory: All SBs are figments of the human imagination.

1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths.

3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth.

Are you trying to make the peanuts laugh?

So, you do believe that scientific theories have to compete with unsupported claims that contradict them.

Take up golf. Please.

Here are the two posts that seem to have provoked your latest bout of histrionics. What's your problem?

xongsmith writes: We have seen months and months of RAZD asking bluegenes where is the evidence he promised? bluegenes may not have realized it, but the best dagger is the supernatural being commonly known as the Lord God of the Old Testament, the god of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. This supernatural being is claimed to have created everything in 6 days. Then he took a nap on the 7th day. He is not the Deist God of RAZD and others. No - this is a specifically different entity. He is not a trunk or tail of some incompletely seen Heffalump. Scholars throughout history have studied this old testament dude and a huge amount of homo sapiens sapiens still believe the writings therein that these scholars have concluded means the Earth is only some 6000 years old. The YEC people are a vibrant living sector of the current world and have been around for about as long as anyone would care to measure. This YEC God is not a comic book character, not a caricature in the sense that RAZD is talking about. Who here in EvC has provided the most objective scientific evidence that this YEC God cannot be correct? Who has more completely demolished the YECs that dare venture into this discussion board? In short, who has most provided bluegenes with the evidence RAZD is asking for? The answer is: RAZD, himself.

bluegenes writes: xongsmith writes: bluegenes may not have realized it.... Of course bluegenes realizes..... bluegenes writes: That certainly is curious. Here's a specific concept. The god who created the world in six days less than 10,000 years ago, and fabricated the first two human beings during that period of creation. As I've pointed out, at least 100,000,000 of your compatriots believe in a god concept fitting this description. There's overwhelming "objective empirical evidence" that such a creation never took place, and therefore that the "specific concept of a supernatural being" described cannot exist. As I said, it certainly is curious. There's another guy on this forum who also calls himself "RAZD" and who spends a lot of time on science threads presenting evidence against this particular specific SB -concept. Here in Message 59 and elsewhere.

Your brother xongsmith makes a point very similar to one I've made on this thread, and includes the phrase "bluegenes may not have realized it". Because of that phrase, I reply, linking to a post which showed that I had realized the general point that he's making.

Now, if you want to accuse me of lying, quote the exact phrase which you think is a lie. Is there something about "specific SB-concept" that you don't understand?

RAZD writes: Not one single supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in seven (7) months of debate...

Would you care to clarify what you mean by "supernatural being named and described by objective empirical evidence"?

Give some examples of some supernatural beings that would fit the description and some that wouldn't if you can.

RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: 1) Some Hindus (and RAZD) believe that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth. 2) Religious beliefs are believed by RAZD to be evidence of truths. 3) Conclusion: RAZD believes he has a supported hypothesis that all SBs are aspects of an undescribed unknown universal truth. ... are also false portrayals of my position and my beliefs. One need only read my posts to see that you have misrepresented the arguments.

Which of those three statements is wrong, and why?

RAZD writes: What I refute are arguments falsified by objective empirical evidence, such as that the earth is young or that there was a world wide flood. I do not state that the evidence for an old earth devoid of ww floods falsifies any god/s, in fact I have argued the obverse: that it does not falsify those god/s or even the bible,per se, just the interpretation that leads to false conclusions about the age of the earth and the actuality of a ww flood.

I repeat, you spend a lot of time on this board presenting evidence against the YEC SB-concept. Not other interpretations of the Bible, or other Christian SB-concepts, but that specific one. An SB-concept can only be defined by its description.

I did not say that you were intentionally presenting evidence in order to falsify a specific SB-concept. I'm well aware that you could be doing it inadvertently..

An example. Someone presenting the known evidence about the causes of human diseases in a series of lectures would be inadvertently presenting evidence against the specific SB-concept of the evil spirits that cause disease. The evil spirits could be something the lecturer hadn't even considered when preparing his talks.

He wouldn't be presenting direct evidence against English garden fairies, werewolves, or pixies.

