Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2697 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 196 of 485 (570474)
07-27-2010 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee
07-27-2010 12:27 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Hi, Chimp.
Jumped Up Chimpanzee writes:
What is "non-materialistic evidence"?
Don't you even dare go there.
I hope Straggler's not lurking on this thread.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-27-2010 12:27 PM Jumped Up Chimpanzee has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 197 of 485 (570511)
07-27-2010 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by bluescat48
07-27-2010 11:24 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
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.
That's exactly what happened to creationism: it was thrown out and replaced with evolution --- by scientists.
Not by all non-scientists, but then one could say the same of geocentrism; and I feel sure that if the Bible had mentioned phlogiston then creationists would be going around denouncing the "atheist myth of oxygen" and demanding that schools should "teach both theories".
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by bluescat48, posted 07-27-2010 11:24 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 198 of 485 (570552)
07-27-2010 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 8:30 AM


Re: How evolutionists think...
I would conclude from this response that you did not understand a word of what I posted, and you are completely ignoring what others are posting about the (non-existent) relationship between actual evidence and explanations that invoke non-material causes:
Bolder-dash writes:
See, so you are saying science doesn't allow this. Even if all of the evidence was pointing exactly to that conclusion.
Two basic points -- try to comprehend this:
(A) Real evidence does not point to non-material explanations -- it really just does not -- which explains in part why you have been unable to identify any evidence that does point to non-material explanations. Such "explanations" are nothing more than the imaginings of people who really don't know what is going on.
(B) Your reference to "that [non-material] conclusion" shows that you completely missed my point: as soon as you accept any non-material "explanation", you immediately face a countless variety of alternative non-material "explanations", all of which have an equal claim to validity (which is to say no validity at all), and there is no stable, reliable, sensible basis for choosing among all those alternatives.
The point is: there is never a single non-material explanation for a given body of evidence, and being non-material, such a set of explanations can never be ranked as to relative accuracy, predictive power, general usefulness, etc. If you want to declare a given choice as "better" than others because it conforms to your theology, you're taking the path that leads to religious schism and wrong action. That's the antithesis of science.
It's only when you can appeal to observable, replicable phenomena as causative factors that you can discern between explanations that are "workable" rather than "unworkable", "better" rather than "worse", etc.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 8:30 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:24 PM Otto Tellick has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 199 of 485 (570558)
07-27-2010 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by Blue Jay
07-25-2010 10:06 PM


marc9000 writes:
...it’s easy to see a motive for not wanting the world to have meaning. It is an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.
Marc, I want to lodge two complaints about this statement.
1. I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website. Atheists only rarely think of the world as meaningless: they often perceive a meaning for the world and for their lives that is as profound and as deep as any meaning that you and I, as religious folks, perceive.
You maybe, but not myself. An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism. Not only does that directly conflict with the purpose described in the Bible, it can vary all over the place, it can attempt to counter it - to attempt to claim some Christian virtue as its own. Or it can make randomness meaningful, often assigning meaning only to itself, and disregarding meaning in religion. The 10 commandments of Christianity are usually discarded — that’s the liberation that seems to be the most attractive in Darwinism.
I’ve learned a great deal from atheists from these types of websites too. One of them is how free-flowing the incorrect statements about Christians and Christianity really are. An example from the opening post;
quote:
Since religion answers every question for many Creationists,
Can you imagine, or have you ever known, any creationist making that claim? I haven’t — it sure doesn’t answer all my questions.
I am a family man. I have a son who is almost three years old, and my wife is five months pregnant with my first daughter. I am content and happy with my family life, and have no interest in looking for sex anywhere else. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if I underwent andropause right now. I seek no sexual liberation.
In addition, I don’t really pay much attention to politics. I have voted Democrat more often recently, simply because I greatly prize education, and Democrats are friendlier to education. But, my general political philosophy is to not rock the boat too much and not ask for too many favors from people. I seek no political liberation either.
