Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #550024 > unrolled thread

Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 16:11 -0500
    Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 16:22 -0600
      Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 17:35 -0800
        Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-02 22:53 -0500
        Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony john <johnsefton288@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 03:08 -0800
          Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 03:34 -0800
            Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:32 -0500
      Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 00:25 -0500
        Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 08:30 -0600
          Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 06:55 -0800
            Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-03 13:46 -0500
          Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <nobody@gmail.com> - 2016-02-09 22:22 -0500
            Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 04:54 -0800
              Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony benj <none@gmail.com> - 2016-02-10 13:20 -0500

#550024 — Re: Another Atheist Dies....& Finds God ~ His Personal Testimony

On 02/02/2016 08:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/1/2016 8:17 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/01/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> Actually only people with an interest in science and and truth get to
>>>> see paranormal "stuff".
>>>
>>> This is like Henry Wilson saying that anyone who would accept anything
>>> that Einstein says or accept the evidence in support of relativity is BY
>>> DEFINITION not a scientist.
>>>
>>> People say the goofiest things just to get a rise out of others.
>>
>> True. You and H&V and all the other true believers here so say the
>> goofiest things. Here. Allow me to show you how goofy and ignorant you
>> are! What do scientists do? I'm sure you believe "scientists" read text
>> books and attend lectures where they memorize all "explanations" to the
>> smallest detail and then repeat them to "convert" others by "professing"
>> them. This of course it totally false. Scientists search for truth and
>> do that with experiments and observations. Hence only a person who is
>> ready to OBSERVE experiments and OBSERVE and record phenomena will have
>> any hope of actually seeing any results that suggest paranormal
>> phenomena.
>>
>> But why do I say "only" people with an interest in science (more exactly
>> the scientific method?) Just look at clowns like you, H&V and the rest
>> here. You all have an agenda to promote. Furthermore, you REFUSE to
>> observe or even acknowledge any observations that might go against your
>> agenda. In your case every fact must be censored and ONLY come from
>> approved sources. Actual observations EVEN BY YOU, are not accepted as
>> true. Same goes for HVAC. Even when given actual chapter and verse of
>> experiments and observations (for example all the massive studies of
>> remote viewing by the government with very strict scientific controls)
>> he simply refuses to even acknowledge that such even exists let alone
>> actually read the sources. Same for you. Your fantasy world is the polar
>> opposite of science.
>>
>> So basically it is obvious that ONLY a person with an open mind ready to
>> test and observe phenomena and then truthfully record the results has
>> any hope of observing anything that does not fit into the "accepted"
>> stories that you try to pass off as science. In short, you people aren't
>> into science at all. You are priests for your religious beliefs.
>>
>> I've said here many times. Science is not about belief. RELIGION is
>> about belief. Why don't you clowns take your religion to a proper fundie
>> forum?
>>
>> (Now we can all wait for H&V to repeat once again how "BJ" (that was
>> really a hilarious joke when I was in the 6th grade) "believes in ESP
>> and Remote Viewing". Fucking garbage. Now there is a man who never had a
>> business card that said "scientist" (probably his was totally blank is
>> my guess))
>>
>
> Repeatable observations, often with a control to show that the
> hypothesized connection between cause and effect is really there.
>
> The kind of observations you are talking about suffer from not being
> repeatable under controlled circumstances. If they were, then scientists
> would have brought them into common understanding years ago, if not
> centuries ago.

Oh that's right! I forgot that lightning is all a hoax by college kids 
and authors trying to get rich with stories of spectacular destruction 
supposedly caused by "electricity" that nobody has ever seen! Got it!

Even worse is the science paradigm that an experiment can be made where 
the experimenter does not affect the outcome of what he's trying to 
measure. Even non-paranormal science is getting it's nose rubbed in that 
one...unless you consider QM paranormal.

> Ben, you used the word "paranormal". Do you know what "paranormal"
> means? It means "to one side of normal" or "beyond normal". Paranormal
> is defined to mean that which science CANNOT explain. It does not mean
> what science DOES NOT CHOOSE TO explain. It means what science WILL NOT
> EVER BE ABLE to explain. And yet you want to make the paranormal the
> subject of science. Perhaps you can also use science to prove the
> existence of God, of angels, of demons. After all, THOUSANDS of people
> have recorded OBSERVATIONS of them.

Ah the old "an explanation is impossible!" routine. I've already 
established that the ONLY way something can be proved "impossible" is 
the show that all possible ways do not apply. Obviously this requires 
"superpowers" and that makes YOU a moron.

You are just playing Lib word games. Word games are NOT science even 
though you think they are. Paranormal means things which "current 
science" or perhaps "classic science" cannot (or perhaps does not) 
explain. Your leap to say that such things are and always will be 
impossible for science to explain is babbling kook gibberish!

So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many 
more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that 
there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and 
investigation. The idea of you and HVAC that you already KNOW what the 
phenomena is is simply blustering little man ego. Exactly WHAT those 
phenomena are is a different question.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#550044

