re: What do you consider as "irrefuteable evidence"? – Flame – HabitableZone

Flame

Recent posts

Recent posts

Fewer Transient Alerts coming BuckGalaxy November 2, 2026 5:48 pm (Space/Science)
This report from Congress came out last week... podrock November 1, 2026 11:22 pm (Current Events)
Happy Halloween podrock October 31, 2026 3:03 am (Off Topic)
Expect one hell of a recession/depression in 2027 Arrell October 31, 2026 1:16 am (Current Events)
Next week will get ugly.... Arrell October 30, 2026 2:02 pm (Current Events)
Sir Patrick Stewart. podrock October 30, 2026 11:52 am (Off Topic)
Bernie Taupin. A great interview podrock October 30, 2026 3:05 am (Off Topic)
A new Dwarf Planet? Arrell October 30, 2026 12:49 am (Space/Science)
John Wheeler's philosophy: "Beyond the Black Hole" RL October 17, 2025 5:00 am (Space/Science)
"Engage!" BuckGalaxy October 29, 2026 10:58 pm (Off Topic)

On this day in Flame

1 year ago (that week) Weighing the scales on Elon Musk 4 replies · Oct 31, 2025

Log in
Register

Flame » in reply to No...

re: What do you consider as "irrefuteable evidence"?

Johannes — 1/4/2007 12:21:25 AM (archived)

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (109 posts)

Symptoms of Pathological Skepticism. - Johannes - 1/3/2007 4:02:47 AM
- re: Symptoms of Pathological Behaviour (n/t) - Take two - 1/10/2007 12:04:26 AM
  - AGAIN-what would you do about it? - R.L. - 1/10/2007 3:04:15 AM
- Just for the record: - Hank - 1/9/2007 1:35:49 PM
  - Yes; and the imposter is Lindy - Robert Shepherd - 1/9/2007 5:35:06 PM
    - re: Yes; and the imposter is ........... - Lindy - 1/9/2007 9:42:07 PM
      - Who's who? - Jasper Sitwell - 1/10/2007 4:34:12 AM
        
        Chester...is that you? (n/t) - P. Rock - 1/10/2007 5:17:00 AM
      - Reluctantly.... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:57:20 PM
        
        You really think Lindy is a... - alcaray - 1/9/2007 10:24:54 PM
        
        See below- her post proves it... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:31:00 PM
        
        Come on, alcary - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:54:53 PM
        
        As the one who immediately said: "don't worry about it" when you published info about my identity... - alcaray - 1/9/2007 11:32:54 PM
        
        Don't be such a dunce - Lindy - 1/9/2007 10:01:55 PM
        
        I thought it was Hank. It wasn't. Not cool. - podrock - 1/10/2007 3:04:01 AM
        
        Let us examine this.... - ReaLy disgusted - 1/9/2007 11:42:13 PM
        
        I was willing to give you the benifit of the doubt - DISGUSTED R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:29:26 PM
        
        It seems the "ubermoderator" defends this... - double standards - 1/10/2007 2:47:32 AM
        
        You have lost your mind.... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:06:53 PM
    - "what would you do about it?" - R.L. - 1/9/2007 7:37:58 PM
      - re:A pleasant reply, in which I do not use the word MORON (aside from the title) - R.L. - (n/t) - Johannes - 1/9/2007 9:14:37 PM
        
        This makes sense in what way? (n/t) - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:20:09 PM
        
        re:Does your ranting and raving here make any sense? (n/t) - Johannes - 1/10/2007 5:42:55 AM
      - re: "what would you do about it?" - gbaikie - 1/9/2007 9:05:23 PM
- No... - R.L. - 1/3/2007 10:03:55 PM
  - re: What do you consider as "irrefuteable evidence"? (n/t) - Johannes - 1/4/2007 12:21:25 AM
    - Evidence that does not have a more logical explaination, evidence that PROVES the claim... - R.L. - 1/4/2007 12:26:05 AM
      - re: How do you know that all these people are lunatics. - Johannes - 1/5/2007 3:15:17 AM
        
