Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9170 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Happy Birthday: ameliajack
Post Volume: Total: 917,263 Year: 4,520/9,624 Month: 295/1,096 Week: 0/119 Day: 0/22 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 140 of 1725 (517717)
08-02-2009 10:43 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Straggler
08-02-2009 9:33 AM


Re: I believe Smooth Operator is a Troll
The question remains as to whether he can be convinced that he might be wrong. Rather than just abuse his stupidity let's find out how glued to his position in the face of contradictory evidence he really is.
Yeah...it would be nice to think there is some way we havent found yet that would convince him he might be wrong....but
it's not gonna happen.
INTERCEPTION! the children! can we get in the way of these forlorn broken people to prevent their stupidity from being passed on....
ah...the hutzpah to take the attitude that we might know better.
how can we show the error of their ways?

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 9:33 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Straggler, posted 08-02-2009 11:24 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 155 of 1725 (518916)
08-09-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Dr Adequate
08-09-2009 9:57 AM


Re: Ark Bigger On The Inside Than The Outside?
ARK: an obvious precursor to the TARDIS
ARK =
Ark of
Recursive
Kinematics
It cannot be done without recursion.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-09-2009 9:57 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 260 of 1725 (574172)
08-14-2010 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by purpledawn
08-14-2010 8:59 AM


he aint heavy, he's my brother
The original bluegenes text was, as I'm led to believe, this, from Message 167:
"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.
I'll regard attempts at dismissing the theory without accepting the debate proposition as empty rhetoric and cowardice.
Now my brother can get on your nerves at times (and he certainly gets on mine at times!), and certainly may have strayed that way a bit in this debate, but, sadly, those of you who are thinking that he is losing are wrong.
When someone makes a blanket statement like that and also claims it is a high level of confidence theory, then they have to provide support for their claim - and on EvC the support is usually of the form of scientific objective evidence.
RAZD is saying "ok...show me some evidence". bluegenes has has also asserted that he has "plenty of evidence".
bluegenes essentially responded with Oni's characterization "You go first".
bluegenes says
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
This cannot be a call to provide such an example, but instead is a claim that the theory is falsifiable, so as to comply with the scientific method. Let's not get caught up in climbing down into that rabbit hole - bluegenes is going down the checklist of a well-formulated theory and sees the box "Is it falsifiable?" and he checks it off "Yes".
purpledawn writes:
You took the challenge he presented. He said how the theory could be falsified.
But that does NOT mean RAZD has to provide an example - it's a check box for fitting the blanket statement
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
into a well-proposed theory.
So RAZD, in an effort to the ball rolling, suggests that bluegenes begin with the IPU, noting that this particular of a supernatural being should be easy to demonstrate as a figment of the human imagination.
Yes - name-calling canards & sidebars of the electromagnetic spectrum may have obscured the debate.
But please, lets see some scientific evidence that the IPU is a figment - afterall, many of us here in the Peanut Gallery, by and large, agree with bluegenes' premise, and we'd like to see some ammo to bring to bear in these sort of cases in the future. Help us out at the Atheist end of the Dawkins scale......

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by purpledawn, posted 08-14-2010 8:59 AM purpledawn has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 12:45 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 264 by Blue Jay, posted 08-14-2010 1:58 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 348 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2010 8:24 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 262 of 1725 (574175)
08-14-2010 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by onifre
08-14-2010 12:24 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Oni writes:
What I have always taken issue with is, how is saying "supernatural being X is a concept" actually make it a concept? That's not a concept at all, it just a word salad.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain." - John Lennon
What word would you want to use for the word cloud/salad "supernatural being X", Oni?
He continues:
Then, to have the arrogance to expect someone to demonstrate, with objective empirical valid evidence, that these concepts are unequivocally and absolutely a fictional invention and not a supernatural being, is absurd.
...but that, indeed, is what bluegenes has to do.
Contrast
"All supernatural beings are figments of human imagination".
with
"I challenge anyone to provide an example of a supernatural being that cannot be explained as a figment of human imagination."
Those are 2 blanket statements may seem to be saying the same thing, but they are different.
Edited by xongsmith, : Clarity