Sincere congratulations, you’re in an important, memorable phase of your life right now. But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare, I think it is more common in younger people. That’s not a put down, just a statement that young people seek liberation.
When I got my first computer 10 years ago and started noticing forums like this, I was only interested in politics, conservative vs liberal. I remember seeing a ‘creation vs evolution sub-forum, and telling myself I didn’t want anything to do with that. But after a short time, it became clear to me that young people and science education in todays liberal universities is a major part of the US shift to liberalism. All Ward Churchill had to do was blast the US just after 9/11 from his little corner of the world in Boulder Colorado, and within three years he was invited to speak at 40 college campuses all across the US. Selected writings of his became required reading at 100 universities in the US. He became a darling of US higher education because of his extreme liberal viewpoints.
My interest in evolution stems only from what I feel are its logical merits. I do not view the question of meaning as having anything to do with my acceptance of evolution. I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis because I have never been able to glean any success from a faith-based approach to life, and am struggling to understand why a being like God would place such high importance on faith, anyway.
Your comments seem to be written through Christian-tinted glasses. I understand what it feels like to perceive the world from a Christian perspective, because I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago. I still cannot understand fully atheistic perspectives on life, and I can’t grasp the concept of myself without having some sort of inner soul, but I think I understand enough to at least accept that they are sincere and that their view is not the same as mine.
Let’s line up your three statements;
quote:
*I have learned a great deal about atheists from this website.
*I am currently in the midst of a major religious crisis
*I was as fundamentalist as any Christian ever was up until a couple years ago.
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
It’s not uncommon in many subjects for a conclusion to be established at the beginning, and then evidence formed to fit that conclusion. It happens in the courts all the time — the lawyers for the defendant and plantiff don’t compile all the evidence before they decide who’s case they’re going to take, they start with a conclusion (the defendant is guilty/ the defendant is innocent) and then start looking at evidence. I’ve been on jury duty, and at age 17 I was on the witness stand (I witnessed a child being hit and killed by a car) - it’s pretty amazing how each side can make the evidence fit their predetermined conclusion.
I also have a somewhat personal experience with written history. I’ll keep this as brief as possible — only the most impatient will declare that it’s off topic, it actually reaches an on-topic conclusion.
I was an average student throughout grade school and high school, (crashfrog will be delighted to see this) and my interest in American history wasn’t anything special either. But prominent figures in American history got more than just a passing mention when I went to school in the 60’s, and it’s probably similar today. We are taught about them in more than just one school year — it happens over a period of several grades. Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are two people that any public school student paying much attention at all is going to picture who they were and what they were like in his mind. Though Lee was on the Confederate side, history shows a lot of respect for him. I remember Lincoln being portrayed as basically a good man, kind and soft spoken, but a good leader. One of my great-grandfathers spent most of his life in central Ohio (he lived to be 96 years old) but he grew up on a farm in Maryland where several civil war battles were fought, and being born in 1850, he was a boy of 11, 12, 13, during those battles. In 1938, at age 88, he was interviewed by a Dayton Ohio newspaper, and most of the interview was about his memories of those battles. That newspaper clipping has been preserved by my family. He met both Lincoln and Lee as a boy — Lincoln just after a brief speech on a battlefield (led to Lincoln by his father) and Lee as a group of boys being kindly spoken to by Lee, mainly a warning to stay out of harms way, but also asked them casual questions about their farms and schools. He said his dad, even as a staunch northerner, had respect for Lee, said he was a sure enough fighter. His descriptions of Lincoln and Lee’s mannerisms and actions match exactly with the way they were portrayed in the history books I studied in the 1960’s.
My point is that I find the written word of the Bible to be on a different level than 19th and 20th century scientific speculations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by Blue Jay, posted 07-25-2010 10:06 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 7:49 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 201 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 8:01 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 202 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2010 8:28 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 226 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee, posted 07-28-2010 4:51 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 272 by Blue Jay, posted 07-29-2010 11:25 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 274 by bluescat48, posted 07-29-2010 6:15 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 275 by Rrhain, posted 07-30-2010 4:01 AM marc9000 has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 200 of 485 (570562)
07-27-2010 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


marc9000 writes:
That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous thing for a Christian to do.
