Peanut Gallery

Exactly. Exactly, incorrect. If the precambrian can be tested, identified, given an age etc it is an established part of the TOE, it is in fact, empirical. Likewise a REAL rabbit (that gives birth to baby rabbits) would potentially falsify it.In contrast, bluegenes has yet to establish that the supernatual can be tested like the precambrain. Until he does, it is silly to suggest an empirical Supernatural entity falsifiy his "theory' (claim), as it stands now.This of course can change, if bluegenes gets to work and will stop asking everyone else to do it for Him.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Sorry, Chuck77. I made a significant change to my post prior to your reply.I really need to learn to proof read prior to hitting the "submit".

I still have a couple more beers left at this hour and somehow found your message only just now.In short NO. Not at all - what ever led you to think so? ...which expands to: I believe RAZD misspoke - he probably meant "potential supernatural phenomena". Consider "whether there is actual supernatural phenomena or not"....the "or not" is where the potential qualifier comes in.bluegenes says "All supernatural beings are figments of human imagination", right? Doesn't this mean that "All scientific investigations of potential supernatural phenomena, when examined thoroughly enough to make a conclusion as to their origin, have come to the conclusion that they are figments of human imagination and are sourced from such imagination"?I think RAZD is still asking for an example of such an investigation that has made this determination.Now I have forgotten much of the details in the Great Debate thread, but the debate got off on some bad tangentials. Give me a moment and I shall reread bluegenes side again..........tic toc....I see bluegenes bringing up stories and myths, noting how they contradict each other...but fictional literature is not evidence....tic toc...I see bluegenes in Message 19 trying to argue that known myths which are being used as allegories . . . supports his theory. Just as I would never use Superman's and Spiderman's different fictional worlds contradicting each other as evidence FOR bluegenes theory, I would hope he has a similar inclination....tic toc....beers running out....I see bluegenes saying "You quoted me above claiming that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings. If it's a view that you disagree with, then you should be able to demonstrate that there's another known source."I am not in disagreement, only objecting to how it is stated and proposed as a theory. So, since I already don't think there's any other source, I am certainly not going to demonstrate that there's another known source....tic toc.....I see that it comes to psychology, one of the most inexact sciences known to humans. Modulous also favors this angle, using his favorite word, "proclivity"....tic toc...I see bluegenes making this statement: "So far, having examined more than 20, I'm in the 95% to 100% confidence bracket that's considered standard to pass the null hypothesis. On point (4), we happen to have people from all three fields here on EvC. So, when I've got the time, I can easily start a thread and ask for comments from other members." but all his 20 are fictional stories and inadmissible as evidence....tic toc....I got to where bluegenes mentions the YEC God that 100 million americans believe in being destroyed by evidence from RAZD himself...very nice....tic toc...."If someone explained the existence of the Empire State building by saying that it sprouted from a magical rock buried in the earth and grew, then they would have hit the level of accuracy of the creation myths."But you could link to photographs of its construction and link to films showing its construction rather than argue the magical rock was impossible....tic toc...The Turtle easily by the NASA photo....bluegenes does show examples of evidence, but then fails to do the easy and obvious step of fleshing out how the procedure of examining this evidence would proceed. I say easy & obvious, because it should be a trivial thing. Perhaps he was unaware of how bottom-level the detailed explanation had to be.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Yes. Although Minnemooseus is at least a mod and so has the authority to push thread rules. I didn't recall it, actually. Looking at it, message 12 is a bit pointless, but message 13 introduces a new thread. All of RAZD's posts 157-160 are basically nagging. Yes.

The TOE says nothing about geologic strata nor the age of these things. Other scientific disciplines provide that information. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas.In bluegenes theory nothing is said about the efficacy of supernatural realms or other possible vectors of supernatural thoughts. Other philosophies do that. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas. Why? If a supernatural concept were to be shown to stem from any other source than human imagination then bluegenes theory would be falsified. Where is the problem with this?Unlike what RAZD would want, it is not incumbent upon the theory to provide its own falsification, just that it be open to falsification by some means. Bluegenes theory is open to falsification.

