Psychic abilities

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: onlyCOpunk
yes, i am psychic for reals

Really . What color are my eyes you browneyed devil.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Jeff7

Originally posted by: Eli
There's something there, IMO.

Most "psychics" are obviously going to be full of shit, but if you believe that we're animals like any other animal on the planet.. It's pretty obvious that they have a fairly innate "sixth sense".

Like when big storms are about to come in, or there's about to be an earthquake.

Or else the fact that a lot of animals have much better senses than us. Earthquakes can be preceded by low-frequency tremors, imperceptible to us, but not to animals. Storms are preceded by changes in pressure, and snow and rain have distinct smells.

They don't have a "sixth sense" - they have the same 5 senses we've got; ours just really really suck.

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer
I love the number of folks in ATOT who absolutely refuse to give credence to ANYTHING they can't touch, see or, measure. That's alright, I just lump you in with the deaf folks who believe they're not handicapped.

If something cannot be sensed nor measured, it stands to reason that it also has absolutely no effect on us. If it did affect us, then it could be sensed and measured.

Originally posted by: kranky
Everyone who believes in telekinesis, raise my hand.

Hmmm....trying....


<kranky's hand>

fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

</kranky's hand>

Crap, did that count as rape?

I can't sense or measure radiation with my sense, but it damn sure has an affect on me

He never said "with your senses" he simply said "measured". We can clearly and easily measure electromagnetic radiation, yet the powers of psychics "mysteriously" disappears when subject to unbiased testing.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
And also, never deal with absolutes when talking about science.

It may be highly improbable to the point of approaching impossibility, but all it takes is one freak out there to prove you wrong...

Absolutely. Find us the one freak. We scientists would be ecstatic to be proven wrong on this one. Problem is, as we've said, all these so called freaks turn out not to have any powers when we actually sit them down and test them.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
And also, never deal with absolutes when talking about science.

It may be highly improbable to the point of approaching impossibility, but all it takes is one freak out there to prove you wrong...

Absolutely. Find us the one freak. We scientists would be ecstatic to be proven wrong on this one. Problem is, as we've said, all these so called freaks turn out not to have any powers when we actually sit them down and test them.

I agree with your statement. However I am not willing to rule out the possibility completely. A scientific mind should be open even to seemingly absurd possibilities. Do I think about it normally? No. Because there are a million and one better explanations, such as "that person is delusional."

I file it under "highly improbable"

Which is different from "impossible"

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
And also, never deal with absolutes when talking about science.

It may be highly improbable to the point of approaching impossibility, but all it takes is one freak out there to prove you wrong...

Absolutely. Find us the one freak. We scientists would be ecstatic to be proven wrong on this one. Problem is, as we've said, all these so called freaks turn out not to have any powers when we actually sit them down and test them.

I agree with your statement. However I am not willing to rule out the possibility completely. A scientific mind should be open even to seemingly absurd possibilities. Do I think about it normally? No. Because there are a million and one better explanations, such as "that person is delusional."

I file it under "highly improbable"

Which is different from "impossible"

It's a semantic difference. When any competent scientist says something is "impossible" why are invoking a series of self evident assumptions:
1. The claim is inconsistent with a large body of existing evidence (and thus really unlikely)
2. There is no known mechanism which would allow this to happen
and / or
3. It would require other known mechanisms to be invalidated.

So, "duh"

No negative is absolutely impossible, but you'd be a fool to seriously entertain many notions without extraordinarily convincing new evidence.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: So
It's a semantic difference. When any competent scientist says something is "impossible" why are invoking a series of self evident assumptions:
1. The claim is inconsistent with a large body of existing evidence (and thus really unlikely)
2. There is no known mechanism which would allow this to happen
and / or
3. It would require other known mechanisms to be invalidated.

So, "duh"

No negative is absolutely impossible, but you'd be a fool to seriously entertain many notions without extraordinarily convincing new evidence.

It's my job to nitpick about semantics

 

[BUTCH1]

Anyone ever heard of Edgar Cayce? History channel had a special about him, the man was amazing..