Nonsense, accepting evolution is the only HONEST thing for a Christian to do.
marc9000 writes:
My point is that I find the written word of the Bible to be on a different level than 19th and 20th century scientific speculations.
Yes, we know that there is no such thing as "The Bible" and that there are factual errors in EVERY Bible regardless of the Canon.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 201 of 485 (570568)
07-27-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
Evolution certainly implies a lack of meaning in the natural world, but it hardly necessitates meaninglessness in the [i]human/i world. It just entails the realization that humans are the source of their own meaning.
I hardly think you'll find many atheists who will assert that their lives have no meaning - no more than the religious who say the same thing, anyway. (For instance, Mother Theresa.)
The 10 commandments of Christianity are usually discarded — that’s the liberation that seems to be the most attractive in Darwinism.
I asked you about that before - which commandment was Darwin so especially fond of violating that he took ten years of his life to develop evolution? What commandment was Huxley so fond of turning his back on that he became Darwin's most ardent champion?
But after a short time, it became clear to me that young people and science education in todays liberal universities is a major part of the US shift to liberalism.
How can this be true? Hardly any college students take courses in the biological sciences. The ones that usually do are in pre-medical majors - is it your impression that the nation's doctors are an elite cadre of liberal atheists?
It happens in the courts all the time — the lawyers for the defendant and plantiff don’t compile all the evidence before they decide who’s case they’re going to take
No, because that's not the job they're meant to do. We have an adversarial legal system, where each position is meant to be advocated to the fullest extent, and then a jury weighs the evidence and interpretations put before them.
Of course, the legal system has restrictions on what can be evidence because juries are laypeople, and to protect civil liberties, which we consider more important than guilt or innocence in any particular trial. Science doesn't have the same restrictions on evidence; in science, the restrictions on what can be considered "evidence" are meant to ensure that conclusions are being drawn only from the data that is most reproducible and authentic. This increases the quality of scientific conclusions.
I was an average student throughout grade school and high school, (crashfrog will be delighted to see this)
Not especially. I was a worse than average student. You probably got better grades than I did. I don't think less of you because you don't know science. You're forcing me to think less of you when you refuse to admit that there's any science you need to learn.
. In 1938, at age 88, he was interviewed by a Dayton Ohio newspaper, and most of the interview was about his memories of those battles. That newspaper clipping has been preserved by my family.
That's a pretty exciting living history. Thanks for sharing it.
My point is that I find the written word of the Bible to be on a different level than 19th and 20th century scientific speculations.
Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 202 of 485 (570571)
07-27-2010 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by marc9000
07-27-2010 7:34 PM


An atheistic meaning to life is created to harmonize with the meaninglessness in Darwinism.
So says you. Atheists and agnostics find a great deal of meaning in this life. Actually I would propose that non-religious people tend to find more meaning in this life because they know it is the only life they have.
Not only does that directly conflict with the purpose described in the Bible, it can vary all over the place,
Yeah, and Christianity is so coherent and unvarying that it consists of 10s of thousands of individual denominations and sects each interpreting Christianity and the Bible in their own way.
it can attempt to counter it - to attempt to claim some Christian virtue as its own.
Or vice versa. Give me some Christian virtues and let's see if any of them predate Christianity or Judaism in ancient literature. I dare you.
. Or it can make randomness meaningful, often assigning meaning only to itself, and disregarding meaning in religion.
Meaning can be found in anything including the 5 day old pizza in your fridge. That is the inherent nature of human beings, to find meaning in any and everything.
The 10 commandments of Christianity are usually discarded — that’s the liberation that seems to be the most attractive in Darwinism.
What are you defining as Darwinism. Can you give me a clear definition of it and how it originated? Is this a sociological or psychological term?
