Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Modern Day Miracle Man - Establishes the Supernatural Realm
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 256 of 297 (527090)
09-30-2009 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 253 by Cedre
09-30-2009 9:35 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
quote:
But I still used actual figures not cooked up figures
Your "many months without a crash" was "cooked up". It was not an actual figure and we know that because the actual figures contradict you.
quote:
Which is still a very small amount compared to the number of days that passed.
It is a very significant amount. It is the ratio that is important - not the difference. Therefore the fact that the number increased by a factor of 4 is more important than the change in the absolute numbers.
quote:
A rhetorical statement that proves nothing.
But still factually correct. Your "calculations" were complete nonsense.
quote:
Which are real statistics and which are not real statistics?
The actual figure of at least 1 crash every month for 2007, 2008 and 2009 is a real statistic. Your assertion that many months must go by without a crash is NOT a real statistic.
quote:
I gave you actually statistics that have been worked out by people in the field not numbers I made up myself. Here it is again being struck by lightning? (1 in 20 million)
Your odds of these two things are actually BETTER than being in an airplane crash (1 in 25 million)
They aren't made up - but they are certainly not relevant.
quote:
I did not ignore the data, I just made a logical conclusion that if so many days can be without crashes than at least a few months could also be without crashes
Actually you claimed that there would be MANY months without crashes. And you kept on claiming it, even after it was pointed out that it wasn't true - ignoring the real statistics.
quote:
Please you are being dishonest with the facts here,
By which you mean that I am being honest.
quote:
number one individuals have a big chance of being in car crashes because care crashes are common, individuals have a big chance of drowning because drowning is common, etc, but on the other hand individuals have a smaller chance of winning the lottery or being struck by lighting because both these events are rare and in fact according to the above stats individuals have a smaller chance of being in a plane crash compared to being struck by lightning and winning the lottery because because plane crashes are rare, its the obvious conclusion to reach, why should plane crashes be an exception. Note these events do happen but they are said to rare.
All of which doesn't change the fact that your measure of rarity is the WRONG FIGURE. TB Joshua didn't pick out an individual person and say that he or she would die in a plane crash. If we use the RIGHT figure - days including at least one air crash - including helicopters - they aren't so rare at all.
Again you are simply trying to use the wrong figure to make TB Joshua look better than he is. And you are being absolutely obviosu about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 9:35 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:26 AM PaulK has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 257 of 297 (527091)
09-30-2009 10:01 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Cedre
09-30-2009 9:40 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
The statistics I present here reveal that its rare to be in an aviation accident, not a commercial flight accident but being caught up in an aviation accident is rare, thus it must have included the other kinds of aircraft.
You think you are so clever. I see you are trying to manipulate statistics.
You see, your boy Joshua never makes a claim that a particular person would be involved in an accident. Therefore, you must throw out any statistics about a particular person being involved in a any type of accident. Yes it is rare to be in a plane crash, if you look at one individual.
But if you look at the number of people that fly, and will fly, things change drastically. Your one in millions becomes 1 in 3 or as in 2006 almost 1 in 2 on any given day.
If you refuse to acknowledge this you are either willfully ignorant or just blind to reality.
Have you read the figures provided by Tuffers?
Message 252
tuffers writes:
The Geneva-based Aircraft Crashes Record Office (ACRO) compiles statistics on aviation accidents of aircraft capable of carrying more than six passengers, not including helicopters, balloons, or fighter airplanes. The ACRO announced that the year 2007 was the safest year in aviation since 1963 in terms of number of accidents.[9] There had been 136 accidents registered (compared to 164 in 2006), resulting in a total of 965 deaths (compared to 1,293 in 2006). 2004 was the year with the lowest number of fatalities since the end of World War II, with 766 deaths. The year with most fatalities was 1972, with 3,214 deaths.
I do not do math much, but I do remember basic math. Please correct my mistakes.
In 2007 that works out to a 37.26% chance of there being a plane accident every day. According to the figures this was a very low year.
In 2006 that figure was 44.96% chance.
That is almost an accident every other day.
Plane accidents are not rare not matter what you claim.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 9:40 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:13 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 258 of 297 (527093)
09-30-2009 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by tuffers
09-30-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
That issue has already been dealt with an answered, turboprops are also referred to as turboprop jets, or jets with propellers, see my post dealing with this because there I provide links that you can visit to confirm this even a link to Time Magazine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by tuffers, posted 09-30-2009 9:59 AM tuffers has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by tuffers, posted 09-30-2009 10:25 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 259 of 297 (527101)
09-30-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Theodoric
09-30-2009 10:01 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
I'm sorry things don't have to change as you propose or not as drastically as you are claiming since that statistic applies to each individual on a plane, furthermore do you really think that the people who publish these figures don't consider the fact that planes don't just have one passenger but many passengers, of course they do consider these things especially when they will use this figures to comfort plane users. And it is in light of this information that these statistics are revealed. Even cars they say about car crashes that there is a 1 in 5000 chance of being in a car crash, yet when we look at it car cars usually have more than one passenger, so the fact is this factors are surely considered before this figures are made public and people are comforted with them.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 10:01 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 10:21 AM Cedre has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 260 of 297 (527107)
09-30-2009 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:13 AM


