Debunking Miracles: C/D?

A lot of fuzzy details on my part, I know, but I haven't thought about crop circles for quite a while.

This is cool, whatever it is.

In hoaxes, the grain stock in broken or damaged, in actual crop circles the stock is bent over but neither bruised nor damaged. There are as many as six layers of the crop interwoven, which would be impossible to hoax. This also proves that it all happens together. Using manmade methodology it’s only possible to do one layer. Under an electron microscope analysis it was noted that the molecular make-up of the plant cells of the affected grain had a crystalline structure change. Some of these circles are also so complex (see the picture at right) that it would take an architect to design the thing and a crew of workers days to complete them. from http://www.newageinfo.com/crop_circles.htm

Of course, why would anyone believe something on NewAgeInfo.com, right? That's not where I read it before, but it is the same basic statement. So, is this bullshit myth being spread far and wide or do these crop circles exist? Anyone know?

Maybe not a complete fabrication, but you always have to be careful in that world. If the article was written by a believer, of course he'll find evidence to support his belief. And if written by a complete skeptic, he'll find absolute proof of a hoax. The middle path (of Charles Fort) keeps an open mind and realizes there are possibly experiences outside of our current ken.

but when a guy is a columnist at our newspaper and has a venue and therefore at least some sort of responsibility to write, well, responsibly about issues, and he uses this venue to suggest that we should take rocks that respond to human emotion seriously, this guy and whatever his sources are need to be debunked for all to see and then fired. it's ridiculous. this kind of debunking is classic and should be mandatory.

totally got high and listened to this just last night. totally underrated prog classic man.

"and he uses this venue to suggest that we should take rocks that respond to human emotion..."

how so? by correcting human error and showing us the divine truth (depending on your denomination and preferred interpretation)?

Frankly, I'm all for debunking. Looking for what might be beyond what science can currently prove etc is great, but there's way too many nutjobs and cynical guys out there for me to believe in much of it.
Then again, I subscribe to two skeptics mailing lists, so y'know... I sure as fuck will never call myself a "bright" though. Worst word ever.

Anyone noticed that if you take a thick old bible and put it down on its spine, it will open to the same page every time!? It's because every bible has a ghost attached to it that is trying to tell you something by pointing you to that page.

Part of being on guard is to look at the what was told beforehand (i.e. the Bible) also to look towards human reason.

Part of being on guard is to look at the what was told beforehand (i.e. the Bible) also to look towards human reason.

Yeah, but "astray" from what? How you interpret the Bible is, well, a matter of interpretation.

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Miz3IlMRfVsJ:depts.washington.edu/ctltstaf/cc/images/cropcircles.jpg
Giant worm

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:xG3en157GPIJ:fantastiquephoenix.free.fr/images%2520site/cropcircles/crop_circles_1/images/WindmillHill_3_jpg.jpg
Intelligent chess-playing weevils

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:L2XdcoVVsBAJ:www.ananova.com/images/web/28112.jpg
Propellerheads software malfunction

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:L2Zqx_97OUYJ:www.cropcircles.net/July182002Windmillhill.jpg
Spot for giant old lady to place giant drink

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Jy7hDQgZXVYJ:ufocasebook.com/midale2.jpg
Lazy teenagers

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:3mS219eRlPsJ:www.glastonburysymposium.co.uk/images/DSCF0019-b.jpg
How pilots remember which way they're going

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:rIFKezRxcGEJ:photovni.free.fr/cropcircles/images/46_jpg.jpg
How Egyptian pilots remember which way they're going

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:HEb4b6MOLmEJ:www.ufoitalia.net/000_0739%2520copia.jpg
Massive fart

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:XGdWuLIM0fcJ:www.vtiwaregem.be/volwassenenonderwijs/cartoons/crop_circles.jpg
???

Medjugorje
Fatima
Lourdes
Garabandal
& coming soon to a tortilla near you!

re:AP, where is a good comprehensive list of what is included as parts of Science?

AAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!

[img on another site]

David: ... We leave you tonight with that footage of that thrilling miracle from Sao Paulo, Brazil--The spitting Madonna.

