# 'Extraordinary Evidence Demands Extraordinary...'



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 2, 2014)

The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.

An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets. The Confirmation Bias' fallacy says that we tend to tailor evidence to meet our expectations and so we shouldn't allow our expectations to influence our perceptions. The scientific method is alone the valid method to be used.

How is demanding a higher level of evidence for anything that disrupts our current view of Reality NOT confirmation bias and a violation of objective testing?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 3, 2014)

bump


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 3, 2014)

I'm not sure the two statements are in conflict. If a new discovery fits in with what we already know or what we have predicted, then there is less of a hurdle to being accepted by the scientific community. That doesn't necessarily mean scientists will cut corners or just blindly accept that new discovery, after all some careers are built on tearing down the wok of others, just that it is somewhat easier for the community to roll the new knowledge into what we already know.

By contrast, something that upsets the apple cart of our view of any subject is going to be held to closer scrutiny, if for no other reason than it is something new.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 3, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I'm not sure the two statements are in conflict. If a new discovery fits in with what we already know or what we have predicted, then there is less of a hurdle to being accepted by the scientific community. That doesn't necessarily mean scientists will cut corners or just blindly accept that new discovery, after all some careers are built on tearing down the wok of others, just that it is somewhat easier for the community to roll the new knowledge into what we already know.
> 
> By contrast, something that upsets the apple cart of our view of any subject is going to be held to closer scrutiny, if for no other reason than it is something new.



Hmmm, I disagree.

Say we have two sets of circumstances.

In set 1, we have new phenomena that have no established theory to explain them.

In set 2 we have a new phenomena but we also have some established theories that are impacted, say Theory A is contradicted and Theory B is caused to be seen in a different perspective.

In set 2, we would look at testing any theory to explain the new phenomena taking into consideration Theory A to see if we can contrast which theory is true, and with Theory B we might also design tests to clarify how the two impact each other.

But theories to explain set 2 phenomena would be no more 'extraordinary' than set 1.

In fact anomalies are quite ORDINARY in science, and contradictory evidence and theories should never be considered 'extraordinary', as I understand it.

For example the split light experiment contradicted existing theories at the time it was discovered to be an anomaly, and the proposed theories to explain it were not extraordinary at all, except to an instinctive notion of how the universe may work.

We also have the so-called 'Black Swan' phenomena which essentially states that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And yet the suggestion that black swans existed prior to their discovery would certainly have been considered 'extraordinary' in 1500. Does that mean 'extraordinary' evidence would have been required by the natural science establishment?

And what is 'extraordinary evidence' anyway? You have to prove it ten times over? The evidence has to be double plus good? What does the phrase 'extraordinary evidence' mean?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 3, 2014)

Pop-culture astronomer Carl Sagan is responsible for the phrase. Sagan also told the world that the planet was doomed if Saddam ever lit off the oil wells during the Gulf War. Saddam lit them off, American technology put them out and the world barely burped. Extraordinary claims call for mundane evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 3, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Pop-culture astronomer Carl Sagan is responsible for the phrase. Sagan also told the world that the planet was doomed if Saddam ever lit off the oil wells during the Gulf War. Saddam lit them off, American technology put them out and the world barely burped. Extraordinary claims call for mundane evidence.



Lol, true, but maybe we can say with some truth that 'Extraordinary claims require more complex evidence?'


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 4, 2014)

I'll use evolution vs. creationism/ID as an example of the requirement of extraordinary evidence.

Evolution is science.  It is based on evidence and postulated mechanisms and is falsifiable.  ID is not science as there is little or no evidence for it and I've never seen a mechanism proposed beyond "God did it".  There is no way ID could be true unless a supernatural mechanism is invoked and that is why it is NOT science.  Science is only the study of the natural world.

To say ID is true some proof or evidence of the supernatural is required and that would be by definition, extraordinary.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 4, 2014)

Sooo...if an experiment is conducted 100 times, by independent investigators, using independent equipment, always giving the same result is compared with experiment #101 which gives completely different results....it is wrong to focus attention on experiment #101?

Kind of counter intuitive in the empirical end of stuff.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Jul 4, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> Sooo...if an experiment is conducted 100 times, by independent investigators, using independent equipment, always giving the same result is compared with experiment #101 which gives completely different results...*.it is wrong to focus attention on experiment #101*?
> 
> Kind of counter intuitive in the empirical end of stuff.



Not in the least! If experiment #101 produced a different result using the same elements and procedure means that there is another variable. Either something additional and/or missing or a step performed out of order.

A lot of discoveries are made "by mistakes" rather than intentionally. Finding out what caused the different result is important and if new knowledge is derived then that is all too the good.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 4, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> I'll use evolution vs. creationism/ID as an example of the requirement of extraordinary evidence.



Why cant we discuss the proposition without getting entwined in hot buzzword 'examples'?

You are not clarifying anything but only causing more obfuscation by bringing up an emotion laden topic.



alang1216 said:


> Evolution is science.  It is based on evidence and postulated mechanisms and is falsifiable.  ID is not science as there is little or no evidence for it and I've never seen a mechanism proposed beyond "God did it".  There is no way ID could be true unless a supernatural mechanism is invoked and that is why it is NOT science.  Science is only the study of the natural world.



I agree, but actual ID, not the thing fundamentalists use the term to mean, is a theological concept, not a scientific theory, so it's fairly irrelevant to what we are talking about.



alang1216 said:


> To say ID is true some proof or evidence of the supernatural is required and that would be by definition, extraordinary.



No, it does not require extraordinary proof, but only nonscientific proof.

And what is supernatural today often becomes ho hum science fact tomorrow, like the beginning of the universe with a Big Bang or the existence of other universes besides this one.

So there is nothing 'extraordinary' about what people call the miraculous, not at all.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 4, 2014)

Derideo_Te said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Sooo...if an experiment is conducted 100 times, by independent investigators, using independent equipment, always giving the same result is compared with experiment #101 which gives completely different results...*.it is wrong to focus attention on experiment #101*?
> ...



But the scientific establishment has long been known to resist new theories, like any that try to explain #101. It usually requires a generational change of the guard for the people in these institutions to finally accept the new theories, and the more ground shaking or extraordinary the theory the much higher the resistance.

So 'extraordinary evidence standard' = 'suppression of new thought' = 'confirmation bias'.

Pretty straight forward.

Woops, don't mean to offend you there, Derideo.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 4, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > To say ID is true some proof or evidence of the supernatural is required and that would be by definition, extraordinary.
> ...



To call something supernatural or miraculous is to say it appears impossible, we don't understand it, and it is beyond our ordinary experience.

Sorry you don't like my ID example, do you have one you prefer?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2014)

Steven_R said:


> I'm not sure the two statements are in conflict. If a new discovery fits in with what we already know or what we have predicted, then there is less of a hurdle to being accepted by the scientific community. That doesn't necessarily mean scientists will cut corners or just blindly accept that new discovery, after all some careers are built on tearing down the wok of others, just that it is somewhat easier for the community to roll the new knowledge into what we already know.
> 
> By contrast, something that upsets the apple cart of our view of any subject is going to be held to closer scrutiny, if for no other reason than it is something new.



