Summations Only

When you are called to be on a jury you are charged to set aside personal beliefs and to make a judgement based solely on the evidence presented.

If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?

If the defense made the argument that all of the evidence was planted by a supernatural deity who not only left no evidence of his actions, but that it is actually impossible for the deity to have left any evidence of his actions, would you just ignore that possibility?

Indeed. So do you personally consider that which can never be evidenced?

Short answer = YES.

Maybe it's a language problem or some words left out but I don't understand what you are asking there?

However, it seems that you do believe that unevidenced supernatural actions on the part of GOD do occur. That is your position, is it not?

jar writes:Too funny.

jar writes:If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?

jar writes:If it is impossible to get the evidence why should it EVER be considered?

PaulK writes:Since this is in Free For All...

quote:

---

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.

---

One could say that tempting fate by issuing such an easily met challenge is itself stupid - there is something of an embarrassment of riches...But here's a few examples from one thread and it's follow-on:1) Citing a website devoted to penny stocks as an authority on hurricane frequency without doing adequate checks on the claims it made Message 256 In fact it turned out to rely on assuming that a list of selected major hurricanes was a complete list of major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. Wrong! (It wasn't even restricted to hurricanes making landfall in the U.S.!)2) Setting aside data from an authoritative source (NOAA) that contradicted the penny stock website by indicating that there were hurricanes not on the list used by webpennys Message 286 and again Message 17 and again Message 433) Falsely claiming that the NOAA list used as a basis for the webpennys article was "the only NOAA frequency trend chart available " when - as had already been shown - it was only an incomplete list of major hurricanes around the U.S. Message 44
Whether the stupidity is in ignoring the existence of the obviously better information that had already been offered, or in thinking that nobody would notice such an obvious falsehood is left to the readers...And I can find plenty more....

Btw, the clip which I provided shows Mollar's scientific method of falsification. He researched the Red Sea topography in the region of the long acclaimed traditional Mt Sinai, finding it much deeper and more rugged, lacking any corroborative evidence.