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 12:24 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2010 1:43 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 265 by onifre, posted 08-14-2010 2:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 271 of 1725 (574535)
08-16-2010 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Straggler
08-14-2010 1:43 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler says:
Firstly how can you disprove (which is what RAZD is demanding) the existence of any empirically imperceptible entity?
You cant. bluegenes went a step too far in stating the theory.
Secondly - If the entity in question (e.g. the Immaterial Pink Unicorn that he has demanded be disproved) is empirically imperceptible how can it be anything other than a concept derived solely from the internal workings of the human mind?
I guess RAZD would be looking for some documentation that the human who first coined the term admits that s/he made it up. It's supposed to be a softball lob to bluegenes - not enough to establish the theory, but an example of what would fall under the theory. Who ever did came up with that? Or Last Thursdayism?
Bluegenes: All supernatural beings are figments of human imagination.
RAZD: Such as?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Straggler, posted 08-14-2010 1:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 1:40 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 272 of 1725 (574538)
08-16-2010 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by purpledawn
08-14-2010 2:57 PM


Re: Mutual admiration society? - Peanut Gallery
Was it EvC that changed "Invisible Pink Unicorn" into "Immaterial Pink Unicorn"? Or was it descent with modification?
Invisible Pink Unicorn from wikipedia:
The earliest known written reference to the IPU was on July 7, 1990[
purpledawn says:
Evidence is what will show that the IPU is fiction, not the hypothesis.
Well, yeah. So what is the Evidence? wikipedia seems to conclude that the concept was created and caught fire online. What is objection scientific evidence that something is "made up"? A copyright symbol? Testimony on a witness stand is ultimately subjective evidence, as was determined in another thread. Maybe a complete lack of any mention until the moment the author of the fiction creates it?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by purpledawn, posted 08-14-2010 2:57 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 1:41 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 275 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2010 2:50 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 277 of 1725 (574560)
08-16-2010 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Straggler
08-16-2010 1:40 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler says:
No. It is RAZ's way of demanding the disproof of things which he knows cannot be disproved. As if disproving anything had any relevance to anything anyway.
No no no. You have already moved past the front door of this debate and read into RAZDs intentions, perhaps accurately. No - this is all about bluegenes stating he had "plenty of evidence".
Grok this:
Right now I claim that there is a huge green elephant running the universe and he is visible to everyone and every experiment and he can do all these magical things that cannot be explained. Everyone, you included, can see this elephant in his greenness right outside your window right now. He is everywhere. You can take a video of him now. He always weighs exactly 42,726.0032 kilograms.
What is the scientific objective evidence that I am making this up? Is it the first appearance of this statement above, which is obviously false, but is none the less a post on the internet which has never happened before, where all kinds of strange things happen? Is it the results of measuring the video under spectral analysis? Remember, this is not an invisible, immaterial, inaudible, intangible pink unicorn, oh no - this is a very measurable green elephant outside your window. Furthermore, I can even add the ridiculous (but for the purpose of this tack, COMPLETELY TRUE) claim that we already know all about him and he is in all of the books we have up to date. What is the objective evidence? Help me out, here. Weigh him, you say? Fine - do that.
I'm not looking for the obvious "You're wrong" or "nuts".
No - we would go to the books and find he's not there. We examine scientifically the video evidence and photographic evidence and so on. While the scientific method never proves anything, we can get a high level of confidence that this green elephant is a figment of my imagination. Of course, right at this moment, we have no video or photographic evidence, so these are not horse chestnuts in my mouth - they're in my hands.
Given the tiny bit of research I made on the origin of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, I'm coming around to the notion that RAZD indeed may have cloaked an ulterior motive inside his "softball".
How about Turtles? The ancient myth of being on a turtle, and that turtle being on a bigger turtle, and it being turtles all the way down. We can show simple space program pictures of the earth, etc.
Straggler continues:
If it cannot be perceived what difference does it make? Where else can it have been sourced from? Why does somebody putting their hand up and saying "It was me" make any difference to that?
Just that it would be some kind of evidence that it was made up. I dont care what "it" is, just whether there was evidence that it was made up. That is all. Should be easy.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 1:40 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Straggler, posted 08-16-2010 7:14 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 278 of 1725 (574564)
08-16-2010 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by purpledawn
08-16-2010 2:50 PM


