17
   

Define "Evidence"

 
 
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 03:07 pm
@neologist,
Im also a professional bass fisherman. In bass fishin you have to know just how to diddleyour worm so as to draw up the smallmouth. In this case a carp who's off its meds will have to do.
Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 03:24 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Im also a professional bass fisherman. In bass fishin you have to know just how to diddleyour worm so as to draw up the smallmouth. In this case a carp who's off its meds will have to do.


You never plan past the last word you write, Farmerman. To pretend you set something up is so laughable...I'm surprised even someone like you would try it.

I imagine, though, actually setting up a situation is something you WOULD love to be able to do.

You'll have to diddle your worm a lot more before you become that proficient.

farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 04:55 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I got you didnt I?. Actually though, thats why I hadda drop down a few sub-orders to "carp". Bass are waay too smart. PS, youre typing in bold again. I see that as your "go to" call for help
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 05:24 pm
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
If you look up peer reviewed journal articles in physics, its amazing how much turns out to be assumed, even in empirical studies, and what a wide gap exists between the experiment and how it is characterized in popular science
.

Absolutely. But the more amazing thing is how frequently you see even highly regarded experts doing exactly the same thing that "popular science" does.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 05:41 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

I got you didnt I?.


No...you didn't.

You took one of your many cheap shots...and I am having a bit of fun with it.



Quote:
Actually though, thats why I hadda drop down a few sub-orders to "carp". Bass are waay too smart. PS, youre typing in bold again. I see that as your "go to" call for help


Nice try. But lame!

And I have continued using bold right along...although I may have missed one or two paragraphs somewhere.

And I certainly do not need help in dealing with you.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 05:43 pm
@layman,
worse, in popular science, because the authors are just seeking points of interest with which to sell their stories,( usually for subjects in which they have neither training nor experience), some very degreed and exprienced scientists are not above faking their entire work.

we usually only find out about it when someone tries to repeat it.



0 Replies
 
layman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 05:56 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Snide characterizations of my criticism of your holy roller angst don't alter that your motive


SNIDE CHARACTERIZATIONS, I TELLYA!!!!

VICTIMIZED, yet again, sho nuff.

There is some bitch here who can legitimately be accused of making "snide characterizations," but it aint Neo.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:19 pm
Ah-hahahahahahahahaha . . .

What a maroon . . .

neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
On the other hand . . .
There is a whole lotta diddlin goin on . . .
I've seen evidence of it.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,
I always thought the bold type was a symptom of presbyopia.
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:35 pm
@neologist,
but hes a catholic
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:35 pm
@neologist,
Quote:
I always thought the bold type was a symptom of presbyopia.


How dare you, Neo!? Frank aint no loud-mouthed Presbyterian.
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:37 pm
@neologist,
It's a symptom of Frank's frustration at being so commonly ignored.
Builder
 
  3  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:39 pm
@Setanta,
I thought he might be sight-impaired.

I don't mind a bold statement myself.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:39 pm
@layman,
layman wrote:
neologist wrote:
I always thought the bold type was a symptom of presbyopia.
farmerman wrote:
but hes a catholic
How dare you, Neo!? Frank aint no loud-mouthed Presbyterian.
Laughing
A lot of ass somethins made without evidence
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  4  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 06:51 pm
@Setanta,
Heh, this post is quite amusing. 25 thumbs up may be the all-time record.

http://able2know.org/topic/169651-8#post-4552129

Joe said:
Quote:
This thread has officially exceeded its irony quotient.
layman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Nov, 2015 07:04 pm
@layman,
Quote:
25 thumbs up may be the all-time record.


My bad. It's 26. Now.
0 Replies
 
layman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 01:46 am
Evidence?

Me: Prove it, Pig.
Pig: We have all the evidence we need, Layman.
Me: Prove it, Pig.
Pig: In fact we have a ton of evidence. You might as well fess up.
Me: Prove it, Pig.
Pig: It's absolutely overwhelming. A slam dunk. Fess up, and we might let you off with 20 years.
Me: Prove it, Pig.

Come trial day, they couldn't prove nuthin. Turns out all their witnesses just happened to be on vacation, know what I'm sayin?
0 Replies
 
puzzledperson
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 04:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Pardon me if I entered this sub-thread late and missed essential points from earlier comments.

Before one can discuss the possibility of "the existence of God" isn't it essential to define "God"?

I assume the term refers to something more than a creator per se. If the universe were the abortive creation of an immature cosmic artist a la Heinlein's "The Unpleasant Profession of Jonathan Hoag", or a lab experiment by a science-fiction alien, I don't see what the term "God" adds that distinguishes it from the role of mere creator.

Nor do I see the transcendence of "natural law" (i.e. supernaturalism) to be distinguishing, since in both of the above cases "natural law" is merely the subset of conditions determined in a particular universe by an entity acting within a much broader framework. "Supernatural" would then be a relative term.

If by supernatural it is meant phenomena which cannot be explained by science in its present form, that isn't saying much: it wasn't so long ago, after all, that something as mundane as television was inexplicable by then extant science.

How does one distinguish, in a categorical sense, between natural and supernatural phenomena, without an exhaustive and final understanding of all phenomena, both actual and hypothetical? Does anyone claim such knowledge, and is it epistemologically reasonable to assume that comprehensive knowledge is attainable in an absolute sense? If anything actually observed is reclassified as natural no matter how unusual, how can anything be supernatural? On the other hand, if what is commonly referred to as the natural order is simply a misunderstanding or delusion, perhaps everything is "supernatural".

What I'm trying to get at is what distinguishes the term "God" from subsidiary roles (e.g. creator) that could serve without superfluous cultural baggage if that was all that was meant.

Similarly, if relative powerfulness and capability was the criterion, surely a man would be a god relative to an ant or an amoeba. But then, why employ a term like god instead of something more mundane and sensibly desciptive?

The central aspect of culturally existing deity is that it seeks worship, or demands it, or accepts it. This strikes me as megalomaniacal. A parent is a creator, and may require some degree of obedience, but doesn't ask to be worshipped. A mentor may appreciate respect but also doesn't ask for worship. The attribute to me seems unpleasantly primitive. Why should a superior being demand worship? If a human scientist created some sort of minor beings to boss them around and demand veneration as a god, he would be deranged.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Tue 3 Nov, 2015 06:05 am
@puzzledperson,
Quote:
Why should a superior being demand worship?
Far from the OP but as long as we're here, it's interesting that the question of God often breaks down on this point. It's usually the thing that most offends people about the idea of a God.

I'm sure that someone will point out that this or that source defines 'worship' as roughly the equivalent of 'grovel before' but what if the definition is really simply 'to recognize'?
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Define "Evidence"
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/19/2022 at 10:55:27