[The clip is of a Madonna statue spitting, more like drooling. Mary-Lynn clings to it, kissing it.]

[Cut to clip of the Pipe Smoking Apostle, in Grovers Corners, New Mexico. Smoke is coming out of the pipe and those around it are praying.]

[Cut to clip of the Miraculous Money Eating Madonna, in Rome, Italy. People are stuffing folded bills into it's mouth.]

ihttp://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/galaxy.jpg
http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmiccrops.htm

"[It] makes the claim that real UFO encounters are of a more super nature occurrence and are usually experienced by people who have a connection with the Occult. That these experiences are of demonic origins. Before you scoff at this idea keep in mind that idea of UFOs as we know them became popularized as the human race pioneered space travel. Pervious to then, people claimed to have seen "air ships" at the turn of the century and "fairies" and other mystical beings before then."

"Wheels in the sky."

"Ladder of Lights."

Hmm... makes you think. Oh, no wait, I forgot who I'm talking to. No, it doesn't.

Are you trying to be obtuse?

http://www.tarotinstitute.com/free/bota/Devil.gif

Clarke's First Law:

"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong."

Clarke defines the adjective 'elderly' as :"In physics, mathematics and astronautics it means over thirty; in other disciplines, senile decay is sometimes postponed to the forties. There are of course, glorious exceptions; but as every researcher just out of college knows, scientists of over fifty are good for nothing but board meetings, and should at all costs be kept out of the laboratory". (in Profiles of the Future.)

Clarke's Second Law:

"The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible."

Clarke's Third Law:

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Thought he wrote after the laws that "Since three laws was sufficient for both the Isaacs - Newton and Asimov - I have decided to stop here", he continued to write laws, as we can see in the Appendix 2 of The Odissey File where he states th e Clarke's 69th Law:

"Reading computer manuals without the hardware is as frustrating as reading sex manuals without the software."

-- Elvis Telecom (quartzcit...), October 6th, 2005.

boredom?

the suggestion about using the bible as a good source for debunking miracles is reminding me of that mr. show sketch where they're deprogramming david out of the cult of the bob and bring on the minister who says (paraphrasing) "david, there's no heaven's chimney, or rassleberry waterfalls. but there are big golden gates in the clouds and all your friends and pets will be there, etc...."

-- andrew m. (westernis...), October 6th, 2005.

OTFM. its like trekkies making fun of star wars nerds or star wars nerds making fun of tolkien geeks!

it's a... flash mob... or something.

Once the bare possibility of miracles is accepted, it becomes impossible to debunk them using any known form of science, logic or rationality. Any debunking is always subject to the retort that God may suspend any physical law at His pleasure. This is childishly easy to assert and impossible to confute.

The reason this childish position doesn't satisfy most of us is that it requires a whimsical and arbitrary God, who uses the universe like a personal yo-yo.

So if I go and write a book saying that hundreds of people have seen Ned Raggett bringing minor indie bands back from the dead and feeding five thousand radio listeners with a single burrito, does that mean that he's the son of God?

well, it would need to manifest itself to be the Word of God, by its majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very word of God.

(that's from the Westminster Larger Catechism)

So, I don't see why *I* shouldn't have a shot at it too.

It is also written that Herakles ascended to Mt. Olympos as a demi-god in front of many witnesses. In any village in ancient Greece, the inhabitants could point out stones, trees, caves and other features where various local gods had been seen and had accepted a drink of water from a local maiden or such like. Modern day Irish still see leprechauns from time to time. You may choose to believe these claims or not, as you are so inclined.

If those examples don't meet your fancy, then consider that, based purely on the number of convincing details accumulated and recorded about him, Robinson Crusoe must have been a real person. Or reflect on the fact that in any modern war both sides make claims about the results of battles that cannot both be true - and yet each side finds believers in its claims. And who believes what can usually be predicted based on where the interests of the believer lie.

You want to believe the Bible. Fine. Just realize that the evidence you cite is only conclusive if the conclusion comes first and the argument in its favor is retrospective.

Mohammed was illiterate ace, he recited the Quran.