But if you’re saying that this point in your life is when you’re first becoming most interested in accepting Darwinism and questioning Christianity, I believe it’s rare,
You are wrong. Many non-believers on this forum, including myself were previous Christians who became disenchanted with the religion for whatever reasons and when honestly confronted with their own research and the facts saw Christianity for the facad it is. I too am a maried, family 37 year old man with a kid, as well as a 17+ year military veteran. Are you going to say that I accepted evolution because I am trying to sexually and/or morally liberate myself? Really!?!
That’s not a put down, just a statement that young people seek liberation.
Are you saying that the majority of scientists out there that accept evolution as reality are 'young people seeking liberation'? Really? Are you this ignorant?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by marc9000, posted 07-27-2010 7:34 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 203 of 485 (570577)
07-27-2010 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Otto Tellick
07-27-2010 7:17 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You are giving yourself way too much credit if you believe that understanding your simple idea is so difficult to understand.
The problem you are missing is that in fact some experiments actually DO provide evidence that is best explained by a non-materialistic cause. Its a shame you don't have enough imagination to see how that is possible.
This concept of yours that if we were to determine that something appears to be supernatural, we then are left without knowing which supernatural cause it is is simply an unfortunate fact of understanding supernatural phenomenon, but that does not eliminate the fact that that can be a conclusion. That would be like saying that we can't study quantum mechanics because it is indeterminate.
Well, sorry, it just is what it is. Our inability to delve all the way into the reality of things doesn't make them just go away.
Now, because you lack a creative mind, let's just look at it for a moment.
If someone conducts an experiment where a one person in Croatia draws an image on a white piece of paper, and someone in Tulsa is able to describe exactly what that image is without being told or shown, and they can repeat this phenomenon and this procedure is tested scientifically to insure there is no cheating, we may well conclude the best explanation is a super-natural one.
Now you can't go and argue, "but we can't determine WHICH supernatural ability is enabling him to know this, so it can't be any supernatural cause." When you are simply looking at the evidence, you don't get to cherry pick which conclusion you are going to draw. It is what it is.
Is that too huge for you to get your mind around man? Can you understand a word of what I have posted because its way too intellectual for you to comprehend? Try to come to grips with it dude, if that's possible.
Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 7:17 PM Otto Tellick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 9:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 9:34 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 214 by subbie, posted 07-28-2010 12:43 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 265 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-29-2010 6:36 AM Bolder-dash has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 204 of 485 (570580)
07-27-2010 9:31 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 9:24 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
If someone conducts an experiment where a one person in Croatia draws an image on a white piece of paper, and someone in Tulsa is able to describe exactly what that image is without being told or shown, and they can repeat this phenomenon and this procedure is tested scientifically to insure there is no cheating, we may well conclude the best explanation is a super-natural one.
Utter nonsense.
There is no reason there to even consider a super-natural answer.
First, that tells us absolutely nothing. Saying "super-natural" is no different than saying 'wallaslopski"; there is no informational content in either.
The correct procedure is to place that example into the "Unknown Cause" file until we do find a reasonable explanation.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:24 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 205 of 485 (570581)
07-27-2010 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 203 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 9:24 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
The problem you are missing is that in fact some experiments actually DO provide evidence that is best explained by a non-materialistic cause.
What experiments? All cases of "out of body" surgery experiences, where participants supposedly were able to see specific details they couldn't have known any other way, turned out to be apocryphal. Studies that supposedly revealed "psychic powers" were revealed to be fundamentally flawed when investigators couldn't tell the difference between supposedly "real" psychics and pranks by professional illusionists. It turns out that being jabbed in the back randomly by toothpicks is even more effective at treating pain than acupuncture.
Prayer, of course, fails every rigorous study, every time. In many studies you're even worse off in terms of recovery times if you are informed that people are praying for your recovery. And in no study, of course, has the power of prayer regenerated limbs, teeth, or corrected serious deformities as described in the Bible (and as God must surely be capable of, if he exists.)
So, no. You're actually flat-out wrong. There is absolutely no evidence for "non-material" anything or for any aspect of the supposedly "paranormal."
