Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Even if evidence points to that it's of absolutely no use, since pointing to that would make anything possible. No it doesn't, and it never has. I don't it's so much of a conscious effort, as a practical outcome. If evidence points to a supernatural cause, then any and all possibilities are equally valid. Since that's of absolutely no use to anyone, it can't help science along, even if it were the case.

No study ever conducted pointed to "the supernatural" as an explanation. Showed they didn't eixst. Never happened either. And why would this have a supernatural cause? Do you know everything? Could it not possibly be a naturalistic cause? How do you know? Well, since it has never looked like that, luckily, we don't have to do that.

I agree that if there were non-material phenomena that had reliable reproducible effects on the material world then these effects certainly would be open to verification by science. The two problems with this are that A) having identified such an effect and ruled out a material explanation there would be nowhere to go if it were truly non-material and B) at the moment no such phenomena have been identified.It isn't just science that is inequipped to study the immaterial, any material entity is as well. We could identify an effect but we couldn't identify or study its origin. If we investigated psychic powers and clearly showed they were a genuine phenomenon then if we could exclude a material basis in brain function, something which itself would be next to impossible, then where do we go? That is essentialy the end of any science related to the origin of psychic phenomena. We can study the effects and limits of psychic powers but we cant say anything about why or how they work, the science of the origins of psychic phenomena has just stopped working.One can posit a non-material source for a phenomenon, but once you have then there is nowhere to go.TTFN,WK

I think whether or not there is anywhere else to go with that information is immaterial. If it's even the most likely answer, then as scientists we have to accept that this is the most likely answer.Secondly, I don't think that you can say that no such phenomenon have been identified. There are real scientific studies on psychic phenomenon and on near death experiences that so far can only be explained as not having a material cause. I am talking about real scientists doing real studies, and drawing conclusions in the same manner that any other scientific method draws.Of course, skeptics will simply scoff and say the experiment must be flawed, or make some other rationalization, but it is a rationalization that they don't apply to every other scientific study that yields results they do agree with.

Science did go with the lumeniferous ether for a long time. And that turned out to be so immaterial, that it doesn't even exist.

HUH?How can evidence point to a super-natural cause?Edited by jar, : take out a " "

---

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

(My emphasis)Now, that's funny! Exactly when and how did you achieve the status of scientist? Because whoever said you are needs to have his science credentials revoked. Citation? Thought not. You silly twit! That's what scientists do all day. Challenge the results of other experiments, and yes, even ones they agree with. If you can spend even as little time here has you have a not be aware of this basic fact about science, I'm afraid there's really very little hope of you ever learning anything useful. Maybe you should start looking for a tin cup and some pencils.

---

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

Ho, well science can certainly be wrong.That can be the case regardless of the whether the conclusions drawn are materialistic or non-materialistic.

Yes, it can. And all scientists accept that it can. Which is fundamental to the integrity of science, and is the point behind this whole topic.

You're being dishonest with yourself. In a practical scenario, you don't go looking for non-material solutions, do you?When your car won't start, you look for material solutions. Is the battery working. Is there a starter problem? Is there gas and spark? You might pray for guidance but when you look under the hood, do you really expect to find "evidence" that God doesn't want you to go to work?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

You look wherever the evidence points you. Even if that is non-materialistic.

That isn't what I asked you. In a practical situation, like when your car won't start, do you look for non-material solutions? Or do you look at every conceivable material possibility that you can think of, no matter how unlikely it seems? How many possibilities do you have to try before you conclude that God doesn't want you to go to work?And more importantly, what is the "evidence" that points to God not wanting you to go to work?

---

Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

Sure it can be wrong which is why the Phlogiston theory was thrown out, and replaced with Oxidation-Reduction or why the sun centered solar system replaced the earth centered system. When a scientific theory is found wrong it is corrected which is not the case with creationism.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

I thought there were goods argument for some of the NT to be written in the later part of the first century? Can you point me to the thread you feel discusses NT dating the best?

What is "non-materialistic evidence"?