Creation vs. Evolution

[Sam48]

I believe it was/is called the "Soul Theory", like Joey said. Basically, religion has nothing to do with it. It has to do with conscientiousness, and whether or not it ever expires.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sorry to say I do not have the reference for the claim on death wieght measurement, but I have heard and seen it cited more than once over the years. I don't think it was the one already listed.

I doubt seriously if my interpretation would be accepted even if I did.

To what in the AUP are you referring?

This part of the AUP.....

You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

...and no one is questioning an interpretation of anything, you clearly stated that it had been scientifically proven, as such you should be able to provide a source for such proof. If not then why claim it as carrying scientific proof if you are only aware of it from hearsay and conjecture? To do so would certainly strike me as falling into the misleading category.

No offence here, but does the AUP really apply to someone's opinion? And if you are going to throw the AUP around at SCJ, shouldn't you do the same for members saying their is no soul? Where's the evidence there?

While I don't agree with SCJ on the fact that there is a measurable soul, there has been research done to support the theory. The merit of the research can be questioned for sure, but it is still research however daft you may think it is.

Had it just been opinion then no, however a claim of scientific proof was made, as such it is not unreasonable to ask for a source for that. It however would seem that such a claim was made without the basis of being able to provide proof.

As for the material provided lending support to the theory, sorry but on that I would have to disagree completely, to then describe it as scientific proof would be inaccurate by any common understanding of what defines scientific proof.

On the subject of proving the lack of a soul (or lack of anything for that matter) is an impossible request (prove I don't have a pink beard and own an eight foot tall cat called Clyde). You can however prove the existence of something, and as SCJ made the claim of scientific proof for a measurable loss of weight at the time of death, then the burden of providing such proof falls to him.

Scientific proof as with other so named theories is open to interpretation.

Just to be clear are you saying that proof and theory are one and the same?

I don't see anything to suggest this experiment wasn't conducted Scientifically.
Thanks for your support.

A sample size of six people, two of which the doctor admits were not usable due to issues with his own methodology, with no control, results that varied within the true sample size of four and which has never been able to be repeated by any of his peers. Peer review has also never validated this claim at all.

I see plenty to suggest that this experiment was far from conducted scientifically.



Scaff

 

[Joey D]

This part of the AUP.....

I fully expect you to say that to everyone in this thread that makes such claims, actually anyone in the opinion forums. For all we know Darwinian evolution could be completely false. There is no way to prove it, just as there is no way to prove there isn't a soul. I will give you that their is more then likely more evidence based on the theory evolution, but it's not like providing research is really going to define anything.

Had it just been opinion then no, however a claim of scientific proof was made, as such it is not unreasonable to ask for a source for that. It however would seem that such a claim was made without the basis of being able to provide proof.

As for the material provided lending support to the theory, sorry but on that I would have to disagree completely, to then describe it as scientific proof would be inaccurate by any common understanding of what defines scientific proof.

On the subject of proving the lack of a soul (or lack of anything for that matter) is an impossible request (prove I don't have a pink beard and own an eight foot tall cat called Clyde). You can however prove the existence of something, and as SCJ made the claim of scientific proof for a measurable loss of weight at the time of death, then the burden of providing such proof falls to him.

Prove Darwinian evolution to me. Prove to me the Earth is solid. Prove to me just about any scientific theory. The fact is you can't. You can certainly provide evidence to support such claims, and I agree their is a lot of evidence out there. I fully believe in Darwinian evolution based on what I've learned and studied, but it's just that, a belief. I can't say that it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have no idea whether my ancestors came from a hominid for sure.

There isn't proof of a lot of things when it comes to science, all it is is our interpretations of results we find through experiments. Dr. Duncan MacDougall performed an experiment and had finding, which he used to argue a hypothesis. While I don't agree with his hypothesis, I still believe he conducted science. He had his hypothesis, his experiment design and used different variables...that right there is the bases of science.

SCJ didn't say anything false, he used a hypothesis, experiment and findings to justify his point. As I've said I don't agree with those findings at all and think there are probably flaws that could be pointed out in the experiment...but then again you could do that with most experiments. It's what makes good science right?