There is actual evidence that everything we know about the formation of planets is wrong.

The Last Word On Nothing | Anti-Copernican Shock

You can subject it to all the closer scrutiny you want, the apple cart is not only overturned, it has been totaled as a result of this data. We need to start completely from scratch if this is going to make sense.

That said, the saying "Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence," applies to claims that fall completely outside known reality. Examples of this would be this would be claiming to have proven the existence of God, saying that you are a time traveler from the future, or claiming that ghost are real.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> Sooo...if an experiment is conducted 100 times, by independent investigators, using independent equipment, always giving the same result is compared with experiment #101 which gives completely different results....it is wrong to focus attention on experiment #101?
> 
> Kind of counter intuitive in the empirical end of stuff.



That happens all the time, just not 1 out of a hundred times. Sometimes, very rarely, a random outside even changes the result of the experiment. The real trick is finding out what happened.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I'll use evolution vs. creationism/ID as an example of the requirement of extraordinary evidence.
> ...



If someone proved that the paranormal world actually existed, science would be right there studying it. I realty do not understand why people think the paranormal, or even miracles, if proved true, would be outside the realm of science.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure the two statements are in conflict. If a new discovery fits in with what we already know or what we have predicted, then there is less of a hurdle to being accepted by the scientific community. That doesn't necessarily mean scientists will cut corners or just blindly accept that new discovery, after all some careers are built on tearing down the wok of others, just that it is somewhat easier for the community to roll the new knowledge into what we already know.
> ...



Of course our ideas of solar system formation has been upturned. Until just a few years ago we only had a single data point to examine (to wit, our solar system). It wasn't like astrophysicists said the book was closed and we're not going to find anything new in that subject area. What we didn't expect was just how radically different from our own solar system some of these planetary models are. 

There was an article recently about finding a planet only twice the mass of Earth orbiting a single star in a binary system. A terrestrial planet in a ~1-AU orbit around one member of a ?15-AU binary I don't think that was anything anyone expected to find.

By contrast, anyone saying such a system existed prior o it being found would have the onus put on them to demonstrate it. That's the extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. I can say there's a planetary system made out of nougat and marshmallow fluff, but if I am t be taken seriously, it is up to me to provide the evidence of that tasty space object. Given what we do know, few scientists would be expecting me to provide said evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 5, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Well, I was hoping to keep it more abstract, but the Big Bang theory or alternate universe theories would be analogous today, Continental Drift and theory on the formation of the moon would be past such controversies.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Because God does not do repeatability.  He does His miracles for specific purposes, not situations combined with factors.  Thus His behavior is outside the realm of science to test it by definition.

When His acts are 'proven' by science, it means that they were not originally miracles at all in the proper meaning of something that violates natural laws. If some 'miraculous' event occurs within the confines of natural law, it is 'providential' and not miraculous. 

Sometimes I suspect that everything God has done has been providential instead of miraculous, but I know that is not true as I have personally witnessed miracles of all sorts, one of which was definitely a violation of natural law.

Also, the terminology used has a big impact. Imagine had Newton described the laws of gravity as the behaviors of angels who work consistently within a system of rules instead of an impersonal gravitational force, his theories might have been rejected out of hand, even if exactly the same in every other respect. The scientific community in the West has a built in bias against religious concepts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 5, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Except there have been documented examples of God performing miracles. Medical science prefers to label these things as spontaneous remission, but when cancer disappears overnight something beyond nature is at work. 

Not to mention that it is always possible that God will someday chose to reveal Himself in a more concrete way that will make it possible for science to actually study the work He does.

Anyway, my post was intended to be more abstract than just God. Science has studied multiple claims about paranormal activities, from ghosts to ESP. It has managed to prove that all of them are explainable by natural causes and chance. If someone ever actually develops ESP abilities, of any kind, science is perfectly capable of studying the phenomenon and rendering a judgement. I would love to see a brain tumor that works the way it did in the movie, I am pretty sure scientist would to. I just hope the courts aren't as stupid as they were and leaves the choice up to the person who has the tumor.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 5, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure the two statements are in conflict. If a new discovery fits in with what we already know or what we have predicted, then there is less of a hurdle to being accepted by the scientific community. That doesn't necessarily mean scientists will cut corners or just blindly accept that new discovery, after all some careers are built on tearing down the wok of others, just that it is somewhat easier for the community to roll the new knowledge into what we already know.
> ...



Too philosophical to be meaningful.  Ph.D. a Doctorate of Philosophy comes after achieving a bachelors and masters. If you haven't achieved that, philosophical queries are meaningless for lack of foundation in established fact and theory.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 5, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> Too philosophical to be meaningful.  Ph.D. a Doctorate of Philosophy comes after achieving a bachelors and masters. If you haven't achieved that, philosophical queries are meaningless for lack of foundation in established fact and theory.



Can people still get a Ph.D. in Philosophy without mastering 7th grade grammar?

.


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 5, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Too philosophical to be meaningful.  Ph.D. a Doctorate of Philosophy comes after achieving a bachelors and masters. If you haven't achieved that, philosophical queries are meaningless for lack of foundation in established fact and theory.
> ...



Going by some of the accents my math professors' have had and by how well they communicate, I'd say having a 7th grade or higher ability to speak or write in English would be a detriment to getting a job. 

You haven't truly lived until you've taken Intro to Differential Equations and didn't understand a single word the professor said all semester.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 5, 2014)

itfitzme said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Steven_R said:
> ...



lol, sounds like an appeal to authority to me....

Any thinking person has the capability to think rationally. You don't need a doctorate in philosophy, in fact, methinks your better off if you don't.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 5, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Documented but not scientifically tested via the scientific method. If it were then it wouldn't by definition be miraculous as science cannot repeatably confirm a miracle.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Not to mention that it is always possible that God will someday chose to reveal Himself in a more concrete way that will make it possible for science to actually study the work He does.



Maybe one day, but then again, He wont be appearing miraculously by definition as in and of itself appearing is not a miracle necessarily.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Anyway, my post was intended to be more abstract than just God. Science has studied multiple claims about paranormal activities, from ghosts to ESP. It has managed to prove that all of them are explainable by natural causes and chance. If someone ever actually develops ESP abilities, of any kind, science is perfectly capable of studying the phenomenon and rendering a judgement. I would love to see a brain tumor that works the way it did in the movie, I am pretty sure scientist would to. I just hope the courts aren't as stupid as they were and leaves the choice up to the person who has the tumor.



The healings at Lourdes are fairly well documented, and I have spoken with a number of other Christians that have witnessed bonafied miracles.

Science cannot prove they occurred or how they happened.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 6, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The BB and multiverses are at the edges of science so no "extraordinary" evidence is necessary, pretty much ANY evidence would be welcomed.

