The flaw of scientific naturalism and Atheism

[iguanaman]

Not much activity here. The reason, I suspect, is that your contention is solid.


"How, then, did the first life arise? In the absence of a viable scientific answer, those needing a solution could only turn to religion. To some scientists, particularly those defending evolution from attacks by fundamentalists, this situation was unacceptable.The most obvious remedy was the revival of spontaneous generation in some form, with added provision that it required conditions that were present long ago on earth but not now."

Shapiro, Robert - ORIGINS, (NY: Bantam Books, 1987) p. 1O9-11O

Ph.D. Harvard University
Former Professor of chemistry
New York University

28 November 1935 – 15 June 2011

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

Wald, George. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.

Nobel Prize Laureate in Physiology and Medicine

He was wrong. There is nothing scientifically impossible about blue green algae being created spontaneously by natural causes. In fact it is the hypothesis agreed upon by most scientists. There has been much progress in creating the building blocks of DNA with ultraviolet radiation from the sun playing a part. It is considered only a matter of time and effort before a primitive life form is created.

 

[MoSurveyor]

BTW: Newton lived long ago. Gravity still operates.

Newton himself knew his theory didn't take everything into account, that it was incomplete at best. Einstein discovered relativity and showed that Newton's view of the universe was flat-out wrong even though his basic formulas were a specific case of relativity.

 

[MoSurveyor]

6. Pasteur was a creationist. His experiments disproving spontaneous generation was a hard hit to Darwinism and to current day professors of chemical and biological evolution. So far Pasteur's experiments pertaining to spontaneous generation, abiogenesis, is just as solid as apples falling from a tree.

I find that unconvincing since Darwin started with a single cell. Nothing in his Theory of Evolution mentioned genesis, aka The Origin Question, which is a different subject from evolution.

 

[RGacky3]

That's Inaccurate and illogical.
You're trying to paint science as just another baseLess belief system and say any superstitious take is just as good.
In furtherance of this you Abuse the word 'evidence'.
ie, evolution has the 'evidence' of Millions of Fossils gathered of 150 years (for just one branch of evidence).

My oft linked Sciam: "15 answers to creationist nonsense":

"...For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest-known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 100,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominid creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not--and does not--find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (144 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such Evidence.".."​

All previous gods that were ignorantly assumed as explanations of natural phenomenon on which history has a verdict, have turned out to be bogus for the same reason.
That reason being people just made up/assumed a god because they didn't know... yet.
You would have made your same argument for the Fire, Lightning, Rain, gods.
Is rain 'evidence' of a god?

And of course, rather than a single real explanation, we Don't just have One geographic group Making Up one baseless explanation/god, we have many false ie, creation Myths.
So that even IF one was right everyone else's 'god' would be wrong.
Is your god any better than the Northwest Native Bear creationism?
Only science does have evidentiary explanations.

But I certainly Would accept evidence of a god.
If, for example, when I looked up every/Any night and the visible stars (how about some shiny/extra-bright/same-magnitgude new ones btw) clearly spelled 'Allah' in Arabic, that would be evidence!
Of course, that would Not be good news for Christians and Hindus, etc.
God has but to lift a tiny finger to prove he exists, (for another example) just speak to the whole planet from the sky any night.
Hasn't happened.

You suspected wrong, as usual.
Classic, as a good explanation/debunking was in fact cominbg.

If you looked up at the stars and saw the spelled Allah.
1. It would be fine for arabic christians since allah just means "god."
2. Wouldn't you assume you're hellucinating, the same way you assume those who say Jesus ressurected were?
3. The chances of that happening are more likely than the the chances that the initial conditions of teh universe were set up to make life.

I wasn't arguing aginst evolution ....

 

[RGacky3]

This statement assumes that scientists are more interested in having an answer than in how they arrive at that answer. If that was how they thought, they wouldn't be operating as scientists. Science is a discipline with a rigorous set of rules. When you step outside of those rules in order to arrive at a theological conclusion, you've left the realm of science and entered the realm of religion.

Is that clear?