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
And also, never deal with absolutes when talking about science.

It may be highly improbable to the point of approaching impossibility, but all it takes is one freak out there to prove you wrong...

Absolutely. Find us the one freak. We scientists would be ecstatic to be proven wrong on this one. Problem is, as we've said, all these so called freaks turn out not to have any powers when we actually sit them down and test them.

I agree with your statement. However I am not willing to rule out the possibility completely. A scientific mind should be open even to seemingly absurd possibilities. Do I think about it normally? No. Because there are a million and one better explanations, such as "that person is delusional."

I file it under "highly improbable"

Which is different from "impossible"

It's a semantic difference. When any competent scientist says something is "impossible" why are invoking a series of self evident assumptions:
1. The claim is inconsistent with a large body of existing evidence (and thus really unlikely)
2. There is no known mechanism which would allow this to happen
and / or
3. It would require other known mechanisms to be invalidated.

So, "duh"

No negative is absolutely impossible, but you'd be a fool to seriously entertain many notions without extraordinarily convincing new evidence.

The bolded part I think your not a sciensist. Its talked about all the time in the Bible.
You as a sciensist. Believes in evolution . The Bible gives it as number of generations . The day Adam was removed from eden the generations fullfilled to the return to eden By Adam is 5 1/2 days Thats 5,500 years. But God cuts short the time so none can know when. Not even the Word who was with God from the beginning. Theres way more to it but .Will stop there.

You as a scientist should be able to except the possiabilty threw your belief in evolution As the next step into mans development. The same as I do threw Faith. Without Faith Sir Tell Me how one could accomplish such feats threw evolution.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
The bolded part I think your not a sciensist. Its talked about all the time in the Bible.
You as a sciensist. Believes in evolution . The Bible gives it as number of generations . The day Adam was removed from eden the generations fullfilled to the return to eden By Adam is 5 1/2 days Thats 5,500 years. But God cuts short the time so none can know when. Not even the Word who was with God from the beginning. Theres way more to it but .Will stop there.

You as a scientist should be able to except the possiabilty threw your belief in evolution As the next step into mans development. The same as I do threw Faith. Without Faith Sir Tell Me how one could accomplish such feats threw evolution.

English please?

My head hurts from reading that. I'm not even sure what you are saying. I'm a Xian, albeit a somewhat skeptical one. I also believe evolution is the best scientific explanation for speciation. I am quite a fan of science and have taken as many science courses as some science majors.

It is not necessarily contradictory to Xian beliefs, unless you subscribe to a strict literalist interpretation (which IMO is a bit silly considering you are not reading the text in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Could God have created the world in 6 days? Sure, I believe it. If you're omnipotent you can do anything. Could he also have created everything using the mechanism of evolution? I don't see why not. 6 days, 6 trillion years, what's the difference to an omnipotent being?

Whatever the case, as a Xian I don't particularly dwell on how the world and its creatures came to be created. What is more important is that I acknowledge God as sovereign and Christ as the Savior of this poor sinner.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Spartan Niner
It is not necessarily contradictory to Xian beliefs, unless you subscribe to a strict literalist interpretation (which IMO is a bit silly considering you are not reading the text in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). Could God have created the world in 6 days? Sure, I believe it. If you're omnipotent you can do anything. Could he also have created everything using the mechanism of evolution? I don't see why not. 6 days, 6 trillion years, what's the difference to an omnipotent being?

It kind of makes a difference to us though as to what a "day" is. Look at the Mars Climate Orbiter: Lockheed Martin used English units. NASA, like the rational scientific world, uses metric. But nobody checked units. Oops, crash & burn.

When telling people about how long it took for you to do something, get your damn units straight. ANSYS didn't do very good with keeping units straight, but ANSYS Workbench, oooh, it's good with units, and that took less than a measly human lifespan to work out. I would expect an all-knowing entity to be capable of doing simple unit conversions.

What I don't get then is why he needed to "rest" on the 7th day. All-powerful, yet he ran out of energy?
All of humanity's deities are often exceedingly human in their behavior and faults. Curious, isn't it?