Cont. Drift is a good example of how science works.  People postulated CD for centuries before (quite ordinary) evidence mounted that not only did it take place but it was consistent with existing physics.  If someone came along now and denied CD they would be required to present extraordinary evidence to support their theory.  Their evidence would have to outweigh all the evidence accumulated to date and would therefore have to be extraordinary.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 6, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Science can prove miracles happen, they just don't call them miracles, they call it spontaneous remission. The fact that scientist do not have all the answers is not proof that they will never be able to explain something, it just proves they haven't found the explanation yet. Some scientist are beginning to think that the reason that no one has developed a unified field theory is that Einstein got gravity wrong, and they are attempting to rework the entire theory of how gravity works.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2014)

To avoid Confirmation Bias, simply twist your thesis to the evidence, not the evidence to the thesis.


----------



## percysunshine (Jul 6, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> To avoid Confirmation Bias, simply twist your thesis to the evidence, not the evidence to the thesis.



Go further. Multiple independent thesis (thesi..thesees?) need to be considered. Not just an altered thesis.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 6, 2014)

percysunshine said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > To avoid Confirmation Bias, simply twist your thesis to the evidence, not the evidence to the thesis.
> ...



Just so!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



I don't think that science advances in quite that way though sometimes it does, in that theories get modified rather than completely disproven.  For example, the Bohr atom was modified to the present Quantum Physics version, and the electron 'orbits' have morphed into 'valence shells' but that is hardly proving the 'orbits' wrong as the 'orbits' were just a crude model to try and illustrate something that could not be seen.

But back to the BB and multi-verses being NOT extraordinary; two hundred years ago if you tried to tell a scientist that there were alternate universes and the universe we live in came into being in an instant, he would have insisted that you were speaking of the miraculous. For what is the Creation if not the BB and Heaven but an alternate universe?

The process of the miraculous becoming normal seems to be the following:
1) the almost exact same behavior/phenomena is secularized with a de-religionized jargon.

2) A theory is proposed that describes the effects of the event in question, looks for non-miraculous causes, and proposes a tests based on how the exact same thing came about but not using any religious references or appeal to religious authority.

3) Testing is done and the secularized version of the miraculous event is accepted as true.

This is what happened with the BB and multiverse theories secularizing and winning acceptance for the Creation account and accounts of visions of Heaven in an alternate universe.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



If a miracle is an event that violates the laws of nature, and science involves only the testing and exploration of the laws of nature, how could science possibly prove a miraculous event that is outside the laws of Nature?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

The Mormons are following the same type of intellectual development as you, discarding positivism and rely on a natural morality that cannot be proved.

Thatallows them to make silly statements, such as, "Only one living in the Spirit and follow gospel laws can authentically evaluate Joseph Smith's visions of the Father and the Son."

So refuse scientific testing as a valid process, and the believer gets to say smugly, "see, it is true!"


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The Mormons are following the same type of intellectual development as you, discarding positivism and rely on a natural morality that cannot be proved.
> 
> Thatallows them to make silly statements, such as, "Only one living in the Spirit and follow gospel laws can authentically evaluate Joseph Smith's visions of the Father and the Son."
> 
> So refuse scientific testing as a valid process, and the believer gets to say smugly, "see, it is true!"



What's that Starkey, some kind of guilt by association fallacy?

Lol, science cannot prove or disprove mystical experiences, dude.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The Mormons are following the same type of intellectual development as you, discarding positivism and relying on a natural morality that cannot be proved.
> ...



My comment is an equivalent comparison (and quite accurate) to what you are trying to do.

Hint: no one can prove or disprove mystical experiences. 

Mass hallucination is not probative for anything other than "Hey, there's a lot of people unable to process reality."


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


miracles have never been proven to be outside the laws of physics or nature 
what is lacking is our knowledge of those laws.
miracle is just another name for short lived phenomena or rare phenomena.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> But back to the BB and multi-verses being NOT extraordinary; two hundred years ago if you tried to tell a scientist that there were alternate universes and the universe we live in came into being in an instant, he would have insisted that you were speaking of the miraculous. For what is the Creation if not the BB and Heaven but an alternate universe?
> 
> The process of the miraculous becoming normal seems to be the following:
> 1) the almost exact same behavior/phenomena is secularized with a de-religionized jargon.
> ...



To say something is miraculous is to say we don't know how it happens.  Your list should be:
1) a mechanism is proposed for an observed and documented phenomenon
2) the mechanism is tested and a set of laws deduced
3) another aspect of nature is now described by science

Miracles are not a part of science but of ignorance.  Likewise the BB does not support the creation myth of Genesis.  One is an interpolation of existing physics and the other is a theological story.  Genesis is not meant to be a literal account of creation, it is a synthesis of creation myths of the Iron age.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Inability for science to prove an event does not prove it was an illusion, hallucination or hysteria.  That is merely your bigotry and prejudice slanting the plausible options in your mind.

Other than you just being a fucking liar.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, they are outside the laws of science by definition. Were they within the laws of science they would not be miracles but instead would be providential events.



daws101 said:


> what is lacking is our knowledge of those laws.
> miracle is just another name for short lived phenomena or rare phenomena.



Not by the literal meanings, though people often use them that way.  A man I once knew said that he was in a car wreck and was tossed from the car as often happens. Everyone else in the car died, and his being tossed just happened to save his life when it more typically sends the person into the path of the rolling car and they die instead.

That is not a miracle though he doubtlessly felt it was.

I met a man in Germany who claimed to have been shot at by a viet cong at point blank range and after he killed the VC he looked at the bullet holes behind him and saw that they had to have passed through his body harmlessly. If true that was a miracle, but it is more likely that the bullet markings he saw predated the incident he was in, and so he merely was mistaken.

But one time I did see a real miracle that was inexplicable. I investigated the thing from every angle, above, below inside and outside and it was simply impossible to have happened the way I saw it happen, and yet it did. I'm not an idiot. I can explain various tricks and have a talent for doing so, such as Penn and Tellers bullet catching trick.

And I cannot test this phenomena, it is not repeatable. I cannot describe it because the details are pointless; it couldn't have happened and yet it did. 

It changed my life, some good and some bad, but it totally altered me and my view of the world.

Science could never possibly prove that what I witnessed happened but that does not change what I saw or shake my certainty that it happened in reality.

THAT is a miracle.

Scientific proof is irrelevant; I know what I saw and science has nothing it can say about it. The laws of Nature were temporarily suspended for a moment and science cant touch that.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

You have every right , Jim, to your own mystical experiences and testimony.

But that is not testimony or witness for others: it is for you.

Only your bigotry and prejudice would suggest that it should be.

Go pray in secret and see if you get a witness of the right of it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > But back to the BB and multi-verses being NOT extraordinary; two hundred years ago if you tried to tell a scientist that there were alternate universes and the universe we live in came into being in an instant, he would have insisted that you were speaking of the miraculous. For what is the Creation if not the BB and Heaven but an alternate universe?
> ...