        re: How do you know that all these people are lunatics. - R.L. - 1/6/2007 8:43:05 PM
        
        re: IF you were a scientist - Johannes - 1/7/2007 10:49:20 PM
  - Wow! - alcaray - 1/3/2007 10:08:55 PM
- In Defense of Pathological Skepticism. - Hank - 1/3/2007 2:33:16 PM
  - That's not "pathological" skepticism - Robert - 1/3/2007 6:56:46 PM
    - Hoagland, the one thing you can't say about him is that he doesn't Believe. - RL - 1/3/2007 11:12:16 PM
      - "Semantic"? - Robert - 1/4/2007 1:49:01 AM
        
        'Argument by dictonary definition' isn't an argument - Yeti - 1/8/2007 7:08:57 PM
        
        "And there, bunkie, I got ya: My definition of "lie" can be found in a dictionary. Where in the universe did you get yours?"..... Does the Mirriam-Webster dictionary count? You will, of course apolog… - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:47:54 AM
        
        BTW - Robert - 1/8/2007 6:10:26 PM
        
        Robert, admit it... - R.L. - 1/9/2007 9:11:58 AM
        
        Listen to the Yeti - Robert - 1/9/2007 6:20:01 PM
        
        Don't come tapping me on this - Yeti - 1/9/2007 6:33:45 PM
        
        What? - Robert - 1/9/2007 7:37:00 PM
        
        Yeah, Okay, yer right - Yeti - 1/9/2007 8:09:40 PM
        
        The moving hand, having writ, moves on... (n/t) - Robert - 1/9/2007 9:29:55 PM
        
        re: The moving hand better do something - R.L. - 1/9/2007 10:37:34 PM
        
        re: Don't come tapping me on this - Paul - 1/9/2007 7:05:31 PM
        
        oooookay, 'Paul' - Yeti - 1/9/2007 7:15:51 PM
        
        [deleted message] - Robert Shepherd - 1/9/2007 9:28:30 PM
        
        You might want to check out 'community' - ReaLly wondering - 1/9/2007 8:58:13 PM
        
        Attention Robert S, moderator: Cleanup on isle 'Flame' requested. - Yeti - 1/9/2007 8:12:40 PM
        
        re: Robert, admit it... - Yeti - 1/9/2007 4:32:20 PM
        
        re: Robert, admit it... - Paul - 1/9/2007 1:53:20 PM
        
        What a loon - Robert - 1/8/2007 6:07:11 PM
        
        OED online costs too much.... - R.L. - 1/8/2007 3:36:25 AM
        
        Another actual dictionary- not looking good for you, "Bunkie"... - R.L. - 1/8/2007 3:14:05 AM
        
        Oh, for heaven's sake. - Mary Anne - 1/8/2007 2:28:55 PM
        
        Merriam-Webster's dictionary (n/t) - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:54:35 AM
        
        Here is the link, "bunkie" - R.L. - 1/8/2007 2:51:10 AM
        
        Symptoms of Pathological Behavior (n/t) - Hank - 1/8/2007 3:47:37 AM
        
        Shame on you. - Friend of Hank's - 1/9/2007 2:19:44 AM
        
        Correction: - Friend of Hank - 1/9/2007 2:22:40 AM
        
        Yes, Damn it.... - R.L. - 1/4/2007 5:55:16 AM
        
        Nope - Robert - 1/4/2007 4:26:17 PM
        
        re: Nope - R.L. - 1/6/2007 8:25:34 PM
        
        Maybe "chronic gullibility" is the term we're looking for. - TB - 1/4/2007 11:50:49 PM
        
