Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Yes, I am aware of what you wrote. I agree. That would constitute excellent evidence of the supernatural. Well I'm saying that I am happy to accept your point. If these events occurred, they would constitute reasonable evidence for the supernatural. But did they occur? Right. Where? When? What exactly was said?I need to know this stuff don't I? You might have misremembered important details. You might have misunderstood the language used (I'm not trying to attack you here, but we both know that your English isn't 100%). You might even be lying for all I know. I'm not saying that you are lying, but unless you provide me with some evidence, how can I know for sure? Actually you do. You promised to back up your arguments with evidence when you joined this forum. If you refuse to do so, you are only proving yourself to be a liar and a bearer of false witness. So you refuse to provide evidence for your claims but demand it from others? Wow. That's pretty shitty BD.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

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

What guy? When and where was this? Was there brain monitoring equipment hooked up to "the guy" that showed that there was no brain activity, and at the same time a recording of the activities and conversation in the operating room that shows that the doctors spoke those words at the exact same moments that there was no brain activity?I think you are making this all up. If there is no brain activity then you are dead....forever. If a patient flat-lines, that means their heart and respiration have stopped, but the brain does not immediately stop functioning also. That is why it is critical to get oxygenated blood flowing to the brain within a few minutes or permanent brain damage occurs, but if brain activity stops you are dead.If anesthesia is not deep enough patients may be aware of some of the activities around them and may remember it later.I would be a lot more inclined to believe you if you told us who, when and where.Enjoy.

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

You'd think that just by sheer luck you'd get something right at least once in a while, but no, here you are wrong again. What I said was that our senses detect light, sound, taste, smells, pressure, temperature, etc., which are all natural phenomena, and I asked how you proposed to study supernatural phenomena. We're still waiting for an answer. If near-death experiences are an observable phenomena then there should be no difficulty gathering scientific evidence for them. Where's the evidence? What have you done here that would give anyone any confidence in anything you say? I couldn't even find any mention of the story you're telling us about Ebert. How about improving your credibility a notch by providing links to evidence for your claims?--Percy

I found a reference that supports Roger Ebert talking about a Near Death Experience, but he is talking about the near death of the Chicago Sun-Times.Maybe that is the balderdash that Bolder-dash is thinking about.AbE:And an interview about his personal Near Death Experience.No mention of what Bolder-dash describes though.Edited by jar, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi jar (welcome back by the way ).I found one about him having an "out-of-body experience" but he was just talking about a movie. Maybe he told BD about it when they were both astrally projecting.Mutate and Survive

---

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

I'm quite certain this has never happened. The reason I'm so certain is that I'm quite certain nobody has ever come back from "no brain activity." I'd ask you to provide evidence, but instead I'm going out to yell at my lawn. I expect the same level of substantive response as I would get from you, but this way I get some fresh air, too.

---

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

Well, he's staying with me right now, for a bit of holiday, and he told me that that never happened.So there.

---

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

Hey, Boldy, try this. Let's say you're a graduate student working for a professor who is gathering evidence of the supernatural. He sends you to observe at the local hospital, and one day you observe a guy flatline, recover, and then recount the conversations doctors had over his dead body. You report back to your professor and he's delighted, but he asks you for documentation and evidence. You respond that you saw it with your own eyes and that's it's the God's honest truth and that the doctor's will vouch for it.Your professor explains that science doesn't work by accepting someone else's say so, and that he'll be presenting the paper to hundreds of fellow scientists at a prestigious conference who will want evidence. He tells you that he has to have documentary evidence of the events that transpired at the hospital so that he can include it in the paper and on slides during the presentation.So you return to observing at the hospital. How would you modify your approach in order to satisfy your professor's request?--Percy

And I've had an "out-of-body experience" too - I watched from above my head how the muscles in my thighs slid over each other as I swung on a porch swing about 41 years ago this summer. But I had no supernatural help at all, just help from 2-(3,4,5-trimethoxyphenyl)ethylamine.Brain chemistry is the parsimonious explanation, Bolder.

