Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#1 2009-10-16 7:17 pm
- ShnickyShnack
- ::: title edited due to Satanic influences :::
- From: Rockin' out
- Registered: 2001-05-25
- Posts: 22237
Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
Creationist museum includes Chupacabra
The mounted and stuffed beast is claimed to be the elusive chupacabra (the vampiric "goat sucker" of Hispanic folklore), and is on display for an exclusive engagement through Halloween at the Lost World Museum, run by real estate agent John Adolfi.
Adolfi's chupacabra was found thousands of miles away in Blanco, Texas, in August. A local man presented the dead animal (half jokingly) as a chupacabra to a taxidermist named Jerry Ayer. It had been attacking chickens a few days earlier, and succumbed to poison left as bait. The canid creature weighed about 80 pounds and resembled a coyote or dog. But its front legs were a few inches longer than most coyotes', and it was mostly hairless except for around the feet and along its backbone.
Clearly that museum is dripping in SCIENCE.
Note: please delete this post.
Offline
#2 2009-10-16 10:28 pm
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
I wish I had a dime for every mangy, malnourished dog, coyote, or wolf that has been offered up as an alleged chupacabra. Whenever articles like this are published, there's always this element of raised eyebrows, and the article usually adopts a humorous tone. Personally, I don't find the topic of severely ill animals to be all that festive.
"It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy."
--Steve Jobs
Offline
#3 2009-10-16 10:37 pm
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
One other thing:
I'm not saying the guy with the museum is playing with a full deck, but the article itself can hardly claim to be objective; it was authored by Benjamin Radford, who publishes Skeptical Inquirer. As is the problem with most professional skeptics, skepticism is his religion. He begins with a strongly desired outcome in mind (that anything paranormal, mystical, magical, or extraordinary will be disproved) and then he does research* which will lead to his originally stated goal. Therefore, like most of the zealots in the skeptic community, he is guilty of practicing the very pseudo-science which he claims to so vigorously oppose.
*Research, in the case of fanatical skeptics, usually amounts to nothing more than thought-exercises and essay-writing. They rarely conduct actual tests or gather data. Why should they when it's so much easier to just employ the archaic, pre-scientific method of supposing that things ought to be a certain way, and therefore they are?
"It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy."
--Steve Jobs
Offline
#4 2009-10-17 10:36 am
- user
- Your plastic pal who's fun to be with
- From: I'm not getting you down, am I
- Registered: 2001-10-15
- Posts: 16027
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
Not so much disproved, but failed to be proved.
Aw, he's no fun, he fell right over.
Unless you become as little children, there's no way you will believe this crap.
Offline
#5 2009-10-17 1:08 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7055
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
Bren wrote:
One other thing:
I'm not saying the guy with the museum is playing with a full deck, but the article itself can hardly claim to be objective; it was authored by Benjamin Radford, who publishes Skeptical Inquirer. As is the problem with most professional skeptics, skepticism is his religion. He begins with a strongly desired outcome in mind (that anything paranormal, mystical, magical, or extraordinary will be disproved) and then he does research* which will lead to his originally stated goal. Therefore, like most of the zealots in the skeptic community, he is guilty of practicing the very pseudo-science which he claims to so vigorously oppose.
*Research, in the case of fanatical skeptics, usually amounts to nothing more than thought-exercises and essay-writing. They rarely conduct actual tests or gather data. Why should they when it's so much easier to just employ the archaic, pre-scientific method of supposing that things ought to be a certain way, and therefore they are?
You have actually read the magazine, haven't you? You're not just repeating an argument you heard somewhere? Granted, I stopped reading it many years ago--I had been mooching off of others' subscriptions.
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#6 2009-10-17 2:19 pm
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
I own numerous copies of both The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic. I'm not saying neither publication ever has anything of worth to say. In fact, I do continue to page through new issues now and then. I just think it's very un-scientific to label something "paranormal" or "extraordinary" and then selectively ignore facts in order to debunk it.
Last edited by Bren (2009-10-17 2:20 pm)
"It's better to be a pirate than to join the Navy."
--Steve Jobs
Offline
#7 2009-10-17 2:28 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7055
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
then selectively ignore facts
Oh bren... Surely you mean "selectively ignore observations".
Last edited by jerwin (2009-10-17 2:29 pm)
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#8 2009-10-17 4:07 pm
- D'Eyncourt
- OMGDICTATOR
- Registered: 2001-12-27
- Posts: 8807
- Website
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
No, I think the quote that Bren should be looking for is: "A collection of anecdotes does not constitute data."
BOYCOTT SONY
"I think the question now is not whether you went to Vietnam or whether you didn't, whether you fought in the war or fought against the war. I think the only question is whether we can find a president smart enough never to make a mistake like that again"--Molly Ivins, way back in 1992
Offline
#9 2009-10-17 4:58 pm
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
The bible mentions the Loch Ness Monster too. And talking donkeys. And talking snakes.
It is an odd thing, but every one who disappears is said to be seen at San Francisco. It must be a delightful city, and possess all the attractions of the next world.
- Oscar Wilde
Offline
#10 2009-10-17 5:07 pm
- Tallgeese
- Sternly Advising
- From: Pool Party
- Registered: 2000-10-17
- Posts: 34086
Re: Turns out the Bible mentioned the Chupacabra
Bren wrote:
I own numerous copies of both The Skeptical Inquirer and Skeptic. I'm not saying neither publication ever has anything of worth to say. In fact, I do continue to page through new issues now and then. I just think it's very un-scientific to label something "paranormal" or "extraordinary" and then selectively ignore facts in order to debunk it.
Robert Anton Wilson wrote:
The Western World has been brainwashed by Aristotle for the last 2,500 years. The unconscious, not quite articulate, belief of most Occidentals is that there is one map which adequately represents reality. By sheer good luck, every Occidental thinks he or she has the map that fits.
...
It's important to abolish the unconscious dogmatism that makes people think their way of looking at reality is the only sane way of viewing the world. My goal is to try to get people into a state of generalized agnosticism, not agnosticism about God alone, but agnosticism about everything. If one can only see things according to one's own belief system, one is destined to become virtually deaf, dumb, and blind. It's only possible to see people when one is able to see the world as others see it.
I still believe in liberalism today as much as I ever did, but, oh, there was a happy time when I believed in liberals.
Offline