So by your logic, volcanoes were miraculous in 1500 AD? No, a real miracle is miraculous in fact, and those things we once thought miracles, like the Creation of the Universe, that were done by the laws of science and science finally caught up, those are not real miracles. They are mistakenly described as miracles.




alang1216 said:


> Your list should be:
> 1) a mechanism is proposed for an observed and documented phenomenon
> 2) the mechanism is tested and a set of laws deduced
> 3) another aspect of nature is now described by science



Except that does not describe what happened with the BB or alternate universe theories.

Theologians said the universe was created in an instant millennia ago and scientists are finally realizing that they were right, and the process you have written does not reflect that reality.



alang1216 said:


> Miracles are not a part of science but of ignorance.



What an amazingly bigoted thing to say. I suppose you think that nothing that is outside the ability of science to prove is true?



alang1216 said:


> Likewise the BB does not support the creation myth of Genesis.



It is the Creation Story in the form of scientific laws as depicted by modern science.



alang1216 said:


> One is an interpolation of existing physics and the other is a theological story.



And the first came from the latter.



alang1216 said:


> Genesis is not meant to be a literal account of creation, it is a synthesis of creation myths of the Iron age.



You suppose.

I think it is primarily a moral story that also contains some reality facts that are not central to the main story.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


bullshit jim....the laws of nature cannot be suspended...
what you saw was out of your experience so you did the most human of things you came up with a logical fallacy.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.
> 
> An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets. The Confirmation Bias' fallacy says that we tend to tailor evidence to meet our expectations and so we shouldn't allow our expectations to influence our perceptions. The scientific method is alone the valid method to be used.
> 
> How is demanding a higher level of evidence for anything that disrupts our current view of Reality NOT confirmation bias and a violation of objective testing?



The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof. 

So screw extraordinary evidence.  Just give us any good evidence.  

The standard of evidence required to prove a gods existence is immediately more than any personal anecdote, witness testimony, ancient book or reported miracle  none of which can be considered extraordinarily reliable. The human mind is also highly susceptible to being fooled and even fooling itself. One could be suffering from an hallucination or a form of undiagnosed schizophrenia, hysteria or psychosis, ruling out even our own senses as reliable evidence gathering mechanisms in this case. As strange as it sounds, misunderstood aliens might even be attempting to interact with us using extremely advanced technology. In fact, reality itself could be a computer simulation which we unknowingly inhabit.

Every conceivable argument, every imaginable piece of evidence for god is not without some fatal flaw or more likely explanation which precludes it from being used as definitive proof.

There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist. An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence. If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.

In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You know what you saw?  

Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur. The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws. Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.

Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.

Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.

Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias, Cherry Picking.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



A result of our naturally evolved neurology, made hypersensitive to purpose (an unseen actor) because of the large social groups humans have and the way the brain associates pattern with intent.

Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.

Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called revelations never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.

Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes  can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.


----------



## sealybobo (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Nonsense.  We hear about all these stories about exorcisms, miracles and visits by spirits but they have yet to document for the whole world to see.  I know friends and neighbors who swear they have seen ghosts or have been helped by angels.  

By your logic, I should not doubt these people?  Really?  

And christians say I should not doubt the bible even though it was clearly written by men.  In fact, most people realize the adam & eve, noah & moses stories are all just that, stories.  Why tell those stories?  To teach right from wrong.  

So, my friend, if the old testament is a bunch of made up stories, what are the chances the jesus story is made up too?  And you have never seen a miracle.  

You people don't understand how the mind/brain works.  You are so gullible it is silly.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

The illness in JimBowie's thinking is that his hallucinations should be accepted as verified evidence.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Why do miracles have to violate the laws of nature? Science can revise the laws to explain a miracle if it wants to, the so called laws are just a convenient way of pigeonholing the universe.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Because humans are fallible and unreliable (think JimBowie), we use what measures of scientific method that we can employ.  An assertion that a miracle does not violate the laws of the universe may be true but remains unverifiable.  There it only can be personal testimony, not witness to anyone who did not participate in it.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 7, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

The Creation Story is myth, a narrative with germinal truths in it, but unknowable.  

Science does not explain the spiritual because it does not have the tools to do so.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no logical fallacy, since I agree it was impossible, hence a miracle.

What in the world do you think my logical fallacy is?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

> What in the world do you think my logical fallacy is?



That you have programmed yourself to believe what you want despite the fact that you don't have the tools necessary to measure its validity other than your opinion.

It's called confirmation bias.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.
> ...



The infinite regression fallacy is evidence for a Creator and has no fatal flaw. The logical evidence for a Creator was so strong the ancient Greek and Roman philosophers almost universally accepted the concept of an eternal Creator and rejected polytheism by the time Alexander conquered Persia.

Simply because you are ignorant of the evidence and reject it out of hand as impossible proves nothing other than your own closed mindedness.




sealybobo said:


> There is, however, a simple answer to this question: God is what it would take to convince an atheist.



That makes no sense. Why is God obligated to His own existence to a person whose self identity is tied to NOT believing He exists?



sealybobo said:


> An omniscient god would know the exact standard of evidence required to convince any atheist of its existence and, being omnipotent, it would also be able to immediately produce this evidence.



You assume that such a standard of evidence exists.



sealybobo said:


> If it wanted to, a god could conceivably change the brain chemistry of any individual in order to compel them to believe. It could even restructure the entire universe in such a way as to make non-belief impossible.



Perhaps God prefers mankind to have Free Will?




sealybobo said:


> In short, a god actually proving its own existence is what would convince any atheist of said gods existence.



Except that there is already plenty of evidence for such belief hence the reason why 98% of the people in the world are not atheists and that number is shrinking annually.

The biggest reason that most atheists are atheists is simply ignorance due to laziness or disinterest.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



If you ignore the fact that medical science has documented the results of "miracles" you have a pretty good point that they are all anecdotal.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> If you ignore the fact that medical science has documented the results of "miracles" you have a pretty good point that they are all anecdotal.



Medical science has documented that certain events have occurred but have no verifiable way of evaluating said events.  Thus your statement is false, nothing more than examples of Confirmation Bias and why non-believers have trouble believing because of nonsense like yours.

In other words, the events are only for you and have no power of witness for others.

I have no trouble with my belief in God, despite all the junk nonsense put out there by creationists that are simply unsustainable.  And I don't require Confirmation Bias as you are describing it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 7, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > If you ignore the fact that medical science has documented the results of "miracles" you have a pretty good point that they are all anecdotal.
> ...



The events have occurred, and you admit that medical science has documented them. The fact that they cannot yet explain them is the heart of this discussion. If you chose to ignore that science does not have all the answers that is your problem, not mine.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



With absolute certainty.



sealybobo said:


> Miracles have not been demonstrated to occur.



Sure they have, Lourdes alone has dozens and dozens of miracles documented.



sealybobo said:


> The existence of a miracle would pose logical problems for belief in a god which can supposedly see the future and began the universe with a set of predefined laws.



