Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Exactly. Evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it.Or, more scientifically, as we currently understand it. What is pointing to something metaphysical? I don't see this at all. Do you have any evidence for this "pointing" to something metaphysical?Remember what you said:"this could constitute evidence for something that exists outside of the physical world as we understand it"What's more rational?1. To think our understanding of the physical world is incomplete or incorrect and that more in-depth investigation of the physical world is required so that we can gain more correct-knowledge about the physical world.
-as has happened many times in science
-as has happened in a shift to Newtonian physics
-as has happened in a shift to Quantum physics2. To think that something supernatural is occuring.
-for which there is no evidence at all
-for which there has never been any evidence at all
-for which time and time again has been shown to be an incorrect and useless explanation (gods controlling weather patterns, earth-centric idea of the universe, creation of fire...)So, we know from past experience that when this sort of "infinity" issue comes up... it always leads to more study and an eventual increase in our knowledge about how the physical world works.Why should the supernatural be considered? What, specifically, is actually pointing towards it? Do you understand that the scientific community has been in this exact situation many, many times in the past and it has never turned out to be a supernatural explanation? It has always turned out to be an increase in our understanding about the physical world.

But the evidence does not point this way.
You've already said exactly where the evidence points.
The evidence is pointing at an incorrect application of our existing understanding to this physical aspect of the world.There is absolutely no evidence or "pointing" in any direction even related to something called "the supernatural".Let's take some examples:
1 - You always hang your keys in the same spot on the wall in your house on a regular basis
2 - One day you go to leave and reach for your keys
3 - The keys are not there
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that your understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?In application to recent (last few hundred years) mathematics:
1 - NP (Newtonion Physics) always explained the aspects of our universe that we dealt with on a regular basis
2 - One day we tried to use NP to explain an additional aspect of our universe (extremely small-scale motion)
3 - The answer turned out to include a singularity (ie. some number went to infinity)
***this didn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Was this an indication that something supernatural was going on?
B - Or was this an indication that our understanding of the (then) current physical world was incorrect?In application to this situation:
1 - GR (General Relativity) and QM (Quantum Mechanics) always explain the aspects of our universe that we deal with on a regular basis
2 - One day we try to use GR and QM to explain an additional aspect of our universe (the beginnings of our universe)
3 - The answer turns out to include a singularity (ie. some number goes to infinity)
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that our understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?If A is incorrect for all the other scenarios where we run into confusion between the reality of the physical world and our current understanding, why do you think it should be considered this time?What, specifically, is pointing towards the supernatural? It can't simply be that it doesn't make sense... that is only pointing to our current understanding being incorrect.

Except that the answers don't point to anything like that. I'm still wondering how, specifically, you think the answers are pointing to something "not of the material world". I'm still wondering because you have (still) yet to explain yourself beyond merely asserting this single statement.In order to support my statement, I'll re-post this message of mine that you may have missed: Message 292But the evidence does not point this way.
You've already said exactly where the evidence points.
The evidence is pointing at an incorrect application of our existing understanding to this physical aspect of the world.There is absolutely no evidence or "pointing" in any direction even related to something called "the supernatural".Let's take some examples:
1 - You always hang your keys in the same spot on the wall in your house on a regular basis
2 - One day you go to leave and reach for your keys
3 - The keys are not there
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that your understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?In application to recent (last few hundred years) mathematics:
1 - NP (Newtonion Physics) always explained the aspects of our universe that we dealt with on a regular basis
2 - One day we tried to use NP to explain an additional aspect of our universe (extremely small-scale motion)
3 - The answer turned out to include a singularity (ie. some number went to infinity)
***this didn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Was this an indication that something supernatural was going on?
B - Or was this an indication that our understanding of the (then) current physical world was incorrect?In application to this situation:
1 - GR (General Relativity) and QM (Quantum Mechanics) always explain the aspects of our universe that we deal with on a regular basis
2 - One day we try to use GR and QM to explain an additional aspect of our universe (the beginnings of our universe)
3 - The answer turns out to include a singularity (ie. some number goes to infinity)
***this doesn't make any sense***
Now:
A - Is this an indication that something supernatural is going on?
B - Or is this an indication that our understanding of the current physical world is incorrect?If A is incorrect for all the other scenarios where we run into confusion between the reality of the physical world and our current understanding, why do you think it should be considered this time?What, specifically, is pointing towards the supernatural? It can't simply be that it doesn't make sense, as these examples show... that is only pointing to our current understanding being incorrect.From "this is incorrect" to "this has to be supernatural" is a really big jump. A really big jump that requires you to add a bit more clarification in your evidence than "I think it has to be this way". Why do you think it has to be this way? Why do you think it has to be the supernatural, when we've been in this situation many, many times in the past and it's never been the supernatural ever before?