On 2/2/2016 3:11 PM, benj wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 08:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/1/2016 8:17 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 02/01/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> Actually only people with an interest in science and and truth get to
>>>>> see paranormal "stuff".
>>>>
>>>> This is like Henry Wilson saying that anyone who would accept anything
>>>> that Einstein says or accept the evidence in support of relativity
>>>> is BY
>>>> DEFINITION not a scientist.
>>>>
>>>> People say the goofiest things just to get a rise out of others.
>>>
>>> True. You and H&V and all the other true believers here so say the
>>> goofiest things. Here. Allow me to show you how goofy and ignorant you
>>> are! What do scientists do? I'm sure you believe "scientists" read text
>>> books and attend lectures where they memorize all "explanations" to the
>>> smallest detail and then repeat them to "convert" others by "professing"
>>> them. This of course it totally false. Scientists search for truth and
>>> do that with experiments and observations. Hence only a person who is
>>> ready to OBSERVE experiments and OBSERVE and record phenomena will have
>>> any hope of actually seeing any results that suggest paranormal
>>> phenomena.
>>>
>>> But why do I say "only" people with an interest in science (more exactly
>>> the scientific method?) Just look at clowns like you, H&V and the rest
>>> here. You all have an agenda to promote. Furthermore, you REFUSE to
>>> observe or even acknowledge any observations that might go against your
>>> agenda. In your case every fact must be censored and ONLY come from
>>> approved sources. Actual observations EVEN BY YOU, are not accepted as
>>> true. Same goes for HVAC. Even when given actual chapter and verse of
>>> experiments and observations (for example all the massive studies of
>>> remote viewing by the government with very strict scientific controls)
>>> he simply refuses to even acknowledge that such even exists let alone
>>> actually read the sources. Same for you. Your fantasy world is the polar
>>> opposite of science.
>>>
>>> So basically it is obvious that ONLY a person with an open mind ready to
>>> test and observe phenomena and then truthfully record the results has
>>> any hope of observing anything that does not fit into the "accepted"
>>> stories that you try to pass off as science. In short, you people aren't
>>> into science at all. You are priests for your religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> I've said here many times. Science is not about belief. RELIGION is
>>> about belief. Why don't you clowns take your religion to a proper fundie
>>> forum?
>>>
>>> (Now we can all wait for H&V to repeat once again how "BJ" (that was
>>> really a hilarious joke when I was in the 6th grade) "believes in ESP
>>> and Remote Viewing". Fucking garbage. Now there is a man who never had a
>>> business card that said "scientist" (probably his was totally blank is
>>> my guess))
>>>
>>
>> Repeatable observations, often with a control to show that the
>> hypothesized connection between cause and effect is really there.
>>
>> The kind of observations you are talking about suffer from not being
>> repeatable under controlled circumstances. If they were, then scientists
>> would have brought them into common understanding years ago, if not
>> centuries ago.
>
> Oh that's right! I forgot that lightning is all a hoax by college kids
> and authors trying to get rich with stories of spectacular destruction
> supposedly caused by "electricity" that nobody has ever seen! Got it!

Repeatedly under controlled circumstances does not mean man-made, you 
idiot.

If there is a theory that tells you under what circumstances a star will 
predictably go nova, then locating an instance in the galaxy where those 
circumstances prevail is a good case of repetition under controlled 
circumstances. This does NOT mean that you have to MAKE a star in the 
laboratory and watch it go supernova. Are you deliberately being obtuse?

>
> Even worse is the science paradigm that an experiment can be made where
> the experimenter does not affect the outcome of what he's trying to
> measure. Even non-paranormal science is getting it's nose rubbed in that
> one...unless you consider QM paranormal.

Well, OK, now you're just saying that experimental results are not to be 
trusted and therefore the scientific method that validates theory with 
experiment isn't worthwhile to begin with. Now, tell me again why you 
visit sci.physics?

>
>> Ben, you used the word "paranormal". Do you know what "paranormal"
>> means? It means "to one side of normal" or "beyond normal". Paranormal
>> is defined to mean that which science CANNOT explain. It does not mean
>> what science DOES NOT CHOOSE TO explain. It means what science WILL NOT
>> EVER BE ABLE to explain. And yet you want to make the paranormal the
>> subject of science. Perhaps you can also use science to prove the
>> existence of God, of angels, of demons. After all, THOUSANDS of people
>> have recorded OBSERVATIONS of them.
>
> Ah the old "an explanation is impossible!" routine. I've already
> established that the ONLY way something can be proved "impossible" is
> the show that all possible ways do not apply. Obviously this requires
> "superpowers" and that makes YOU a moron.

Ben, you can EXPLAIN the universe's creation as being a conscious act of 
creative design by the Holy Trinity, if you want. This is an 
EXPLANATION, but it's not a scientific one.

You are apparently claiming that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that causes 
desire for an explanation should be a subject for science. I disagree. 
Science explores certain kinds of assertions and not others.

> You are just playing Lib word games. Word games are NOT science even
> though you think they are. Paranormal means things which "current
> science" or perhaps "classic science" cannot (or perhaps does not)
> explain.

No sir, that's YOUR leap, not mine. There are things that science is NOT 
DESIGNED to explain, and therefore won't explain. This is not a matter 
of declaring impossibility. It's a matter of knowing which things lie in 
the scientific domain and which things do not. Not everything is a good 
candidate for scientific explanation.

Why does pi have the value it does?
Why are there electrons?
Why are there zebras?
What are the laws of physics in inaccessible universes other than ours?
Does God exist?
Are there beings that exist but carefully leave no trace of their own 
existence?
Why did Hitler come to be?

> Your leap to say that such things are and always will be
> impossible for science to explain is babbling kook gibberish!
>
> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many
> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that
> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and
> investigation. The idea of you and HVAC that you already KNOW what the
> phenomena is is simply blustering little man ego. Exactly WHAT those
> phenomena are is a different question.

Explanation and investigation, fine. Go ahead and investigate it. It's 
just not SCIENCE. Not every investigation is science.


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550099

BJ says:
> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many 
> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that 
> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and 
> investigation. 
----------

Where did you see these 'demons, BJ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550118

On 02/02/2016 08:35 PM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ says:
>> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many
>> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that
>> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and
>> investigation.
> ----------
>
> Where did you see these 'demons, BJ?

So you think I'm "thousands" of people? Thank you very much.



-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550178

Poor HVAC/Legion!!
In your sweet/dumb muddle, you're 
still wondering where your demons are
hiding?
You need something to get you out
of your rut.
Drugs, alcohol, religion, SOMETHING.

You're drowning in your darkness, HVAC.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550181

You're drowning in your darkness, HVAC. 
------------

I am a bringer of light into the darkness. 
Alcohol? Drugs? Religion?
They only cloud one's vision of reality. I am the light and the way to true illumination.

