Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1622 of 1725 (632710)
09-09-2011 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1620 by Straggler
09-09-2011 1:42 PM


Re: 1.618
Staggs, did I go over your head? I don't think so. Did I inject a humorous jokette? That was my intent. Are you so deficient in your sense of humour that you failed to see the references to 1.618's name and the post number? RAZD caught it. Sorry for your loss.
But you would do well to have a read of that thread first.
Not right now. Not today. Later, maybe. Sorry for my loss.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1620 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 1:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1624 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 3:02 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1625 of 1725 (632716)
09-09-2011 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1623 by Straggler
09-09-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
NO. You told me how you would attempt it, but you are not a member of the respected experts in the field.
then you are going to have to
I don't have to do anything of the kind.
Don't hold your breath.
Instead let's get another drink. We need them in the days ahead.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1623 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 3:01 PM Straggler has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1626 of 1725 (632718)
09-09-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1624 by Straggler
09-09-2011 3:02 PM


Re: 1.618
As i....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1624 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 3:02 PM Straggler has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1627 of 1725 (632725)
09-09-2011 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 1623 by Straggler
09-09-2011 3:01 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism By Fiat
Straggler continues:
If you want to claim both that it is impossible to falsify bluegenes theory whilst also claiming agnosticism to the actual existence of supernatural entities then you are going to have to reconcile those claims by giving an example of something that is genuinely supernatural, which might conceivably exist but which still doesn't make bluegenes theory false.
I don't have to do this. The scientific community would take this under their wing. I am NOT qualified!!! There are 2 different worlds going on here - what the scientific community would do and what I would do. I am not qualified!
The scientific community would, in theory, accept a supernatural instance of something, but NO, in practice, they won't. As Bonnie Riatt sang, "I can't make you love me, if you don't". It's the Xongsmith Analemma again...a theory about what *they* would do, not me....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1623 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 3:01 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1652 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2011 4:05 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1631 of 1725 (632734)
09-09-2011 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1629 by crashfrog
09-09-2011 5:50 PM


Re: the bluegenes\straggler failure
Crash asks:
Why can scientists only "see/observe" the natural elements? Aren't scientists human beings?
No. They are faceless aliens who have taken a Vow Of Silence on this issue.
Actually, to get more serious about it, scientists are those who have done everything imaginable to remove their human foibles from coloring the results of their experimental observation. They have spent long, long years of study to make sure their own prejudices and world views are not clouding the results.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1629 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2011 5:50 PM crashfrog has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1663 of 1725 (632965)
09-11-2011 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1648 by RAZD
09-10-2011 8:30 AM


Re: the bluegenes\straggler failure
RAZD writes:
Consider Ben Franklin with his kite flying in a storm and no means to measure electricity. Can he claim that electricity is present in the lightening?Can he claim that electricity is not present in the lightening? OR is there insufficient evidence to determine whether or not electricity is present?
Off topic here in the discussion of bluegenes theory, but might I ask you if you have any ideas what might constitute the equivalent of Ben's key? Objectively, without any contaminating world-view prejudice?
Oh....who am i Kidding......I know - it's "I don't know"........
So if you were in the swamps of Louisiana and saw an Ivory Billed Woodpecker, you would automatically discount the experience as an hallucination because it happened to you and there is nothing special about you?
...actually, to get on to the right sensory input, wasn't most of that evidence in audio recordings? I wait to see better evidence...but - again, YIELDING TO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD (Straggler, take note), I'll take it tentatively....

