Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

How does a fossil tell you anything about the processes that brought it into being?What is repeatable about studying a fossil?You have asked me how to study the super-natural and I have answered-if people who are flatlined (dead) at the time a conversation about them is taking place, and they are able to recall that conversation-that is not evidence? Then what evidence does science have that people like sex-because they say so? Or that people who want to kill themselves are depressed? Or that some people are psychotic?Have you ever watched Ghost Lab? They do study paranormal activity with cameras, with sound equipment, with electrical activity instruments.Is that "scientific" enough?I think the point is that you seem prepared to already decide that it is not possible to ever study any super-natural activity, so because of your preset notion-nothing is going to be satisfactory to you-even though you are perfectly happy to accept all kinds of speculation, and conjectural evidence for the ToE.

Gee, funny I thought when you said repeatable, that you meant the experiments could be repeated, not that more than one person can look at the same evidence.If that's your criteria for repeatable, I guess lots of things are repeatable.And are you now ruling out all evidence that is anecdotal as well? Is all anecdotal evidence invalid?That's a whole lot of "scientific" studies that you now wish to wipe out. I guess all of psychology is doomed to the dustbin of pseudo-science.

I am pretty sure that even Einstein could understand that if you look closely enough at a cell, that one can not determine where the outer edge of it exists, and where the space next to it begins.So perhaps you better not compare your self to Einstein.

They can study claims of the super-natural-and if the claims can not be proven false...then?Just wondering, because I know of one theory that makes claims, and says if you can't prove it wrong it must be true.

Again you seem to want to apply this special exemption that all the other skeptics want to use here. if evidence points one direction-such as towards the super-natural-then instead of acknowledging where it points, we get to throw in our special exemption (we should name this, the super duper super loophole?) which says whenever it appears to be the thing we don't want it to be, we get to say-cause unknown.BTW, that OTHER theory that gets to claim if you can't prove it wrong its true-its this wacky theory called the theory of evolution. It requires a temporary suspension of disbelief similar to watching Toy Story, or Creature From the Black Lagoon. Or Baywatch.

Gee Percy, I really didn't think the anecdotal evidence that I suggested to you was really that hard to understand. A person was able to recall a conversation that other people were having that happened while he was dead. Not something you might normally expect. If that is incomprehensible to you I can't really take the blame.I am thinking that is not quite akin to sales on blenders in aisle five.I have no interest in convincing you are anyone else here that the evidence is true-(that would be hard to convince anyway who feels that listening to conversations while you are dead is similar to suggesting there are sales in Walmart or anyone who says that if it appears to be supernatural we should file it under unknown) instead what I am saying to you is that you don't get to say something is not science, or not adhering to scientific methods of study, just because you don't get to see photographs of it.

First off, you initial statements about that kind of evidence was that it was not scientific. Do you wish to recant that? Is anecdotal evidence a valid scientific method?Secondly, it is more than just anecdotal, one can actually confirm or deny whether the information the person claims to have heard when they were dead was correct. Did they hear the conversation correctly? For you to call that simple minded evidence is just rather stupid frankly. A guy is able to repeat back words that a doctor said to another doctor, while this patient had no brain activity. That's simple or you are simple?Now, you are equating repeatability with the notion of more than one person being able to look at the evidence, such as a fossil, when I think most normal people, even those who don't speak English as a 2nd or 3rd language, believe the concept of repeatability doesn't refer to more than one person being able to see the evidence, but rather the ability to repeat the evidence or experiment-a not so subtle difference that most English speakers can handle.Finally I didn't say that fossil evidence was analogous, I said that t is also unreliable for being able to draw conclusions about the mechanisms through which it came to be, a not so small fact that you seem to want to overlook.Again you do realize that MANY scientific fields aren't able to provide the photographic proof you seem to want it to -and that certainly includes the ToE. It is almost surprising that you want to even make this argument, when the actual physical evidence for evolution through Darwinian mechanisms is so scant as to be non-existent.

If you read what i wrote more carefully, I was responding to Percy who initially claimed that no amount of scientific data could provide evidence for a super-natural event. I contended that he was wrong, and that if a person was able to recount things while they were known to be physically dead, I think that would constitute as evidence for a supernatural occurrence.I believe this is one of just many ways in which one can provide evidence of supernatural things-but since Percy and others can't even see the simple rational of one experiencing life while they are dead as evidence for the supernatural-there is no reason for my hypothetical not to remain anything other than that.As far as Roger Ebert goes, I heard him talking about it. As such, I hardly need to provide evidence of it, as you can choose to believe it or not.Now, about that evidence for evolution through Darwinian means....?

Now Granny, I have been asking for evidence of your mechanisms for the ToE for quite some time-and it is you who has refused to give that first.So you refuse to provide evidence of your claims, but demand it from others. Wow. That's pretty shitty Granny.But then again, we both know you have a problem with honesty don't we?ME: Richard Dawkins discussed life beginning with replicating crystals of silicon.GRANNY: Dawkins never discussed this or anything like it, you made that up. That's complete bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about. You are a liar.ME: Actually he did. He discussed this many times, and even wrote about it in The Blind Watchmaker.GRANNY: Oh, um, um...that was a long time ago. He was just , um, um, speculating...no, he changed his mind you see, so that doesn't count.GRANNY: Wait! He was talking about clay..um, um, not flecks of sand! So there. See Bullshit!!! NananananaME: He specifically mentioned silicon, but that is what clay is anyway.GRANNY: Um, no , no..he was just , just, saying...um..Hey, you made a spewlling mistake, I mean spalling, er spelling mistake, see see..you don't understand English..nanananana..nananana. And mine was just typing mistake..nanana..I am goodest speller.