Hail Satan!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550257

On 02/03/2016 06:34 AM, HVAC wrote:
> You're drowning in your darkness, HVAC.
> ------------
>
> I am a bringer of light into the darkness.
> Alcohol? Drugs? Religion?
> They only cloud one's vision of reality. I am the light and the way to true illumination.
>
> Hail Satan!
>
You are 5 foot 1 inches tall with a Napoleon complex and have ultimate 
faith in your religion while denying you have any. You are a mess. 
Clearly you believe in drugs of all kinds as well while denying you do.
Stoner.

-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550145

On 02/02/2016 05:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 3:11 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/02/2016 08:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/1/2016 8:17 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 02/01/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> Actually only people with an interest in science and and truth get to
>>>>>> see paranormal "stuff".
>>>>>
>>>>> This is like Henry Wilson saying that anyone who would accept anything
>>>>> that Einstein says or accept the evidence in support of relativity
>>>>> is BY
>>>>> DEFINITION not a scientist.
>>>>>
>>>>> People say the goofiest things just to get a rise out of others.
>>>>
>>>> True. You and H&V and all the other true believers here so say the
>>>> goofiest things. Here. Allow me to show you how goofy and ignorant you
>>>> are! What do scientists do? I'm sure you believe "scientists" read text
>>>> books and attend lectures where they memorize all "explanations" to the
>>>> smallest detail and then repeat them to "convert" others by
>>>> "professing"
>>>> them. This of course it totally false. Scientists search for truth and
>>>> do that with experiments and observations. Hence only a person who is
>>>> ready to OBSERVE experiments and OBSERVE and record phenomena will have
>>>> any hope of actually seeing any results that suggest paranormal
>>>> phenomena.
>>>>
>>>> But why do I say "only" people with an interest in science (more
>>>> exactly
>>>> the scientific method?) Just look at clowns like you, H&V and the rest
>>>> here. You all have an agenda to promote. Furthermore, you REFUSE to
>>>> observe or even acknowledge any observations that might go against your
>>>> agenda. In your case every fact must be censored and ONLY come from
>>>> approved sources. Actual observations EVEN BY YOU, are not accepted as
>>>> true. Same goes for HVAC. Even when given actual chapter and verse of
>>>> experiments and observations (for example all the massive studies of
>>>> remote viewing by the government with very strict scientific controls)
>>>> he simply refuses to even acknowledge that such even exists let alone
>>>> actually read the sources. Same for you. Your fantasy world is the
>>>> polar
>>>> opposite of science.
>>>>
>>>> So basically it is obvious that ONLY a person with an open mind
>>>> ready to
>>>> test and observe phenomena and then truthfully record the results has
>>>> any hope of observing anything that does not fit into the "accepted"
>>>> stories that you try to pass off as science. In short, you people
>>>> aren't
>>>> into science at all. You are priests for your religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> I've said here many times. Science is not about belief. RELIGION is
>>>> about belief. Why don't you clowns take your religion to a proper
>>>> fundie
>>>> forum?
>>>>
>>>> (Now we can all wait for H&V to repeat once again how "BJ" (that was
>>>> really a hilarious joke when I was in the 6th grade) "believes in ESP
>>>> and Remote Viewing". Fucking garbage. Now there is a man who never
>>>> had a
>>>> business card that said "scientist" (probably his was totally blank is
>>>> my guess))
>>>>
>>>
>>> Repeatable observations, often with a control to show that the
>>> hypothesized connection between cause and effect is really there.
>>>
>>> The kind of observations you are talking about suffer from not being
>>> repeatable under controlled circumstances. If they were, then scientists
>>> would have brought them into common understanding years ago, if not
>>> centuries ago.
>>
>> Oh that's right! I forgot that lightning is all a hoax by college kids
>> and authors trying to get rich with stories of spectacular destruction
>> supposedly caused by "electricity" that nobody has ever seen! Got it!
>
> Repeatedly under controlled circumstances does not mean man-made, you
> idiot.
>
> If there is a theory that tells you under what circumstances a star will
> predictably go nova, then locating an instance in the galaxy where those
> circumstances prevail is a good case of repetition under controlled
> circumstances. This does NOT mean that you have to MAKE a star in the
> laboratory and watch it go supernova. Are you deliberately being obtuse?
>
>>
>> Even worse is the science paradigm that an experiment can be made where
>> the experimenter does not affect the outcome of what he's trying to
>> measure. Even non-paranormal science is getting it's nose rubbed in that
>> one...unless you consider QM paranormal.
>
> Well, OK, now you're just saying that experimental results are not to be
> trusted and therefore the scientific method that validates theory with
> experiment isn't worthwhile to begin with. Now, tell me again why you
> visit sci.physics?
>
>>
>>> Ben, you used the word "paranormal". Do you know what "paranormal"
>>> means? It means "to one side of normal" or "beyond normal". Paranormal
>>> is defined to mean that which science CANNOT explain. It does not mean
>>> what science DOES NOT CHOOSE TO explain. It means what science WILL NOT
>>> EVER BE ABLE to explain. And yet you want to make the paranormal the
>>> subject of science. Perhaps you can also use science to prove the
>>> existence of God, of angels, of demons. After all, THOUSANDS of people
>>> have recorded OBSERVATIONS of them.
>>
>> Ah the old "an explanation is impossible!" routine. I've already
>> established that the ONLY way something can be proved "impossible" is
>> the show that all possible ways do not apply. Obviously this requires
>> "superpowers" and that makes YOU a moron.
>
> Ben, you can EXPLAIN the universe's creation as being a conscious act of
> creative design by the Holy Trinity, if you want. This is an
> EXPLANATION, but it's not a scientific one.

How do you KNOW it is not a scientific explantion? Superpowers I 
presume. So why do you BELIEVE along with so many other leftist atheist 
clowns that the universe was created by chance? Why do you even believe 
it was created at all?