There are actually many ways to look at it. You could look at the way I point out, the way you point out, or possibly create a way to look at it using only imagination, or only things we know are false. Lots of ways and not all of them have evidence pointing in their direction.In fact, there's only one way to look at it that fits the pattern of these situations. When these situations occur, the pattern shows us that the application is likely incorrect and we require a re-thinking of our physical world surrounding these observations (I showed the pattern with my previous examples). Your way has no pattern to show that it should be considered (unless you have something more to show here?). There has never, ever been a scenario where "something other than a purely natural solution" has been determined. Likewise, using only our imagination has no pattern to fall back on to produce a valid conclusion. Neither does looking at the situation using ideas we know are false. Perhaps you don't understand what "evidence" is.
In order for "the evidence to point" in any direction there needs to be a pattern to follow. That's what evidence is: factual information that is the same for everyone. The history of these patterns are the same for everyone. All those examples I explained in my previous message are the same for everyone, they are facts. This pattern that is known to exist in what we know so far of reality is what evidence is. The fact that you understand "Stile sees it this way" and "GDR sees it this way" is an indication that one (or possibly both) of us are not looking at the facts which are the same for everyone... not looking at the previous patterns that are the same for everyone who cares to research them... not looking at the evidence.Your proposal of "beyond the natural" can be your idea, your thoughts or your desire. And, in which case, I would encourage you to follow your heart and try to show such a thing to be true. If you can, it will open up a brand new area of reality that no one has understood to exist before (and possibly begin some "patterns" of it's own that could be used as an evidential basis for any similar future issues). However, before that happens... it is dishonest and wrong for you to say that this is where the evidence is pointing when it isn't. There is no previous pattern (factual information that is the same for everyone) to follow that shows "beyond the natural" to be a likely outcome.Also, no one is talking about a "final conclusion", I'm simply talking about where the evidence is pointing to... or, in other words... where the previous known patterns can be utilitzed to apply to the situation and give us a possible target to envision in order to test against reality to see if it may be a possible conclusion.To summarize:"Beyond the natural" has no previous known patterns to appeal to.
"Application is incorrect" has all the previous known patterns to appeal to.This means that "beyond the natural" has no evidence pointing in it's direction.
This mean that "application is incorrect" has evidence pointing in it's direction.This does not mean that "application is incorrect" is the final conclusion and "beyond the natural" is wrong. This will only be decided (as you say) once more information is discovered and we're able to move forward. This is where you can follow your idea and (if you are right....) one day add "more information" to the scenario. This is also where other people currently studying the situation are attempting to re-think the application to see if they too can add "more information" to the scenario.However, with the information we have currently at our disposal, "beyond the natural" is simply an idea, there are no patterns that indicate this idea to be a productive source of information... there is no evidence (currently) pointing towards this idea at all.

Agreed. Science may not be able to find all natural solutions as well, though. It's quite possible (although the romantic in me doesn't like to think about it) that some aspect of the natural, physical world is simply beyond any and all human comprehension. Fair enough. However, this "given" is not the reason why a natural solution is expected. That would be a fallacy. The reason why the natural solution is expected is because of the pattern of finding natural solutions to problems that initially seem confusing. If you're looking for "scientific consensus" on the issue... I wish I could give you an answer, but you have asked a question that is above my head in such matters.
If you're looking for my own personal response, I would say yes. Something in an additional dimension would be "beyond our normal 4 dimensional world"... almost trivially true by definition. However, I would think that once knowledge is gained of such an extra dimension, it would then be a part of our "normal x dimensional world". Yes, a very objective pattern.
A very objective pattern that matches many other objective patterns which leads us to believe that some confusion exists between our current models of the physical world (GR and QM) and the reality of the physical world.It certainly does constitute a pattern.
It just doesn't constitute a pattern that points towards anything being "beyond our natural world" or "non-physical". Since such things have as-of-yet never been discovered, there exists no pattern to point towards them. This doesn't mean they can't exist, only that according to the information available to us... they are unlikely to exist and there is no rational or reasonable reason to pursue their existance.There still exists an infinite number of irrational and unreasonable reasons to pursue the existance of something that is "beyond our natural world".
Irrational and unreasonable pursuits do sometimes produce "real knowledge" of things that exist. It is just extremely rare, and almost always a waste of time and money.There are stories of "crazy old kooks" who irrationally and unreasonably believe certain species are alive and well when all evidence points towards their extinction. Sometimes (rarely) these kooks turn out to be right... and the knowledge is then re-assimilated into the scientific consensus.
But of the 1 or 2 success stories... the millions and millions of "crazy old kooks" who never do find what they're looking for are never heard about. It's not really news when no one expects a kook to find anything and the kook ends up... not finding anything As I said before, I am only discussing "where the evidence is pointing"... where the rational and reasonable patterns are objectively leading. But reality doesn't care what information we have at our disposal. Reality just is. "It is what it is". It's up to us to figure it all out.(I really do hope some people keep irrationally and unreasonably searching for things "beyond the natural"... that way they can (possibly) waste their lives and I'll still reap the benefits if they actually find anything... )