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1648 by RAZD, posted 09-10-2011 8:30 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1664 of 1725 (632967)
09-11-2011 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 1651 by Straggler
09-10-2011 3:50 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
Straggler posts:
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
Amen to that eh?
I really don't think RAZD, here, would disagree....
ALL evidence based knowledge is tentative RAZ. As long as you deny this you will continue to foolishly describe belief in the existence of gods as equivalent to things like knowledge of what a pen will do if dropped.
...Clever - but not really - it's another example of how you finish, by a crudest extrapolation, your adversary's arguments to suit your own agenda and then whip the shit out of them using this constructed conclusion. This goes beyond our normal definition of STRAWMAN. You are, and have been constantly, in this forum, someone who draws premature conclusions and then, convinced that they are true as you state them, use them to build further "logical" attacks on them in a Cheneyesque way. Please - you are better than this.
Show me where he claimed ALL evidence based knowledge is not tentative!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1651 by Straggler, posted 09-10-2011 3:50 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1665 by Panda, posted 09-11-2011 5:34 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 1686 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2011 5:32 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1683 of 1725 (633125)
09-12-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1181 by Modulous
07-10-2011 4:24 AM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Modulous writes:
It's like science saying 'I have a theory that x is the way y works. It is supported by a set of evidence z. You can prove me wrong by providing q'
The problem here is that it has been more accurate to say:
It's like science saying 'I have a theory that x is the way that every instance of y, that I have seen detected by my own, limited and undescribed in scientific detail, missing engineering drawings, but presumed to be sufficiently calibrated & accepted scientific equipment, works. It is supported by a set of evidence z. You can prove me wrong by providing q'
If all you have is a short net to scoop up the white belly-up fish on the surface of your dynamited pond, then you don't have enough tools to conclude, in an inductive way, that all the fish in the pond are dead. Surely bluegenes has a longer net to scoop up data. Can he please tell us what it is? Other than the inexact nature of psychological analysis - which you (along with Straggler) gave to him after he came out with his "theory" to help out the cause. He has clearly inadmissible evidence on the form of hearsay to the nth power in handed down stories. He has Bobby Henderson & the FSM (which even I gave to him after he posited his theory). He has JKRowling and Harry Potter from Straggler. He has CSLewis and the Lords of the Rings. He has his own and Straggler's myriad of made-up-on-the spot SNs. He has comic books. He initially thought he had the Xongsmith Analemma on his side, but that is a major road block to falsification.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1181 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2011 4:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1684 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 5:18 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 1685 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:26 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1693 of 1725 (633497)
09-14-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1684 by Straggler
09-12-2011 5:18 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Straggler pushes on with:
He has every fictional supernatural concept ever created. He has a myriad of mutually exclusive specific supernatural concepts. He has every supernatural entity defined as being the direct cause of every phenomenon for which we now have a scientifically verified natural cause (Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)
And he has the giant turtle holding up the earth.......
YES - he has every single fiction supernatural story handed down through the centuries, over many a campfire, with descent & modification & even speciation (the mutual exclusivity bit), as in Allah & Jesus, subject to each story teller's own agenda & worldview - it is hearsay, it has to be REJECTED as INADMISSIBLE evidence. It is worth NOTHING to the prosecution. The defense has long ago conceded that humans make things up. Long ago.
Then Straggler continues with:
Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.
My own head has NOTHING to do with it. It up to the experts in the field. They have determined to do this. The number of times they have had a chance to say something was supernatural - but did not say so - dwarfs out the number of supernatural stories and, furthermore, the rate of opportunities to say so continues to exponentially rise, increasing it's dwarfing power over even new intentionally fictional stories so much faster, that by L'Hopital's Rule, just like the way that the computer proved 4 colors is enough by proving it will prove it eventually, bluegenes theory will never be falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.
However, if there ever could possibly be anything that would be able to falsify bluegenes theory, it would probably be absolutely nothing like any of those hand-me-down stories. Nothing at all like that. As Spock described the mindset of the Vulcan spaceship destroyed, "It was pure astonishment!".
This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "confirmation bias" approach.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1684 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 5:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1696 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2011 2:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1694 of 1725 (633504)
09-14-2011 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1685 by Modulous
09-12-2011 7:26 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Modulous writes:
Take Jesus. Is he a supernatural being? Or are his supernatural properties figments of human imagination? Take the Islamic Allah. Is he a real supernatural being? Or is he a figment of human imagination?
If Allah (as described in the Koran) is real, then Jesus was not a supernatural being. If Jesus is supernatural, Allah is built from the human imagination.
I have provided a set of two big names. One of them came about as the result of human imagination. We could do the same for a few others.
The only way to save both is to add ad hoc rationalisations that render them both unfalsifiable (see: RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis for an example)
No. These are handed-down stories with descent and modification and speciation. They are all error-prone hearsay accounts by people who lived in a time when the objectivity of science was a very weak force. They are INADMISSIBLE testimonies. They most likely contain a major element of human embellishment via their imaginations.
I.E.: The Koran & the Bible are INADMISSABLE.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1685 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1695 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1699 of 1725 (633613)
09-15-2011 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1687 by Straggler
09-13-2011 5:36 AM