> You are apparently claiming that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that causes
> desire for an explanation should be a subject for science. I disagree.
> Science explores certain kinds of assertions and not others.

So you are saying something should NOT be investigated by science 
because YOU say they aren't suitable. Some test. You and HVAC are two 
egos in a pod. I suppose as a publisher you are really into censorship.

>> You are just playing Lib word games. Word games are NOT science even
>> though you think they are. Paranormal means things which "current
>> science" or perhaps "classic science" cannot (or perhaps does not)
>> explain.
>
> No sir, that's YOUR leap, not mine. There are things that science is NOT
> DESIGNED to explain, and therefore won't explain. This is not a matter
> of declaring impossibility. It's a matter of knowing which things lie in
> the scientific domain and which things do not. Not everything is a good
> candidate for scientific explanation.

"designed" to be explained? Are you talking about intelligent design?

What you are really saying, Boinker is that YOU have found religion in 
the Grand Material Metaparadigm of science and now your faith has you 
believe in it with your whole heart and you wish to contain all science 
within your religion. Sorry, science is not limited by you.

> Why does pi have the value it does?
> Why are there electrons?
> Why are there zebras?
> What are the laws of physics in inaccessible universes other than ours?
> Does God exist?
> Are there beings that exist but carefully leave no trace of their own
> existence?
> Why did Hitler come to be?

Can mathematics prove that the value calculated for pi is correct? Sorry 
science has proved that science can't prove that. Hence the study of Pi 
is valid.

Can there be a material object with mass of zero dimensions? That 
science is babbling nonsense. Or is it?

Feynman already explained why using the question "why" is nonsense. It 
leads nowhere hence is not science at all. On the other hand one might 
say that a study of how Zebras evolved from other animals would be valid 
subject would it not?

You know Boinker there is even something called "political science" 
which actually investigates things like the phenomenon of Hitler.

In short, you have not one whit of a clue as to what science is, what it 
studies and what it can attain. In short you are really, really stooopid.

>> Your leap to say that such things are and always will be
>> impossible for science to explain is babbling kook gibberish!
>>
>> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many
>> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that
>> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and
>> investigation. The idea of you and HVAC that you already KNOW what the
>> phenomena is is simply blustering little man ego. Exactly WHAT those
>> phenomena are is a different question.
>
> Explanation and investigation, fine. Go ahead and investigate it. It's
> just not SCIENCE. Not every investigation is science.

So in your book psychology isn't a science. Got it. Just which things do 
you allow to be science in your world?

If every investigation is not science in your opinion, then perhaps you 
need to explain to everyone just what makes a given investigation 
qualify as science and another one not be science. Go ahead.

We'll wait right here for you to figure it out.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550209

On 2/2/2016 11:25 PM, benj wrote:
> On 02/02/2016 05:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> On 2/2/2016 3:11 PM, benj wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2016 08:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> On 2/1/2016 8:17 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>> On 02/01/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/1/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>> Actually only people with an interest in science and and truth
>>>>>>> get to
>>>>>>> see paranormal "stuff".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is like Henry Wilson saying that anyone who would accept
>>>>>> anything
>>>>>> that Einstein says or accept the evidence in support of relativity
>>>>>> is BY
>>>>>> DEFINITION not a scientist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> People say the goofiest things just to get a rise out of others.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. You and H&V and all the other true believers here so say the
>>>>> goofiest things. Here. Allow me to show you how goofy and ignorant you
>>>>> are! What do scientists do? I'm sure you believe "scientists" read
>>>>> text
>>>>> books and attend lectures where they memorize all "explanations" to
>>>>> the
>>>>> smallest detail and then repeat them to "convert" others by
>>>>> "professing"
>>>>> them. This of course it totally false. Scientists search for truth and
>>>>> do that with experiments and observations. Hence only a person who is
>>>>> ready to OBSERVE experiments and OBSERVE and record phenomena will
>>>>> have
>>>>> any hope of actually seeing any results that suggest paranormal
>>>>> phenomena.
>>>>>
>>>>> But why do I say "only" people with an interest in science (more
>>>>> exactly
>>>>> the scientific method?) Just look at clowns like you, H&V and the rest
>>>>> here. You all have an agenda to promote. Furthermore, you REFUSE to
>>>>> observe or even acknowledge any observations that might go against
>>>>> your
>>>>> agenda. In your case every fact must be censored and ONLY come from
>>>>> approved sources. Actual observations EVEN BY YOU, are not accepted as
>>>>> true. Same goes for HVAC. Even when given actual chapter and verse of
>>>>> experiments and observations (for example all the massive studies of
>>>>> remote viewing by the government with very strict scientific controls)
>>>>> he simply refuses to even acknowledge that such even exists let alone
>>>>> actually read the sources. Same for you. Your fantasy world is the
>>>>> polar
>>>>> opposite of science.
>>>>>
>>>>> So basically it is obvious that ONLY a person with an open mind
>>>>> ready to
>>>>> test and observe phenomena and then truthfully record the results has
>>>>> any hope of observing anything that does not fit into the "accepted"
>>>>> stories that you try to pass off as science. In short, you people
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> into science at all. You are priests for your religious beliefs.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've said here many times. Science is not about belief. RELIGION is
>>>>> about belief. Why don't you clowns take your religion to a proper
>>>>> fundie
>>>>> forum?
>>>>>
>>>>> (Now we can all wait for H&V to repeat once again how "BJ" (that was
>>>>> really a hilarious joke when I was in the 6th grade) "believes in ESP
>>>>> and Remote Viewing". Fucking garbage. Now there is a man who never
>>>>> had a
>>>>> business card that said "scientist" (probably his was totally blank is
>>>>> my guess))
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Repeatable observations, often with a control to show that the
>>>> hypothesized connection between cause and effect is really there.
>>>>
>>>> The kind of observations you are talking about suffer from not being
>>>> repeatable under controlled circumstances. If they were, then
>>>> scientists
>>>> would have brought them into common understanding years ago, if not
>>>> centuries ago.
>>>
>>> Oh that's right! I forgot that lightning is all a hoax by college kids
>>> and authors trying to get rich with stories of spectacular destruction
>>> supposedly caused by "electricity" that nobody has ever seen! Got it!
>>
>> Repeatedly under controlled circumstances does not mean man-made, you
>> idiot.
>>
>> If there is a theory that tells you under what circumstances a star will
>> predictably go nova, then locating an instance in the galaxy where those
>> circumstances prevail is a good case of repetition under controlled
>> circumstances. This does NOT mean that you have to MAKE a star in the
>> laboratory and watch it go supernova. Are you deliberately being obtuse?
>>
>>>
>>> Even worse is the science paradigm that an experiment can be made where
>>> the experimenter does not affect the outcome of what he's trying to
>>> measure. Even non-paranormal science is getting it's nose rubbed in that
>>> one...unless you consider QM paranormal.
>>
>> Well, OK, now you're just saying that experimental results are not to be
>> trusted and therefore the scientific method that validates theory with
>> experiment isn't worthwhile to begin with. Now, tell me again why you
>> visit sci.physics?
>>
>>>
>>>> Ben, you used the word "paranormal". Do you know what "paranormal"
>>>> means? It means "to one side of normal" or "beyond normal". Paranormal
>>>> is defined to mean that which science CANNOT explain. It does not mean
>>>> what science DOES NOT CHOOSE TO explain. It means what science WILL NOT
>>>> EVER BE ABLE to explain. And yet you want to make the paranormal the
>>>> subject of science. Perhaps you can also use science to prove the
>>>> existence of God, of angels, of demons. After all, THOUSANDS of people
>>>> have recorded OBSERVATIONS of them.
>>>
>>> Ah the old "an explanation is impossible!" routine. I've already
>>> established that the ONLY way something can be proved "impossible" is
>>> the show that all possible ways do not apply. Obviously this requires
>>> "superpowers" and that makes YOU a moron.
>>
>> Ben, you can EXPLAIN the universe's creation as being a conscious act of
>> creative design by the Holy Trinity, if you want. This is an
>> EXPLANATION, but it's not a scientific one.
>
> How do you KNOW it is not a scientific explantion? Superpowers I
> presume. So why do you BELIEVE along with so many other leftist atheist
> clowns that the universe was created by chance? Why do you even believe
> it was created at all?

