Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

I don't agree. Right now science and mathematics provide an answer of inifinity which if correct is not something that is conceivable in our 4 dimensional world.The current science points to something metaphysical. It's evidence of something metaphysical. Is it the final word? No. But it seems to be where we are at right now.

quote:

---

I don't agree. Right now science and mathematics provide an answer of inifinity which if correct is not something that is conceivable in our 4 dimensional world.

---

Right now, we don't have a theory that can be trusted to describe those conditions. The theory that we do have comes up with a result that is probably impossible. So that theory is almost certainly wrong (in this situation).

quote:

---

The current science points to something metaphysical. It's evidence of something metaphysical. Is it the final word? No. But it seems to be where we are at right now.

---

No, it doesn't. Current science says that the answer you like so much is almost certainly wrong. That is where we are now. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Exactly. Evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.Or, more scientifically, as we currently understand it. What is pointing to something metaphysical? I don't see this at all. Do you have any evidence for this "pointing" to something metaphysical?Remember what you said:"this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it"What's more rational?1. To think our understanding of the physical world is incomplete or incorrect and that more in-depth investigation of the physical world is required so that we can gain more correct-knowledge about the physical world.
-as has happened many times in science
-as has happened in a shift to Newtonian physics
-as has happened in a shift to Quantum physics2. To think that something supernatural is occuring.
-for which there is no evidence at all
-for which there has never been any evidence at all
-for which time and time again has been shown to be an incorrect and useless explanation (gods controlling weather patterns, earth-centric idea of the universe, creation of fire...)So, we know from past experience that when this sort of "infinity" issue comes up... it always leads to more study and an eventual increase in our knowledge about how the physical world works.Why should the supernatural be considered? What, specifically, is actually pointing towards it? Do you understand that the scientific community has been in this exact situation many, many times in the past and it has never turned out to be a supernatural explanation? It has always turned out to be an increase in our understanding about the physical world.

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong but right now the evidence points to something outside the physical. You can only say that it is almost certainly wrong if you discount the possibility of anything outside the physical.

NO!It simply says that our understanding of what is physical is still incomplete.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

quote:

---

I'm not saying that it isn't wrong but right now the evidence points to something outside the physical.

---

No, the evidence says that the theory that we have is not applicable to those circumstances. You cannot validly ignore QM at the scales where it applies and we have no working way of fully combining GR and QM.

quote:

---

You can only say that it is almost certainly wrong if you discount the possibility of anything outside the physical.

---

Wrong. The reasons are that the calculation is an abuse of the theory and the result makes no sense - according to the quotes that you produced. As I have already pointed out.

But the evidence does not point this way.
You've already said exactly where the evidence points.
The evidence is pointing at an incorrect application of our existing understanding to this physical aspect of the world.There is absolutely no evidence or "pointing" in any direction even related to something called "the supernatural".Let's take some examples:
1 - You always hang your keys in the same spot on the wall in your house on a regular basis
2 - One day you go to leave and reach for your keys
3 - The keys are not there
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that your understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?In application to recent (last few hundred years) mathematics:
1 - NP (Newtonion Physics) always explained the aspects of our universe that we dealt with on a regular basis
2 - One day we tried to use NP to explain an additional aspect of our universe (extremely small-scale motion)
3 - The answer turned out to include a singularity (ie. some number went to infinity)
***this didn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Was this an indication that something supernatural was going on?
B - Or was this an indication that our understanding of the (then) current physical world was incorrect?In application to this situation:
1 - GR (General Relativity) and QM (Quantum Mechanics) always explain the aspects of our universe that we deal with on a regular basis
2 - One day we try to use GR and QM to explain an additional aspect of our universe (the beginnings of our universe)
3 - The answer turns out to include a singularity (ie. some number goes to infinity)
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that our understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?If A is incorrect for all the other scenarios where we run into confusion between the reality of the physical world and our current understanding, why do you think it should be considered this time?What, specifically, is pointing towards the supernatural? It can't simply be that it doesn't make sense... that is only pointing to our current understanding being incorrect.

I agree completely I'm repeating myself but you are still asking the question. The answer that scientists consistently come up with when combining GR and QM is infinity. As Greene points out that doesn't fit into our naturalistic world as we experience it. Therefore the evidence, as we currently understand it, points to an answer outside the physical. Absolutely and this may very well be the case again. I'm just pointing out that there is evidence, although I would agree that it is far from conclusive. Out of curiosity can you give me an example, although I don't actually doubt that you are correct? So, when science hasn't been able so far to provide an example you just say that it will some day. Wouldn't that be the same as someone saying that god did it.It looks to me like a "science of the gaps" argument.

The difference, of course, is that the former is the beginning of a search for further answers while the latter is the end.

---

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas JeffersonFor we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- PhatIt has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate

Absolutely from a scientific point of view but from a philosophical or theological point of view it could certainly be something to be considered.However, the statement does nothing to make the case that this is any different than the "god of the gaps" argument. Someone might say that because science hasn't found an answer it must be god,(however they define god), whereas the argument here is that although science hasn't yet found an answer it must still have a materialistic answer. Both approaches are depended on one's world view.

Not true.The answer here is that nothing but materialistic answers have ever been found, so there is no reason to expect anything but a materialistic answer.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

By what standard are you using to say that one piece of evidence is suitable to say it it connected to what it appears to (such as the fossils) and another can not be said to be evidence of (seeing things while you are dead) what it appears to be?It sounds to me that you are just arbitrarily decided that one evidence looks good to you, because it makes sense, while another doesn't because maybe we are just being fooled, or just need more information to decide its really wrong. Why is one not scientific?If you take this type of arbitrary standard, of course you are never going to find the evidence. Because every time there is evidence, you can just say, well its unknown. If tomorrow a great cloud appeared in the sky, and said "I am a spirit Percy, this is the truth!" and then suddenly disappeared, and everyone in the world saw and heard it, you could still just say-well, its unknown. If it happened everyday for ten days, you could still make that claim.If you tore up a piece of paper and threw it into a waste basket, and a blast of wind came along, and blew those pieces of paper into the air the moment you threw it, and also at the same time someone walking with a jar of glue tripped, and threw that into the air, and the two combined, and rearranged the bits of paper to spell, I AM THE ONE, once again you can just say, well who knows, maybe its just coincidence. Well, maybe fossils are just coincidence.Since you are leaving yourself the option of always selecting the "we don't know" category whenever it suits you, you are not really following the evidence where it leads. You are cherry picking evidence that suits you.

Dozens of railcar-loads of them? All coincidence?BIG coincidence.....

Why not? Who would have imagined in 1900 the strange goings on in the world of QM? Who knows what will be uncovered in the future? And of course science should continue to seek a materialistic answer.

There is nothing in QM that is not materialistic.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!