Are you as intellectually as dishonest as Granny, or is this just another example of xenophobic behavior, where all evolutionists try to support the others no matter how bizarrely incorrect they are.Explain to me exactly how I was talking out of MY ass? He didn't discuss this just like I said he did? She didn't flat out refuse to accept that he discussed this in any way shape or form, even saying "he didn't say this or anything like it. He never discussed silicon or flecks of sand. You completely made that up". And she didn't try every cop out lie in the book to try to deny it after she arrogantly mistook that he DID in fact discuss this, both in lectures and in his best selling book?How full of shit are you?

You: And more incorrect statements from you that you can't hide from: Now at this point there are only two possibilities, you didn't know that Dawkins has hypothesized and referenced other people who also hypothesize this (repeatedly in fact) about the possibility of life beginning from flecks of silicon crystal, or the like, as the first non-living replicators; or you DID know that he has hypothesized about this.If you didn't know then you are ignorant of claims made (not just by him) about the theory you claim to know so much about, or you DID know that he has hypothesized, but are a liar. So which do you prefer that I call you, ignorant, or a liar, or both?I mean because its written right there, those are your words correct? I am not misquoting you am I? You did ask for me to show you where he has said "any such thing" right? And English is your first language, correct?And furthermore these are YOUR words right Granny: Now from the Selfish Gene (that's a Richard Dawkins book, do you know that?: So which is it Granny, you knew Dawkins had spoken of this possibility before, or you didn't know, please choose one.I prefer to call you a liar (since that is what you have called ME for pointing out the facts to you) but I guess I am just as happy to call you ignorant (or dumb as you prefer).Now of course, we both know that you understand English so well (I am mean look at your nearly flawless spelling corrections you made-I think you only got two words wrong) so you do understand what it means when you say that Dawkins never said any such thing right? You understand that meaning right??? And you also know what silicates are right? You are not going to try to hide with that boner of a lie again are you.So what I really want to ask you is, What kind of gall, what kind of audacity, what utter fucking shamelessness do you have to have to call ME the liar in this discussion? And you are going to say to me that you are polite? How shitty are you Granny, how completely shitty? Edited by Bolder-dash, : No reason given.Edited by Bolder-dash, : So Granny can't use a typo as a smokescreen for her utterly shameless dishonesty.

Where did I err Percy? What did I not understand?You have constantly just thrown out these one line little jabs, as if they mean something-"Can you understand English, you have comprehension problems, you make no sense...Blah blah."Well why don't you explain articulately, what didn't I understand?I didn't understand that Granny said Dawkins never talked about the hypothesis of life originating from silicon crystals-when he actually did? I didn't understand that? Because I am quite sure I did.I didn't understand that she tried to say I was lying and made that up? I am sure I did understand that Percy.I didn't understand that she tried to worm her way out of it by then saying that was an old concept. or that he was referring to clay and not sand, or that she never said that and I was putting words in her mouth. I didn't understand all those things? Because I am quite sure I did understand Percy.I didn't understand after all of that she STILL tries to say I am the one who was lying? I think I understood quite well, thank you.I also understand that the topic of this thread is about how creationists think evolutionists think. And I personally think you are quite dishonest.Tell me which part I didn't understand. Because I understood everything you and Granny said.

You are making me laugh now. You are just taking the piss out of me, right?On your pro-evolution website everyone can agree its me who has the comprehension problems? Ha, ha..that's a good one Percy. You and Granny and Dr. A are now the voices of objective reason.Have you even bothered to look at what the topic is about? Hint-its not entitled Bolder-dash needs to provide evidence of supernatural phenomenon. Its about what creationists think evolutionists think! Who is the one being intentionally stupid?Hahaha...let's get back on topic!!! Oh, man, that's a good one. You had me going with that. You really did, when you repeated the whole explaining what English means prank. Your parody was turning nearly slapstick, that's why you had me going..I was like Percy, he has really lost it...oh no no silly, he is taking the piss. Whew.Man, and you never even cracked a smile, that's the beauty..how, how do you keep a straight face? You have even outdone you. Its a classic. Thank God you never erase posts, because this one is a rare prize for posterity.I can't understand anything you said, its way too complex!!You are the Master!

So which do you believe, When Granny said Dawkins NEVER hypothesized anything about the possibility of silicon being an early building block of life (or an early ancestor as Dawkins puts it) and then called me a liar for suggesting such a stupid thing, did she actually already know Dawkins had said this, or do you think she was unaware of it at the time? Which do you think?Are evolutionists dishonest, or just ignorant of their subject matter?

Please stay on topic. I don't want to have to remind you again.Oh, and Dawkins did talk very specifically about silicon as a possible early ancestor of life. I am waiting for your apology.