Re: The Straggler Challenge
Straggler lurches on, careening into the coffee tables, with:
Faced with the second coming of Christ as a demonstrable fact I would readily concede that bluegenes theory had been falsified. Xongsmith however has stated that he would not.
Whether you or I concede or not concede, we are not experts in the field and both of our testimonies, up or down, to any such concessions are worth - diddly - diddly squat -zero.
According to Xongsmith something such as the second coming of Christ combined with biblical Armageddon would NOT constitute evidence of the supernatural. He would pass off the whole thing as a thermodynamic anomaly rather than admit he was actually wrong.
BULLSHIT - you mischaracterize this. LIAR. All I said was that it would be more likely. I said nothing about admitting one way or the other.
Remember this from Message 1593:
The entirety of science as a route to knowledge is based on tentatively concluding that the most objectively evidenced conclusion is more likely to be correct than the various evidentially baseless but untestable alternatives.
It doesn't matter what you or I or Modulous or bluegenes or RAZD or chuck77 or whoever here in EvC says. No one here is an expert in the field. Do you deny that the best people to make a scientific conclusion are those who are trained and educated in the field of their specialty?
Xongsmith's position is as ridiculous an exercise in definitional dynamics as one could conceive of and his Anal Emma is as stupid as she sounds.
The correct spelling is Analemma, a combination of analog and lemma. Cease and desist your childish joking on this - you aren't worthy of it...to do so is vulgar and belittling of you.
My Analemma position is based on observations I have accumulated over my lifetime about scientific papers published in respected scientific journals (Omni is NOT such a publication).

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1687 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2011 5:36 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1711 by Straggler, posted 09-15-2011 1:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(1)
Message 1700 of 1725 (633616)
09-15-2011 5:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1695 by Modulous
09-14-2011 1:28 PM


Re: admissable evidence
Modulous kindly writes:
If you want to suggest that these sources are all products of the human imagination then you are just restating the theory.
You missed my point.
The INADMISSIBILITY of these stories is not because they are 100% human imagination - it is because they are known to be INACCURATE and therefore worthless. Hearsay could describe something real, but - nonetheless - it is inadmissible. My 2nd cousin's aunt could describe a robber entering her ground floor window with words such as "I heard him open it and climb in" but because she was in another room upstairs, it should not be used to convict him if there was no other (to use a Straggler term of recent usage) more "CONCRETE" evidence. She might have been completely accurate in describing what was going on. But the jury cannot use her testimony there on its own. It is only less than circumstantial evidence - supporting as it may be.
They most likely contain a major element of human embellishment via their imaginations.
That's what bluegenes theory predicts, yes. See - you are actually on board after all.
Since when has "a major element" equaled "an entirety"???
While I may agree with bluegenes' conclusions in my own personal way, I do not agree that it forms a (Stronger Than Dirt) Theory!