A scientific explanation has certain features that the creation account 
does not have. A scientific explanation has predictive power, for one. 
It is quantitative, for another. Neither is true of the creation 
account. You seem to think that anything that is a claim of factual 
account or anything that is an explanation is to be called scientific. 
I'm beginning to think that, despite the label on your business card, 
you don't remember what science is about.

>
>> You are apparently claiming that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that causes
>> desire for an explanation should be a subject for science. I disagree.
>> Science explores certain kinds of assertions and not others.
>
> So you are saying something should NOT be investigated by science
> because YOU say they aren't suitable. Some test. You and HVAC are two
> egos in a pod. I suppose as a publisher you are really into censorship.

No, not what I say. What SCIENTISTS say. SCIENTISTS say that the 
paranormal is not suitable for scientific investigation. That's what the 
word means. Now, you are free to disagree with scientists and claim that 
it SHOULD be suitable for scientific investigation. But you belong to a 
very small minority, Ben.

>
>>> You are just playing Lib word games. Word games are NOT science even
>>> though you think they are. Paranormal means things which "current
>>> science" or perhaps "classic science" cannot (or perhaps does not)
>>> explain.
>>
>> No sir, that's YOUR leap, not mine. There are things that science is NOT
>> DESIGNED to explain, and therefore won't explain. This is not a matter
>> of declaring impossibility. It's a matter of knowing which things lie in
>> the scientific domain and which things do not. Not everything is a good
>> candidate for scientific explanation.
>
> "designed" to be explained? Are you talking about intelligent design?

No, Ben. Science has a designed method. You may have heard of it. With 
it there are certain claims it is going to be good for and other claims 
it is not going to be good for.

>
> What you are really saying, Boinker is that YOU have found religion in
> the Grand Material Metaparadigm of science and now your faith has you
> believe in it with your whole heart and you wish to contain all science
> within your religion. Sorry, science is not limited by you.

This isn't about what I say, Ben. It is what SCIENTISTS say. You know 
this. You know that you are in a tiny, tiny minority, opposed to what 
scientists say.

>
>> Why does pi have the value it does?
>> Why are there electrons?
>> Why are there zebras?
>> What are the laws of physics in inaccessible universes other than ours?
>> Does God exist?
>> Are there beings that exist but carefully leave no trace of their own
>> existence?
>> Why did Hitler come to be?
>
> Can mathematics prove that the value calculated for pi is correct? Sorry
> science has proved that science can't prove that. Hence the study of Pi
> is valid.
>
> Can there be a material object with mass of zero dimensions? That
> science is babbling nonsense. Or is it?
>
> Feynman already explained why using the question "why" is nonsense. It
> leads nowhere hence is not science at all. On the other hand one might
> say that a study of how Zebras evolved from other animals would be valid
> subject would it not?
>
> You know Boinker there is even something called "political science"
> which actually investigates things like the phenomenon of Hitler.
>
> In short, you have not one whit of a clue as to what science is, what it
> studies and what it can attain. In short you are really, really stooopid.

Ben, on the contrary, I think you have your own, very peculiar ideas 
about what science is, and it differs a ton from the science that 
scientists describe in the books that scientists write. You are free to 
have your own views of what science should be. They're yours to own.