Yeah, I mispoke but you get my point, I hope?From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Fossil rabbits in the precambrian)
At one time, "Precambrian rabbits" or "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian" rock samples became popular imagery in debates about the validity of the theory of evolution and the scientific field of evolutionary biology. The images are reported to have been among responses given by the biologist, J.B.S. Haldane, when he was asked what evidence could destroy his confidence in the theory and the field of study. Many of his statements about his scientific research were popularized in his lifetime.Precambrian rabbit - Wikipedia LOL. Circular reasoning rings a bell. The Bible is true because the Bible says so. The flood of the Bible happened because Jesus from the Bible said it happened.Well, im assuming you are convinced now that both the Bible and the flood are historical facts. Good.Back to bluegenes reality. There are 9000 different sources out there for supernatural beings. They are just as valid as any. You say prove it right? I don't have to, im perfectly content believing what I do.On the other hand, bluegenes is claiming every single person to have ever experienced a religious experience is simply their imagination. He said he can prove this with evidence. The people have provided their evidence with why they believe this. Bluegenes has NOT provided HIS as to why he thinks it's not true. See?So to say he has a theory that claims " the human imagination is the only known sourse of supernatural beings" is obviously an opinion and not a theory, and the only way to back it up is with evidence contrary to the millions of people who believe otherwise. It's simple, show the test you used to produce this result and share it with us.To ask that we provide bluegenes with an empirical supernatural entity to dispove his statement is giving his statement way to much credit. It's just a statement backed by no evidence. Therefore it's no theory.It's tautology. " A rhetorical tautology can also be defined as a series of statements that comprise an argument, whereby the statements are constructed in such a way that the truth of the proposition is guaranteed or that the truth of the proposition cannot be disputed by defining a term in terms of another self-referentially. Consequently, the statement conveys no useful information regardless of its length or complexity making it unfalsifiable"Wiki: Tautology - Wikipedia(rhetoric)Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I'm just showing how the philosophical objections being raised against the BG theory are as applicable as the philosophical objections to a theory that I know RAZD accepts. It's a fairly standard method of rhetoric, I'm surprised it surprises you. Yes. The rabbit in the precambrian for BG's theory is a real supernatural being being detected outside of a human mind.

Bluegenes: Imagination is the only vector.
Falsification: Here is a different vector.Where is the circularity? Bluegenes evidence is not one piece not one test. It is, as with all theories, a preponderance of evidence, this one from history, psychology and neurology. Re-read the thread. The evidence is there. Incredulity is not evidence.If there are 9000 sources out there then certainly you can point to one empirical source, no?Look, Chuck77, bluegenes theory, whatever you may think of it, has been stated, backed by evidence and is falsifiable. It is not tautological since its statement "the only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination" is not self-referential nor is its truth closed to falsification.It is now incumbent upon its detractors to dispute the theory by negating its evidence or by falsification. No one has yet done this. And personal incredulity or appeals to 9000 unevidenced claims will not accomplish this.

Chuck can you tell us all exactly why you think it is "impossible" to present a real supernatural being as falsification? You didn't see Message 1254? I will repeat it for you. Observation: Humans conceive of, and believe in the existence of, supernatural beings.Question: What is the source of origin of these concepts? These concepts are sourced from human imagination for psychological reasons rather than sourced from the real existence of supernatural beings. 1) Investigate the origins of various supernatural concepts. The theory predicts that in every case where the source of origin of a particular supernatural concept can be determined it will be human imagination.2) Investigate the psychological reasons that humans invent supernatural beings. Research into things like the human proclivity to assign conscious intent to mindless physical processes is ongoing but agency, need for compaionship etc. are all subjects of current psychological research. Feel free to. 1) Done
2) Ongoing but extensive results so far support bluegenes theory. Data analysed and found to support the theory. It does. Because that isn't, and never has been bluegenes, claim. As I first told you way back in Message 1140

Aside from human conviction what makes this phenomenon any more "potentially supernatural" than any other? Aside from lack of human belief what makes this phenomenon any less "potentially supernatural" than any other? bluegenes didn't state his theory until August 2010.

One little fairy......Or the demonstrable existence of a leprechaun or a vampire or a werewolf or a pixie or a djinn or a genie or any other supernatural concept including any of these.... Solar deitiesWind godsFertility deitiesLunar deitiesThunder godsCreator godsFire gods...would falsify the theory.

I goofed!! LOL - too many late wee hour mornings of steady beers....Message 357 of 1316 (see Message 357)
08-19-2010 2:47 PMDon't know how I saw February. Cross-eyed pirate effect.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Who is this anal Emma, anyway? Can you introduce me to her?

It is worth pointing out that RAZ's little exercise in logic leads to anyone declaring themselves as anything but a 3, 4 or 5 with regard to anything that cannot be disproven being a pseudoskeptic.This includes the universe being created omphalistically Last Thursday and every conceivable but unfalsifiable entity you can come up with.Of course this means that there can in fact never be any valid scientific conclusions at all. How old is the Earth? Well the evidence suggests in the region of 4.5 billion years.....Aha but you haven't falsified Last Thursdayism have you?Did evolution actually occur? Well we cannot falsify the notion that Satan has been secretly planting evidence to lead us down this ungodly path.And so on and so forth. Because for every evidenced conclusion there is a baseless and unfalsifiable supernatural alternative that RAZ says we cannot legitimately dismiss or ignore as philosophically possible but very improbable.It's frikkin madness.

Do you think they will ever understand this?This obsession with disproof and the unshakeable premise that anything remotely related to unfalsifiable supernatural beliefs is therefore immune from any form of empirical investigation seems so ingrained as to be almost insurmountable.That the theory in question seeks to naturalistically explain an observable phenomeon just like any scientific theory is proving impossible to get across to these people.