Science, and evolutionary science at that, is essentially in its infancy. It's a little early to conclude that no 3rd possibility exists.


With all due respect to the good Monsieur Pasteur, 120 years is a long ass time ago. There are several theories for how life arising from non-living matter can possibly happen.

"Using modern analytical techniques, Bada and his team, which included Eric Parker, then at Scripps, analyzed the products of the reaction, which were housed in small vials. They found an abundance of promising molecules: 23 amino acids and four amines, another type of organic molecule. The addition of hydrogen sulfide had also led to the creation of sulfur-containing amino acids, which are important to the chemistry of life. (One of these, methionine, initiates the synthesis of proteins.)


The results of the experiment – which exposed a mix of volcanic gases, including hydrogen sulfide, methane, ammonia and carbon dioxide gas to an electrical discharge – tell us that volcanic eruptions coinciding with lightning may have played a role in synthesizing large quantities and a variety of biologically crucial molecules on the primitive Earth..."

Chemistry of Life: An Old Experiment Offers New Insights | Amino Acids & Urey-Miller Experiment & Primordial Earth | LiveScience

So are you assuming that it's impossible to show a super natural creator by science? So no evidence would convince you?

Showing that you can "under very controlled circumstances" design an amino acid, doesn't disprove that life can initiallt from a supernatural being any more than creating a painting in a lab shows that a painting found was not created.

 

[RGacky3]

Some atheists may think like that but some atheists are idiots. I'd disagree with them.

If God exists, God is natural. It would significantly extend and alter our understanding of existence but would still be part of it and could, in principal, have scientific process applied to it (human physical limitations are the only restriction). The sticking point as I see it is when theist claim their beliefs are somehow outside scientific process and so must be accepted on faith alone. Of course, they don't accept the same principle for other theists with different beliefs and certainly don't accept the same principle for anything challenging their beliefs.

I'd personally be perfectly capable of accepting the existence of a god within this extended understanding of existence. I'm not willing to start from the position of assuming a specific god does exist though, especially since it would require significant changes to what we currently (think we) understand. That is why theists are expected to present positive evidence if they wish their beliefs to be accepted on any basis outside one of faith but that's no different to any other extreme claim.

Natural being within space and time ....

I accept that it's fine to ask for evidence, but when evidence comes if you say "there MUST be a naturalistic explination because everything can be explained through science" then it's disingenous to ask for evidence.

 

[MoSurveyor]

3. The chances of that happening are more likely than the the chances that the initial conditions of teh universe were set up to make life.

That statement presupposes god or gods all by itself.

 

[RGacky3]

That statement presupposes god or gods all by itself.

No it isn't, I'm saying the chances of the stars aligning to say "allah made this" is more likely to occur NATURALLY than for all the constants to be just right in the initial conditions of the universe to create life.

 

[MoSurveyor]

No it isn't, I'm saying the chances of the stars aligning to say "allah made this" is more likely to occur NATURALLY than for all the constants to be just right in the initial conditions of the universe to create life.

"the initial conditions of teh universe were set up to make life." clearly shows an intelligent hand in setting it up.


As for your revised statement, I disagree as do many cosmologists and other physicists. You're making a lot of assumptions to get where you're trying to go. Have you ever read the basic tenets of The Blind Watchmaker?

 

[RGacky3]

"the initial conditions of teh universe were set up to make life." clearly shows an intelligent hand in setting it up.

As for your revised statement, I disagree as do many cosmologists and other physicists. You're making a lot of assumptions to get where you're trying to go. Have you ever read the basic tenets of The Blind Watchmaker?

Ok let me rephrase, "the initial conditions are such, that they lead to intelligent life, the chances of that happening given the laws of nature are more unlikely to occur naturally than it is for the stars to spell out 'allah made this.'"

The Blind Watchmaker makes the fallacy of saying that if you can explain the mechanism you disprove agency.

 

[Occam's Razor]

No it isn't, I'm saying the chances of the stars aligning to say "allah made this" is more likely to occur NATURALLY than for all the constants to be just right in the initial conditions of the universe to create life.

