Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Bolder-dash writes: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.

marc9000 writes:That’s because compromising Christianity with evolution (Darwinism) is a dangerous 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.

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.

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.

Bolder-dash writes:So do you say the same thing about quantum mechanics? Until you can observe it is it false?

Bolder-dash writes:You are free to be a disbeliever all you like-but that is not scientific.

Bolder-dash writes:No, its not the placebo effect. We are talking about the volunteers administering the tests, like the one's turning over cards, or sending out the mental image.

GDR writes:Therefore it seems to me that it could only have meaning in the metaphysical.

GDR writes:He also said this to this particular iussue which isn't quailfied."In practice, the incompatibility between general relativity and quantum mechanics rears its head in a very specific way. If you use the combined equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, they almost always yield one answer: infinity. And that's a problem. It's nonsense."

GDR writes:He obviously doesn't. The point is that in the world in which he works is physics which comes fromythe same root word as physical. Within that world it doesn't make sense. Therefore if the calculations are correct, (which they may well not be as there is no doubt more to be leartned), then the evidence leads to a non-physical or a metaphysical answer.

GDR writes: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.

GDR writes: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.

GDR writes: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.