How are you saying "We will be able to explain how this works" to, for example, the existence of credible witnesses to Jesus feeding 5000. You could make a conclusion first (that it is physically impossible) and argue in its favor in retrospective.

Or a good way to debunk miracles is with research; study of historical or scientific evidence.
(But I admit I am first making a conclusion, based on faith, that it is impossible to debunk some certain miracles)

The position of not believing in miracles is equal to saying "we will be able to explain this". In the case of modern, physical miracles, such as weeping statues, it's equivalent to saying "we will be able to explain how this works". In the case of Biblical miracles, there is so little evidence that they actually occurred that we do not need to explain possible mechanisms by which they might have literally happened. We can explain it in other ways - for example, that the Biblical description is metaphorical, not a literal description of a physical event.

why is it unreasonable to think that there are some things man can't explain. It is reasonable to think that there are some places man can't go, or some sounds man can't hear.

You missed my point. It was that miracles may be believed or not believed - no more and no less. Any position from which a miracle may be 'debunked' is also a position that does not allow miracles to exist at all.

If you wish to conflate "miracle" with "a puzzling and unexplained phenomenon", then you will certainly not understand my argument, as it requires these two ideas to be differentiated.

For example, Noah's flood is not physically possible without recourse to a miracle that supended physical law. The same is true of the sun standing still in the sky over Jericho. These events require miracles - fairly massive ones at that.

In contrast, the stigmata of St. Francis do not violate physical law and might have been produced by explicable means, although the exact explanantion for them is not certain. Flesh wounds are a common phenomenon that don't require recourse to a miracle. (However, if you choose to attribute the stigmata to the direct intervention of God or God's angels, then you're talking miracle, sure enough.)

Once you say "miracle", all evidence flies out the window. Since there are literally no limits to what might be true, there is absolutely no way to interpret the evidence. God might have tampered with time, or the objects, or the witnesses, or even with your own mind - so nothing can be relied on to reflect any known reality.

The Bible is full of evidence about historical and even miraculous events.

but still, Is it unreasonable to think that there are some things man can't explain?

"It is unreasonable to believe that there are some things which are physically inexplicable by their very nature."

Why does it have to be through an objective measuring instruments giving reproducible results?

What objective measuring instruments do we have that can detect that that kind of detection is the only kind of detection, and give reproducible results?

It is not unreasonable. But it begs the question. I personally hesitate to put my faith in the inerrancy of the text of the Bible, because believing every word of the Bible would require me to believe things about God that I find repellent and profoundly unwholesome.

Police, jurors, and prosecutors rely on eyewitness identifications in many cases. Since 1908, a relatively small group of psychologists whose research focuses on the limitations of witness accuracy and potentially preventable hazards to tapping those memories has been urging legal professionals to consider their ideas.

But the wheels of justice turn slowly, and doubly so when it comes to changing “the way we’ve always done it.”

In the 1970s, Elizabeth Loftus made some gains in proving how easily eyewitnesses' memories could be contaminated. In one experiment, she showed subjects a film of a car accident, then asked half of them, among other things, how fast the sports car was going when it passed the barn (there was no barn). The other half was asked how fast the sports car was going on the country road. Loftus discovered that almost 20 percent of those questioned about the barn remembered seeing a barn. After an interval (not defined in this book), when the same subjects were questioned again about the car and the barn, “even the group that had been asked about but denied seeing a barn in the first round showed an increased likelihood of saying that they had seen a barn when the question was repeated.”

Because that's the only way you can ensure that your results are genuine.

My heart tells me that you are an argumentative moron who doesn't actually believe a word of the things he says. It's subjective, though. So I might be wrong.

That wasn't my point. My point was that to accept that miracles exist, you have to accept that there are some physical phenomena that we cannot possibly explain. Not just that we can't explain them *now*, but that they are entirely inexplicable by their nature.

Simply Christianity is the most reasonable out of all of them. (I am considering God the author of reason here, so it is too circular and unreasonable for man, but not for God.)

Why?

do you have examples of such things or you are just saying this for... whatever reason

"I don't know what happened" != "physiologically inexplicable"