YOu might want to respond to arguments in the post
I'm sorry things don't have to change as you propose or not as drastically as you are claiming since that statistic applies to each individual on a plane, or even things don't have to change at all. why? Do you really think that the people who publish these figures don't consider the fact that planes don't just have one passenger but many passengers, of course they do consider these things especially when they will use this figures to comfort plane users. And it is in light of this information that these statistics are revealed. Even cars they say about car crashes that there is a 1 in 5000 chance of being in a car crash, yet when we look at it car cars usually have more than one passenger, so the fact is this factors are surely considered before this figures are made public and people are comforted with them.
I do not see how this diatribe has much to do with my post. As a matter of fact I have trouble even understanding what you are trying to say.
Are you saying that these original figures are wrong? That there is not a 1 in 3 chance of a plane crash ever day?
The figures given about airline safety have absolutely no relevance in this debate. You have been shown this numerous times. That you refuse to even acknowledge that shows a very strong desire not to accept anything that goes against your preconceived ideas.
You have been shown vast amounts of evidence debunking this so called prophecies. You in turn have provided no original, unedited evidence at all.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:13 AM Cedre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:30 AM Theodoric has replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 261 of 297 (527109)
09-30-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
OK, so when your man said "jet", he was being even vaguer than was already obvious. Thank you for clarifying that for me.
I still don't understand what you are talking about with seeming to differentiate between "aviation" accidents and "commercial aircraft" accidents. Why don't commercial aircraft feature under "aviation" in your book of definitions?
In any case, it was quite clearly stated in the figures I quoted that they related to aircraft carrying more than 6 passengers, not including fighters, balloons and helicopters (all of which have considerably higher accident rates per flight than larger aircraft). Therefore, those figures include the type of aircraft in the accident in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:02 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 262 of 297 (527111)
09-30-2009 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by PaulK
09-30-2009 9:59 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
Your "many months without a crash" was "cooked up". It was not an actual figure and we know that because the actual figures contradict you.
Not really I provided a website that agreed with me on that but went even further to suggest that there were years that didn't witness accidents or at least only witnessed very few.
It is a very significant amount. It is the ratio that is important - not the difference. Therefore the fact that the number increased by a factor of 4 is more important than the change in the absolute numbers.
Don't lie to yourselve the difference also does matter alot, because just by looking at the ration the odds seem a lot bigger but its clear from the number of reported aviation incidences that aviation accidents are rare when considered against the number of days that passed.
They aren't made up - but they are certainly not relevant.
they are and I showed they are in my earlier post dealing with the same subject.
The actual figure of at least 1 crash every month for 2007, 2008 and 2009 is a real statistic. Your assertion that many months must go by without a crash is NOT a real statistic.
My conclussion logically followed from the figures I presented. And no matter what you say air plane crashes are rare and the facts agree with me.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.
Edited by Cedre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2009 9:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 10:29 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 267 by PaulK, posted 09-30-2009 10:47 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 268 by Asgara, posted 09-30-2009 11:06 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 263 of 297 (527112)
09-30-2009 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
And no matter what you say air plane crashes are rare and the facts agree with me.
Provide the facts.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Cedre
Member (Idle past 1490 days)
Posts: 350
From: Russia
Joined: 01-30-2009


Message 264 of 297 (527114)
09-30-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by Theodoric
09-30-2009 10:21 AM