 

[Scaff]

I fully expect you to say that to everyone in this thread that makes such claims, actually anyone in the opinion forums. For all we know Darwinian evolution could be completely false. There is no way to prove it, just as there is no way to prove there isn't a soul. I will give you that their is more then likely more evidence based on the theory evolution, but it's not like providing research is really going to define anything.

You will find the very few who have made a claim that Evolutionary theory can be proved beyond any doubt have already been corrected and called out in this very thread.

Those who know and understand the theory are quite clear on that and regularly provide peer reviewed and validated information to support the theory. What the do not do it cite it as scientific fact and that approach is quite consistent, as is the use of this part of the AUP by the staff in numerous sub-forums across these boards.

Prove Darwinian evolution to me. Prove to me the Earth is solid. Prove to me just about any scientific theory. The fact is you can't. You can certainly provide evidence to support such claims, and I agree their is a lot of evidence out there. I fully believe in Darwinian evolution based on what I've learned and studied, but it's just that, a belief. I can't say that it's true beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have no idea whether my ancestors came from a hominid for sure.

There isn't proof of a lot of things when it comes to science, all it is is our interpretations of results we find through experiments. Dr. Duncan MacDougall performed an experiment and had finding, which he used to argue a hypothesis. While I don't agree with his hypothesis, I still believe he conducted science. He had his hypothesis, his experiment design and used different variables...that right there is the bases of science.

SCJ didn't say anything false, he used a hypothesis, experiment and findings to justify his point. As I've said I don't agree with those findings at all and think there are probably flaws that could be pointed out in the experiment...but then again you could do that with most experiments. It's what makes good science right?

First quote me claiming that I believe that the theory of evolution can be factually proven, or for that matter any scientific theory.

You see the rather large difference here and the point you seem to be missing by a mile is that I am not claiming scientific proof for anything. SCJ however did, and as such the burden of proof for that claim lies with him.

As for Dr. Duncan MacDougall experiments, the flaws in his experimental design are quite clear, the most obvious (and easily verified as he includes it in his findings) is a sample size of FOUR. I have already listed other areas that it would be classed by any standard of experimental validity to be flawed. However the sample size alone is enough to render it invalid.

In closing SCJ did make a false statement, he stated (and has been quoted as saying) that it has been scientifically proven that the body looses mass at the exact moment of death. Even Dr. Duncan MacDougall findings (flawed that they are) does not validate that, as two of his four test lost some or all of the weight after death, not at the moment of death.

Now if he can provide proof that the statement is true, and as was claimed to be scientific proof I would expect a peer reviewed paper that meets the basics of experimental validity to be the least one is able to provide.

Lets keep in mind here that all I am asking for is proof of a quite clear claim that was made, the claim was not mine, and as such the burden of providing that proof lies with the one who did make it.

Either that or simply retract the claim of it being scientific fact.


Scaff

 

[Touring Mars]

I fully expect you to say that to everyone in this thread that makes such claims, actually anyone in the opinion forums. For all we know Darwinian evolution could be completely false. There is no way to prove it, just as there is no way to prove there isn't a soul.

No way to prove Darwinian evolution false? You could not be more wrong. As for proving stuff to you, you know well enough that 'proving a theory' is something of a misnomer - but there is ample proof that the facts that are being used to construct that theory are real. That humans are genetically related to other species is one such fact, not a hypothesis, not a theory, but a cast iron, take it to the bank fact. That has been proved. That fact is evidence that the hypothesis that humans are distantly related to other species is true. And that is just one of a massive plethora of facts that goes into making the theory of evolution. Various hypotheses that stem from evolution theory may not be quite so unequivocally verified, and some are/will be harder to test than others, but the fact remains that, at every step of the way, evolution theory is falsifiable - easily falsifiable in many cases. The core tenets of evolution theory have been verified and vindicated time and time and time again, and so far, no evidence to comprehensively refute the theory has come to light. As such, one could be forgiven for describing evolution theory as factual in its own right, and most scientists do. Yes, you may be literally correct to say that a theory cannot be proven completely correct, but to suggest that this means that the facts cannot speak for themselves is disingenuous to say the least.