Re: Mutual admiration society? - Peanut Gallery
purpledawn says:
quote:
Well, yeah. So what is the Evidence? wikipedia seems to conclude that the concept was created and caught fire online. What is objectiVE scientific evidence that something is "made up"? A copyright symbol? Testimony on a witness stand is ultimately subjective evidence, as was determined in another thread. Maybe a complete lack of any mention until the moment the author of the fiction creates it?
Invisible pink or immaterial pink. That is what tells us it is fiction and a unicorn is a mythical creature, not a supernatural being.
Please excuse my major not-even-a-typo brain glitch when I meant to type "objective" rather than "objection".
But, back to the matter at hand: So wikipedia is acceptable objective scientific evidence?
Or, are you saying that just the writing of the word pair "invisible pink", or the pair "immaterial pink", is, by fiat, objective scientific evidence of its fictional origin?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by purpledawn, posted 08-16-2010 2:50 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by nwr, posted 08-16-2010 6:00 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 292 by purpledawn, posted 08-17-2010 7:29 AM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 289 of 1725 (574630)
08-16-2010 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Blue Jay
08-16-2010 8:20 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
The original bluegenes text was, as I'm led to believe, this, from Message 167:
"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.
I'll regard attempts at dismissing the theory without accepting the debate proposition as empty rhetoric and cowardice.
Bluejay requotes the bluegenes quote as
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.
There 6 clauses bluegenes threw up there. Bluejay gets hung up on the 3rd clause.
bluegenes sort of presented a table of contents for the proposed debate and everyone seems to be leaping up to Chapter 3.
RAZD did not jump to Chapter 3. He could look at the table of contents and notice that Chapter 1 would be making a blanket claim. He notes that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Now we, in our worldviews, may not see the claim as all that extraordinary. But perhaps it is as if, having reached page 2134 of some huge unabridged dictionary and reaching the word "ungulate" and tired and exhausted and out of time for turning these delicate onion-skinned pages of this magnificent tome, the reader concludes than the word "zebra" does not exist in this book. It is an extraordinary claim.
He could look at Chapter 2 and note that a high level of confidence would be interesting to see supported.
He could look at Chapter 3 and note that that was something that would be dealt with later, but he understand why Chapter 3 is there. This will not be a version of Last Thursdayism, recast in some new form..
He could look at Chapter 4 and note that that would probably not be an issue - yes, no problem there.
Then he could look at Chapter 5 and there he gets the mother lode - bluegenes is claiming this is a strong theory and - WHAT IS THIS? - he's claiming he has "plenty of evidence"! Wow.
He could continue to Chapter 6's listing in the table of contents and accept those terms without argument.
So he accepts the challenge and early on in the debate wants to see some of this plentiful evidence ("Bring it on!").
Some of you seem to be hung up on Chapter 3, while RAZD is wondering about the whole book (and Chapter 5 in particular). He doesn't even need to argue Chapter 3 yet. Let's get started with the table of contents.
It was bluegenes who said he had plenty of evidence....
It was bluegenes who said:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
Bluejay goes on to eventually say:
Criterion 1 for the rabbit theory is identical to criterion 1 for the supernatural theory.
Criterion 2, however, is not identical. I submit that, while it is possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some animal is a rabbit, it is not possible to assign a level of confidence to the conclusion that some being is supernatural.
...[details elided over]...
Thus, the tests for criterion 2 is these two theories are not the same, and the two theories are not parallel, as Bluegenes has argued that they are.
Furthermore, Bluegenes’ theory is not strictly falsifiable, because the criterion for falsification cannot be entered into a statistical or logical test.
That said, the only time this objection is meaningful is when we can demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer to the question, is it supernatural? is at least ambiguous. I’ll admit that I cannot demonstrate the existence of a being for which the answer is ambiguous, so my objection here is only one of academic principle.
But, I happen to feel that principles are important.
Which is all very well and good, IMHO. I might add, however, that bluegenes would probably be willing to concede that part of the rabbit analogy that doesn't work. Like I would be willing to concede that part of the dictionary page turning analogy that doesn't work.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Blue Jay, posted 08-16-2010 8:20 PM Blue Jay has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 5:16 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 301 of 1725 (574753)
08-17-2010 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 290 by Straggler
08-17-2010 5:16 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler asks:
Are you disputing that there is evidence of humans inventing supernatural concepts?
Certainly not.
For example, there should be such evidence in the case of IPUs. The wikipedia link has a rundown of possible avenues to investigate, but I don't think any of us here would accept wikipedia as scientific evidence all by itself.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Straggler, posted 08-17-2010 5:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2010 3:42 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 342 of 1725 (575184)
08-19-2010 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Straggler
08-18-2010 3:42 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler entertains the thought of doing bluegenes homework for him with:
Beyond the philosophical possibility of some miraculous co-incidence whereby the human imagination has stumbled across some entirely imperceptible truth by pure chance - We know that the IPU is a made-up entity.
I ask how do we know this? Believe it or not, I am not asking for some hereto-before obscure scientific investigation in a peer-reviewed respected journal (although that would be terrific!) - no, just a simple, pedestrian way of phrasing what all of us non-believers in the IPU would say if we could only find it in our heads. It would have to stand up to spirited scrutiny, which I suspect would be forthcoming from RAZD.
A story about a bunch of anonymous computer geeks coining the term and having it spread on the internet is NOT what we need. That would NOT be scientific objective evidence.
You cant just say "we know the IPU is a made-up entity". Some people in all walks of life everywhere also fervently claim "I know God exists." We have to avoid that sort of explanation completely.
Given that in this forum the expertise needed to explain certain complicated things is best left to those who have expertise in that field, I ask - What is the field and who of us is best qualified to answer?
How to test the proposition that the IPU is made-up:
Cannot use measuring devices of length, mass, electric field strength, and so on, etc....
This may be something in Library Science? It may not be a story about some computer geeks, but instead a systematic pattern of stories through the archives from a fairly well narrowed-down point in time, before which there was no mention of an IPU, after which there was plenty of citations. It's like the folks that collect and tabulate neologisms - that kind of in-depth assiduous sticking to careful details.
Do you understand? What would evidence that the IPU was made-up look like?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Straggler, posted 08-18-2010 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2010 8:16 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