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.

Francis Crick, an atheist, has asserted it, and I think it is a general rule, so why should I be shy about asserting it? There are respected authorities in the scientific community that certainly aren’t shy about making assertions about Christians without their permission. Like belief in a flat earth, belief that religion answers ALL their questions, or belief that they’re ignorant, stupid, insane, wicked, etc. You’ll notice that in this thread, one evolutionist argues that creationists are ignorant/stupid, while the other takes the position that they are wicked(insane). I didn’t notice either of them seeking any creationists’ permission to make those assertions or have that discussion. If meaning comes from 'a creator', no human, not even Christians, can claim a monopoly on it, in a way that physically intrudes on other peoples lives. Each human can apply it to their life as they see fit, with no danger of superior humans (like atheist intellectuals) to publicly establish what they see as meaning. Am I guilty of that, more than atheists are? Their engagement with people on personal views seems to get around to flat earths and flying spaghetti monsters pretty quickly. Are Christians supposed to be above blunt assertions? In swaying opinions and winning philosophical wars, blunt assertions work. It’s like any physical conflict, when facing machine guns, smiling and making nice in opposition usually doesn’t win. I see atheists (indirectly) making that claim all the time. Any question at all = everything’s random, chance, a roll of the dice. The humanist manifestos seem to sum it all up pretty neatly - what question could there possibly be that randomness and scientific study can’t answer? Creationists by contrast, don’t know why God allows Satan to exist, why animals (not part of original sin) must suffer the pain that they do, why some elderly people, tired of living, must wait years or even decades to die, while some young energetic people have their lives cut short in their prime by cancer, accidents etc. I don’t think ANY creationist, if directly asked, is going to claim that religion answers every question they have. With a toddler and expecting wife, I figured you for mid to late twenties. Your member profile confirms it. I don’t consider Christianity to be on the same level as all other secular subjects. A person doesn’t become a Christian, or realize he/she is a Christian, as a simple quick decision of hey, why not, that looks easy, as they do with so many other subjects, including atheism IMO. What’s not quick and easy about atheism? — no rules, just random chance explains everything. Other secular subjects can be the same way, only to add strength to a previous conclusion. For example, I’d expect when Darwin was finishing up his Beagle voyage, one of his first stops on land was to visit some atheist geologists. Can you help me out with an old earth there buddy? I’m sure they assured him that if he needed geological evidence for an old earth, he would certainly have it! There’s nothing about Christianity that encourages it to be put to the test. My belief is, concerning the Bible’s several warnings about false teachers, that scientific speculation about millions of years falls under the test category.In exactly the same way, there is no indication in science that Darwinism is encouraged to be put to any tests. I borrowed a friend’s son’s high school biology textbook a few months ago, and saw no encouragement for it. When Intelligent Design is mentioned anywhere in a scientific discussion, the immediate emotional reaction that we always see is still more proof of it. It’s very comparable to the reaction of religious people of 100 years ago to Darwinism. The premise of this thread is generally false. The scientific community doesn’t have the market cornered on honesty. It should be put to the test more than it is. The dividing line is too fuzzy between actual science and metaphysics.

You won't even admit your wrong when it is clearly shown you were wrong.In the thread you mention, it was clearly shown that you were talking out of your ass when you talked about dawkins and silicon.That you attempt to disparage and badmouth GM this way, has made you lose any you shred of credibility you had.I venture to guess no one is going to be expecting any real debate out of you in the future.

---

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

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?

marc9000 responds to Bluejay: It didn't take a very detailed look at the transcript of the Scopes trial to find this;

quote:

---

Q)You are not prepared to say whether that fish was made especially to swallow a man or not?

​

A)Bryan--The Bible doesn't say, so I am not prepared to say.

---

So his religion obviously didn't answer every question for him.

AKA mescaline
Keyeut!!

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008