RAZD writes: Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate

You keep repeating this in large yellow text, as if you think that you're saying something important. In my last post, I asked you what it meant, and to give examples of supernatural beings "named and described by objective empirical evidence".

What do you mean by "named and described by empirical evidence"? Give examples of SBs "named and described by objective empirical evidence."

You certainly won't be referring to stuff in the scientific literature which describes SB-concepts in papers containing words like "delusions" and "hallucinations", will you? So, what are you talking about?

bluegenes writes: Not other interpretations of the Bible, or other Christian SB-concepts, but that specific one. An SB-concept can only be defined by its description.

RAZD writes: Does that sound like I am arguing that the god of the bible is imaginary or discredited? Jesus?

RAZD writes: Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate.

Once again, what does this mean?

Is the giant Earth supporting turtle an example?

Which supernatural beings have been described by "objective empirical evidence?

RAZD writes: What you are saying is that any stories of historical figures -- say Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett, just for kicks -- that includes erroneous interpretations of events in their lives, such as are promulgated by Walt Disney Studios, for example, means that Daniel Boone and Davy Crockett are imaginary beings.

By that analogy, what you are claiming is that a story about Daniel Boone building a house on his own can be a story about David Crocket building the same house. Boone and Crocket can be the same person, or aspects of another person. Three black women could be Daniel Boone.

So, a story about 3 non-universe creating SBs creating the first two human beings from logs can, in some mysterious way, be a story about something that actually did happened, like human evolution, and also perfectly compatible with a story about one universe creating god creating the first two humans from dust. They can all be distorted stories about the Earth supporting turtle, which, of course, cannot be a figment of the human imagination because RAZD doesn't want it to be.

Where are the examples of SBs described by objective empirical evidence? Are they difficult to find? What about the Earth supporting giant turtle? It's a Hindu hypothesis.

Edited by bluegenes, : typo

RAZD writes: We've had the debate: you've lost. Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate I call that unequivocal failure on your part to even begin to substantiate your assertions.

The creationist declares victory. Yet he refuses to tell us which supernatural beings have been "described by objective empirical evidence".

I'll guess at what the argument might be.

Creationist: We can observe that such and such a book/s, documents exist. Therefore, we have empirical evidence of the books/documents. The books/documents name and describe supernatural beings, therefore these beings are "described by empirical evidence". If interpretations of all these books/documents are made that leave us with unfalsifiable SB-concepts, then I can claim that:

Not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate.

Would RAZD make an argument that's that bad? We'll see.

RAZD, is the giant Earth supporting turtle a figment of the human imagination, or is there really such a thing?

This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD.

1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2) Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3) Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4) Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

RAZD writes: develop anti-hypothesis (antithesis) missing

RAZD, you remember what I said about silly charts. Why don't you stop to think before you make these great long posts? Think. Why is bluegenes laughing when you say the antithesis is missing? Why have I been laughing for days?

I'm not going to help you at this stage. I recommended taking up golf as a hobby, or something else easy to understand. If you want to make a fool of yourself on the internet, it isn't really my problem.

Think.

RAZD writes: The first follows from this absence of methodology\system\process because it means he has not properly considered the possibility of false results from anything that he proposed. He could as easily say that the hypothesis is falsified if a living T.Rex is found: it is a falsification test in that the existence of a living T.Rex would certainly be rather miraculous at this point in time, however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real.

You've finally, if inadvertently, come up with a good analogy. But you've got it all wrong with your last phrase.

If someone theorized that T. Rex is extinct, then the falsification would be a living T. Rex. But the fact that the falsification would appear to be difficult is not because there's anything wrong with the theory or the absolutely correct theoretical falsification. It's because it's a bloody strong theory that T. Rex is extinct.

RAZD writes: however it is also not likely to happen if supernatural beings/s are real

What? Tell us how you know this? Supernatural doesn't mean in-detectable or shy. Carry on your analogy. If T. Rex were not extinct, there would always be, at any time, a good chance of falsification, and eventually it would happen (pretty quickly, I should think).

