Summations Only

Buzsaw writes: Only designations one, two and three allowed in science forums; you know, the YEC conventionalist ones who are easily rebutted.

Wrong - as usual.
All types of creationist are allowed in the science forums.

You are not banned because of your beliefs: you are banned because of your stupidity.

Tangle writes: The supernatural either doesn't exist or exists in a way we can never know about. (Because it doesn't interact with our natural world in any way that we can distinguish).

So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?

So in summary, it either doesn't exist or it doesn't matter to us if it does.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Hello again Chuck,

Chuck77 writes: So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?

It can't really be determined by anybody. You may think it interacted with you, but there is as of yet no way of telling if it actully did. It is indistnguishable from a delusion, or aliens with thought ray devices. That is what Tangle meant. Iḿ not saying your delusional, by the way, I'm trying to explain the reasoning here.

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

He means that if it doesn't interact with the natural world in a way we can clearly distinguish, then it doesn't matter if it exists because it will never interact with us. And things that don't interact with us are irrelevant, by all intents and purposes.

Panda writes: Buzsaw writes: Only designations one, two and three allowed in science forums; you know, the YEC conventionalist ones who are easily rebutted. Wrong - as usual. All types of creationist are allowed in the science forums. You are not banned because of your beliefs: you are banned because of your stupidity.

Ok, Mr/Ms Panda, how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora. You have 8+ years to cherry pick them from.

Hi Chuck. What is the SN?

This would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Thanks for making Panda's point.

Thats one and no one even had to look.

Buzsaw writes: Ok, Mr/Ms Panda, how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora. You have 8+ years to cherry pick them from.

Well, the first example of your stupidity is that very reply:

quote:

---

how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora

---

I said you were banned from the science forums for stupidity.
It is stupid of you to think that I need to provide more than the stupidity that you were banned for.

And here is the actual stupidity that you got banned for:

Admin writes: The history is that this is the second time Buzsaw has been asked to cease his participation in the science forums. After the first time Buzsaw requested readmission, stating that he now understood he needed to provide evidence, so I granted the request. But the result was that Buzsaw merely began using the word "evidence" a lot without actually producing any evidence that supported his positions.

The third piece of stupidity you are guilty of is not knowing why you were banned.

And lastly, the fourth example of your stupidity will be your response to this message.

Straggler writes: Entity A is empirically detectable. Entity A has some unusual abilities the effects of which are also empirically detectable. Entity A may or may not be a supernatural/magical/whatever being. Can we scientifically investigate Entity A and it's unusual abilities?

jar writes: We can investigate it.....

jar writes: How do you test anything that is not natural?

Using the same methods and techniques that we would use to investigate things whose natural/supernatural status is unknown. Things such as entity A above. Things which you have already agreed we can investigate.

You obviously have some deep attachment to the notion that supernatural things are inherently immune from scientific investigation and aren't willing to have this notion challenged.

But the bottom line here is that if something exists and is detectable it can be scientifically studied. Whether it is supernatural, or known to be supernatural, has no bearing on this.

You haven't offered any reason for this not to be the case.

Perdie writes: Is a leprechaun that can magically summon gold coins out of the air supernatural or not?

jar writes: Nope. It's unexplained.

"Unexplained" and "supernatural" are not mutually exclusive.

Our hypothetical little green friend who may or may not be a genuinely supernatural/magical Leprechaun can teleport. We can scientifically investigate how far he can teleport. We can investigate how fast he can teleport (is it instantaneous and thus faster than light? etc. etc.). We can take skin grafts and blood samples, brain scans and urine samples. We can conduct material analysis on his litle green cloak. Whether he is a genuinely supernatural being has no bearing on our ability to conduct these tests. It depends only on the empirically verifiable existence of him and his abilities.

In short - We can scientifically study the little green entity in question whether it is supernatural or not.

So to say that if it is supernatural then we can't study it doesn't make any sense.

Straggler writes: Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?

Well it stands to reason if something breaks the laws of physics, and is inexplicable to every and all inquiry then the only word that best describes such a thing would be....hmmm let me think.....oh yeah,
supernatural

Straggler writes: If it is undetetable how can it ever be detected and how can anyone ever claim to have any inkling of it's existence?

Yes that is a pickle. As we speak scientist deep in the Earth are monitoring wafers of geranium hooked to vast arrays of computers in the attempt to catch a dark matter particle interacting with geranium atoms to show physical evidence of a substance that supposedly makes up 1/3 of the matter in our universe.. The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable and yet we have a inkling of they're existence, que no? Is dark matter supernatural?

There is another theory that reality itself is nothing more than a 2D holograph

If existence itself is illusory then perhaps there is no such thing as supernatural. Perhaps its just a word we use when we do not know the answer.

Straggler writes: Good. So are you claiming that supernatural things are simply unable to be detetected by definition?

Numbers writes: Well it stands to reason if something breaks the laws of physics, and is inexplicable to every and all inquiry then the only word that best describes such a thing would be....hmmm let me think.....oh yeah, supernatural

Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing or can a phenomenon be both detectable and inexplicable?

I refer you to the teleporting Leprechaun example above. Message 219

Numbers writes: The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable and yet we have a inkling of they're existence, que no? Is dark matter supernatural?

I doubt it. But we are scientifically studying dark matter whether it is or isn't aren't we?

Numbers writes: If existence itself is illusory then perhaps there is no such thing as supernatural. Perhaps its just a word we use when we do not know the answer.

The term certainly has a track record of being used by those who think they have an answer that has consistently turned out to be wrong.

But that isn't really the same thing.....

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let me reply to both this and the preceding post at the same time.

No, you are not studying the supernatural and you have not shown any hint that you are studying the supernatural.

You are studying something and you can record any natural facts evidenced there, but you have not shown any example of studying anything supernatural.

I think the difference between your position and mine will remain as a definitional issue but I will try yet again to create an example that might help.

You can watch a magician (entertainer) and record his every move including all of the preparation that went before performing the trick. Perhaps that will provide enough evidence to understand how the magic trick was created; but that is not studying magic.

The particles are for all intensive purposes are undectectable . . .

Not entirely. We can observe their gravitational effects through lensing. One of the more famous examples is the collision between two star clusters:

http://home.slac.stanford.edu/...sreleases/2006/20060821.htm

In this example it demonstrates how dark matter interacts differently than luminous matter, and how such a collision can actually separate the two.

So does this count as an observation of the supernatural? Why not just call gravity supernatural since, like dark matter, we can not directly observe gravity, only its effects on surrounding objects.

Straggler writes: Do you think "detectable" and "explicable" mean the same thing

No.

Straggler writes: ..or can a phenomenon be both detectable and inexplicable?

I think it depends on the 'nature' of the phenomenon. heh.

As of yet it is still inexplicable how abiogenesis occurred and yet we know it did.

It is yet inexplicable how the universe inflated yet that seems to be the most reasonable explanation.

We can detect the effects of quantum entanglement and yet it baffles and is inexplicable.

These concepts are not supernatural but are a mystery.

So because it doesn't (according to you) "interact" with our natural world in a way that you can't distinguish means we can (according to you) "never" know about it?

If you disagree, perhaps you can tell us how we can gain verifiable and demonstrable knowledge of something that does not interact with reality in a detectable way?

What do you mean by "it doesn't matter to us if it does"?

It means that it is irrelevant. To use another example, if I am keeping score in a basketball game does it really matter how many grains of sand there are on the Moon? One has nothing to do with the other. It is irrelevant. The same for the supernatural, as it so appears. The supernatural is irrelevant to how nature works since the supernatural has no discernable effect on nature.