rat spit "I’ve already addressed this above. We can argue the validity of Buddhism when and if you get a grip on some of it’s tenants."

Buddhism has tenants? Rent places out do they?

Your post here is just another string of non sequiturs and straw man fallacies. I said that something cannot rationally be asserted as a supernatural event or miracle just because we currently can't explain it. Such assertions are argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies, and thus by definition irrational or illogical. You made this claim above for Buddhists immolating themselves, and for the myth of Fatima.

You are dishonestly refusing to address the fact you based both claims on a known logical fallacy.

"You don’t care about Buddhism? Sad."

Not even remotely what I said, I said I have no interest in your or Buddhism's unevidenced and subjective claims for esoteric truth. Anymore than I marvel that people have encountered mermaids just because they care to make the claim. In order for me to believe a claim sufficient objective evidence would need to demonstrated for it. You can sneer at this all you want, but at least I approach all ideas with an open mind, and without bias.

The point about the National Academy had nothing to do with numbers, and they offered the standard scientific definitions of a theory.

The article goes on...

"At best, the 'electric universe' is a solution in search of a problem; it seeks to explain things we already understand very well through gravity, plasma and nuclear physics, and the like," said astronomer Phil Plait, who runs the blog Bad Astronomy at Slate. "At worst it's sheer crackpottery like homeopathy and astrology, making claims clearly contradicted by the evidence."

If it is an alternative to established scientific theories then it would need to be objectively evidenced and falsify those theories. Just because science is capable of being in error doesn't mean established theories are in error, this is the kind of flaky reasoning I hear creationists use all the time.

From the article again...

"Thornhill began his obsessive study of cosmic electricity in high school, when he read Immanuel Velikovsky's book Worlds in Collision, published in 1950.

Velikovsky was an author known mostly for his controversial "comparative mythology" books, which recast and reinterpreted ancient history. In Worlds in Collision, he said that Jupiter ejected to Venus around 1500 BCE. From there, the newborn planet flew close to Earth, causing all sorts of catastrophes. When Venus came back around a half-century later, it stopped Earth's spin (briefly), making for a long night."

"The resulting disasters, Velikovsky claimed, showed up in mythology around the world. Astrophysicists pointed out that this Jupiter-born Venus idea violated theories about orbits and gravity. But Velikovsky had gone rogue: He suggested gravity didn't cause orbits. Electricity did."

Hmm, good luck reversing the work of both Newton and Einstein. I must remain dubious. I can't say i find it very compelling. I shall keep watching the news.