ManusJustus said: highwaystar101 said: Why do people think ancients thought the Earth was flat? I've never understood that, it's been common knowledge that it's round for a long time. The Bible says the Earth was flat, an idea the Hebrews borrowed from the earliest Babylonian myths. The Catholic Church pushed this idea  because of references Jesus made about a flat Earth, which is why people assume all ancients though this.  To the contrary, the ancients had known for a long time that the Earth was round from the shadow it cast on the moon and the way sailors see objects on the horizon.  Eratosthenes even measured the diameter of the Earth centuries before Jesus was born.

Is that so? Show me where in the Bible it says this, because I guarantee that nowhere does it say "the Earth is flat."

Kasz216 said: SciFiBoy said: ManusJustus said: Concerning angels, demons, ghosts, alien visitors, and the like; they do not exist, but people can easily convince themselves that they do. If somebody wants to believe something, they will. thank you, thats exactly what I was saying. It's certaintly a convient position anyway, when you can't come up with a conclusion to what would move a giant metal door... in the presense of people who actually would perfer NOT to believe in random things such as ghosts and demons. There are legitimate unexplainable things that occur though rare. Ignoring them is just the same as deluding yourself in believing in your "pet" expeirece you want to exist. Like Alien abduction people. You are no better then those people if you believe there is nothing that happens that can not be currently explained.

Unless something is repeatable and verifiable it should not be considered. Every single story of 'angels' or 'demons' is anecdotal, there are no controlled studies and no verefied reports. They are almost all witnessed by reasonably small groups and are more easily explained by psychological effects rather than by otherwordly forces.

Claiming that we are deluding ourselves because we don't believe an anecdote told by somebody who we don't even know is silly.

Rath said: Kasz216 said: SciFiBoy said: ManusJustus said: Concerning angels, demons, ghosts, alien visitors, and the like; they do not exist, but people can easily convince themselves that they do. If somebody wants to believe something, they will. thank you, thats exactly what I was saying. It's certaintly a convient position anyway, when you can't come up with a conclusion to what would move a giant metal door... in the presense of people who actually would perfer NOT to believe in random things such as ghosts and demons. There are legitimate unexplainable things that occur though rare. Ignoring them is just the same as deluding yourself in believing in your "pet" expeirece you want to exist. Like Alien abduction people. You are no better then those people if you believe there is nothing that happens that can not be currently explained. Unless something is repeatable and verifiable it should not be considered. Every single story of 'angels' or 'demons' is anecdotal, there are no controlled studies and no verefied reports. They are almost all witnessed by reasonably small groups and are more easily explained by psychological effects rather than by otherwordly forces. Claiming that we are deluding ourselves because we don't believe an anecdote told by somebody who we don't even know is silly.

That's not really true.  A number of sciences rely on stuff that can't be strictly repeatble due to their nature.  In addition, it's rather hard to repeat something when you don't know the exact cause.  In fact most theories are formed and often supported WELL before any expierment is concieved that could or could not prove it.

As for verifiable... that I could eaisly accomplish.

I'd like to see someone come up with a scientific explanation for dowsing. It's repeatable and verifiable, and it is not a scientific practice whatsoever... yet it still works consistently. The data even baffles scientists. Why are there people in Sri Lanka who are able to walk around with y-shaped pointy sticks and find underground water reserves at a success rate of 96%?

bimmylee said: I'd like to see someone come up with a scientific explanation for dowsing. It's repeatable and verifiable, and it is not a scientific practice whatsoever... yet it still works consistently. The data even baffles scientists. Why are there people in Sri Lanka who are able to walk around with y-shaped pointy sticks and find underground water reserves at a success rate of 96%?

Dowsing finds water reserves with a 96% success rate?

Forgive me, but I think that is rubbish. First off the Wikipedia article you supplied has a whole section on evidence, which states repeatedly that all major studies have found that dowsing is no more accurate than chance; the results are not statistically significant in any way. The other article you provide states that JREF are offering a $1.1 million prize if someone proves dousing, and yet the prize still stands. The prize has stood since 1998, so in nearly 12 years no one has proved it, despite the person who can prove it becoming a very rich man. If it was provable I could guarantee someone would have claimed that prize.

I decided to investigate further and look on Google scholar for studies conducted on dowsing. It turns out that there is pretty much no statistical evidence suggesting that dowsing is effective.

In 1971 Foulkes conducted a study into dowsing, his results showed that Dowsing was "Entirely consistent with chance and shows no evidence of being able to detect water".

In 1999 CSI published this report on the Munich dowsing experiments, comparing the perfect results to the actual results, and let's just say it's not good for dowsing. It pretty much confirms that dowsing is based on guess work. Here's a soundbite from it.

"Examination of the data indicates that such an interpretation can only be regarded as the result of wishful thinking. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a set of experimental results that would represent a more persuasive disproof of the ability of dowsers to do what they claim. The experiments thus can and should be considered a decisive failure by the dowsers."

Anyway, I wont bore you by just posting papers, but you're more than welcome to look for yourself. Dowsing is nothing more than chance, the results are nowhere near significant enough to prove dowsing works.

I'm a fairly open minded man when it comes to science, I like to examine the evidence, look at it critically and base my opinion on what seems most logical to me. From just a short period of research I can already see that dowsing holds no scientific validity; you can test dowsing and the tests repeatedly come up negative.

no, even though is very interesting to read information about mithology especially the greek and the celtics.

@Kasz

It's very difficult to come up with an answer when we weren't there, so no need to call SciFiBoy delusional. But there are tons of answers. Also, just because science can't explain something now doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation.

tombi123 said: @Kasz It's very difficult to come up with an answer when we weren't there, so no need to call SciFiBoy delusional. But there are tons of answers. Also, just because science can't explain something now doesn't mean there isn't a natural explanation.

A) sure it is... i've presented the facts... if there is a reasonable explination it's easy to come up with. B) "Supernatural" and natural are largely made up terms. In cases of the "supernatural" you'll note the first thing people try to do is measure it with scientific devices, with those new PK meter type things that detect some kind of static or whatever, the setting up of microphones... etc. It's really more a case of discovered and undiscovered. There is a lot yet undiscovered to be so vain as to call everything hallucinations. C) He has no problem calling millions of people dellusional when he infact wasn't there. I don't see the difference.

bimmylee said: Is that so? Show me where in the Bible it says this, because I guarantee that nowhere does it say "the Earth is flat."

Here's a simple read that should clear it up for you.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

I don't know why I try though, as I highly doubt you would even bother to read the link, choosing prideful ignorance over humiliating knowledge.

ManusJustus said: bimmylee said: Is that so? Show me where in the Bible it says this, because I guarantee that nowhere does it say "the Earth is flat." Here's a simple read that should clear it up for you. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm I don't know why I try though, as I highly doubt you would even bother to read the link, choosing prideful ignorance over humiliating knowledge.

Once again... your translating it wrong.  I've actually show this to you before.

Regardless the catholic Church didn't think the earth was flat. 

You know... it actually says in the bible where the Earth was round, but your going with an alternate definition of something that also just means earth.

This is the second time i've had to clear this up for you.