Such as?




sealybobo said:


> Even if a miracle could be demonstrated it would not immediately imply the existence of a god, much less any particular one, as unknown natural processes or agents could still be at work.



So if your neighbor Bill says he is going to kill your dog and hang it from your front porch, and the next morning you awake to find your dog hanging from your front porch and Bill admits that he killed your dog and hung him there; you could still argue that it is not proven since it is possible that any number of other things could have happened?


While you would be technically correct, the most plausible event is that Billy killed your damned dog, not that an asteroid fell from the sky and did the deed.



sealybobo said:


> Most alleged miracles can be explained as statistically unlikely occurrences. For example, one child surviving a plane crash that kills two hundred others is not a miracle, just as one person winning the lottery is not. In the absence of any empirical evidence, all other claims can be dismissed as the result of magical thinking, misattribution, credulity, hearsay and anecdote. Eye-witness testimony and anecdotal accounts are, by themselves, not reliable or definitive forms of proof for such extraordinary claims.



There is no requirement that all knowledge be proven empirically, not by any means, and in trials of all kinds eye witness testimony and circumstantial evidence are accepted as also in the minds of the vast majority of people; determined atheists being a slender case of disputers.

And there is nothing magical about believing in God as it is an entirely rational concept.



sealybobo said:


> Divine intervention claims most often concern systems and events for which we have poor predictive capabilities, for example, weather, sports, health and social/economic interactions. Such claims are rarely made in relation to those things we can accurately predict and test e.g. the motion of celestial bodies, boiling point of water and pull of gravity. If a god is constantly intervening in the universe it supposedly created, then it is with such ambiguity as to appear completely indistinguishable from normal background chance.



lol, so how does one who denies the existence of a subject claim to be its foremost authority? Your claims have all the credibility of a Baptist claiming to know more about Catholicism than the Pope himself.



sealybobo said:


> Note: Theists often fail to adequately apportion blame when claims of their particular gods infinite mercy or omnibenevolence involve sparing a few lives in a disaster, or recovery from a debilitating disease  all of which their god would ultimately be responsible for inflicting if it existed. See also: Euthyphro dilemma, Confirmation bias, Cherry Picking.



Everyone dies, and the few saved in such cases are not saved in the final sense of the word as they eventually die as well.

From the eternal perspective there is no difference but God does occasionally make allowances for His own purposes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

sealybobo said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Psychobabble horse shit that proves nothing.



sealybobo said:


> Humans have evolved a variety of cognitive shortcuts to deal with the mass of information provided by our senses. In particular, we tend to filter sensory input according to a set of expectations built on prior beliefs and past experiences, impart meaning to ambiguous input even when there is no real meaning behind it and infer causal relationships where none exist.



To accuse everyone else of hallucinating is about all you've really got, though it is the thinnest excuse for dismissing out of hand what you don't wish to consider, i.e. Confirmation Bias.



sealybobo said:


> Personal revelation cannot be independently verified. So-called revelations never include information a recipient could not have known beforehand, such as the time and location of a rare event or answers to any number of unsolved problems in science. They are usually emotional or perceptual in content and therefore unremarkable among the many cognitive processes brains exhibit, including dreams and hallucinations. These experiences may even be artificially induced by narcotics or magnetic fields. Extreme cases may be diagnosed as a form of schizophrenia or psychosis.



That is simply not always true and disproves nothing even if it was.



sealybobo said:


> Spiritual and religious experiences are not only inconsistent among individuals but are variably attributed to different gods, aliens, spirits, rituals, hallucinations, meditation etc. The fact that medical conditions and other natural processes  can induce these experiences is evidence they are produced by our brain.



Inconsistencies among witnesses is common and actually evidence that the testimony is not contrived and coordinated.

Sorry, you have no case.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 7, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Starkey is an idiot, liar and a waste of time.

He likes to see his name a lot on message boards; that's about all he tries to accomplish.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Don't say I said things I did not say: that is dishonest.

Science does not have all the answers, but that is preferable to incidents that cannot be understood.

You may cherish and believe whatever metaphysical events you may encounter, but that is only for you; it is not a witness for others.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Starkey is an idiot, liar and a waste of time.  He likes to see his name a lot on message boards; that's about all he tries to accomplish.



Thank you for your admission that spiritual events cannot be validated and have no meaning, if any, other than to the individual to whom they supposedly occurred.

You are a very poor believer and preacher, and, based on your behavior on the Board, a poor witness for Jesus Christ.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Starkey is an idiot, liar and a waste of time.  He likes to see his name a lot on message boards; that's about all he tries to accomplish.
> ...



I really do not a give a flying shit what you think about me, my faith or anything else in this world, you stupid ass lying retard.


With genuine heartfelt apologies to all retards out there.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie is the poster for the leadership principle (fuhrer or princips) that characterize right wing fundamental and evangelical groups socially, politically, and religiously.  

Such leaders always flow leadership decisions flow down; the followers are to . . . follow, and certainly not question.  

Institutionalized sexism and racism and ethnocentrism are features of the message they portray. 

The leadership is characterized by bullying, domination, inappropriate language, and demeaning of others who disagree with their epistles.

Hello, Pastor JimBowie.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 8, 2014)

The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit)  with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 8, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit)  with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.



Hmm, I think there is also room for evidence that is not conclusive, but makes a claim more plausible, or simply possible, without necessarily proving a claim.

In our courts we are supposed to vote for innocence if there is any *reasonable* doubt, but if a crime is very shocking and/or heinous, a jury will often vote to convict because they think the accused likely to have done the deed. They just cant tolerate the idea that an innocent vote will set him free and let him get away with the heinous thing, so they go with probable instead of certitude.


----------



## whitehall (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit)  with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
> ...



If it's not conclusive it's not evidence, it's just information.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Information is not evidence.


----------



## alang1216 (Jul 8, 2014)

whitehall said:


> The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit)  with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.



You can pick any definition that suits you but the term "extraordinary evidence" as Sagan used it is just fine with me.  

If you found a dinosaur footprint with an indentation that looked somewhat like a human footprint that would be evidence against evolution.  Just not strong enough to outweigh all the other evidence for evolution.  If in that same dinosaur footprint you found a crushed human skeleton that would be extraordinary and might be enough by itself to force a rethinking of the theory.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


believing it was a miracle. that's logical fallacy #1
 logical fallacy #2 believing it was impossible 
it happened, making it possible..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

alang1216 said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > The term "extraordinary evidence" is an oxymoron. People confuse information (and sometimes bullshit)  with evidence. "Evidence" is defined as "that which proves or disproves a belief". The operative word is "proves" so there is no such thing as extraordinary evidence.
> ...



That may be evidence, and would have to be evaluated.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie's sense of logic is a fallacy.

Jim, your opinion counts for nothing.

Facts account for everything.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> JimBowie's sense of logic is a fallacy.
> 
> Jim, your opinion counts for nothing.
> 
> Facts account for everything.


facts! Jim don't need no stinkin' facts!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You make less sense every time you post.