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1695 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1710 by Modulous, posted 09-15-2011 9:47 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


(3)
Message 1724 of 1725 (633999)
09-18-2011 1:28 AM


Wow, I have never never never ever done a Summation Finality End Of The Thread thingy yet....
Ok - this version of the Peanut Gallery has been a wonderful experience for almost *ALL* of my EvC time here. Everyone in this thread has been very rewarding. I have watched many a sunrise & heard many a symphony of early bird calls from my modest room, staying up through the night, around to the dreaded next day, consuming much liquid diet product, in grateful wonder of the world, as I was participating in such a struggle of words amongst us all. I can only hope that another Peanut Gallery materializes soon after this one is gone.
Here are my modest final comments....i think....maybe.......
Let's take a look at bluegenes' original formulation:
bluegenes writes:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
Why did I make his beings in yellow? Because there is a HUGE difference between a Supernatural Concept and a Supernatural Being. Anyone can conjure up a Supernatural Concept - Straggler & bluegenes happily skipped up the light fantastic conjuring up Supernatural Concepts willy nilly. But "being" by itself does imply in a more fundamental sense to the world, some kind of "possible" reality....Mickey Mouse? forget that.....
So...because I only saw this by following what my brother was doing here - with his absolutely killer Age-Of-the-Earth stuff - I was curious....
RAZD took the challenge and challenged bluegenes to demonstrate that the IPU was made up - not that it was impossible, but that it was made-up. Eventually I condensed this demand down to finding out who the Bobby Henderson of the IPU was. Somehow this was not the brunt of the verbiage that followed. Instead Straggler & I probably smoked the equivalent of a Cuban Acre of Cigars in comfy deep cushioned chairs, snifting gallons of the finest French Cognac in our minds (hopefully if not actually) over the issue of armchair philosophical arguments to prove that the IPU could not possibly exist and therefore must be made-up, versus my swordplay that it was not from the CouldNotExist->MadeUp side, but rather the MadeUp->CouldNotExist side. Fun stuff.
However, the very calm & understanding Modulous eventually got through to my stodgy head to point out that it is not in the province of a challenger to demand a certain test of the proposed theory on their whim. The person proposing the theory need only provide concrete examples of their own research that led to the theory.
Ok - what was next? Damned if I know.
Perhaps it was the issue of....AHAH - Straggler!! Can I think of a supernatural phenomenon that would falsify??? And I went into a fantasmagorical scenario of thermodynamic implausibility that would make Albert Einstein shit bricks, if he were alive, characterizing it as more likely than a real actualization of the Christian Bible's End Times scenario.
Doesn't matter what I would have said. I am not qualified in this field. When stuff like this happens, go read what the experts would have said about it. If you get a chance before the horrid mega-scorpions drag you down into the molten hell. In this scenario, bluegenes theory would not have had enough time to be falsified.
Time went by, arguments were made.
I really don't DISAGREE with bluegenes' theory, but I feel that he could have spelled it out better. Or at least floated it out as a conjecture, rather than a proposed theory. Here are my TWO issues with bluegenes' theory that have somehow struck me as being faulty in my head, such as it is (sawdust!).
1. He did not adequately describe the scientific procedure and equipment used to measure the data that led to his theory.
3. His falsification criterion was FLAWED.
Wait! What happened to 2? Okay - I showed the picture of the human ear grown on the back of a laboratory rat Message 362 and suggested IMMEDIATELY that bluegenes should strike his sentence to read rabbit DNA from rabbit DNA, to push the future probability of rabbit falsification maybe to the year 3592, instead of maybe 2018. I also suggested that he modify the imagination line to enlarge it to include any intelligent species rather than just home sapiens. Those changes would not have changed the force of his argument, those changes would have provided a stronger future foundation. To his credit he did nothing of the kind, laying his body open to attack from those directions as well.
Meanwhile RAZD had put up the poster of Richard Dawkin's scale and then immediately poisoned it with this whole concept of being a pseudoskeptic - a 6.0 has now the responsibility of providing some evidence for this position. So I snarkily took a 5.7 position so I wouldn't have to explain with supporting evidence. Snarky indeed and not to be proud of at all.
Straggler of course, with his rhinoceros certainty, thunders in at the outset - already onboard with bluegenes enough to make me wonder if they are the same dude from 2 accounts at first. I really like Straggler! He is very hard and makes me strain to say it exactly as I mean. He does have faults, but . . .hey!. . . let's forget about that in this Summation. I know I have my own faults, too.