Either way, I believe Scaff's point was that the term 'scientifically proven' was both misleading and inaccurate when referring to the existence of souls. I would love to see the evidence and the theory that describes souls, but I'm not going to waste my time looking for it, but then again, I didn't say that there was such evidence or such a theory...

 

[SuperCobraJet]

...and no one is questioning an interpretation of anything, you clearly stated that it had been scientifically proven, as such you should be able to provide a source for such proof. If not then why claim it as carrying scientific proof if you are only aware of it from hearsay and conjecture? To do so would certainly strike me as falling into the misleading category.

Had it just been opinion then no, however a claim of scientific proof was made, as such it is not unreasonable to ask for a source for that. It however would seem that such a claim was made without the basis of being able to provide proof.

As for the material provided lending support to the theory, sorry but on that I would have to disagree completely, to then describe it as scientific proof would be inaccurate by any common understanding of what defines scientific proof.

On the subject of proving the lack of a soul (or lack of anything for that matter) is an impossible request (prove I don't have a pink beard and own an eight foot tall cat called Clyde). You can however prove the existence of something, and as SCJ made the claim of scientific proof for a measurable loss of weight at the time of death, then the burden of providing such proof falls to him.

Just to be clear are you saying that proof and theory are one and the same?

I'm saying everything is open to interpretation.

A sample size of six people, two of which the doctor admits were not usable due to issues with his own methodology, with no control, results that varied within the true sample size of four and which has never been able to be repeated by any of his peers. Peer review has also never validated this claim at all.

I see plenty to suggest that this experiment was far from conducted scientifically.

Scaff

You may see any number of things any number of ways, just as others here do.


If you insist, as it appears you do, let me state it for you this way:

It meets my burden of what would constitute Scientific proof.

 

[Scaff]

I'm saying everything is open to interpretation.

Doesn't really answer my question.

You may see any number of things any number of ways, just as others here do.


If you insist, as it appears you do, let me state it for you this way:

It meets my burden of what would constitute Scientific proof.

Would you be so kind as to expand on this in regard to what you would say constitutes scientific proof.



Scaff

 

[arora]

The existence of a soul cannot be scientifically proven I guess but what would the purpose of that be anyway? Unless I'm really missing the boat here I don't see all the hub ub.

From a biblical stance, In itself nephesh, or soul, implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In the sense of self-conscious life animals also have "soul." (Scofield)

So what is it, Psyche? Defined by that which breaths? I've seen soul used to describe inanimate objects as well, like a river has 'soul', meaning life, or character of it's own.

So what, some people claim they have no soul? Silly, it's not something specifically religious forced upon anyone.

As far as a soul having any weight or other form of measure, I don't see how it could, science can define a soul or study it, I never knew it was denounced because it cannot be proven to exist, if that makes any sense.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Doesn't really answer my question.





Would you be so kind as to expand on this in regard to what you would say constitutes scientific proof.



Scaff

At this point I think I would rather say this:

The last place I would have ever expected to see a Witchhunt initiated
would be of all threads, this one.
Wherein latitude is certainly the order of the day, for obvious reasons.
Or obvious to most anyway.

Hows that.

 

[ell470]

The existence of a soul cannot be scientifically proven I guess but what would the purpose of that be anyway? Unless I'm really missing the boat here I don't see all the hub ub.

From a biblical stance, In itself nephesh, or soul, implies self-conscious life, as distinguished from plants, which have unconscious life. In the sense of self-conscious life animals also have "soul." (Scofield)

So what is it, Psyche? Defined by that which breaths? I've seen soul used to describe inanimate objects as well, like a river has 'soul', meaning life, or character of it's own.

So what, some people claim they have no soul? Silly, it's not something specifically religious forced upon anyone.

As far as a soul having any weight or other form of measure, I don't see how it could, science can define a soul or study it, I never knew it was denounced because it cannot be proven to exist, if that makes any sense.

The "Soul" discussion spun off from the "Near death experience" discussion that spun off from the "Beliefs" discussion which very much so were religious

 

[Famine]

If you insist, as it appears you do, let me state it for you this way:

It meets my burden of what would constitute Scientific proof.

It says in the Bible that Jesus smelled of brie and killed baby sparrows for fun.