Re: YOu might want to respond to arguments in the post
I stand by the figures I can't deny facts, what I'm saying is that these statistics are revealed in light of the fact that not just one passenger boards a plane. So in view of all the passengers on a plane each individual has a 1 in 25 000000 chance of being in a plane crash that big amount generally is unaffected by the presence of the other passengers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 10:21 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Theodoric, posted 09-30-2009 10:37 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 269 by tuffers, posted 09-30-2009 11:16 AM Cedre has not replied
 Message 272 by Izanagi, posted 09-30-2009 2:03 PM Cedre has not replied
 Message 273 by Izanagi, posted 09-30-2009 2:26 PM Cedre has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 265 of 297 (527120)
09-30-2009 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:30 AM


Re: YOu might want to respond to arguments in the post
I stand by the figures I can't deny facts, what I'm saying is that these statistics are revealed in light of the fact that not just one passenger boards a plane. So in view of all the passengers on a plane each individual has a 1 in 25 000000 chance of being in a plane crash that big amount generally is unaffected by the presence of the other passengers.
First of all his prophecy says nothing about particular passengers. You are manipulating data.
Second of all, do you understand probability at all?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:30 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 266 of 297 (527123)
09-30-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Cedre
09-30-2009 9:11 AM


common tricks or genuine miracles?
I'm interested in seeing the original video but I haven't tried to find one as I'm currently having trouble with my browser , for some reason that is unknown to me it refuses to show any video.
Nightmare. If you want, you can try posting at Computer Help II - we might disagree but we can put aside those disagreements to help solve an IT issue!
Why won't other kinds of critics apart from skeptics suffice, for starters any critic of TB Joshua is skeptical of his claims, in fact I think that the critics might be more critical of TB Joshua because unlike the general skeptics these critics don't like TB Joshua a lot, and I see no reason that you should not regard their evaluation of the situation
I differentiate between those that believe he is prophesising but using non-YHWH type sources (African witchcraft etc) and those that doubt he can predict the future at all. Use whatever names you will, but its the latter I'm interested in, not the former.
To my present knowledge I know of no critic who has accused TB Joshua of employing deception in his prophecies, If you do let's have a name.
Paul Agomoh.
My job is not to convince, my job is only to present the facts, I let the facts do the convincing. Anyway the best you can do is to be skeptical of his prophetic claims and healing ministry that all you got at this point.
This is a debate, your job is to put up a persuasive argument in favour of your position. You haven't just presented the facts, but you have attempted to explain why those facts mean TB Joshua is a 'modern day miracle man'.
O no it doesn't bother me as much as it probably bothers you, but you should know I'm not member of the SCOAN, and I have no ties and affiliations with the SCOAN, my only use for the SCOAN is to demonstrate that there is evidence for the supernatural realm, and so far you are failing to falsify any of the facts I brought forth.
Some facts don't need falsifying because they are not in dispute. Others have been falsified, such as the claim that fatal aircraft accidents don't occur commonly. The problem is that you need to justify why the facts are evidence for the supernatural realm, which you have failed to do. Professional magicians do more amazing things than anything you have presented TB Joshua doing.
Did you ever see Derren Brown's work? He managed to convert several atheists into believing in some kind of God, he predicted the lottery numbers one week (live - I watched it), he has played Russian Roulette and predicted which chamber the bullet was in, and he has made someone reel off a bunch of random numbers that just happen to be the serial number on a banknote in the pocket of another specified person.
Much more compelling. Only Derren Brown admits he uses trickery to achieve his effects.
Is there anything TB Joshua has done which is as impressive as the above that you claim is not done by trickery?
As for me the existing evidence is quite enough at least in causing me to take this man seriously and not simply brush him off as a common charlatan more so when I have found no evidence against him.
As you say, charlatans are common and they do all the same kinds of things TB Joshua does. Genuine miracle men are quite rare. Let us say that the aircraft predictions aren't evidence enough, do you have anything else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 9:11 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Perdition, posted 09-30-2009 12:04 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 267 of 297 (527125)
09-30-2009 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Desperate theist resorting to desperate measures
quote:
Not really I provided a website that agreed with me on that but went even further to suggest that there were years that didn't witness accidents or at least only witnessed very few.
No, you didn't. You MISREPRESENTED a website as agreeing with you, but that is not the same thing.
quote:
Don't lie to yourselve the difference also does matter alot, because just by looking at the ration the odds seem a lot bigger but its clear from the number of reported aviation incidences that aviation accidents are rare when considered against the number of days that passed.
The only way to work out that aviation accidents are rare compared with the numebr of days is to CONSDIER THE RATIO. A factor of four difference means that accidents are FOUR TIMES MORE COMMON.
quote:
they are and I showed they are in my earlier post dealing with the same subject.
That is an outright falsehood. They are not, and cannot be relevant because TB Joshua never predicted that a perticular person would be killed in a plane crash. You need the probability of the ACTUAL predictions coming true, allowing all the flexibility of interpretation used to declare a success.
quote:
My concussion logically followed from the figures I resented. And no matter what you say air plane crashes are rare and the facts agree with me.
That is another outright falsehood. Your figures were entirely consistent with an accident happening every fourth (or occasionally fifth) day. The only way to work out the distribution is to look at the data relevant to the distribution. And you not only ignored that when working out your conclusion - you went on ignorin them even after they were pointed out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 268 of 297 (527140)
09-30-2009 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:26 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
suggest that there were years that didn't witness accidents or at least only witnessed very few.
Could you please provide the actual years where there were no accidents or very few? And also, please define "very few."
I can only find THREE months in the past THIRTY YEARS that haven't had at least one aviation accident according to planecrashinfo.com. And I have yet to see a year that had what I would consider "very few" accidents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
tuffers
Member (Idle past 5276 days)
Posts: 92
From: Norwich, UK
Joined: 07-20-2009