If someone conducts an experiment where a one person in Croatia draws an image on a white piece of paper, and someone in Tulsa is able to describe exactly what that image is without being told or shown, and they can repeat this phenomenon and this procedure is tested scientifically to insure there is no cheating, we may well conclude the best explanation is a super-natural one.
Why? After all, I can transmit an image from Croatia to Tulsa using entirely material means - the internet, for one. Even if "remote viewing" were to be substantiated - and it never, ever has - why would that mean it was "supernatural"? Why couldn't it be natural, by a means we've not yet discovered?
How, exactly, do you determine the difference between that which the materialist perspective has not yet explained, and that which it could not ever explain? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:24 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 206 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 231 by kjsimons, posted 07-28-2010 10:22 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 206 of 485 (570584)
07-27-2010 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 205 by crashfrog
07-27-2010 9:34 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
You seem to be arguing two different things at the same time.
First, if you want to say that the experiments that have been done, by real scientists using real scientific methods are just poorly done, that is certainly your choice to believe that. but then the people who are conducting these experiments have more credentials as scientists than you do, so by what authority do you get to decide which experiments are valid and which aren't?
Can I use the same argument to say that all biology experiments that i don't agree with are wrong, because they don't reach the conclusion I say they must?
Now you are saying that every experiment that appears to show supernatural causes is wrong by definition. You know about every single experiment that has ever been done about prayer? Wow, how did you get all those resources?
You know about every experiment that has ever been done about telepathy, or near death experiments, or faith healing? Wow, how did you get access to every study on the planet, and still have the time to determine that all of them are false?
Or are you just saying they have to be false, because its impossible for them to be correct? Because WE scientists say so?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 9:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 207 of 485 (570586)
07-27-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 204 by jar
07-27-2010 9:31 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
What you are saying is that science should just wear blinders if they don't like some of the conclusions, that's silly.
If research is conducted which shows a likely supernatural cause-it is not telling us nothing as you claim. It is telling us that supernatural things can exist. That is actually telling us a lot, even if you don't like that conclusion.
You are free to challenge any experiment and say it is not valid by showing where the experiment is flawed. But you are not free to say that some conclusions are un-allowable, simply because we can't know as much about them as we want. Science should abide by what the evidence shows.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 9:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by jar, posted 07-27-2010 10:14 PM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 210 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2010 10:15 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 211 by Coyote, posted 07-27-2010 10:16 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 208 of 485 (570588)
07-27-2010 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 10:04 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
Bolder-dash writes:
If research is conducted which shows a likely supernatural cause-it is not telling us nothing as you claim. It is telling us that supernatural things can exist. That is actually telling us a lot, even if you don't like that conclusion.
I used the example you presented. There was NOTHING in your example that would suggest any super-natural involvement.
I can say that "super-natural" is a content free silly supposition until you bring that super-natural entity or force and place it on the table to be examined.
Good luck.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:17 PM jar has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 209 of 485 (570589)
07-27-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 206 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 9:54 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
by what authority do you get to decide which experiments are valid and which aren't?
My own knowledge of experiment design, and the knowledge of others.
Now you are saying that every experiment that appears to show supernatural causes is wrong by definition.
No, I'm asking you what "supernatural" means, and how you purport to know the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural cause we just don't understand yet.
You know about every experiment that has ever been done about telepathy, or near death experiments, or faith healing?
Every one that's been published, yes. There honestly aren't all that many. For very understandable reasons its hard to attract research funding for crank pseudoscience.
Wow, how did you get access to every study on the planet
It's called "the internet." Be honest, now - have you ever in your life sought out and read a scientific, peer-reviewed journal article? Do you even know where they can be found?
What was the last peer-reviewed paper you read? Please be specific.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 9:54 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 210 of 485 (570590)
07-27-2010 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Bolder-dash
07-27-2010 10:04 PM


Re: How evolutionists think...
If research is conducted which shows a likely supernatural cause
But there is no such research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Bolder-dash, posted 07-27-2010 10:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024