        I know you did not... - alcaray - 1/5/2007 8:29:07 PM
        
        Don't assume all statements are reversible. - TB - 1/6/2007 6:38:23 AM
        
        Love to see your statistics on that assertion. (n/t) - alcaray - 1/6/2007 7:38:33 AM
        
        re: I know you did not... - gbaikie - 1/6/2007 3:07:48 AM
        
        or vice-versa. (n/t) - podrock - 1/5/2007 5:05:15 AM
    - On the other hand... - TB - 1/3/2007 7:01:54 PM
      - Interesting question - Robert - 1/4/2007 1:24:13 AM
  - re: Perhaps you are not a PATHOLOGICAL skeptic. - Johannes - 1/3/2007 4:32:29 PM
    - Easter has been cancelled this year. They found the body. - Hank - 1/3/2007 6:26:25 PM
      - re: Perhaps I was wrong. - Johannes - 1/4/2007 12:15:08 AM
        
        No, I don't concede that. - Hank - 1/4/2007 2:14:57 PM
        
        re: You said: - Johannes - 1/5/2007 2:49:10 AM
        
        Unwilling suspension of belief - Hank - 1/5/2007 1:51:20 PM
        
        re: That is a good and rational post, except for - Johannes - 1/6/2007 12:45:00 AM
        
        re: Unwilling suspension of belief - Lindy - 1/5/2007 5:55:50 PM
        
        Anecdotal evidence - ER - 1/5/2007 11:27:46 PM
        
        re: Anecdotal evidence - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:19:22 AM
        
        re: Unwilling suspension of belief - McFly - 1/5/2007 7:02:24 PM
        
        C'mon McFly - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:28:50 AM
        
        My bad - McFly - 1/6/2007 8:11:32 PM
        
        "The evidence we do have of UFOs is all unverifiable, from unqualified witnesses" - Lindy - 1/4/2007 4:23:17 PM
        
        re: "Do you concede that UFO's don't necessarily violate any known physical laws?" - alcaray - 1/4/2007 1:02:19 AM
        
        re: You say that..... - Johannes - 1/4/2007 6:37:50 AM
        
        I said nothing of the kind. - alcaray - 1/4/2007 4:30:06 PM
        
        re: The question was... - Johannes - 1/4/2007 10:50:28 PM
        
        You need to read the sentence after "Well of course they do!" as well. (n/t) - alcaray - 1/5/2007 12:16:12 AM
        
        And now that I think of it, go back and read what I said about hovering again. - alcaray - 1/4/2007 4:34:20 PM
        
        re:It seems obvious that you misunderstand me totally. - Johannes - 1/5/2007 1:18:01 AM
        
        Where I stand on UFOs (rec room, usually), and 2 !great! links - alcaray - 1/5/2007 8:09:16 PM
        
        Did you read Professor Lilienfeld's piece that I linked to? - alcaray - 1/6/2007 12:07:03 AM
        
        re: I found it interesting - Johannes - 1/6/2007 5:28:01 AM
        
        Yes, a little more than half - Lindy - 1/6/2007 12:31:28 AM
        
        re: Hey Lindy I need your advice - Johannes - 1/6/2007 1:57:33 AM
        
        Your question - Lindy - 1/6/2007 2:02:42 AM
        
        re: Why ask you? - Johannes - 1/6/2007 4:22:39 AM
        
        Of course it's always good to quote a skeptic when you're trying to prove your point - Lindy - 1/5/2007 10:35:37 PM
- The burden of proof is, as it has always been, on the most extraordinary claims. (n/t) - TB - 1/3/2007 5:33:47 AM
  - Results of the CNN polls - And so it begins - 1/3/2007 3:39:28 PM
    - Sorry, reality is NOT a democracy - R.L. - 1/3/2007 10:14:23 PM
    - Tom spoke of proof. Your response was about public opinion. - alcaray - 1/3/2007 6:06:10 PM
      - Play-doughs proof of God - Yeterator - 1/3/2007 10:35:46 PM
        
        An interesting idea - TB - 1/4/2007 3:44:40 AM
        
        It's a well-loved fictional device - alcaray - 1/4/2007 6:26:59 PM
        
        Which presumes - Fox - 2/5/2007 3:18:20 AM

HabitableZone — be civil, or at least entertaining.