Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Then I hope you can provide a link to a peer reviewed study that shows that.

---

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

Then perhaps you are talking about wholesale cheating.

From what basis?You don't think we just dismiss the so-called "evidence" of the paranormal without providing any justification, do you?Isn't it funny how, in every study that supposedly gives credence to paranormal phenomena, we find out that the researchers, far from being neutral or dispassionate, helped their subjects violate important aspects of the protocol designed to weed out cheating?There are well-designed experiments and poorly-designed ones. The difference is not in the results, but in the way the experiment is designed and administered. You'd know about good experiment design if you had ever read a scientific study, but your refusal to name even a single one you've ever read makes it clear that you have absolutely no idea how science is actually performed. I don't know. Why don't you present some evidence and find out? You're right. But paranormal "researchers" invariably have, and they have plenty of ad-hoc justifications for why each study fails to show any paranormal result. "The volunteers didn't believe." "They can only perform in an accepting environment." "The tides were up/down." "The light was too bright/dim." "It only works on alternate Thursdays."Those are not the marks of legitimate science. Those are the marks of crank hucksterism, which is what the supposed "paranormal" has always been revealed to be.

In what study? Be specific. Author, title, date and journal of publication.I mean, we wouldn't want to just be talking about something you heard someone say once, and you believed, right? We want to talk about actual, legitimate evidence. Right?Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

Jar, he's invoking the old, "The spirits/gods won't appear around unbelievers excuse." He isn't saying to my understanding that there's studies that this is true, so much as providing an excuse as to why scientific testing of the paranormal fails.edit. Sorry, I see he tacked on a study claim in a later post.Edited by Trae, : No reason given.

Seems to me there are studies which could be done where you'd really have to stretch the definition of participants to say that non-believers are interfering. For instance, if the test is say telekinesis, skeptics don't have to be physically present and could swap in believers. Mechanical devices could be created for psychic card readers (clairvoyants and not telepaths obviously). I see no reason why prediction require the skeptic to be present, same with remote viewing.The world is so vast and we have so much recording equipment that it seems telling that we only get after the event accounts. I've yet to see some psychic out of the blue really come up with something. What I do see, are interviews with psychics bragging about how helpful they were.I think it was Penn of Penn & Teller who pointed out that if the psychics didn't see 9/11 coming then they're BS.

It seems to me that science uses the term "infinity" quite often. I realize that it is a mathematical expression, but can it actually be used as an expression of anything that truly applies to the material world. If science found that things in the material world pointed to an answer of infinity wouldn't that be evidence of something beyond the natural?

I don't get any sense, from a quick search of the term on a couple of different literature search engines, that science uses the term "infinity" in any sense beyond its mathematical notion. Could you be more specific?

I just suggesting a way that science might bump up against the metaphysical. We live with 3 spatial dimensions. It seems to me then that an infinite solution to a sceintific question would be evidence, (not necessarily conclusive) of the metaphysical.It would also seem to me that the same would hold true for scientific questions regarding time. We know that the universe had a beginning and we also seem to think that it will have an end.I don't see how something that is infinite could exist a wholly material world.

Well, infinity doesn't necessarily mean "ridiculous large." For instance, there are an infinite number of ways to position a wheel around an axis: 360 degrees, then positions at every half-degree, then positions in between every half-degree, and so on.But the fact that wheels are round and they spin on an axis shouldn't convince anybody of the existence of "the metaphysical."I guess whether or not what you say is true really depends on the specific situation where "infinity" was the "solution." I think it's a lot more likely that an army of vaporous, free-form apparitions will march into New York City Hall and demand legal recognition of ghost marriage.I dunno, if there's a scientific case for the realm of the metaphysical (woooOOOOoooOOOO!) shouldn't it probably be made with evidence that actually exists?

The following is a quote form Brian Greene's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

quote:

---

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. Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless. All it tells us is that the equations of general relativity and quantum mechanics, when merged go haywire.

---

It seems to me that Greene may very well be right, and that eventually a natural solution will be found but it seems that right now the science seems to lead to an infinite or a metaphysical answer. Certainly it isn't anywhere near conclusive but this seems to me to be evidence for something metaphysical.

What is metaphysical about infinity?

---

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

And what is metaphysical about mathematicians coming up with weird stuff?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

From the quote out of Brian Greene's book: "Experimenters never measure an infinite amount of anything. Dials never spin around to infinity. Meters never reach infinity. Calculators never register infinity. Almost always, an infinite answer is meaningless.".
Greene is saying that in the physical world infinity is meaningless. Therefore it seems to me that it could only have meaning in the metaphysical.
As I said, this doesn't prove anything, but the question was asked what could be considered as evidence for the metaphysical and it seems to me that this fits the bill.

Or even ideas like "an absolutely straight line".The really important thing about Quantum Mechanics is that it is NOT metaphysical or super natural but just yet another step in understanding "Natural".

---

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