>
>>> Your leap to say that such things are and always will be
>>> impossible for science to explain is babbling kook gibberish!
>>>
>>> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many
>>> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that
>>> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and
>>> investigation. The idea of you and HVAC that you already KNOW what the
>>> phenomena is is simply blustering little man ego. Exactly WHAT those
>>> phenomena are is a different question.
>>
>> Explanation and investigation, fine. Go ahead and investigate it. It's
>> just not SCIENCE. Not every investigation is science.
>
> So in your book psychology isn't a science. Got it. Just which things do
> you allow to be science in your world?

I didn't say a damn thing about psychology. If you're going to INVENT 
when you read, then it's plain why you have such a poor understanding of 
science.

>
> If every investigation is not science in your opinion, then perhaps you
> need to explain to everyone just what makes a given investigation
> qualify as science and another one not be science. Go ahead.
>
> We'll wait right here for you to figure it out.
>

Ben, I've described this dozens of times. Metaphysics is an 
investigation. It is not science. That's ONE example. Need fifty more?


-- 
Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550214

BJ said:
> So you are saying something should NOT be investigated by science 
> because YOU say they aren't suitable. Some test. You and HVAC are two 
> egos in a pod. I suppose as a publisher you are really into censorship. 
--------------

Ghosts should not be studied by science. That area is reserved for kooks like you BJ

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#550270

On 02/03/2016 09:55 AM, HVAC wrote:
> BJ said:
>> So you are saying something should NOT be investigated by science
>> because YOU say they aren't suitable. Some test. You and HVAC are two
>> egos in a pod. I suppose as a publisher you are really into censorship.
> --------------
>
> Ghosts should not be studied by science. That area is reserved for kooks like you BJ
>
Luckily we have Napoleon here to tell us what are subjects that may not 
be studied by science. Oddball concurs I'm sure.

Anything that HVAC does not believe in is NOT allowed to be studied by 
science. End of commandment.


-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551909

On 02/03/2016 09:30 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 11:25 PM, benj wrote:
>> On 02/02/2016 05:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> On 2/2/2016 3:11 PM, benj wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2016 08:26 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>> On 2/1/2016 8:17 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/01/2016 02:59 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/1/2016 1:53 PM, benj wrote:
>>>>>>>> Actually only people with an interest in science and and truth
>>>>>>>> get to
>>>>>>>> see paranormal "stuff".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is like Henry Wilson saying that anyone who would accept
>>>>>>> anything
>>>>>>> that Einstein says or accept the evidence in support of relativity
>>>>>>> is BY
>>>>>>> DEFINITION not a scientist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People say the goofiest things just to get a rise out of others.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True. You and H&V and all the other true believers here so say the
>>>>>> goofiest things. Here. Allow me to show you how goofy and ignorant
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> are! What do scientists do? I'm sure you believe "scientists" read
>>>>>> text
>>>>>> books and attend lectures where they memorize all "explanations" to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> smallest detail and then repeat them to "convert" others by
>>>>>> "professing"
>>>>>> them. This of course it totally false. Scientists search for truth
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> do that with experiments and observations. Hence only a person who is
>>>>>> ready to OBSERVE experiments and OBSERVE and record phenomena will
>>>>>> have
>>>>>> any hope of actually seeing any results that suggest paranormal
>>>>>> phenomena.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But why do I say "only" people with an interest in science (more
>>>>>> exactly
>>>>>> the scientific method?) Just look at clowns like you, H&V and the
>>>>>> rest
>>>>>> here. You all have an agenda to promote. Furthermore, you REFUSE to
>>>>>> observe or even acknowledge any observations that might go against
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> agenda. In your case every fact must be censored and ONLY come from
>>>>>> approved sources. Actual observations EVEN BY YOU, are not
>>>>>> accepted as
>>>>>> true. Same goes for HVAC. Even when given actual chapter and verse of
>>>>>> experiments and observations (for example all the massive studies of
>>>>>> remote viewing by the government with very strict scientific
>>>>>> controls)
>>>>>> he simply refuses to even acknowledge that such even exists let alone
>>>>>> actually read the sources. Same for you. Your fantasy world is the
>>>>>> polar
>>>>>> opposite of science.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So basically it is obvious that ONLY a person with an open mind
>>>>>> ready to
>>>>>> test and observe phenomena and then truthfully record the results has
>>>>>> any hope of observing anything that does not fit into the "accepted"
>>>>>> stories that you try to pass off as science. In short, you people
>>>>>> aren't
>>>>>> into science at all. You are priests for your religious beliefs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've said here many times. Science is not about belief. RELIGION is
>>>>>> about belief. Why don't you clowns take your religion to a proper
>>>>>> fundie
>>>>>> forum?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Now we can all wait for H&V to repeat once again how "BJ" (that was
>>>>>> really a hilarious joke when I was in the 6th grade) "believes in ESP
>>>>>> and Remote Viewing". Fucking garbage. Now there is a man who never
>>>>>> had a
>>>>>> business card that said "scientist" (probably his was totally
>>>>>> blank is
>>>>>> my guess))
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Repeatable observations, often with a control to show that the
>>>>> hypothesized connection between cause and effect is really there.
>>>>>
>>>>> The kind of observations you are talking about suffer from not being
>>>>> repeatable under controlled circumstances. If they were, then
>>>>> scientists
>>>>> would have brought them into common understanding years ago, if not
>>>>> centuries ago.
>>>>
>>>> Oh that's right! I forgot that lightning is all a hoax by college kids
>>>> and authors trying to get rich with stories of spectacular destruction
>>>> supposedly caused by "electricity" that nobody has ever seen! Got it!
>>>
>>> Repeatedly under controlled circumstances does not mean man-made, you
>>> idiot.
>>>
>>> If there is a theory that tells you under what circumstances a star will
>>> predictably go nova, then locating an instance in the galaxy where those
>>> circumstances prevail is a good case of repetition under controlled
>>> circumstances. This does NOT mean that you have to MAKE a star in the
>>> laboratory and watch it go supernova. Are you deliberately being obtuse?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Even worse is the science paradigm that an experiment can be made where
>>>> the experimenter does not affect the outcome of what he's trying to
>>>> measure. Even non-paranormal science is getting it's nose rubbed in
>>>> that
>>>> one...unless you consider QM paranormal.
>>>
>>> Well, OK, now you're just saying that experimental results are not to be
>>> trusted and therefore the scientific method that validates theory with
>>> experiment isn't worthwhile to begin with. Now, tell me again why you
>>> visit sci.physics?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ben, you used the word "paranormal". Do you know what "paranormal"
>>>>> means? It means "to one side of normal" or "beyond normal". Paranormal
>>>>> is defined to mean that which science CANNOT explain. It does not mean
>>>>> what science DOES NOT CHOOSE TO explain. It means what science WILL
>>>>> NOT
>>>>> EVER BE ABLE to explain. And yet you want to make the paranormal the
>>>>> subject of science. Perhaps you can also use science to prove the
>>>>> existence of God, of angels, of demons. After all, THOUSANDS of people
>>>>> have recorded OBSERVATIONS of them.
>>>>
>>>> Ah the old "an explanation is impossible!" routine. I've already
>>>> established that the ONLY way something can be proved "impossible" is
>>>> the show that all possible ways do not apply. Obviously this requires
>>>> "superpowers" and that makes YOU a moron.
>>>
>>> Ben, you can EXPLAIN the universe's creation as being a conscious act of
>>> creative design by the Holy Trinity, if you want. This is an
>>> EXPLANATION, but it's not a scientific one.
>>
>> How do you KNOW it is not a scientific explantion? Superpowers I
>> presume. So why do you BELIEVE along with so many other leftist atheist
>> clowns that the universe was created by chance? Why do you even believe
>> it was created at all?
>
> A scientific explanation has certain features that the creation account
> does not have. A scientific explanation has predictive power, for one.
> It is quantitative, for another. Neither is true of the creation
> account. You seem to think that anything that is a claim of factual
> account or anything that is an explanation is to be called scientific.
> I'm beginning to think that, despite the label on your business card,
> you don't remember what science is about.

