Does anyone believe supernatural rubbish?

[otolith]

Rawwr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Disastrous said:

That or they thought bees were ghosts.

No, they thought it was the ghosts of dead bees helping to hold up the living ones.

What held up the first bee then, smart arse? Hmm? HMM!?

It's bees all the way down.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Rawwr said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Disastrous said:

That or they thought bees were ghosts.

No, they thought it was the ghosts of dead bees helping to hold up the living ones.

What held up the first bee then, smart arse? Hmm? HMM!?

It probably hitched a ride on the ghost of a dead bird!

[Rawwr]

otolith said:

It's bees all the way down.

I was so hoping someone was going to say that

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Rawwr said:

What held up the first bee then,

Now to give the scientific answer to this question, evolution shows us that there never was a first bee, or a first man, or a first anything. Perhaps there was a first microbe, at the point life started. it's one of the remarkable things about evolution that people struggle to get their heads around.

[drainbrain]

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

[otolith]

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

Are you trolling, or does this help?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-...

[SpeckledJim]

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

Don't start.

Once something is a Scientific Theory, that means it fits with absolutely everything we know, and has never been contradicted.

'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'idea' or 'guess' like it does in colloquial English. It means, basically, 'Fact'.

(There is no Theory of the Supernatural, because the evidence (zero) doesn't meet the bar)

[SilverSixer]

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

Yes, so is gravity, in some regards. Wanna disprove that one?

Using the word "just" with "theory" in scientific terms shows that you don't understand the word "theory" in the context under discussion.

It goes: Hypothesis > Theory > Law. And even that's misleading. Theory is pretty close to Law in many cases.

I'm not even a scientist, and I get this. I'm a soft arsed Arts Faculty graduate.

[ATG]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The "physics says bumble bees can't fly" nonsense has been around for years. Probably started due to the fact that a bumble bee isn't a traditional shape for a flying thing. Mind you, neither is a stag beetle.

Having watched a few, I think Stag Beetles don't really believe they can fly and are amazed and panic stricken when they see their feet are no longer on the ground. They probably think they're being abducted by aliens.

[drainbrain]

SpeckledJim said:

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

Don't start.

Once something is a Scientific Theory, that means it fits with absolutely everything we know, and has never been contradicted.

'Theory' in science doesn't mean 'idea' or 'guess' like it does in colloquial English. It means, basically, 'Fact'.

(There is no Theory of the Supernatural, because the evidence (zero) doesn't meet the bar)

So the Big Bang Theory (given the contradictions plasma cosmology and the steady state model throw up) isn't a 'real' theory (ie.fact) anymore?

[ATG]

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

It's really more the conclusion of a simple argument than a theory in the same sense that "a ball will tend to roll down hill" is the conclusion one arrives at by considering the geometry of a ball and a theory of gravity. If a ball isn't rolling down a hill, then something may be actively stopping it from doing so. Same goes for evolution; given inheritance of characteristics and mutation and competition, then evolution will take place unless something else ("woo", for example) is actively intervening to stop it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SilverSixer said:

Yes, so is gravity, in some regards. Wanna disprove that one?

Using the word "just" with "theory" in scientific terms shows that you don't understand the word "theory" in the context under discussion.

It goes: Hypothesis > Theory > Law. And even that's misleading. Theory is pretty close to Law in many cases.

I'm not even a scientist, and I get this. I'm a soft arsed Arts Faculty graduate.

A scientific law is something that's an observable fact. Ice melts at room temperature would be a scientific law.
Explaining why it melts, what happens to the atoms and their structure etc, would be the scientific theory. But we know what happens, and we know it's true. Even though it's a theory

The law of gravity is stuff falling. The theory of gravity is about object mass and it's pulling effect on stuff around it.

So people who say "evolution is just a theory", in a derogatory way, are idiots. That's a law, we can see they are idiots. What makes them an idiot would be hypothesis.

[jmorgan]

otolith said:

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

Are you trolling, or does this help?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/just-a-...

Great Green Arkleseizure, prove me wrong.

[drainbrain]

ATG said:

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

It's really more the conclusion of a simple argument than a theory in the same sense that "a ball will tend to roll down hill" is the conclusion one arrives at by considering the geometry of a ball and a theory of gravity. If a ball isn't rolling down a hill, then something may be actively stopping it from doing so. Same goes for evolution; given inheritance of characteristics and mutation and competition, then evolution will take place unless something else ("woo", for example) is actively intervening to stop it.