Well, it says it in my Bible anyway. Someone wrote it in the blank pages at the end.


See how that doesn't really wash? You stated that "Its also been Scientifically proven that at the instant of death, a person loses a few ounces of wieght." and then postured upon what that could mean. You need to demonstrate that it has been scientifically proven, not that someone said it once and you accepted it as being true. These are two different concepts - just as in the example above, one is a wholly insulting, inaccurate misrepresentation and the other is an irrelevance, but is at least true.


Incidentally, someone should lose about 2g of weight at the moment they die as their lungs lose their functional residual capacity.

 

[Dotini]

scientific proof.

"Scientific proof" is likely a misnomer or oxymoron. Proofs do apply well to mathematics, however.

To continue my education and fruitfully occupy my time in retirement, I've been reading a lot of science books, papers, and high-level physics forum posts recently. In my limited experience, seldom is the word "proof" encountered in publications or forum talk by actual scientists, engineers and physics students.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It says in the Bible that Jesus smelled of brie and killed baby sparrows for fun.

Well, it says it in my Bible anyway. Someone wrote it in the blank pages at the end.


See how that doesn't really wash? You stated that "Its also been Scientifically proven that at the instant of death, a person loses a few ounces of wieght." and then postured upon what that could mean. You need to demonstrate that it has been scientifically proven, not that someone said it once and you accepted it as being true. These are two different concepts - just as in the example above, one is a wholly insulting, inaccurate misrepresentation and the other is an irrelevance, but is at least true.

My contention is if it meets my burden of proof, then it is not knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate to state it that way.
I was incorrect apparently about the measure of weight.

Incidentally, someone should lose about 2g of weight at the moment they die as their lungs lose their functional residual capacity.

How so since there is no change of matter, only the expulsion of air.
From the lungs that is.

 

[arora]

The "Soul" discussion spun off from the "Near death experience" discussion that spun off from the "Beliefs" discussion which very much so were religious

It was not an attempt to take anything out of context and what you bold'd in my post was not a personal attack to whomever posted they had no soul. I think whatever it is that makes us alive is very relevant to the convo, maybe even the chore of the debate, having a soul is one way of defining it is all 👍

If we were discussing music and someone brought up say James Brown and that lead to SRV somehow, I can clearly see why someone might say this guy...

Has no soul But come to think of it in real life I think he just might.

 

[Famine]

My contention is if it meets my burden of proof, then it is not knowingly false, misleading, or inaccurate to state it that way.

That's not the same as "Its also been Scientifically proven that...". Just the same as graffiti in my Bible isn't the same as "It also says in the Bible that...".

"I've heard it said that..." would be fine. "I read somewhere that..." would be fine. "It's also been scientifically proven that..." is not.

How so since there is no change of matter, only the expulsion of air.
From the lungs that is.

Air is matter. The damp, warm air in the lungs weighs about 1.1 grams per litre volume and functional residual capacity in an average man is 2.4 litres, which is about 2.6 grams. Not everyone who dies is an average man - some have more capacity, but most (average woman, children) have less. "About 2g" is close enough an approximation for me.

 

[Scaff]

At this point I think I would rather say this:

The last place I would have ever expected to see a Witchhunt initiated
would be of all threads, this one.
Wherein latitude is certainly the order of the day, for obvious reasons.
Or obvious to most anyway.

Hows that.

It seems rather like evasion to a perfectly reasonable series of questions to me.

I'm more than happy to acknowledge latitude when it comes to opinions, however when a claim of proof is made on a subject I have an interest in then I'd quite like to have access to the proof. Without access to the source material how are we able to discuss it?

That you then expressed that the experiments carried out by Dr. Duncan MacDougall meet your "burden of what would constitute Scientific proof. " I simply asked you to expand on what this consists of.

Given that this thread (and your own posts) have often centred around the definition of proof, particularly that of scientific proof, I fail to see how me asking for clarification of what you believe constitutes scientific proof could be considered to be a witch-hunt?


Now I do understand that you may be reluctant to expand on this because some may reasonably then expect you to apply the same standard of what you state would constitute Scientific proof to the testing of evolutionary theory as well as the work of Dr. Duncan MacDougall.