Boinker you not only have no clue about science, you have no clue 
period! How can the "scientific theory" of the creation be "predictive"? 
You think there will be "another" creation? Why is it termed "the" 
creation? For a publisher you don't understand English much do you?

>>> You are apparently claiming that EVERYTHING and ANYTHING that causes
>>> desire for an explanation should be a subject for science. I disagree.
>>> Science explores certain kinds of assertions and not others.
>>
>> So you are saying something should NOT be investigated by science
>> because YOU say they aren't suitable. Some test. You and HVAC are two
>> egos in a pod. I suppose as a publisher you are really into censorship.
>
> No, not what I say. What SCIENTISTS say. SCIENTISTS say that the
> paranormal is not suitable for scientific investigation. That's what the
> word means. Now, you are free to disagree with scientists and claim that
> it SHOULD be suitable for scientific investigation. But you belong to a
> very small minority, Ben.

So you are just a lone voice for the establishment! And while YOU don't 
favor censorship (in spite of constantly promoting it) you just speak 
for those that actually believe in censorship of science. Got it. But 
according to you science is always determined by majority vote and since 
I'm in a "very small minority" that means that by the rules of "your" 
science I must be wrong!  Boinker you are an ignorant moron.

>>>> You are just playing Lib word games. Word games are NOT science even
>>>> though you think they are. Paranormal means things which "current
>>>> science" or perhaps "classic science" cannot (or perhaps does not)
>>>> explain.
>>>
>>> No sir, that's YOUR leap, not mine. There are things that science is NOT
>>> DESIGNED to explain, and therefore won't explain. This is not a matter
>>> of declaring impossibility. It's a matter of knowing which things lie in
>>> the scientific domain and which things do not. Not everything is a good
>>> candidate for scientific explanation.
>>
>> "designed" to be explained? Are you talking about intelligent design?
>
> No, Ben. Science has a designed method. You may have heard of it. With
> it there are certain claims it is going to be good for and other claims
> it is not going to be good for.

Yes, because science investigates phenomena and not fantasies. 
Tinkerbell is NOT a valid subject for scientific investigation. However 
what people BELIEVE about tinkerbell IS a valid subject. Get that 
subtlety? I knew that you wouldn't.

>> What you are really saying, Boinker is that YOU have found religion in
>> the Grand Material Metaparadigm of science and now your faith has you
>> believe in it with your whole heart and you wish to contain all science
>> within your religion. Sorry, science is not limited by you.
>
> This isn't about what I say, Ben. It is what SCIENTISTS say. You know
> this. You know that you are in a tiny, tiny minority, opposed to what
> scientists say.

I am a scientist, therefore what I say counts! You are not a scientist 
therefore what you say does NOT count. Oddly (even though we've had this 
discussion in the past, and you still cling to your ignorance) it turns 
out that science is NOT determined by 'democratic vote of scientists. 
Not even close. "climate change" is not proved by consensus nor the 
impossibility of "remote viewing" by your and HVAC's opinion. It's not 
even proved by MY opinion. Yet my opinion counts and yours does not.


>>
>>> Why does pi have the value it does?
>>> Why are there electrons?
>>> Why are there zebras?
>>> What are the laws of physics in inaccessible universes other than ours?
>>> Does God exist?
>>> Are there beings that exist but carefully leave no trace of their own
>>> existence?
>>> Why did Hitler come to be?
>>
>> Can mathematics prove that the value calculated for pi is correct? Sorry
>> science has proved that science can't prove that. Hence the study of Pi
>> is valid.
>>
>> Can there be a material object with mass of zero dimensions? That
>> science is babbling nonsense. Or is it?
>>
>> Feynman already explained why using the question "why" is nonsense. It
>> leads nowhere hence is not science at all. On the other hand one might
>> say that a study of how Zebras evolved from other animals would be valid
>> subject would it not?
>>
>> You know Boinker there is even something called "political science"
>> which actually investigates things like the phenomenon of Hitler.
>>
>> In short, you have not one whit of a clue as to what science is, what it
>> studies and what it can attain. In short you are really, really stooopid.
>
> Ben, on the contrary, I think you have your own, very peculiar ideas
> about what science is, and it differs a ton from the science that
> scientists describe in the books that scientists write. You are free to
> have your own views of what science should be. They're yours to own.