I've got a very strong theory with explanatory power. One of the things it explains is why we're finding it so hard to find a single SB. Wake up.

RAZD writes: ... however, not one single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate, so there is no evidence in this category that supports the hypothesis. (also note that at this point bluegenes did not seem to have any trouble knowing what was meant by supernatural beings or where and how they were described).

Were you using the weird phrase "described by empirical evidence"? What the hell do you mean by that? If someone describes an SB, they describe an SB. Give me an example of an SB being "described by empirical evidence"? Just explain clearly what you mean. Does the world supporting turtle fit the description, and if so why, and if not, why not?

RAZD writes: Gosh, you just got through telling me in Message 136 that you knew more about what I meant than I did -- or were you just lying again? (answer: yes)

Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.

RAZD writes: If you really don't have a clue, then obviously you do not know what I mean better than I do, and therefore you were lying when you claimed I was invalidating supernatural beings on the science thread/s.

Would you please find out what the word "inadvertently" means.

RAZD writes: Worse, if you really don't have a clue then you are unable to show that a single supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, has been demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence in over seven (7) months of debate -- and you are lying when you say you have a hypothesis supported by evidence.

I see you've imagined a new set of SBs. The "SBs that are named and described by objective empirical evidence".

Are you embarrassed to tell me which SBs are "named and described by objective empirical evidence"?

RAZD writes: bluegenes attempts to deal with the issues, a little bit anyway. bluegenes writes: This is what belongs on the left side of your liar's chart, RAZD. 1) Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena. Which is missing, as noted in the chart, including provision made in note (1) to the chart. Where in those "observations" does it show that a supernatural being, named and described by objective empirical evidence, is demonstrated to be a product of human imagination by a single piece of objective empirical evidence -- other than by assumption of the conclusion?

You really have no idea, do you? Now, correct your beginning here on your own, and show us that you understand what number one means.

As a celebration of more than 7 months and nearly 150 posts without falsification, just a brief summary of a few of my opponent's attempts to attack the theory.

RAZD shows here that he thinks that scientific theories are things that can be and should be proven.

RAZD writes: Curiously I do not need to claim, assert or believe that "supernatural being (X) can exist" -- all I need to do is present you with a concept of a supernatural being, like supernatural being (X), and then it is your task to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being.

RAZD writes: What you are missing, amusingly, is that for you to claim that human imagination is the only source for supernatural concepts (as you have asserted), YOU need to demonstrate that no other possible source could exist.

No scientific theory, of course, has eliminated all other possibilities, otherwise they would be facts. But RAZD doesn't understand this basic point.

RAZD writes: The existence of a single concept that is not a product of human imagination means that your claim is absolutely meaningless. You have not established that this is not the case.

You have not proven your theory, bluegenes.

Below, he thinks that unsupported religious beliefs and claims need to be falsified before a scientific theory can be established if those religious beliefs contradict the theory.

RAZD writes: In several religiions there are beliefs involving god/s appearing as humans or animals to assist people reach enlightenment or assist them in finding truth. Many eastern religions believe in enlightenment, which involves a level of understanding universal truths. Other religions claim that religious experiences are means to communicate with god/s. And of course there are religions (like the australian one you listed above) that believe in dreamtime experiences. That's four different ways that various religions have claimed to have a source of knowledge about supernatural beings\entities\etc. -- and ones that you should have been already aware of. Your task, if you claim that "human invention is the only known source of supernatural beings," is to falsify these as means of having an outside source for concepts of supernatural beings\entities\etc. It doesn't appear that you have done this.

RAZD writes: You have not falsified the Hindu Hypothesis, which among other things includes the view that all creation stories are allegorical, metaphor or analogy for how god/s created, and that the many stories all offer different aspects of the creation/s via allegory and symbolic metaphors. What the "Hindu Hypothesis" says is that when we take all these symbolic stories and put them together, that the total picture that emerges is one of the universal truth/s - and among others, that god/s exist(ed) and that they created.