The universe, whether you believe in a god or not, or a big bang or not... is a whole. Whether it's an infinitely small quantum point or a massive expanding universe... every part of it is part of a whole.

Imagine the universe as a pie, slice it up and label each piece with an elemental force, dimension, etc. and give each a value according to it's size, if all slices are equal, we'll call each 100.

Now, in order to change any one of those slices, you must change one or more of the other slices. If you want to make the speed of light faster, mass, time and gravity change.

If you add to one, you must take from another.

If you were on a spaceship traveling half the speed of light, your mass would increase, time would slow yet your perception of yourself would not change. It's not so important what the values are, the have no choice but to balance.

 

[MoSurveyor]

Ok let me rephrase, "the initial conditions are such, that they lead to intelligent life, the chances of that happening given the laws of nature are more unlikely to occur naturally than it is for the stars to spell out 'allah made this.'"

Again, cosmologists, physicists, and many philosophers disagree.

The Blind Watchmaker makes the fallacy of saying that if you can explain the mechanism you disprove agency.

Occam's Razor is not a fallacy. There is no reason to add agency if it is not required for the outcome. The fallacy is claiming agency of a natural occurrence. If God's Hand is not needed to rise the ocean when the moon is overhead, then presuming God's Hand causes tides is a fallacy.

 

[Cardinal]

So are you assuming that it's impossible to show a super natural creator by science? So no evidence would convince you?

You have a deep misunderstanding about things like atheism and science. Scientists don't discount God from their tests because of an ideological refusal to accept God, but because God is unobservable and unmeasurable, and therefore can't be included in their tests. Evidence, however, would convince any atheist and scientist.

Showing that you can "under very controlled circumstances" design an amino acid, doesn't disprove that life can initiallt from a supernatural being any more than creating a painting in a lab shows that a painting found was not created.

Which doesn't really help support the idea that a supernatural being did in fact create life, so you're still at square one. Besides, those "very controlled circumstances" showed that natural phenomena could in fact lead to the creation of life, which was the point in me writing that in the first place.

 

[Ikari]

If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."

There can be no direct measurements of gods because gods have been defined as immeasurable quantities. And you are correct, if there is measurement it is well more likely that the observations of that measurement can be easier explained through natural causes and not supernatural causes. This is one of the reasons why science and gods are different subjects. Every time religion has put numbers on something, from the age of the earth to doomsday, it's been wrong. Modern religions strive often to avoid any concrete predictions or numbers. As soon as you give a measurable to a god, you bring the god into the real world. If there is a measurable, we can observe it, and thus far all observations which could be made shows nature over supernatural.

So it's necessary to keep gods out of the measurable realm, to define them as immeasurable quantities, and keep them as far away as observable as possible.

 

[hfd]

I find that unconvincing since Darwin started with a single cell. Nothing in his Theory of Evolution mentioned genesis, aka The Origin Question, which is a different subject from evolution.

From the beginning Darwin speculated about origins. He kept out of his book for a couple of reasons. One he had evidence to support chemical evolution and secondly, his audience were for the most part creationists. His letter to Joseph Hooker laid out what he though was a probable cause for life. Why people keep trying to circumvent that fact is beyond me.

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are present, which could ever have been present. But if (and Oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed. "

Darwin, Charles, in a letter to botanist Joseph Hooker 1871

There can be no doubt that:

1. Darwin speculated on origins

2. He preferred the idea of abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, chemical evolution

"A general theory of biological evolution should include within its domain a number of problems that have hitherto resisted solution within the broad confines of the Darwinian, or indeed any other, research tradition. These problems include how life evolved from nonlife; how developmental programs evolve; what impact, if any, developmental dynamics have on the evolution of species; the relation between ecological dynamics and species diversification; and what is the best way of conceiving the mix between pattern and contingency in phylogeny. ... Our list of questions is not entirely haphazard. The origins of life, development, ecology, phylogenesis-these are the big questions that people think of when they hear the word *evolution*. It is answers to these questions that people want from evolutionists. That is why they so often feel put off when Darwinians confine themselves to talking about changing gene frequencies in populations and to throwing cold water on ideas about evolutionary direction, meaning, and progress."