Clearly those with a political agenda have their own idea what science 
is (or they think it should be) and Lo, they write books that you can 
find and read. When one can't differentiate between science and politics 
that is called gullible. That is clearly you and you hope people reading 
you will likewise be as gullible.


>>>> Your leap to say that such things are and always will be
>>>> impossible for science to explain is babbling kook gibberish!
>>>>
>>>> So if THOUSANDS of people have seen "angels" or "demons" just as many
>>>> more than that have seen UFOs, certainly is a STRONG indication that
>>>> there some sort of phenomena there that needs explanation and
>>>> investigation. The idea of you and HVAC that you already KNOW what the
>>>> phenomena is is simply blustering little man ego. Exactly WHAT those
>>>> phenomena are is a different question.
>>>
>>> Explanation and investigation, fine. Go ahead and investigate it. It's
>>> just not SCIENCE. Not every investigation is science.
>>
>> So in your book psychology isn't a science. Got it. Just which things do
>> you allow to be science in your world?
>
> I didn't say a damn thing about psychology. If you're going to INVENT
> when you read, then it's plain why you have such a poor understanding of
> science.

You say things and haven't a clue what you've said and implied. That's 
called thinking, Boinker. Try it some time.

>> If every investigation is not science in your opinion, then perhaps you
>> need to explain to everyone just what makes a given investigation
>> qualify as science and another one not be science. Go ahead.
>>
>> We'll wait right here for you to figure it out.
>>
>
> Ben, I've described this dozens of times. Metaphysics is an
> investigation. It is not science. That's ONE example. Need fifty more?

This is meaningless babble, Odd. Sure give me 50 more. You've already 
stated that metaphysics is NOT a valid subject for science so therefore 
it's not even an "investigation"? You just wander from pillar to post 
making self-canceling statements and nothing rings a bell with you.

Please explain what the difference between an "investigation" and 
"science" is. (This is going to be good!)





-- 
         ___           ___           ___            ___
        /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
       /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
      /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
     /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
    /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
    \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
     \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
      \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
       \_:/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
                      \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#551998

BJ said
Boinker you not only have no clue about science, you have no clue 
period! How can the "scientific theory" of the creation be "predictive"? 
You think there will be "another" creation? Why is it termed "the" 
creation? For a publisher you don't understand English much do you? 
----------

First off, there was no creation. This is a term used by god believers. It tries to puts an end to any further attempts to discover how the universe formed. People like religious leaders and BJ use 'creation'. And once you buy into their creation myth, all other paranormal stories are on the table.

As for predictive science, I've given you my ideas regarding kooks.
Here are a few predictions....

1) No kook only holds one kooky belief. All kooks hold many crazy beliefs.

2) All kooks have engaged in homosexual behavior, either currently or in their past.

3) All kooks abuse illegal drugs.

Etc and so on

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#552051

On 02/10/2016 07:54 AM, HVAC wrote:
 > BJ said Boinker you not only have no clue about science, you have no
 > clue period! How can the "scientific theory" of the creation be
 > "predictive"? You think there will be "another" creation? Why is it
 > termed "the" creation? For a publisher you don't understand English
 > much do you? ----------
 >
 > First off, there was no creation. This is a term used by god
 > believers. It tries to puts an end to any further attempts to
 > discover how the universe formed. People like religious leaders and
 > BJ use 'creation'. And once you buy into their creation myth, all
 > other paranormal stories are on the table.

Cripes H&V, I've been making this point of no creation to Odd over and 
over and he ignores what people say as much as you do. He keeps talking 
about "the creation" and I asked him how he knows that there WAS a 
creation. No answer. And of course you are in your little world too 
using your superpowers to know that I "believe" in the thing I just 
questioned with Odd. You are totally irrational.

 > As for predictive science, I've given you my ideas regarding kooks.
 > Here are a few predictions....
 >
 > 1) No kook only holds one kooky belief. All kooks hold many crazy
 > beliefs.

Totally irrational.

Using superpowers to know the "beliefs" of ALL "kooks" so that you can 
know that NONE of them holds just one?

Totally irrational.

 > 2) All kooks have engaged in homosexual behavior, either currently or
 > in their past.

Projection. We all know you are gay but are still in the closet.
Gay is irrational as well. Same sex couples don't get pregnant.
Superpowers to know the sexual preference "all kooks" is irrational as 
well.  Come out of the closet HVAC.

 > 3) All kooks abuse illegal drugs.

Again. Evidence (may or may not be my belief) is that HVAC's total 
disconnect with reality is due to years of drug abuse (with accompanying 
denial,of course).

A lifetime of being a stoner, certain explains a torrent of irrational 
posts.


 > Etc and so on
 >

Etc. means continuing mental illness and babbling nonsense.




-- 

       ___           ___           ___            ___
      /\  \         /\  \         /\__\          /\  \
     /::\  \       /::\  \       /::|  |         \:\  \
    /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:|:|  |     ___ /::\__\
   /::\~\:\__\   /::\~\:\  \   /:/|:|  |__  /\  /:/\/__/
  /:/\:\ \:|__| /:/\:\ \:\__\ /:/ |:| /\__\ \:\/:/  /
  \:\~\:\/:/  / \:\~\:\ \/__/ \/__|:|/:/  /  \::/  /
   \:\ \::/  /   \:\ \:\__\       |:/:/  /    \/__/
    \:\/:/  /     \:\ \/__/       |::/  /
     \::/__/       \:\__\         /:/  /
      ~~            \/__/         \/__/

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web