Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

God told me you should give me a $1,000,000. Can you prove this false.In other words, good science means that an assertion or claim can be falsified. If not than it is not worthy of being asked much less investigated (scientifically). If you want to discuss such claims in non-scientific i.e. philosophical terms, go ahead. But do not call it science.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

If the claims cannot be proven false then clearly something is going on. Further investigation usually reveals a natural cause for whatever is happening. But if a natural cause cannot be found, this does not necessarily mean that it doesn't exist. Nor does it mean that it must be the case that one particular (usually parochial) super-natural cause explains the observations. It just means that something is happening for which we currently lack the understanding to explain it. Well, what is it?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Wow, this is getting tough because in each response you reveal vast new realms of uncomprehension. Science is the process by which we develop an understanding of the universe we live in. The data that drives that understanding is gathered through observations. The observations may be of a process we set in motion ourselves, an experiment, for example, such as one might conduct in a chemistry lab. Or the observations may be of a process taking place wholly without any human intervention, such as astronomical observations through a telescope.Applying this to fossils, they can be weighed, measured, analyzed chemically, and observed under a microscope. For a recent example, one researcher discovered the remains of blood cells in an ancient fossil. The discovery was largely discounted because of the unlikelihood, but as time went on and other researcher applied similar techniques they were more and more often able to see the blood cells for themselves. This is successful replication.For another fossil example, Tiktaalik was discovered because past fossil discoveries told paleontologists in which geological layers they could expect to find a creature with the mix of sea and land characteristics representative of the first land-based animal life.In your near-death experience example that you have yet to cite any scientific evidence for, what is it in its role as supporting evidence for the supernatural that you find analogous to fossil evidence's role in supporting evolution? As scientific evidence? Yeah, it's pretty much invalid.Look at it this way. A guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "There's a sale on blenders in aisle five." That's anecdotal evidence of a sale, but pretty believable because stores offer sales all the time, and if you were in the market for a new blender you'd probably head over to aisle five.What if the same guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "They're giving away hundred dollar bills in aisle five." You might head over to aisle five just to see what's going on, but you probably wouldn't believe him.Now imagine the same guy comes up to you in Walmart and says, "A guy just had an out-of-body experience in aisle five." You didn't believe the hundred dollar bill give away, so why would you believe the far more incredibly unlikely out-of-body experience story? Even if it was Roger Ebert telling you himself?Anecdotal evidence isn't necessarily invalid or worthless. It's just that it has low reliability and precision and is therefore fairly useless as scientific evidence. Are you channeling Bozo the Clown or something? Where do you get this stuff?--Percy

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.

So once again you were just posting untruths.Of course the Theory of Evolution could be shown to be false. For example if you could show that there was a bunny in the pre-Cambrian that would certainly create major problems for the theory of evolution. If you could present a clear example of Special Creation that would go a long way towards refuting the Theory of Evolution.The value of the Theory of Evolution is that over the last 150+ years, NO evidence has been presented that refutes it.

---

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

Through-out humanity's history, the evidence for all manner of things "pointed" to one or more gods going their way. I think it's safe to say that ninety-nine point nine percent of these supposedly super-natural phenomena have been satisfactorily explained by science as being perfectly natural occurrences.From that any thinking person should be able to draw the logical conclusion about evidence seemingly pointing to super-natural causes. The super-natural is not what we don't want to be the cause of things, but what we have learned on countless occasions simply isn't, whether we want it or not.About your example: it's quite obvious that science's theory of evolution on the one hand, and your conception and knowledge of it on the other, are miles apart.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Hmmm. I'm beginning to wonder if maybe English is a 2nd or 3rd language for you.Anyway, you misunderstood the criticism of your anecdotal evidence. There's nothing difficult to understand or incomprehensible about it. The problem is the opposite: it's simple minded. It doesn't qualify as scientific evidence because of low reliability and precision, the lack of replication, and the absence of any plausible mechanism. Then your level of success in convincing anyone coincides with your level of interest: none.What is it about your example of near-death experiences as evidence for the supernatural that you find analogous to fossils as evidence for evolution?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

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.

Hi BD, Indeed not. That is why you have been asked to provide some evidence that it actually happened. This is not an unreasonable request.Indeed, you agreed to back up your arguments with "evidence and/or reasoned argumentation" when you joined this forum. Given that you are making an objective claim about a specific incident, reasoned argument doesn't really apply, so it would seem reasonable to expect you to be true to your word and provide us all with some evidence.Got any?You say; Now I have had a bit of a google around for this story, but I can't find it. Can you help me out? I would be genuinely interested to read about Ebert's experiences. Where can I read about them? Specifically;Precisely what happened?What evidence exists to verify the account?How do you think this supports the supernatural?Why, given that Ebert himself remains sceptical of the supernatural, should we accept it as evidence of such? I mean, Ebert is the one who experienced this, yet even he remains unconvinced. So what makes you think this evidence is so compelling?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

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....?

You have asserted that but never provided any reason explaining why that it should be attributed to super-natural as opposed to being placed in the "Unexplained Cause" folder.

---

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

I think most of us would choose not to believe it as there is no evidence presented to ascertain the veracity of your statement.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

or any evidence that it happened at all. So far we are in the realm of hearsay only.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I don't think it's the topic you're having trouble understanding. I think you're having a more fundamental problem with the English language. In the message you responded to I said, "It doesn't qualify as scientific evidence because of low reliability and precision, the lack of replication, and the absence of any plausible mechanism." How did you manage to conclude I was saying the opposite? You're going to have to begin reading more carefully. People relating what they remember happened and what they said is the epitome of anecdotal. One way to climb the first rung of scientific evidence would be to record videos. These would show what was actually said for comparison. It would show the brain scan indicating no activity. When are you going to provide any evidence for this incredible near-death experience you keep telling us about? No, that's not what I said. That sounds more akin to peer review than replication. This is much closer to what I said. I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding plain English, I even provided examples, see the post where I mentioned Tiktaalik. Okay, then what is it about the fossil evidence that leads you to believe it is unreliable as to mechanisms in the same way as anecdotal stories about near-death experiences. With fossils we have actually observed the mechanisms we believe apply, while with near-death experiences you don't even have a mechanism, let alone any scientific evidence. Again, you need to work at harder at reading for comprehension. No one said anything about photographic proof, or proof of any sort. Science is not in the business of proving things. However, it does do a far better job of supporting its claims with evidence then you do.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.