Depew, David J. & Weber, Bruce H. - "Darwinism Evolving: Systems Dynamics and the Genealogy of Natural Selection," (MIT Press: Cambridge, Mass: 1997) 2nd printing p. 393
Depew - [Professor, Department of Communication Studies, University of Iowa]
Weber - [Professor of Biochemistry, California State University, Fullerton]

Comments that connect origins with evolution abound. One need only look for them.

 

[hfd]

He was wrong. There is nothing scientifically impossible about blue green algae being created spontaneously by natural causes. In fact it is the hypothesis agreed upon by most scientists. There has been much progress in creating the building blocks of DNA with ultraviolet radiation from the sun playing a part. It is considered only a matter of time and effort before a primitive life form is created.

Blue green algae does not form spontaneously from non living matter. It is a bacteria, cyanobacteria . The begging for more time has been around since Oparin.

 

[iguanaman]

But they did many millions of years ago and science is now replicating those conditions. They have now made synthetic chromosomes that duplicate living ones to the point where they grow and replicate when placed inside a cell. You need to update your knowledge on this subject.

Creating Life?

When I headed off to college (in 1949), I wrote an essay speculating on the possibility that some day we would be able to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients. By the time I finished my formal studies in biology — having learned of the incredible complexity of even the simplest organism — I concluded that such a feat could never be accomplished.

Now I'm not so sure.

Several recent advances suggest that we may be getting close to creating life. (But note that these examples represent laboratory manipulations that do not necessarily reflect what may have happened when life first appeared.)

Examples:
•The ability to created membrane-enclosed vesicles that can take in small molecules and assemble them into polymers which remain within the "cell" (as described above).
•The ability to assemble functional ribosomes — the structures that convert the information encoded in the genome into the proteins that run life — from their components.
•Assembling and Swapping Genomes.
In 2008, scientists at the J. Craig Venter Institute (JCVI) reported (in Science 29 February 2008) that they had succeeded in synthesizing a complete bacterial chromosome — containing 582,970 base pairs — starting from single deoxynucleotides. The entire sequence of the genome of Mycoplasma genitalium was already known [Link]. Using this information, they synthesized some 10,000 short oligonucleotides (each about 50 bp long) representing the entire genitalium genome and then — step by step — assembled these into longer and longer fragments until finally they had made the entire circular DNA molecule that is the genome.

Could this be placed in the cytoplasm of a living cell and run it?

The same team showed in the previous year (see Science 3 August 2007) that they could insert an entire chromosome from one species of mycoplasma into the cytoplasm of a related species and, in due course, the recipient lost its own chromosome (perhaps destroyed by restriction enzymes encoded by the donor chromosome) and began expressing the phenotype of the donor. In short, they had changed one species into another. But the donor chromosome was made by the donor bacterium, not synthesized in the laboratory. However, there should be no serious obstacle to achieving the same genome transplantation with a chemically-synthesized chromosome.
They've done it! The same team reported on 20 May 2010 in the online Science Express that they had successfully transplanted a completely synthetic genome — based on that of Mycoplasma mycoides — into the related species Mycoplasma capricolum. The recipient strain grew well and soon acquired the phenotype of the M. mycoides donor

The Origin of Life

 

[MoSurveyor]

From the beginning Darwin speculated about origins. He kept out of his book for a couple of reasons. One he had evidence to support chemical evolution and secondly, his audience were for the most part creationists. His letter to Joseph Hooker laid out what he though was a probable cause for life. Why people keep trying to circumvent that fact is beyond me.

<snip quoted text>

There can be no doubt that:

1. Darwin speculated on origins

2. He preferred the idea of abiogenesis, spontaneous generation, chemical evolution

<snip quoted text>

Darwinism
1: a theory of the origin and perpetuation of new species of animals and plants that offspring of a given organism vary, that natural selection favors the survival of some of these variations over others, that new species have arisen and may continue to arise by these processes, and that widely divergent groups of plants and animals have arisen from the same ancestors

2: a theory that inherent dynamic forces allow only the fittest persons or organizations to prosper in a competitive environment or situation

Not one mention of Original genesis or the Origin Question, nor is it mentioned in Origin of the Species. In fact, if the Theory of Evolution included origins none of the churches would accept it, yet many do accept evolution because it's a different question being answered than how it all started.