Just a thought.


Scaff

 

[SuperCobraJet]

That's not the same as "Its also been Scientifically proven that...". Just the same as graffiti in my Bible isn't the same as "It also says in the Bible that...".

"I've heard it said that..." would be fine. "I read somewhere that..." would be fine. "It's also been scientifically proven that..." is not.

You are talking about two entirely different things.
If you knowingly stated that the Bible said thus and it is not part of the text,
then it is knowingly false.
If I believe something to have scientific merit, how is it false to state it.
In hindsight, it would have been better to word it differently.
As I have already stated, quite frankly, I do not believe this has anything to do with the splitting of AUP hairs.

Air is matter. The damp, warm air in the lungs weighs about 1.1 grams per litre volume and functional residual capacity in an average man is 2.4 litres, which is about 2.6 grams. Not everyone who dies is an average man - some have more capacity, but most (average woman, children) have less. "About 2g" is close enough an approximation for me.

Thats still a lot less than 21.

 

[Famine]

In hindsight, it would have been better to word it differently.

This is about the measure of it.

It is not, to my knowledge, scientifically proven that people lose weight at the instant of death. It may have been reported at some point that it occurs - though aside from the dog-killing freak, which you said wasn't your source, I don't recall it being cited in this thread.

Thats still a lot less than 21.

Yes. A tenth of it, in fact.

 

[Dapper]

A lot of bodily function can happen after death.

 

[Dotini]

I do not believe this has anything to do with the splitting of AUP hairs.

Speaking as a friend of the court as well as one who has long ago gone on record here as affirming evolution as the best current explanation of descent of species, I would like to point out that SCJ is a valued and accomplished member of our forum, makes his posts politely, and seems to value the AUP in all respects. He is no flamer or troll.

Also, in this Opinions and Current events forum, and even more so in this Creation vs Evolution thread, the very strictest levels of moderation with regard to acceptability and standards of evidence should probably not be enforced to the degree that old and honored forum members are sanctioned or cited with any but the most minor of infractions.

Finally, I would point out that he is obviously in a tiny minority here, and inasmuch as he argues his points with only moderate forcefulness and success, he should be allowed to fit in to the village.

Respectfully submitted to one and all,
Steve,

 

[Scaff]

Speaking as a friend of the court as well as one who has long ago gone on record here as affirming evolution as the best current explanation of descent of species, I would like to point out that SCJ is a valued and accomplished member of our forum, makes his posts politely, and seems to value the AUP in all respects. He is no flamer or troll.

Also, in this Opinions and Current events forum, and even more so in this Creation vs Evolution thread, the very strictest levels of moderation with regard to acceptability and standards of evidence should probably not be enforced to the degree that old and honored forum members are sanctioned or cited with any but the most minor of infractions.

Finally, I would point out that he is obviously in a tiny minority here, and inasmuch as he argues his points with only moderate forcefulness and success, he should be allowed to fit in to the village.

Respectfully submitted to one and all,
Steve,

No one is disputing your main point, no infraction or even formal warning has been given in regard to the matter, only a reminder that should information be posted as factual or proven (rather than opinion, belief or conjecture) then the source of that material should be provided to ensure all are able to study and reply to it. Material presented as factual needs to be backed up if requested, otherwise it runs the risk of being miss-leading.

I do however disagree that we should have lower standards of evidence in regard to this part of the forums and this thread in particular. A great deal of discussion in this very thread is based around the accuracy of evidence to support various theories (on both sides). Given that I personally think that a high standard of evidence for any factual claim should be required.

Once again please keep in mind I am discussing anything claimed to be factual or proven, not opinion.


Scaff

 

[Dotini]

I do however disagree that we should have lower standards of evidence in regard to this part of the forums and this thread in particular. A great deal of discussion in this very thread is based around the accuracy of evidence to support various theories (on both sides). Given that I personally think that a high standard of evidence for any factual claim should be required.

Well, on second thought, maybe you're actually right about that. To elevate standards is always desirable! Thanks for the work that you do, Scaff.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[SuperCobraJet]

It seems rather like evasion to a perfectly reasonable series of questions to me.