How is not knowing preferable to not understanding? Aren't they the same fucking thing? Is there some kind of magic in your head that makes you think that not understanding something means you know something about it?

By the way, feel free to point out where I said anything that would in any way justify you accusing me of cherishing miracles.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Information is not evidence.



Yes it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Only to you, my delusional buddy.  And, no, information is not evidence.  Assertion is not evidence.  Your belief is not evidence.

To help you: we are talking about events that cannot be verified scientifically.

Whatever unverifiable events you have witnessed is only for you ken, not anyone else.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Information is defined as facts learned about someone or something, evidenced is defined as the available body of facts about a subject. Therefore, information is evidence.

Keep trying though, it amuses me.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Try that in a logic class, try that in a debate club, try that in court, and keep trying that here and you will keep looking delusional, which is, yes, amusing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Can you point out what part of my argument is illogical?

Didn't think so.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You are assertion is delusional: "I think it, thus it is fact."


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Jake the Fake Starkey is a liar. All he wants to do is derail any thread into a discussion about him. He is an attention whore and prima donna all rolled into one.

I really don't care much about getting rep points, but I am curious about what kinds of posts people are willing to take the time and stop and send you points for. So I reread what post I made that the person reps me for and about 1 in 5 is for telling someone the Truth about Starkey. There are that many people who despise him just that much.

And he deserves every bit of it as a pointless,  self-absorbed, lying, stupid troll.

I hesitate to post this only because I think it very likely that when he reads it he will get a kick out of it because someone spent a moment of their life talking about him.

He is that pathetic.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



You are an illiterate, self-absorbed hack, liar and troll.

Please, go back to smoking crack and spare us your inanity.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Thank you for the wonderful example of information posing as evidence. 

That is merely your belief with EVIDENCE.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I never made an assertion like that, that mist mean you are delusional.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That is clearly what you inferred.

But since you say all information is factual by itself, give us an example.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 8, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Actually, you inferred it. You could try to show that I implied it, if you understood English, but you don't.

Please point out where I said all information is factual, what  I said is that information is defined as facts about an individual or a subject. That is the actual definition of the word, look it up. In other words you are


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 8, 2014)

So you won't back up your claim.

Your admission of defeat because it was your affirmation.

I gave you plenty of opportunity.

*facts provided or learned about something or someone*.

in·for·ma·tion  what is conveyed or represented by *a particular arrangement or sequence of things.*

https://www.google.com/webhp?source...&ie=UTF-8#q=defintion of the word information

Words have meanings; even rush knows that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> So you won't back up your claim.
> 
> Your admission of defeat because it was your affirmation.
> 
> ...



information: definition of information in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)

Which claim is it I won't back up? Just curious, because you think that infer is something I say when it is something the listener does.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > So you won't back up your claim.
> ...



You can easily infer that your comments mean something.

In your case, they flatly don't.

We can do this all night, and you will continue ending up on the silly side.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Jul 9, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I don't have to infer, I know what my comments mean. 

I am still waiting for you to point out what claim I made. Why can't you point it out? Is it because it only exists in that single brain cell that still works after years of lying about everything?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2014)

Thank you. As I said so long ago in the thread, your comments mean only something to you.

You have finally agreed, then, that information means nothing without facts IAW with the definition above I gave.

Go to bed, now.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Once again, Fakey says something stupid, someone asks him to back up his claims with a link or two, and once again he wont do it.

Fakey is not worth the time to bother with; he is a troll and a fraud.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 13, 2014)

whitehall said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



Lol, that is erroneous. Evidence is only conclusive in regard to a question. Some evidence may be conclusive in regards to one thing, but only be an indicator in regard to something else in real, day to day, ordinary life. In science there is a claim of evidence and a claim of peer review, but who knows if any of this is actually legit? We have to trust the scientific establishment to do its job right, so one must wonder how much of their evidence is really conclusive at all.

I could link to recent controversies but I don't want to derail the thread any worse that Jake the Fake Starkey already has.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 13, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



Lol, you plainly do not understand what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is something that, based on how an argument is made, is ALWAYS false. 

There is no logical fallacy that something can be impossible. And miraculous claims are not ipso-facto false (that would be closed minded bias) and at any rate are not logical fallacies.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 13, 2014)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



lol, and he never did.

Just sayin'....


----------



## Steven_R (Jul 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Lol, that is erroneous. Evidence is only conclusive in regard to a question. Some evidence may be conclusive in regards to one thing, but only be an indicator in regard to something else in real, day to day, ordinary life. In science there is a claim of evidence and a claim of peer review, but who knows if any of this is actually legit? We have to trust the scientific establishment to do its job right, so one must wonder how much of their evidence is really conclusive at all.



The wonderful thing about science is anyone can study the subjects and look for themselves. It might take years of hard work to get to the point that one can read the papers and attend conferences and actually understand what is being discussed, but it isn't like science is decided in closed rooms and pronouncements come from on high. Anyone can access science. The process is a self-correcting mechanism because the people who study those subjects are forcing themselves to show the work and it has to be repeatable. 

Trust, but verify.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



If you can't justify your claim, and QWB can't help you, I certainly won't.

An opinion means nothing.

An assertion means nothing.

Your widdle inner feelings mean nothing.

As imperfect as data and evidence are in finding truth, they are superior to simple beliefs.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 13, 2014)

JB wants to say his religious revelations and beliefs are acceptable as evidence.

They aren't.  They cannot be validated except by himself, and he is not the standard of proof.

Tis what tis.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 14, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


more logical fallacies from jim blowme .  

The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible.[1] This has also been known as the fallacy of lost contrast[2] and the fallacy of the suppressed relative.[3]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



There is no false correlative here, dumbass, but a contrasting use of a words literal meaning with its less literal common use.

Please, grow, borrow or steal a fucking brain.


----------



## Politico (Jul 15, 2014)

whitehall said:


> Pop-culture astronomer Carl Sagan is responsible for the phrase. Sagan also told the world that the planet was doomed if Saddam ever lit off the oil wells during the Gulf War. Saddam lit them off, American technology put them out and the world barely burped. Extraordinary claims call for mundane evidence.



Well in his defense he was a hack that lots of sheeple still follow. Don't hold it against them.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 15, 2014)

Politico said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > Pop-culture astronomer Carl Sagan is responsible for the phrase. Sagan also told the world that the planet was doomed if Saddam ever lit off the oil wells during the Gulf War. Saddam lit them off, American technology put them out and the world barely burped. Extraordinary claims call for mundane evidence.
> ...



Why not? They are being stupid.

We cannot hold willful stupidity against anyone now? IS that just too judgmental these days?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2014)

JimBowie's marvelous revelations are only for him and are not evidence of anything for others.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 15, 2014)

Lol, I don't know what all Jake the Fake Starkey is posting, but odds are, he is still better on IGNORE, lololol


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2014)

JimBowie is a false Christian who typically wants to silence opposition and who wants to use his faux Bible positions to batter others into submission about his beliefs.