Scientists speculate all the time, no evidence, just hunches and wishes shared with fellow scientists across the lunch table or over a glass of wine in the evening. Those aren't theories to be considered for scientific analysis, it's just scientists exercising their imagination with like minds. Why anyone would include such speculations in the body of science is beyond me.

 

[Hard Truth]

The James Randi prize suffers from selection and confirmation bias. Many people have attempted the test, but he sets the bar impossibly high. For him, "psychic" = a success rate of greater than 80%. That's not what psychic means. Being psychic or a strong intuitive means you have a higher chance than average of correctly predicting something; but the criteria of Randi's test often deals with cards, or people standing behind blocked walls. If he would let psychics determine the nature of the test, and then allow Randi to refine it so that it can be scientifically reproducible, I think we would see better results. But he does not allow outside input.

If a high jumper can jump higher than most other people, then their abilities are extraordinary. Randi's test is equivalent to setting the bar higher than is reasonable, and if you can't make the jump, then you aren't extraordinary, regardless if you are able to jump higher than most humans on Earth. His test is flawed, always has been. That's why no one has ever passed it. I prefer the works of Rupert Sheldrake when it comes to non-material phenomena. Calling it paranormal from the start shows selection bias. It's not paranormal, it's normal.

None of this has to do with God though. Science should stop trying to certify whether or not God is real, because God has nothing to do material reductionism. Every time a scientist becomes engaged in a spiritual debate and feels the need to make empirical declarations, they are lowering themselves. Science and spirituality are largely incompatible at this stage in the game. I believe quantum theory and metaphysics will bridge the gap with time, but for now they are apples and oranges so they should stop trying to communicate with one another. (And I would say the same thing to "Christian scientists" as well.)

Before believing the claims by this poster I urge others to actually read the criteria on the website for the offer.
"The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."
Challenge Info

2. I don't know of any scientific studies intended to certify whether or not God is real. Please cite one.

3. God has nothing to do (with) material reductionism=God does not meet the definition of "real" as we we know it.

 

[Hard Truth]

I
To a scientist, this is irrelevant to the study of gravity. Therefore I see no reason for some empiricists to get so bent out of shape when people say that God is moving the ocean. It's not something that can ever be tested so there's no point in arguing about it.

It is well established that tides are influenced by the moon's location and can be predicted with that information. No gods required.

 

[Northern Light]

Before believing the claims by this poster I urge others to actually read the criteria on the website for the offer.
"The JREF does not involve itself in the testing procedure, other than helping to design the protocol and approving the conditions under which a test will take place. All tests are designed with the participation and approval of the applicant."
Challenge Info

2. I don't know of any scientific studies intended to certify whether or not God is real. Please cite one.

3. God has nothing to do (with) material reductionism=God does not meet the definition of "real" as we we know it.

1. Here is a writeup on the many flaws in James Randi's challenge which you may read at your leisure:
A critical look at Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge | The Weiler Psi

Here is an excerpt:

To get on a blog and tell people you are psychic is to have skeptics immediately invite you to take magician James Randi’s million dollar challenge. Rather than reply to every comment of that sort that comes through, I’ve set up this page to deal with this subject. I will demonstrate here that there is no reason to take this challenge seriously. Oh, and by the way, James Randi is a climate change denier. (I think this says a lot about his frame of mind.)

First of all, the challenge is meaningless by scientific standards. It’s not a study and it can’t be replicated. It’s a one off. As it is entirely controlled by one person who has no scientific experience, is known to have strong views and has published no scientific peer reviewed papers on the subject, The challenge carries no scientific weight whatsoever.

Compare that to the Parapsychological Association, which is a member of the The American Association for the Advancement of Science and regularly publishes peer reviewed studies. Here is what real evidence looks like.