You seem to seem a lot of things others don't seem to seem.

I'm more than happy to acknowledge latitude when it comes to opinions, however when a claim of proof is made on a subject I have an interest in then I'd quite like to have access to the proof. Without access to the source material how are we able to discuss it?

I must admit I fell short in this area.
I believe there was a similar test regaurding this, but I rarely save any references.
In this thread, for the most part, it would automatically be rejected anyway.

That you then expressed that the experiments carried out by Dr. Duncan MacDougall meet your "burden of what would constitute Scientific proof. " I simply asked you to expand on what this consists of.

Because its not Scientific enough, or not judged as proof by you is wholly irrelevant.
Doesn't mean that it isn't Scientific or Scientific enough for someone else.
21 grams is 21grams.
It has to constitute something.
If its not the spirit then what is it?

Given that this thread (and your own posts) have often centred around the definition of proof, particularly that of scientific proof, I fail to see how me asking for clarification of what you believe constitutes scientific proof could be considered to be a witch-hunt?

Your accusation that I "knowingly made a false, misleading, or inaccurate post", and continuing to press it, after I told you it met my burden of Scientific merit, clearly makes me question your motive in the insistance of trying to split AUP hairs. I have never ever seen this accusation made against anyone in this thread or the other Opinion threads.

Apparently your not near as picky about proof in the accusatory realm as the Scientific.

Now I do understand that you may be reluctant to expand on this because some may reasonably then expect you to apply the same standard of what you state would constitute Scientific proof to the testing of evolutionary theory as well as the work of Dr. Duncan MacDougall.

Granted they are somewhat similar in nature however what Dr. Duncan MacDougall did is a step or two ahead of what could be done with Evolutionary Theory.
Evolution can't be tested in real time, so there is no way to advance it proof wise.
There is change in realtime but no where near enough to match what is claimed.
Dr. Duncan MacDougall got the change to match the claim, but bear in mind testing an invisible entity is obviously more difficult and problematic. Consequently a small gap was still left for interpretive contradiction.

Just a thought.

Scaff

Ultimately, what constitutes proof, Scientific or otherwise is wholly up to individual interpretation, opinion, evaluation, and belief.
This thread is a running testament of that.

Speaking as a friend of the court as well as one who has long ago gone on record here as affirming evolution as the best current explanation of descent of species, I would like to point out that SCJ is a valued and accomplished member of our forum, makes his posts politely, and seems to value the AUP in all respects. He is no flamer or troll.

Also, in this Opinions and Current events forum, and even more so in this Creation vs Evolution thread, the very strictest levels of moderation with regard to acceptability and standards of evidence should probably not be enforced to the degree that old and honored forum members are sanctioned or cited with any but the most minor of infractions.

Finally, I would point out that he is obviously in a tiny minority here, and inasmuch as he argues his points with only moderate forcefulness and success, he should be allowed to fit in to the village.

Respectfully submitted to one and all,
Steve,

The Great Dotini

Eloquent as ever.
Words cannot express my gratitude for such kind words of support.
Thankyou always.

 

[theotherspongey]

I believe that we were not created by a "higher being" but by the big bang.
👍 for science

I feel awkward after reading all the complex posts above me o.o
*walks away now*

 

[ell470]

It was not an attempt to take anything out of context and what you bold'd in my post was not a personal attack to whomever posted they had no soul. I think whatever it is that makes us alive is very relevant to the convo, maybe even the chore of the debate, having a soul is one way of defining it is all 👍

If we were discussing music and someone brought up say James Brown and that lead to SRV somehow, I can clearly see why someone might say this guy... Has no soul But come to think of it in real life I think he just might.

That's not what I meant, I never said you personally attacked anyone, neither did I read your post that way

I simply pointed out that in this discussion the soul was being discussed as a religious thing, an argument for creationism

 

[dylansan]

Evolution can't be tested in real time, so there is no way to advance it proof wise.
There is change in realtime but no where near enough to match what is claimed.