JB, you can believe whatever you want, but if you don't have validated proof it don't mater.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2014)

[ame=http://youtu.be/G6ogwRp6AV0]Bullet catch - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> Bullet catch - YouTube



lol, no rifling marks  on the bullet he supposedly caught. He palmed it and the assistant swapped in a rubber bullet and didn't even hit the center of the plate, but the upper left corner.

If you noticed how easily the bullet fell into the rifle, it can slide out just as easily.

Old silly trick, but still very risky.

Suppose his assistant is murderously pissed at him? Slipping in another lead bullet and aiming center body would be easily explained as a mere accident.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > Bullet catch - YouTube
> ...


thanks for proving you're just as ignorant about illusion science as you are everything else....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 15, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



lol, then prove me wrong, ass hole, and don't just declare me wrong and walk off. That convinces no one of anything other than what a retard you are.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2014)

JB, you normally post in ignorance and then get mad when called on it.  Tough to be you.

The OP  *Should Churches be forced to accommodate for homosexual weddings?* has been answered that yes churches generally should not have to accommodate same sex weddings while at the same time marriage equality is generally approved.

Jonathan and Charlotte Pendragon used to perform the 'catch the bullet' on TV every year for awhile some twenty years ago.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


ok shithead, no bullet was fired.
the plate or glass panel (it depends on who's doing the trick) is broken by either a tiny squib or by pressure from the stand /holder or whatever the illusionist is using to hold the thing to be broken in place. 
it's an integral part of the trick (misdirection) 
as to the bullet nonsense, you did notice it was a muzzle loader?
very few muskets have/ had  their barrels rifled.
why ,the ramrod would damage the rifling and the weapon would not fire straight.
that's why there is no marks on the bullet (btw I've seen it done with rifling too)
but since there was no bullet in the gun to begin with it really doesn't matter if it slid easily. 

how do I know this? I've been a designer and technician in live theatre for better than 30 years..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2014)

The catch the bullet is one of the older tricks in the business.

No magic only misdirection no firing of the bullet.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 15, 2014)

JakeStarkey said:


> The catch the bullet is one of the older tricks in the business.
> 
> No magic only misdirection no firing of the bullet.


didn't I just say that?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 20, 2014)

daws101 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > daws101 said:
> ...



That is one possibility, but not necessarily the case.  And the trickster would still have to palm the bullet as I said. Leaving the barrel MOSTLY empty (  it still has the wadding and powder) causes its own complications.



daws101 said:


> the plate or glass panel (it depends on who's doing the trick) is broken by either a tiny squib or by pressure from the stand /holder or whatever the illusionist is using to hold the thing to be broken in place.
> it's an integral part of the trick (misdirection)



But then how would other acts do it that have plainly visible holes created and flying glass out of the back side of the glass, dumbass? Penn and Tellers trick does in fact cause a hole in the glass, if you had ever seen it.



daws101 said:


> as to the bullet nonsense, you did notice it was a muzzle loader?
> very few muskets have/ had  their barrels rifled.



LOL, you are stupidly ignorant about guns. Black powder guns today are in the vast majority of cases muzzle loading rifles.



daws101 said:


> why ,the ramrod would damage the rifling and the weapon would not fire straight.



roflmao



daws101 said:


> that's why there is no marks on the bullet (btw I've seen it done with rifling too)
> but since there was no bullet in the gun to begin with it really doesn't matter if it slid easily.


 
No, it does matter as the easy sliding of the bullet enables them to more easily remove it and palm it.



daws101 said:


> how do I know this? I've been a designer and technician in live theatre for better than 30 years..



Then you are incompetent and an idiot as well. You have gotten at least three facts totally wrong (rifled muzzle loaders, ramrods damaging rifling, and easy sliding having no affect on the performance of the trick) and you have made two unjustified assumptions about the performance of this particular trick when there is no basis for said assumption (assuming that there was no bullet at all when a harmless substitute would do, and that the glass was broken in a particular method when it is not consistent with other similar bullet catches done by other artists).

Again, you FAIL and illustrate what a lack of critical thinking ability you have, doofus.


----------



## daws101 (Jul 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


all those paragraphs and still nothing....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 21, 2014)

JimBowie is wrong . . . again.

Jim, email Charlotte Pendragon (her address is easy to find on the web and in FB) of the world-famous The Pendragons.  She and her former partner stunned audiences for decades, each earning Magician of the Year at least twice.

Charlotte and Jonathan Pendragon were the guides for Morgan Fairchild for the trick on TV so many years ago.  She will tell you there is never a fired bullet.


----------



## itfitzme (Jul 21, 2014)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.
> 
> An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets. The Confirmation Bias' fallacy says that we tend to tailor evidence to meet our expectations and so we shouldn't allow our expectations to influence our perceptions. The scientific method is alone the valid method to be used.
> 
> How is demanding a higher level of evidence for anything that disrupts our current view of Reality NOT confirmation bias and a violation of objective testing?



Uh.... no.  You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence. 

There is nothing in the concept of "Extraordinary claims..." that is confirming anything . Confirmation bias has the word "confirmation" in it.

Confirmation bias is the process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary of a belief held  and selecting anechdotal evidence in favor.  

The guiding rule of "Extraodinary claims.." guards against confirmation bias that goes against all established evidence and understanding.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 4, 2019)

Steven_R said:


> Anyone can access science. The process is a self-correcting mechanism because the people who study those subjects are forcing themselves to show the work and it has to be repeatable.
> 
> Trust, but verify.



Ah yes, this "self-correcting mechanism" is so very sophisticated that every person alive uses it, as does every animal alive, as does every plant alive.  Roots search for water, and find it!  Leaves search for light, and find it!  Cut off a branch and the tree does not die. It self-corrects!

Science isn't so fast. 

*"Self-correcting Mechanism"*



Ah, but godless Leftists insist with a condescending air of smug self-satisfaction, "Science has a mechanism of self-correction".  Well duh!  So does every human alive.  So does every animal alive.  So does every plant alive.  How does this common trait of living organisms make "science" the ultimate, magisterial enterprise they pretend when in fact it is as ubiquitous as, and practiced by, bacteria ‽  (interrobang)

Moreover, science's "self-correcting mechanism" is arguably the slowest such mechanism known to man.  For example, Haeckel's drawings, ostensibly demonstrating the evolutionary saw , "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," was exposed as a fraud in 1859 in a German court.  Ernst Haeckel admitted that he faked the drawings because everyone faked science.  His phony drawings continued to be published as "science" as recently as 2003.

"Science advances one funeral at a time." - Max Planck


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 5, 2019)

itfitzme said:


> Uh.... no.  You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence.
> There is nothing in the concept of "Extraordinary claims..." that is confirming anything . Confirmation bias has the word "confirmation" in it.
> Confirmation bias is the process of ignoring all evidence to the contrary of a belief held  and selecting anechdotal evidence in favor.
> The guiding rule of "Extraodinary claims.." guards against confirmation bias that goes against all established evidence and understanding.


