Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence

[Thumpalumpacus]

I responded to the examples with what wsas

It is so easily verified that your comparison is irrelevant.

I was responding to the example with what was given and was supplied in a similar context (someone else making a claim).   It wasn't my comparison and I was only responding to the evidence of people making a claim, and not attempting further investigation.  If you are going to go that route, then I don't think that the claim it is raining outside, is comparable to the earth is round.  One takes more work to verify than the other.

How so? And how would your explanation comport with your earlier posts in this thread?

[bennyboy]

Do you only believe that which you can personally verify?

No. As I mentioned in the past, I believe what other people say if I have good information about how they establish their own beliefs. If they adopted them by culture, then I see little value in it (except cultural belonging). If they adopted them through good science, then when they say that "x molecule is introduced into a solution including y molecule, resulting in z molecule," then I will generally believe them. If they say, "I feeeeel the power of the loooooorrrrrd," then not so much, because I do not consider intuition a sufficient means of establishing truth.

   By the way, I think many have mistakenly assumed that I am looking to turn this into a thread showing evidence for God.... I'm gathering the arguments used against me here, to use against common descent evolution.  I have lots of new material, and best of all, I don't really have to investigate or understand the claims to use them.  Much less leg work involved.

Well, that makes you more interesting than I expected you to be. I look forward to seeing how your argument plays out, and I'm expecting a thread soon.

[robvalue]

Make sure you actually challenge the theory of evolution, and not a series of statements that the ToE does not make. I can't tell you how often that happens on this board. I'd suggest some prior research.

[Edwardo Piet]

Extraordinary convincing religious proof comes from extraordinary mental gymnastics.

Nope. Mental gymnastics may indeed be involved but there's nothing convincing about religion and there is no proof in it!

[ignoramus]

That's because you are not a religious Olympic quality gymnast!
They do quadruple backflips without cracking a sweat!

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah they sure as hell do.

My points still stand.

[Redbeard The Pink]

You know what? You're right? Extraordinary evidence is probably too much to ask.


How about one? Just one tiny, measly fucking shred of actual, empirical, convincing evidence of even one of your claims, and I'll believe you. Go ahead. I'll wait.

[robvalue]

The usual problem with religious claims (let's be honest, where else is this going... I have tried to ask) is that they are almost always untestable and unfalsifiable. That literally means there can be no conclusive evidence, for or against. That is a problem for the person making the claim to either sort out, or to stop making the pointless claim.

For example: "Jesus (assuming he existed) was the son of God."

"God answered my prayer."

"The devil has corrupted the world."

Unfalsifiable. Untestable. Useless.

If anyone doesn't understand this point, please ask and I will elaborate.

[Lemonvariable72]

If the same standard was applicable to "it's raining" and "god exists," we would be able to stick our head out the window, look up, and see both

In the context of the discussion all I am arguing for is that similar claims, should be treated fairly and consistently. I do agree, that where you can physically verify the claim for yourself, then it is good to do so. However for many thing is this large world, we cannot do that with.

Although according to some, in the Witness Evidence thread I started, your observation that it is or is not raining my not be reliable.

Then how about you start talking to other Christians first? And come back here when you all get your story straight.

[The Grand Nudger]

 I'm gathering the arguments used against me here, to use against common descent evolution.  I have lots of new material, and best of all, I don't really have to investigate or understand the claims to use them.  Much less leg work involved.

You're going to need evidence "against common descent evolution".  Argument alone will be insufficient.  In this case, it won't need to be extraordinary, any ordinary evidence will do, like the mountains of ordinary evidence suggesting common descent that you can find in every single living creature on earth....... As it stands, common descent is a -fact- for every species we've checked, but we haven't checked them all, and there may be an outlier out there.

Shouldn't be difficult, you only need to find a single subject of a single species of animal unrelated to the others. Go, do work.