Message 343 of 1725 (575194)
08-19-2010 2:53 AM
Reply to: Message 333 by onifre
08-18-2010 5:13 PM


Re: What Are We Disagreeing About
Oni asks:
But what does any of that have to do with the term supernatural being more than a place filler?
The tribesman can be shown via diagrams and space photos and trips on the shuttle what an eclipse really is in terms that he already knows and can understand.
The atheist cannot be shown via diagrams and photos and trips on some vehicle what God really is in terms that he already knows and can understand.
All of the historical changes of explanation from once-believed supernatural to now-believed natural have taken place with small understandable increments of the descriptive body of knowledge. When the belief that the Sun was a God changed to it being just the star we orbit around, the explanation did not require anything more than incremental changes to the body of knowledge, including many other ancillary things, even if its implication was profound.
A supernatural event/entity would be much different. It could never be understood by the body of knowledge we have.
Now, you could argue - "Well, that body of knowledge was ignoramous!" - no, wait just a moment & hear me out. Let's again consider the Sun God to star process: Sun God believers did other things as well: they built fires, they found vegetables they could eat, they bore children, they threw stones through the air - all manner of simple mundane things of everyday life. They also, for a great long passage of generations, had found Confirmation Bias in their sincere Sun God belief. As time went by the simple mundane things grew in number & familiarity. Soon many descriptive explanations of these mundane things came around and eventually we even got to Greek Philosophers wondering about the natural world, while still worshiping Apollo, and you can connect the dots - the point is that at no time was any generational consensus confronted with a change of explanation that they couldn't understand out of the (by now) rich supply of mundane knowledge.
Something supernatural would never be understood out of the rich supply of mundane knowledge. NEVER.
Now you & Straggler & I might happen to believe that the {Supernatural Subset} of the Set of {"I dont know"} is identical to the {Empty Set}...at least tentatively for now, but just by saying so we have given such a set an existence in our minds, empty or not, that is very different from saying there is no meaning to the term.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 333 by onifre, posted 08-18-2010 5:13 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by onifre, posted 08-22-2010 1:08 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 353 of 1725 (575309)
08-19-2010 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 347 by Straggler
08-19-2010 8:16 AM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
Straggler asks:
Do you agree that we are limited to our physical senses as a means of perceiving reality external to our own minds?
Yes.
Do you agree that if something is immaterial it cannot be physically perceived?
Yes.
If the answer to both those questions is 'Yes' then I think you have your answer.
Not to my question.
You are not following the line of thought I'm trying to make. I am talking about the "made-up-ness" of the IPU, not the actual IPU.
What is scientific objective evidence that something - anything at all - is made up?
We can collect scientific data on the orbit of the moon's orbit.
We can collect data on foraminifera.
We can collect data on lots of physical things.
What is it that we collect when we investigate whether something is made up?
Let's take a look at the Piltdown man hoax - what was the scientific evidence that that story was made up? See, I read that it was, I read that established respected scientists concluded that it was by examining the bones more closely. But I don't have the expertise in that field, so I have to take their word with the trust that I have built up all my life about respected scientific peer reviews and repeatability of the experiments. A heckuva lot easier for Piltdown man than for the IPU.
I sort of thought it might be a case for linguistic experts to see where that term, the IPU, originated from in the language. Again, I am not talking about the IPU - I'm talking about the made-up-ness of it.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Straggler, posted 08-19-2010 8:16 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 354 by xongsmith, posted 08-19-2010 1:51 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 366 by Straggler, posted 08-20-2010 2:54 AM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 354 of 1725 (575311)
08-19-2010 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 353 by xongsmith
08-19-2010 1:21 PM


