Did you check the calculations yourself?
No credit awarded if you don't show all steps and partial results.
In a standard scientific report, there is a section on materials and methods which allows anyone with suitable background and resources to confirm or deny the conclusions of the experimenters.
In this case, I'm highly suspicious that there are errors in the unchecked results. It is a repeatedly observed phenomenon that the devout will slant/fabricate data in order to confirm their preferred conclusions. My default position is that this is what has occurred.
My time is too valuable to look for where the fudging took place. Even if this investigation was done honestly, the argument that coincidences happen is valid. A true positive result is only circumstantial evidence of supernatural intervention of any kind. After that you still have to show which god, devil or impersonal ectoplasmic instantiation did it.
No credit awarded if you don't show all steps and partial results.
In a standard scientific report, there is a section on materials and methods which allows anyone with suitable background and resources to confirm or deny the conclusions of the experimenters.
In this case, I'm highly suspicious that there are errors in the unchecked results. It is a repeatedly observed phenomenon that the devout will slant/fabricate data in order to confirm their preferred conclusions. My default position is that this is what has occurred.
My time is too valuable to look for where the fudging took place. Even if this investigation was done honestly, the argument that coincidences happen is valid. A true positive result is only circumstantial evidence of supernatural intervention of any kind. After that you still have to show which god, devil or impersonal ectoplasmic instantiation did it.
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat? 