Can't argue with that and it's certainly easy to understand how the T of E arose.

But it doesn't wholly preclude the possibility of optional explanations regardless of how fanciful they may seem.

[SpeckledJim]

drainbrain said:

ATG said:

drainbrain said:

Isn't 'evolution' still just a theory?

It's really more the conclusion of a simple argument than a theory in the same sense that "a ball will tend to roll down hill" is the conclusion one arrives at by considering the geometry of a ball and a theory of gravity. If a ball isn't rolling down a hill, then something may be actively stopping it from doing so. Same goes for evolution; given inheritance of characteristics and mutation and competition, then evolution will take place unless something else ("woo", for example) is actively intervening to stop it.

Can't argue with that and it's certainly easy to understand how the T of E arose.

But it doesn't wholly preclude the possibility of optional explanations regardless of how fanciful they may seem.

Indeed it doesn't. But until you can demonstrate them, it's just woo.

And if it contradicts established Theory or fact (like the concept of ghosts does), then it's ridiculous woo, until you can demonstrate it.

Ghosts - if you can demonstrate where the light comes from that a ghost witness has sensed with his eyes, then that's some awesome science. You won't even need to prove it's the tortured soul of a Cavalier - just explain the light.

If you can't, then it's woo.

Lots of the explanations we KNOW would once have seemed fanciful. Lots of the quantum stuff STILL seems bloody fanciful to a pea-brain like me. But it's demonstrable and measurable. So I can place my faith in it, even if I personally can't see it or test it.

[otolith]

drainbrain said:

But it doesn't wholly preclude the possibility of optional explanations regardless of how fanciful they may seem.

It's impossible to preclude the possibility that existence blinked into being on the whim of a deity, fully complete and in its present state, a microsecond before you read this. Your entire identity and every memory you have would be a fabrication. It's not a falsifiable hypothesis, nor a particularly useful one to pursue.

[drainbrain]

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect 'normal' science from the 'normal' world to be able to measure/prove/examine etc. supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

These things by definition may not adhere to the usual laws/theories/rules etc. So expecting the usual laws/theories to apply to them may not be wholly reasonable.

Like aliens, 'things paranormal' may well be verifiable at some time in the future. At which point, of course, they will no longer be 'paranormal' any more.

[smn159]

drainbrain said:

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect 'normal' science from the 'normal' world to be able to measure/prove/examine etc. supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

My dog is studying for a Phd in maths. Obviously not Human maths, but he attends a dog maths school when I'm at work. There's no evidence for this and 'science' tells us that dogs don't have the capacity for hard sums but I'm open minded enough to realise that it's just a matter of time before we can tune in properly to the dog world.

You'll see.

[Rollin]

drainbrain said:

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect 'normal' science from the 'normal' world to be able to measure/prove/examine etc. supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

These things by definition may not adhere to the usual laws/theories/rules etc. So expecting the usual laws/theories to apply to them may not be wholly reasonable.

Like aliens, 'things paranormal' may well be verifiable at some time in the future. At which point, of course, they will no longer be 'paranormal' any more.

When 'normal' people say they hear/see/feel the paranormal with their 'normal' senses, then science from the 'normal' world should prove adequate.

[Disastrous]

Rollin said:

drainbrain said:

I don't think it's necessarily reasonable to expect 'normal' science from the 'normal' world to be able to measure/prove/examine etc. supernatural or paranormal phenomena.

These things by definition may not adhere to the usual laws/theories/rules etc. So expecting the usual laws/theories to apply to them may not be wholly reasonable.

Like aliens, 'things paranormal' may well be verifiable at some time in the future. At which point, of course, they will no longer be 'paranormal' any more.

When 'normal' people say they hear/see/feel the paranormal with their 'normal' senses, then science from the 'normal' world should prove adequate.

Yes, but don't forget that the 'normal' people who believe this hogwash don't *actually* think they are normal. They reckon they are chosen or special somehow, as it gives them a handy distraction from the otherwise banal and average lives they lead. Why don't ghosts choose captains of industry, or politicians or even the monarchy to manifest themselves in front of, preferring instead, David from the call centre or Carol the unemployed 'medium'?

Could it be that these people have fk all else going on so like to have a 'spirit world' to fall back on??