Re: RAZD and Bluegenes - Peanut Gallery
I think I kinda missed my target:
Let's take a look at the Piltdown man hoax - what was the scientific evidence that that story was made up? See, I read that it was, I read that established respected scientists concluded that it was by examining the bones more closely. But I don't have the expertise in that field, so I have to take their word with the trust that I have built up all my life about respected scientific peer reviews and repeatability of the experiments. A heckuva lot easier for Piltdown man than for the IPU.
Maybe it would better to imagine an alternate story, say Newcastle man, found in the Newcastle coal beds. A full story of it, but no pictures in the story. Then it happens soon that all scientific evidence collected for Newcastle man is completely and irrevocably destroyed and all we have is the story. Thus experts, such as were brought in to investigate Piltdown man, cannot be of any help here. However, as luck would have it, there is video tape of the conspirators plotting to do this, then there is recorded tape of them burying Newcastle man in the coal beds to be found and tape of them leaking the story. Then the police find the equipment used to make Newcastle man with the correct forensic evidence. This is evidence that Newcastle man is made up. Notice the actual description of Newcastle man is not needed here. This is the kind of evidence I'm talking about regarding the IPU.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 353 by xongsmith, posted 08-19-2010 1:21 PM xongsmith has not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2592
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 7.2


(1)
Message 355 of 1725 (575315)
08-19-2010 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 348 by bluegenes
08-19-2010 8:24 AM


Re: he aint heavy, he's my brother (great debate: RAZD/bluegenes)
bluegenes visits the peanut gallery with:
"All rabbits are born from other rabbits." This is a high level of confidence scientific theory. The only known source of baby rabbits is being born from adult rabbits. The theory can be falsified by the demonstration of a source of rabbits other than birth from other rabbits.
I'm assuming that a near future genetic institute injecting rabbit DNA into a guinea pig egg and implanting the egg back into the guinea pig and thus having the guinea pig give birth to a rabbit does not count because you really meant say
"All rabbit DNA comes from other rabbit DNA." This is a high level of confidence scientific theory. The only known source of rabbit DNA is from rabbit DNA. The theory can be falsified by the demonstration of a source of rabbit DNA other than from other rabbit DNA.
bluegenes goes to say:
Your brother certainly isn't heavy on positive evidence that any supernatural beings actually exist.
He hasn't gotten to that part of your "theory" yet.
You said:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination".
Name any one you like. RAZD slyly suggested the IPU. You can pick any supernatural being you like.
Then provide evidence that it is a figment of human imagination.
Should be a piece of cake.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 348 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2010 8:24 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 356 by bluegenes, posted 08-19-2010 2:30 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 357 by xongsmith, posted 08-19-2010 2:47 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024