What do you think happens then? Do you think all these changes happen constantly but everything stays the same? Changes accumulate. If a creature has a child that is one step different, and that child has one that is another step different, that child is two steps different from the first. 1+1=2

 

[arora]

That's not what I meant, I never said you personally attacked anyone, neither did I read your post that way

Cool cool, ya know the interwebs communications and all, we understood each other all the while 👍

 

[Famine]

Ultimately, what constitutes proof, Scientific or otherwise is wholly up to individual interpretation, opinion, evaluation, and belief.

No. What constitutes scientific proof is very specific and not subject to individual whim. In fact that's part of the definition of it... That's what's being pointed out to you.

I believe there was a similar test regaurding this, but I rarely save any references.
In this thread, for the most part, it would automatically be rejected anyway.

You never know unless you try. You've made a claim and the claim needs evidence - without evidence anyone could claim anything. Part of the job of science is to evaluate the evidence for claims and if there is appropriate evidence for your claim it would be assessed, not rejected out of hand.

21 grams is 21grams.

Only if it's genuine.

It has to constitute something.

Only if it exists.

If its not the spirit then what is it?

Assuming the above two points to be correct, that's a good question - or at least the last three words are.

What you'd then do is make a guess as to what it is (you've guessed "the spirit"). Then you'd assume that you are wrong ("It's not the spirit") and design a test to prove that you are wrong. You're doing science!

 

[Scaff]

I must admit I fell short in this area.
I believe there was a similar test regaurding this, but I rarely save any references.
In this thread, for the most part, it would automatically be rejected anyway.

Yet we were not even given the opportunity to read a source, discuss it and come to our own conclusion.

Because its not Scientific enough, or not judged as proof by you is wholly irrelevant.
Doesn't mean that it isn't Scientific or Scientific enough for someone else.
21 grams is 21grams.
It has to constitute something.
If its not the spirit then what is it?

With a sample size of four, two of which did not show the same loss, nor did it occur at the exact moment of death.

Given that the 21 grams could be accredited to just about anything, including error in the equipment used, in reading it. Simply put the testing process is too limited and on too small a scale to even be certain what if any weight was lost.

Your accusation that I "knowingly made a false, misleading, or inaccurate post", and continuing to press it, after I told you it met my burden of Scientific merit, clearly makes me question your motive in the insistance of trying to split AUP hairs. I have never ever seen this accusation made against anyone in this thread or the other Opinion threads.

No I pointed out that making a knowingly false statement is an AUP violation and that a claim regarding a subject that could not be considered commonly agreed knowledge would need a source.

This part of the AUP has been used by the staff on a regular basis, in similar circumstances, across the entire board.

Apparently your not near as picky about proof in the accusatory realm as the Scientific.

A reminder is not an accusation, all you were asked to do was provide a source for you material. You have still not provided details pf the source, which (as I have repeatedly said) could be considered to be misleading.

I am just as picky in regard to the AUP, as if I could prove you made deliberately miss-lead members with your post this would not be a discussion in a thread, it would be a formal infraction.

Granted they are somewhat similar in nature however what Dr. Duncan MacDougall did is a step or two ahead of what could be done with Evolutionary Theory.
Evolution can't be tested in real time, so there is no way to advance it proof wise.
There is change in realtime but no where near enough to match what is claimed.
Dr. Duncan MacDougall got the change to match the claim, but bear in mind testing an invisible entity is obviously more difficult and problematic. Consequently a small gap was still left for interpretive contradiction.

Parts of evolutionary theory can be tested in real-time and have (flys once again), does it prove the whole of evolutionary theory? No, but then again no one has claimed that.

The things is those test have been repeated on a massive scale, and documented to standards that pass peer review and meet the agreed standard of what constitutes a valid test. That information has been linked to in this thread many, many times.

Those experiments far exceed the level of 'proof' Dr. Duncan MacDougall provided. Yet it would seem his work is acceptable to you, enough so that you draw the conclusion that a soul weighs 12 grams, which strikes me as quite a big disconnect from the standards you require of tests to any part of evolutionary theory.

Ultimately, what constitutes proof, Scientific or otherwise is wholly up to individual interpretation, opinion, evaluation, and belief.
This thread is a running testament of that.

No it is not, agreed standards exist for what consistories a valid experiment and / or test.


Scaff

 

[arora]

This thread has evolved into the 'what is required to be called scientific proof' thread.