Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists.

Hi Bolderdash,You introduced Ebert's near death experience and someone else's recounting of conversations doctors had while he was flatlined as examples of what you think is good evidence for the supernatural. You claimed that this evidence for the supernatural was as good as the fossil evidence for evolution. In other words, you think evolutionists assess the quality of evidence in the same way as you do, you who are a creationist. That's the precise exact topic of this thread, Bolder-dash, that creationists think evolutionists think as they do.And yet you can't produce any substantiation whatsoever of these supernatural near-death experiences. Instead you're doing your utmost to distract attention first from the topic and now from your lengthy series is misstatements and misapprehensions.Unless you're prepared to discuss the topic, I think you're done here.--Percy

This is your response to a post explaining the topic to you? Is there anything you can't misunderstand? Sheesh! Yes, you're precisely describing the premise of this thread, that creationists think evolutionists think like themselves. What you described about how you believe evolutionists think precisely describes how creationists actually conduct science. You've provided an excellent example of the contrast in styles in this very thread. When asked for substantiation for your near-death claims you demurred, which is what you think evolutionists do. However, in reality if you ask an evolutionist for evidence he'll produce it. That's because unlike creationism, the evidence for evolution actually exists and can be produced. It is only creationists who are forced by the lack of evidence for their ideas who are forced to engage in evasive debate tactics.The rest of your message just goes on to describe other misimpressions you have of evolutionists. Creationists are the ones lacking a well rounded education, and they're the ones lacking curiosity, preferring to declare "Here be God" rather than finding actual answers. Your every post is another endorsement of the premise of this thread that creationists project their own way of thinking and acting onto evolutionists.--Percy

Uh, Bolder-dash, that creationists are projecting is the topic of this thread. That's what "Creationists think Evolutionists think like Creationists" means. You're just now getting this? There you go projecting again.--Percy

I'm not playing a moderator role in this thread. I hadn't observed this side of Bolder-dash before, but now I'm aware of it.--Percy

Yes, it was, but you somehow missed it anyway. You're not in any danger of being suspended, and certainly not of being banned (which at EvC Forum is an indefinite suspension).What was meant when I said I was now aware of "this side of Boder-dash" was that had I been aware of your issues with comprehension and rational thinking and following the rules then I would not have joined the thread as a participant.You cannot be banned for your position on the issues. Check out the Forum Guidelines, you won't find anything in them about positions. Now check out the Forum Rules at EvolutionFairyTale.com, which includes this gem: And it gets even better when you participate over there, because moderators like Adam Nagey and Ikester have no qualms about quashing discussion and banning people merely for advocating an evolutionary position. Of course they'll explain that it's because EvolutionFairyTale.com isn't a bulletin board but a ministry, as if that makes it okay.But there's nothing analogously like that here.So you can advocate whatever positions you like, but it really helps avoid drawing moderator attention if you follow the Forum Guidelines. For example, in a subsequent message you cited rule 4:

4. Points should be supported with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

Forum Guidelines violations were what I believe Subbie was referring to and was certainly what I had in mind when I said I was now aware of what you were doing. For example, when asked to support your claims about near-death experiences you refused to provide any substantiation whatsoever. This is a fairly blatant Forum Guidelines violation, and ignoring the Forum Guidelines tends to attract moderator attention. Compounding this behavior by following it with blustering accusations of Forum Guidelines violations directed at others isn't viewed as very constructive, either.The goal of EvC Forum is to host productive discussions between creationists and evolutionists. Please help make this possible. Thanks.--Percy

Given that no evidence of anything we at one time didn't understand has ever been found to "point to something beyond the natural," and that in fact it has always been found to point to something natural, how do you know what evidence that "points to something beyond the natural" looks like when you haven't got a single example?Could you at least attempt to make your position make sense for us instead of just declaring that it "points to something beyond the natural?" The entire history of science is one of encountering perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seem almost magical and that in the end turned out to be entirely natural.So putting this in the context of the specific example of the math we use to model the origin of the universe, what happened at T=0 is a perplexing and baffling phenomena that seems almost magical. Every prior perplexing and baffling phenomena that initially seemed almost magical was eventually found to have natural explanations. Yet you think that in this case it points to something beyond the natural. Can you give some clue, some hint, some tiny shred of rational explanation, for why you think this?--Percy

I asked for some shred of rational explanation for why you believe this, but all you do is repeat your assertion. The prelude about what Greene thinks argues against you.Look at it this way. Say I'm having lunch with my buddies and the conversation turns to my discussion board, and I mention that there's a guy who believes that some things we don't know point to non-natural explanations. They ask me why this guy thinks so. What am I supposed to answer? I don't know, because you haven't told me anything that makes sense.Anyway, Greene can't *prove* there is a natural answer because in science nothing is ever proved. Science supports theories with evidence, it doesn't prove them, and the evidence is that everything successfully explained so far has had a natural explanation. So when you say this: Then I just have to ask about the obvious implication: Have any of the non-scientific processes of inquiry ever established anything to have a non-natural explanation?And of course the answer is that nothing, including science, has ever reliably established a non-natural cause for anything. If the history of our expanding knowledge has taught us anything it's that the superstitious mumbo-jumbo nonsense that most people have accepted throughout history and still accept today has never, ever, panned out. So the question remains: Why do you think it's going to pan out this time?--Percy

Hi GDR,Okay, I guess I give up prodding you for answers. If you can't support your contention that an answer of infinity indicates the possibility of the supernatural then could you at least stop repeating the claim?Since infinity as an answer seems to be driving your sense of something beyond the natural, consider something even more unnatural, imaginary numbers. If anything would point to the supernatural then imaginary numbers should be it, and yet the field where I began my education, electrical engineering, is filled with imaginary numbers, and infinities, too. For example, the analysis of AC circuits (that's the electricity that comes out of your walls) requires both imaginary numbers and infinities in spades.Infinity and imaginary numbers are helpful mathematical concepts that enable us to build accurate mathematical models of reality. They're not indicators of the supernatural.--Percy

In Message 479 you argued that string theory proposes dimensions that are imperceivable and therefore metaphysical. Bikerman argues the opposite ("It isn't metaphysics for the simple reason that it is testable...One prediction would be that gravity will not obey the inverse-square law at the smallest scales.").Were you really going to argue against yourself? Or did you maybe not understood that Bikerman was pointing out that the extra dimensions of string theory are believed to be perceivable?--Percy

Sorry, missed the sarcasm.--Percy