Message 269 of 297 (527148)
09-30-2009 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Cedre
09-30-2009 10:30 AM


SOME PROPER STATISTICS
Cedre
Here are some proper statistics from the American FAA for the year 2005.
These are the number of FATAL accidents for that year alone:
ALL AIRCRAFT 326 Fatal Accidents
SINGLE-ENGINE PISTON AIRPLANE 239 Fatal Accidents
MULT-ENGINE PISTON AIRPLANE 30 Fatal Accidents
TURBOPROP AIRPLANE (I.E. the type in question) 21 Fatal Accidents
JET AIRPLANE 3 Fatal Accidents
AMATEUR BUILT 59 Fatal Accidents
So, just in the USA, there is a fatal Turboprop airplane accident on average every 2.1/2 weeks.
Do you still insist that that this is a rare occurence?
A quick and morbid search on the web will reveal accounts of several other families who have died in plane crashes over the past year.
In case you're still not convinced, here's another figure from the FAA:
"The odds of dying in a commuter or private plane accident are 29 times and 103 times higher than driving in a car, respectively."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 10:30 AM Cedre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by PaulK, posted 10-01-2009 2:46 AM tuffers has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3238 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 270 of 297 (527157)
09-30-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 239 by Cedre
09-30-2009 6:26 AM


Re: Desperate atheist resorting to desperate measures
Perditions prediction is based on a weather forecast.
You keep claiming this, and in all honesty, I DID NOT LOOK AT A WEATHER FORECAST! I DIDN'T NEED TO! I made a vague prediction that had no possibility of being wrong...just as TB Joshua does. He made a vague prediction: a plane crash with a family on a Friday. He didn't say what plane, he didn't say what family, he didn't even say exactly when. Just as I said, water, many deaths and Saturday. It was pure happenstance that the very next Saturday, a typhoon hits the Phillipines and people died. I DIDN'T PREDICT THE TYPHOON, I PREDICTED A "WATERY DEATH". This could have been a typhoon, a hurricane, a tidal wave, flash flooding, a public swimming pool accident, etc.
I have also made a prediction like TB Joshua's multiple plane crash one, complete with specific dates. If I'm right, I'll start tomorrow (or Friday) by telling you of the first of the aircraft disasters I "predicted."
TB Joshua is a charlatan, making vague but somehow specific-sounding predictions, then when something that fits his prediction happens, claiming it as proof of his prediction. What we're all doing here is showing that it doesn't take prophetic powers to make those predictions, all it takes is a knowledge of the probability of things happening, a gullible audience and a charismatic speaker. People will fill in the blanks on their own and viola, we have people proclaiming a new prophet.
What would convice me is a detail for detail prediction: place, time, names, complete circumstances, and a minute-by-minute play-by-play account of the actions...and I would like those to be made at a time obviously before the actual event. For example, write down the events, mail them to yourself (to get the date stamp), then open them live, completely naked, in a gymanasium filled with skeptics, magicians, illusionists and camers covering every angle.
At that point, I might give it a 55% probability of being genuine. Until then, it's just way too easy to fake.
Edited by Perdition, : clarity
Edited by Perdition, : clarity, again
Edited by Perdition, : last time

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Cedre, posted 09-30-2009 6:26 AM Cedre has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024