There is no claim within Natural laws of the universe that merit being rated as 'extraordinary' without examination.

The threshold of testing these 'extraordinary' ideas are the same as any other theorems as said theorems may not seem extraordinary to other scientists.

Asserting that the Earth is creating its own heat through the radioactive decay of nuclear material at its core was once thought an extraordinary claim, as was Continental Drift, Punctuated Equilibrium and a gazzillion other ideas.

The mere use of the phrase 'extraordinary claims' indicates bias and to raise the threshold of proof or evidence for it is not part of the Scientific Process.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> itfitzme said:
> 
> 
> > Uh.... no.  You are neither understand confirmation bia or the specific meaning of the phrase "Extrardinary claims.,." In the context of existing evidence.
> ...



*Is not all this dialogue mere sound and fury, signifying nothing?
I am smarter than YOU!
(No, I am smarter than YOU!)
*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 5, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> *Is not all this dialogue mere sound and fury, signifying nothing?
> I am smarter than YOU!
> (No, I am smarter than YOU!)*


No, not really.

Being smarter than someone is really a subjective thing in most cases, and something that successful people do not concern themselves with at all.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> ChemEngineer said:
> 
> 
> > *Is not all this dialogue mere sound and fury, signifying nothing?
> ...



Seldom have I seen a wiser response than yours above.  It contrasts with the liberal narrative, viz., that they are unequivocally smarter than anyone else, and it is their primary concern to voice that inalienable fact (as they see it) to everyone else around them.  The inference therefore is that liberals are not successful people.  I agree.  They are miserable, and they wish to bring others down to their level of misery and feigned intellectual superiority.

Now to abruptly change the subject, you have a color coded map of the U.S. that I have not seen before, and with it, a code of the colors.  I cannot expand those to read what they say but I'm sure they are very informative.  Please provide me with enlarged versions.  If you do, I promise I will be your best friend!

P.S.  Great name, by the way.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 5, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone can access science. The process is a self-correcting mechanism because the people who study those subjects are forcing themselves to show the work and it has to be repeatable.
> ...



So, basically, you’re intention is to spam the board with the same cut and paste nonsense across multiple threads.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 5, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> Seldom have I seen a wiser response than yours above.  It contrasts with the liberal narrative, viz., that they are unequivocally smarter than anyone else, and it is their primary concern to voice that inalienable fact (as they see it) to everyone else around them.  The inference therefore is that liberals are not successful people.  I agree.  They are miserable, and they wish to bring others down to their level of misery and feigned intellectual superiority.
> 
> Now to abruptly change the subject, you have a color coded map of the U.S. that I have not seen before, and with it, a code of the colors.  I cannot expand those to read what they say but I'm sure they are very informative.  Please provide me with enlarged versions.  If you do, I promise I will be your best friend!
> 
> P.S.  Great name, by the way.


Thanks for the compliment. My wife works hard to keep me humble, and fairly successfully.

As to the map, if you are referring to the one in my signature, it is a projection of the 2020 results with an average turn out, red is Trump, orange is Dem flip to Trump, the rest are American Third World states.


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Thanks for the compliment. My wife works hard to keep me humble, and fairly successfully.



That is her job, to drive you crazy.  Yours is to wear old raggedy clothes, fart and pick your nose.



> As to the map, if you are referring to the one in my signature, it is a projection of the 2020 results with an average turn out, red is Trump, orange is Dem flip to Trump, the rest are American Third World states.



I live in the craziest one.  

People's Republic of California


----------



## Wuwei (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The commonly repeated phrase 'Extraordinary claims demands extraordinary evidence.' would seem to be an example of confirmation bias.
> 
> An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets. The Confirmation Bias' fallacy says that we tend to tailor evidence to meet our expectations and so we shouldn't allow our expectations to influence our perceptions. The scientific method is alone the valid method to be used.
> 
> How is demanding a higher level of evidence for anything that disrupts our current view of Reality NOT confirmation bias and a violation of objective testing?



This is an interesting topic. Thank you.
I think it is more complex than confirmation bias. If there is a clash of claims between two opposing groups, (e.g. Right vs Left; or Christians vs Atheists) confirmation bias can abound. Both groups strive for deeper investigation to prove the other side wrong.

If the extraordinary claim is within one group. The bias is between the old way and the new way. For example relativity was considered preposterous by some of Einsteins elder classical peers. There is much investigation to test extraordinary claims of new science theories, but very little investigation (as far as I know) to try to cling to the old science theories. For example, I don't know of any experiments that tried to more firmly embed classical physics in order to reject quantum mechanics.

Yes, I know I'm nit picking, but I think it is useful to try to understand the nature of how new concepts are disdained or embraced.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> An assertion or claim only seems to be extraordinary due to existing theories or experience sets.


You are missing the most important part: it is extraordinary in light of the EVIDENCE. And that's not a matter of bias. If a mountain of objective, empirical evidence shows us that, for example, an object must be launched at a certain speed to enter Earth orbit -- then the claim is made that someone can launch thmselves into orbit at a fraction of the speed -- that is an extraordinary claim.

Where is the opinion in this? Where is the subjective "bias"? There isn't any. So i reject your entire line of reasoning.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 5, 2019)

ChemEngineer said:


> Yours is to wear old raggedy clothes, fart and pick your nose.


And I excel at all three! 

My Gawd given talents aboundeth!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Dec 5, 2019)

Wuwei said:


> Yes, I know I'm nit picking, but I think it is useful to try to understand the nature of how new concepts are disdained or embraced.


Yeah, Thomas Khun in his famous book on the topic of the structure of scientific revolutions focused on this matter of a paradigm shift in interconnected theories that reflect a world view among the scientific establishment, and how they resisted new theories.

But that is not how SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO  WORK!

This claim regarding extraordinary ideas requiring extraordinary proof is the kind of horse shit you hear from people how dabble with science but really do not grasp the underlying concept of science and its role in our conceptual models of the universe.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> This claim regarding extraordinary ideas requiring extraordinary proof is the kind of horse shit you hear from people how dabble with science but really do not grasp the underlying concept of science and its role in our conceptual models of the universe.


Total horseshit. That is actually called the "Sagan Standard". Maybe you have heard of him.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 5, 2019)

JimBowie1958 said:


> But that is not how SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK!


Of course it is. When all the ordinary evidence contradicts your claim, it is considered extraordinary. And, inherently, now requires extraordinary evodence.

This entire thread is just another religious nutball Trojan horse that doesn't belong in the science section. Take your magical voodoo horseshit walking.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge (Dec 5, 2019)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ChemEngineer (Dec 6, 2019)

How stupid can you get, boasting in public about your felonious actions to prop up your drug addict loser son.
Feel his leg hair and put your children in his lap.  He loves kids in his lap.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Dec 6, 2019)

Butch_Coolidge said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


This is the science section. Your post belongs into the Trumptard section, which is literally the entire rest of this site. Thanks.


----------