Okay. On to the 2 issues 1 and 3 I mentioned:
1. He did not adequately describe the scientific procedure and equipment used to measure the data that led to his theory.
bluegenes brought up a millionish number of stories from the past. These stories are mostly so old that nobody has any idea of where they started. We already know that stories handed down through the ages get changed - like evolution, with descent and modification, and even speciation so that they conflict with one another. Looking at the endlines of these stories today, as published in things like the Bible and the Koran - pick your favorite versions, it doesn't matter - they were all modified to suit the needs of the priests/imams/whatever that were in power at the time of this next transcription. RAZD brought up a nice concept called the Hindu Hypothesis. He was wasting his time. ALL OF THIS EVIDENCE is INADMISSIBLE because it is all hearsay of the worst degree. NONE of it counts as EVIDENCE, FOR or AGAINST....
Next, with the help of Modulous & Straggler, bluegenes noted the psychological evidence of the "proclivity" for human brains to make up supernatural beings.
No one here was actually claiming that they didn't do that.
Meanwhile RAZD & others wanted to see a description of the equipment, because in scientific papers that are accepted and published in reputable publications, there is usually a description of the equipment - how it was used, how it was calibrated against confirmation bias and how it showed that the results led to the theory.
bluegenes has failed in this regard. I have a bad analogy:
Imagine a pitchblack cave with a black oil lake in its darkest depth. There are Things at the bottom of this lake. Scientists can only, at this juncture in time, send down a magnetic rod straight down from their rigid equipment chassis, locked against the rocks of the cave. They pull the rod up and find metallic objects stuck to it. They repeat the same procedure in various different positions in this pit of black oil.
They conclude after 1000's of these positional probes that the only things down there are metallic. They have a 100% batting average - everything they pull up is metallic.
Here is the analogy - the black pool contains the set {all supernatural concepts possible}. The magnetic rod represents the {the state of the art in scientifically investigating these phenomena} i.e. the best equipment today has. The metallic objects are the exact equivalent of human imagination.
Suppose there were some ceramic objects down there? How would we know? If we equipped the magnetic rod with sensors like seismographic kinds and wiggled the rod around, we might detect a collision with a ceramic object down there in the black oil - it could be done today in the real world, but in this analogy it has yet to be described and built and done.
Suppose now, we upgrade the rod to be able to move sideways and wire it up with collision meters and therefore be able to detect ceramic objects? This gets us to 3.
3. His falsification criterion was FLAWED.
Falsification? If a theory cannot be falsified, it is no better than Last Thursdayism. So bluegenes must provide a way to falsify his theory. He says "It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt." All of us in this thread must assume he means a scientific reasonable doubt, a conceivable repeatable demonstration (if never actually performed by another scientist) of the existence of a supernatural being.
This is where my Xongsmith Analemma comes in. The much more rapidly converging Lemma to this theory (Lemmas occur in our literature as necessary preparatory steps to the eventual Theories, and they, themselves. being smaller, simpler, not so sexy steps to the final result, will get derisive bastardizations of their names along the way - no matter). The problem with bluegenes theory is that is will NEVER be falsified. When they get the detector that can sense the ceramic objects down there in the black oil, they will merely fold the new stuff in, describing how it bumped the sensor - as they always have - and no paper will ever be published stating that there is any scintilla of a supernatural phenomenon going on.
I mean, look - even this theory that bluegenes has described here will not concede that anything occurs by magic. When he says "known", we know he means "known to science in a rigorous way". No magic here...I have a 100% success rate in this theory. All anyone in the world has to do to falsify it is to go into an accredited library and go the respected scientific journals and open any one to any page you want and see if ever they explain the observations they made as being source by any truly supernatural phenomenon.
It'll never happen, no matter what I could imagine myself, or what Straggler could imagine, or bluegenes or Modulous or Panda - any of them fine gentlemen, because we are all not scientific experts in the field.
Sadly
But I salute all of those who have sailed with me. My ship might have been split to splinters, but my heart is light and free....
Edited by xongsmith, : more

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024