RAZD seems to think that unsupported and unfalsifiable claims that contradict scientific theories need to be falsified in order for there to be any scientific theories. So, those theorizing that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old do not have a theory until they've falsified omphalism, and evolutionary biologists do not have a naturalistic theory until they've falsified omphalism and the nineteenth century claim that Satan laid down the fossils to confuse us, etc.

So, any scientific theories or laws can be attacked by people making unsupported claims that contradict them in RAZD's little world.

Weird. For people like RAZD, there is no science, and he's not even capable of understanding this.

RAZD writes: I've already provided that information in previous posts, but if he needs it again, then very simply it means being able to observe something, and describe how the hypothesis explains the evidence observed, and how some (one or more) pieces of the observed objective empirical evidence actively supports the hypothesis, something that can be documented and quantified so that it is empirically reproducible by others. See the reference used - and that he agreed to - if anyone needs more information.

Wrong. Try again. Learn English if you're going to debate in it. Find an adult, and ask him or her what this means:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

RAZD writes: To do this he has presented a series of made up caricatures and cited certain groups of fictional work. Others in the Peanut Gallery have also presented a similar group of caricatures, invented as purported evidence of (fictional) supernatural beings. The problem is that, while all these caricatures and all the fictional works cited form a group, {Set 3}, that is undeniably a subset of {Set 1}, they completely fail to establish that they are included in {Set 2}, or that there is any reason at all to believe they are members of {set 2}.

Caricatures of what?

The fictional supernatural beings are in Set 2 by definition. They are supernatural beings described by the adjectives "fictional", or "imaginary". In English, we use phrases like the following:

"Gandalf was a wizard."

"J. M. Barrie wrote about a fairy called Tinkerbell."

"Bluegenes has been inventing supernatural beings".

Gandalf and Tinkerbell are in the category of supernatural beings we can describe by the adjectives "imaginary" and "fictional".

They are in your set two and set one.

Set 4 would be the category of supernatural beings that aren't invented by humans, and that set remains empty so far as this thread is concerned, as my very strong theory predicted it would last year.

RAZD writes: Another rather critical point bluegenes, It is your job to test your hypothesis before you can claim that it is a theory. To do that you need to have a methodology\system\procedure that can distinguish between actual supernatural communication\experience\etc and human imagination, not just assume that it is imagination, or wait for someone else to do your work for you.

How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made.

What you're doing is showing that you don't understand scientific theories at all, and you're inadvertently illustrating the strength of my theory by resorting to arguments like the one in the paragraph above.

Elsewhere in your posts above, you've repeated the IPU mistake that you've been making throughout the thread, and you've repeated your fascinating phrase "supernatural beings named and described by objective empirical evidence". I don't remember you giving any coherent answer when asked what you mean by this. Can you give me a list of supernatural beings that are named and described by "objective empirical evidence"?

I asked before if the giant magic turtle that supports this planet is one such being, but I think you avoided the question. Once again, is it?

It's definitely a figment of the imagination.

On the peanut gallery you declare that:

RAZD writes: supernatural beings and phenomena are by definition NON- natural.

If they're figments of the human imagination, they're natural.

And you declare:

RAZD on PeanutG writes: science cannot measure\define\calibrate\explain\etc NON-natural phenomena\objects\causes\events\results according to natural hypothesis\theory\law

How do you know this? If there are "non-natural phenomena" that effect the natural world, then the effects are theoretically detectable and measurable by science. Prayer studies, for example, can be conducted scientifically, and could potentially falsify theories like mine. Supernatural beings that have absolutely no effect on the natural world (and therefore our brains) would have to be imagined.

In other words, if it is theoretically impossible for science to identify a source of supernatural beings other than human invention, then it also theoretically impossible for them to be anything but our inventions.

Direct questions: Do you agree that a giant turtle that supports this planet is a figment of the human imagination?

Do you agree that the god that the YECs believe in, the supernatural being described by them, is a figment of their imaginations?