|
well, that was interesting...
Not much, to be honest, to do with Natural Selection having met its match, but I don't suppose you can have everything.
Tom: as usual, you give the appearance of evading certain challenges. Often you cite the pressure of work relating to studies. I quickly checked how many words you posted over the course of two hours yesterday, in this thread alone: just shy of 1600 words - not counting bits that you had pasted from other contributors. That's a lot of verbiage. I haven't checked today's outpourings, but there's a lot of typing there, sure enough. Typing a lot of words is not a substitute for meaningful content.
I am regularly amused by the way that you describe yourself as "too busy" with other significant things to answer a specific point, and then you go on to write another couple of hundred words.
I loved this chunk:
Something funny was going on there, I feel. I cannot argue that, to the point of a logical conclusion, but I can make intuitive leaps based on the available information, which tells me that at least some of the disappearances were possibly paranormal. And this is not so unreasonable given the recent argument that cosmic wormholes are scientifically possible, and given the reported instances of 'time slips' in other parts of the world. There are 'strange' things on land, and I see no reason why there wouldn't be 'strange' happenings in the water as well.
Something "funny" going on, that you admit you cannot discuss logically, and which you can only explain by using "intuitive leaps" (is that the same as guessing?).
"at least some of the disappearances were possibly paranormal" at least some?
possibly paranormal? what happened to all that certainty?
Sounds like doubt is setting in....
Until you have read them, one by one, you cannot say whether they are reliable or not. When we write about the Druids we 'depend' on Caesar.
Actually no. On that specific point, I have always taken Caesar's account of the Druids with a large pinch of salt. The Romans systematically suppressed the Druids in Gaul and in Britain. Anything that the arch self-publicist Caesar tells us about them has to be scrutinised, and examined against any other sources we can.
This one though, has me foxed: When something is "unexplained" : a known man walks into a room, seen by witnesses. We go into the room: he is not there. There is no other doorway but the one he entered. There are no 'secret' doors: and this can be proven. In this situation, the 'unexplained' is synonymous with 'paranormal.' So you see, your theory that "no explanation" cannot lead to "paranormal occurence" is quite simply wrong.
OK, but has this vanishing man thing actually happened? No. I don't think it has. And indeed, if such a thing were to have occurred under properly supervised scrutiny, and it could be repeated, then maybe we could agree that there is a phenomenon here we don't understand.
But that hasn't happened. There are acceptable, sensible, ordinary explanations for the events you describe. But it would appear that prefer to you use an intuitive leap to seize the outlandish and un-scientific explanation. Many people prefer the idea of paranormal to normal, and I can sympathise. I can only sympathise with the tendency, not the conslusions
|