2. There aren't any because science and spirituality don't mix, for the upteenth time. Science doesn't test it because science doesn't care.

3. As who knows it? Realists? Material reductionists? Yeah, we've already covered that. The definition of "real" and "truth" is variable, unless you're a realist, which many people on this planet aren't.

 

[Northern Light]

It is well established that tides are influenced by the moon's location and can be predicted with that information. No gods required.

This has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings being discussed. Try again.

 

[Occam's Razor]

This has nothing to do with the philosophical underpinnings being discussed. Try again.

The premise of the OP was that science is as much a religion to atheists as monotheism is to christians...

Since then the thread has wandered to the big bang, biogenesis, orbital mechanics, etc.

So... what, in your opinion, are the "philosophical underpinnings" being discussed?

 

[Spartacus FPV]

If an atheist says "give me evidence for God" ... yet is a scientific naturalist, he's essencially assuming t hat no evidence is possible.

Scientific naturalism is the assumption that all phenomenon have a natural explination, that either we know or that we will know .... if you're a scientific naturalist (as many atheists are), NO evidence COULD exist for a God, because any evidence that MIGHT exist MUST be explained naturally, and if you can't explain it naturally, then there must be a natural explination that we just don't know.

You're essencially saying "show me evidence for God, but anything you show me will always have a natural explination whether we know it or not."

What the heck is scientific naturalism? Is there some kind of scientifically supported supernaturalism?

 

[Hard Truth]

1. Here is a writeup on the many flaws in James Randi's challenge which you may read at your leisure:
A critical look at Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge | The Weiler Psi

Here is an excerpt:


2. There aren't any because science and spirituality don't mix, for the upteenth time. Science doesn't test it because science doesn't care.

3. As who knows it? Realists? Material reductionists? Yeah, we've already covered that. The definition of "real" and "truth" is variable, unless you're a realist, which many people on this planet aren't.

1. That critique of the Randi offer is filled with lies. Read the Randi foundation website for yourself and read news stories etc that do not come from con artists and the delusional. Don't like Randi's rules: find some other legitimate scientists and do your own experiment and publish it.

2. You wrote "Science should stop trying to certify whether or not God is real..." When I challenged you to you cite an example. "There aren't any because science and spirituality don't mix.." Why are you calling on science to stop doing something that it isn't actually doing?

3. Reality can be defined and most people know what it is. It is what everyone can perceive and agree on. Even most religious and spiritual people agree on most of the things that scientists and others consider real. Playing games and claiming that reality is variable is primarily a ploy to deceive others and sell concepts from someone's imagination that are not real and not provable because they are only fiction.

Your ideas are wrong and dangerous because they encourage gullible people to be conned.

By the way I studied cold reading techniques and had no problem convincing people that I had psychic abilities with just a little bit of study and practice.

SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- A judge in San Francisco sentenced four thieves Friday. They're convicted of swindling Chinese seniors in what police call the "blessing scam."
The four were convicted by a jury on grand theft charges earlier this month. This is the second conviction the San Francisco District Attorney's Office has obtained on these fraud cases.
They approached Susan Wong, who spoke exclusively to ABC7 News earlier this week. She said the women tried to befriend her, they chatted for a long time, then one of them said she was clairvoyant.

"Number three told me there's going to be calamity in my household," Wong said through an interpreter. "Your son is going to die in three days and my husband is going to get really ill."

The women said they could scare away the evil spirits if she gave them her jewelry and cash.

Instead, Wong went to police and led them to the thieves.

When they were arrested, police recovered $47,000 in cash stolen from another victim.

.....
Prosecutors say this was not an isolated case. In fact, two of them still face charges in New York and Los Angeles for doing the same thing.

........
These so-called "blessing scams" have occurred in other cities like Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago. And as we mentioned, two of the thieves sentenced Friday have charges pending elsewhere.

But San Francisco is the first city in the country to obtain convictions on these fraud cases.

(Copyright ©2013 KGO-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)
"Blessing scam" suspects convicted of swindling Chinese seniors in San Francisco | abc7news.com