Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

I agree, but my point was that what they eventually discovered was completely contradictory to anything that had been anticipated. Look at the trouble Einstein had in coming to terms with it.Besides, I go back to my earlier question of "why not". Your point seems to be that because they haven't discovered something up to now means that they can't discover it in the future. If you work on that basis all scientists should now close up their books and try and find work as accountants.

The standard is empricism. Fossils are objective things that exist outside of someone's head. Near death experiences do not meet this requirement. That would meet the standards of empirical evidence, but your NDE's do not since only one person experiences it and it is not available to others. You are moving towards dishonesty land.

Yet it is still simply materialistic.Is there any reason to think any explanation we find will not be materialistic?

---

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

You still haven't answered the question "why not". Just because that hasn't been an answer found in the past does not mean it won't be found in the future. Well yes. That is the point of the discussion. Right now the answers that they are coming up with appear to point to something that is not of the material world.Sure there is a good chance that will change but I'm merely pointing out where things stand now.

HUH?Where is there any evidence that there is something not of the material world?That is what no one but you seems to see.There are indications that our understanding of the material world is incomplete but no where do I see any indications that anything points to anything other than a material answer in the future.

---

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

You are operating off a presumption, similar to what Percy is saying, that nothing can point to a non-materialistic cause. That doesn't actually MEAN that nothing can point to a non-materialistic cause, it simply means you are saying that it can't.I would suggest that the idea of a timeless, motionless universe (non-universe) before the big bang, changing to a universe full of matter and time is evidence for a supernatural occurrence. Of course, because you are creating your own definitions about what is evidence and what isn't, and what the evidence shows, then anything you say by definition can be true, because you are creating the definitions. but that doesn't mean others must accept your definitions.Likewise, infinity is an impossible concept, in the natural world that we live in. As such, evidence for infinity is also evidence for a supernatural world.Your sort of self-imposed "out" whenever the evidence is not in keeping with what we know of the natural world, does not need to be a valid point for all.There can't be an infinity in our world. So you either reject the theory of QM or you accept that there are things outside of our natural world. You can't have one without the other.And I would say, that to imagine our world in its most extreme sense, when you contemplate what "is" something, and what "is" something else distinct from the other, you will see that everything is everything else, you are the air, and the stars, and the water around you, and the space between your atoms is also the space between others and the ends of your fingertips and the ends of the space next to them are the same thing. So if your are standing next to a tree, where does that tree end, and the space between you and it begin? Where does the tree end and you begin?There can be no definition of the tree, and of the space and of you. They are all the same.

I'm sorry but your post is simply nonsense. That is simply untrue. What I have said is that so far every explanation that has ever been found has been materialistic. Another untrue statement. It could also be simply a construct of an example of areas we do not yet understand. It offers NO support for any super-natural world. Yet another untrue statement. It can simply mean there are things that we do not yet understand. Sorry but that is just sophomoric word salad.Edited by jar, : part got lost

---

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

Do you have any evidence of a "timeless, motionless universe (non-universe) before the big bang?" Or is that simply your own ill-informed interpretation of what you think scientists believe about a pre-big bang universe? If the former, please offer evidence. If the latter, please give a citation to where a scientist says any such thing.

---

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

What you are saying is simply untrue. YOU have decided that all explanations are naturalistic. That doesn't make it so. Is the explanation for the cosmos naturalistic? Why, because you say it is? is the explanation for the beginning of life naturalistic? because you say it is? Is the explanation for how light travels naturalistic? Because you say so?You have defined the parameters, so you claim them to be correct. If I see it, and can explain it, it is naturalistic. If I can't see it, it doesn't exist. And your third category, if I see it, but can't explain it, it goes into the unknown folder. Or do you name that the nonsense folder? Or the salad folder?

What is your definition of evidence?

What do you have?

---

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

Please show where I have said that or admit that you are misrepresenting what I have said.You even quoted what I said ... ... yet went on to misrepresent what I said. Of course. Until we understand and can explain what is seen it goes in the Unknown Cause folder.

---

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

Incorrect. First off, infinity is not a defined 'number' or a 'property', it is an abstract mathematical concept or process. In fact, the concept of infinity is at the heart of physics itself (because physics is a subset of mathematical knowledge and branches of mathematics such as calculus center around the concept of infinity).Here are a couple of examples.1. The geometry of spacetime is predicted by scientists to be close to flat (at this current time) and infinite (their is no boundary or edge to spacetime/universe).
2. Spacetime itself can be divided infinitesimally into smaller and smaller units.
3. Electromagnetic planewave wavefronts with infinite parallel planes of constant amplitude occur in nature.
4. The absolute unpredictability of the quantum world (i.e. Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) results in an infinite number of ways that phenomena can occur in the universe even with a finite amount of matter and energy.These are just a few. 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

You are unwittingly making my point for me.In what we know and consider to be our natural world, infinity can't exist, because if something is infinitely large, it is equally infinitely small.You have just explained that mathematics and physics have identified infinite things. If that is the case, how can they exist in the world we know. How can parts of an atom that make up your body be infinitely small? Can you explain this? You are made of infinitely small parts?How thin is the skin that makes up your body? if we have instruments to view it microscopically, all the way down to its thinnest point, if we keeping magnifying it over and over again, how thin is your skin? Does it disappear?You can't just take the cop-out that Jar does and just say this is sophomore salad. We are talking about things we know, and what we know is that if we delve deeply enough into the existence of matter, at some point it ceases to exit as a separate entity. This isn't just made up fiction.You have just shown that physics and mathematics is either wrong, or we live in a world beyond the natural that we know. Take you pick.

In fact, I would take this even further. Given the fact that we know that there is no such thing as the smallest unit, that things just keep getting smaller or disappear altogether if we look closely enough, we are virtually guaranteeing that the world is super-natural. Because this is what super-natural is, the inability of something to be able to exist in a natural world.If we had found out that the smallest thing that could ever exist is say, an atom, and nothing can be smaller, than we might have reason to say we have a defined, natural world, that can be explained. But since we already know this is not the case, and we know that at some point when we look closely enough, all matter vanishes, we have just defined that our world is super-natural.So, to all those who want evidence of a super natural world, I say physics has already given you that evidence. Life disappears into another world when we look closely enough.