(September 12, 2017 at 9:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 8:43 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:
It's amazing the amount of mental gymnastics you guys perform when faced with scientific evidence that doesn't support your world view..

What "world view" is that exactly?  Rational skepticism?  

I'll ask you again.  Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?  I find it highly more probable that the light was caused by something natural rather than supernatural, because I know of many, many sources of natural light that actually exist.  This shouldn't be so hard, Hugz.

Indeed last checked rational and critical thinking was not a world view .

(September 12, 2017 at 9:04 pm)Tizheruk Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 9:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What "world view" is that exactly?  Rational skepticism?  

I'll ask you again.  Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?  I find it highly more probable that the light was caused by something natural rather than supernatural, because I know of many, many sources of natural light that actually exist.  This shouldn't be so hard, Hugz.

Indeed last checked rational and critical thinking was not a world view .

 Yep.  Trying to shift some of that burden of proof over to us.    About what I've come to expect from the Hugster.

(September 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 9:04 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Indeed last checked rational and critical thinking was not a world view .

 Yep.  Trying to shift some of that burden of proof over to us.    About what I've come to expect from the Hugster.

He has stated it many times in this thread.


In response to my asking him, "how did you go about eliminating all possible natural explanations?", he said, "I'm all ears".

As if it is our burden of proof to disprove his supernatural claims.

And the sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to understand the flaws in that thinking.

(September 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 9:04 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: Indeed last checked rational and critical thinking was not a world view .

 Yep.  Trying to shift some of that burden of proof over to us.    About what I've come to expect from the Hugster.

You may expect ten more pages of the same until the thread Steve started is so hopelessly derailed that no one will see any point in continuing. Then a year from now, Huggy will link to this thread as "evidence" of how atheists duplicitously dismiss his alleged evidence of the supernatural, and the whole fucking thing will start over.

(September 12, 2017 at 9:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  Yep.  Trying to shift some of that burden of proof over to us.    About what I've come to expect from the Hugster.

He has stated it many times in this thread.


In response to my asking him, "how did you go about eliminating all possible natural explanations?", he said, "I'm all ears".

As if it is our burden of proof to disprove his supernatural claims.

And the sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to understand the flaws in that thinking.

Yep.  This is exactly what happens when your starting point for evaluating reality is, "The Bible is true."

And around and around it goes

(September 12, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You didn't see the report of the scientific testing that was done to the negative?

For the record, I've developed film myself.  All light sources produce the same chemical change in the film.  There is no way to determine from a negative what an unknown light source was, only that some sort of light hit that part of the film.  It could be anything from a reflection to a hairline crack somewhere in the camera body that caused a light leak.

From reading the report, it sounds very much like the testing consisted of checking the negative for signs of retouching (for instance, a smear of touch-up paint would create a white area on the print), and to see if it chemically resembled a negative developed according to standard procedures rather than a composite done in the darkroom. Nothing about the supernatural in the report, yet the people who commissioned the test immediately jumped to "Supernatural!  Holy Spirit! Miraclez!!!"

They're either gullible or dishonest.  Pick one.

Quote:They're either gullible or dishonest.  Pick one.

Or both to a degree .

(September 12, 2017 at 9:16 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 9:10 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:  Yep.  Trying to shift some of that burden of proof over to us.    About what I've come to expect from the Hugster.

He has stated it many times in this thread.


In response to my asking him, "how did you go about eliminating all possible natural explanations?", he said, "I'm all ears".

As if it is our burden of proof to disprove his supernatural claims.

And the sad thing is, he doesn't even seem to understand the flaws in that thinking.

Uh, no.

My response of "im all ears", was to your statement

"there are way too many possible natural explanations for all those events, to accept that the only explanation is a miracle"

I'm waiting to hear what the natural explanations are for why an unexplained source of light would just appear over someones head..

---

(September 12, 2017 at 9:02 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: What "world view" is that exactly?  Rational skepticism?  

I'll ask you again.  Since your own scientific source determined only that the cause of image was light, how did you reach the conclusion that the source of the light was the Holy Spirit?  I find it highly more probable that the light was caused by something natural rather than supernatural, because I know of many, many sources of natural light that actually exist.  This shouldn't be so hard, Hugz.

Spare me LFC, you have been shown to have a clear bias when it comes down to me disproving your fellow atheists position, you don't care about facts at all, your position is to deny at all costs, and I'm not speaking of the supernatural here either, I'm speaking of just ordinary things that are easily provable.

If you want evidence of that, I be more than happy to oblige..

---

(September 12, 2017 at 9:52 pm)Astreja Wrote:

(September 12, 2017 at 8:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: You didn't see the report of the scientific testing that was done to the negative?

For the record, I've developed film myself.  All light sources produce the same chemical change in the film.  There is no way to determine from a negative what an unknown light source was, only that some sort of light hit that part of the film.  It could be anything from a reflection to a hairline crack somewhere in the camera body that caused a light leak.

From reading the report, it sounds very much like the testing consisted of checking the negative for signs of retouching (for instance, a smear of touch-up paint would create a white area on the print), and to see if it chemically resembled a negative developed according to standard procedures rather than a composite done in the darkroom.  Nothing about the supernatural in the report, yet the people who commissioned the test immediately jumped to "Supernatural!  Holy Spirit! Miraclez!!!"

They're either gullible or dishonest.  Pick one.

There is one major flaw with your theory (besides the fact that it's pure speculation), It ignores the testimony of people the saw it with their own eyes...







At 5:34 of the audio recording William Branham asking someone:

"Can't you see that light? The amber light like you see in the picture... There it is it's right over the lady. it's moving around."

Huggy, I just read in the Wikipedia article on Branham that he taught -- among other *ahem* interesting things -- that Eve and the serpent had intercourse and their union produced Cain. This sounds suspiciously close to some similar nuttery you've spewed here before. Is Branham your source for your interpretation of the garden tale?