Summations Only

Comprehension is not one of your strengths, is it?

But in most other senses he is wrong. But they do require that criteria.
Their acceptance of unknowns is intrinsically tied to (and limited by) their beliefs: it is dogma. True, scientists will want to 'fix' unknowns by finding the answers.
But they don't deny that they exist.

Following on from Catholic Scientist's comment: you don't need to reply to all comments - particularly if it is just a single sentence reply.This post is a good example - all it really needs is an acknowledgement.
This acknowledgement can be made by simply clicking the sentence You have not yet responded and it will change to You have acknowledged this reply
This sentence will be at the bottom of my post.Hopefully this is useful to you.

Initially, I expect we would use our eyes.

I would have to look at it to know. In the same way that anything identified is different to "unknown". By pointing my face in the general direction of "supernatural" and keeping my eyelids open.

Very funny.Now maybe you can try to address the answer.

We are not including imaginary types of creationists.
(If that kind of creationist existed then you wouldn't still be banned from the science forums.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Your response is too funny.
No, really too funny.
Really, really, really funny.
Actually, no - it's bollocks. I was not saying anything about the way something is identified as supernatural.
I was describing how we could study the supernatural.Forgotten what you asked?Is your memory going?Forgotten what you asked?Is your memory going?

I supplied enough information to answer your question.
If you want a different answer then you need to ask a different question. I don't know.
I would have to study it to find out.

No.
Jar is clearly stating that if a leprechaun was standing in front of us, then we would not be able to photograph, weigh, measure, x-ray ... or any of the other 1000's of scientific tests available.Nope.
Makes no sense to me. *shrug*

Do forget: jar thinks that 'study', 'identify' and 'explain' are all synonyms.
This will make any discussion an up-hill struggle through jar's equivocation.Good luck with that.

Great.
Another nutter that has replaced their ability to write with the ability to make up complete shite.Sheesh. You can't even count to 6.
"1...2...A...5...6" Well, he definitely didn't send any to you.

I am not convinced he is 'typical' (although he is far from being unique).The weirdly formatted semi-biblical illiterate nonsense reminds me of CrazyDiamond7's posts.
They appear to be obsessed with brackets.
e.g. "This is the history of the heavens [always plural because of day (sun) and night (moon)]"I think I would categorise them as 'not on this planet' - only a couple of steps away from being sectioned like Dennis Markuze.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Wrong - as usual.
All types of creationist are allowed in the science forums.You are not banned because of your beliefs: you are banned because of your stupidity.

Well, the first example of your stupidity is that very reply:

quote:

---

how about you do the EvC thing and cite three or four examples of Buzsaw stupidity in the Science Fora

---

I said you were banned from the science forums for stupidity.
It is stupid of you to think that I need to provide more than the stupidity that you were banned for.And here is the actual stupidity that you got banned for: The third piece of stupidity you are guilty of is not knowing why you were banned.And lastly, the fourth example of your stupidity will be your response to this message.