Summations Only

Nonsense is seldom fast enough.How do you study supernatural?

Initially, I expect we would use our eyes.

Too funny.What does supernatural look like?How it supernatural different than "unknown"?How do you see "supernatural?"

I would have to look at it to know. In the same way that anything identified is different to "unknown". By pointing my face in the general direction of "supernatural" and keeping my eyelids open.

Very funny.Now maybe you can try to answer the question.

Step 1: Find something supernatural.
Step 2: Study it.It's actually step 1 which is the hard part.

Still no information in your post.How do you know you have found something supernatural?

That would depend on what it was. In some cases it might be rather easy to identify, a leprechaun that granted wishes for example. I'll let you know if I manage to catch one.

How can you say this? I think it is the exact opposite, because in science you have to demonstrate your discoveries. These demonstrations and discoveries are thoroughly investigated. It's the best way we've discovered so far to get to an objective consensus about a subject. And it works: evidenced by things like the two of us are communicating via the internet.That's much more difficult than making claims as done by people who "study" the supernatural, where claims can't even be investigated at all.People making supernatural claims can say anything. That's why there's so many religions and so my varieties of each religion. In Christianity, for example, there's more than 38 000 different varieties of them; anybody can make any claim. And none of these claims can be objectively investigated.Nothing is easier than making a claim. Getting your claims objectively investigated, accepted and demonstrated to work is much, much more difficult.

Very funny.Now maybe you can try to address the answer.

A ghost? A leprechaun? A werewolf? A poltergeist? The parting of the red sea? It depends on the entity or phenomenon in question. Obviously. Well "unknown" means....unknown. Whilst "supernatural" means that it is inherently beyond natural explanation in some sense. For example some UFO sighting might be classified as "unknown" without being deemed supernatural at all. Also there are many who claim to know a great deal about the supernatural (e.g. mediums). So the two words are not synonyms as you seem to be implying. By looking at something supernatural which actually exists. It is the actually existing part that seems to be the main problem here.....

Designation: The Free Thinking Literalist Biblical Evidence Producing Butt Kicking Buzsaw OEC Who Gives Science Doctorates Educated Into Illogical Abstract Theories A Run For The Money In Threads. Edited by Buzsaw, : Complete Message

We are not including imaginary types of creationists.
(If that kind of creationist existed then you wouldn't still be banned from the science forums.)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I would agrue that it does attempt this, it just doesn't get it right. Really? Because that is exactly what is described in Genesis; God magically creates light, magically, using his magic God-powers. God simply speaks his desire and - lo! - it happens. I can't think of a more honest word for that than "magic". I think that it's pointless making up post hoc rationalisations that attempt to "fix" Genesis in order to make it compatible with modern science. What you describe above sounds like exactly that.One thing is certain, the authors of Genesis never intended to write a word about string theory or quantum mechanics. They wrote according to the knowledge of their times. Sadly for them, they lived in deeply ignorant times. A Rabbi does not strike me as an unbiased party. Neither would they be likely to know much about science. Too often this sort of comparison is let down by bad theology from the scientists and bad science by the theists. Frankly, I don't see the point. Genesis is wrong about almost everything. Almost none of it is true. There's really nothing worth comparing. If you think you have an example of how this somehow rescues Genesis from its many errors, then please do share. Otherwise, it's not really an argument. I am perplexed by the use of the word "also" in that second sentence. I don't see any kind of logic connecting sentence one to sentence two. I agree that this is a problem for creationists. I don't know abnout that. Personally, I am an atheist, but I have always been fascinated by mythology. I think that it is valuable to gain an insight into ancient cultures. I just don't think that religion in general and the Book of Genesis in particular have anything to offer modern science.I would just like to comment on one thing that you said in reply to Subbie; I'm glad that you're finding these discussions valuable and I appreciate your open and honest approach, but you should probably know that, in my experience, almost all creationists seem to consider themselves in some category apart from the rest. Most creationists will have their own pet theory. Many try to take a sort of "third way" between science and the Bible. This is nothing new.These attempts always fail. Why? Because creationism is inherantly flawed. It is a false teaching. No amount of modification can save it.Sometimes an idea is just plain bad and nothing you can do can put it right.Mutate and Survive

Hi BB,I see there are forty posts after this one, so the discussion might have moved on and this is no longer relevant, but anyway... It always startles me how many atheists are here. We try to maintain that the creation/evolution debate isn't just a proxy battle between religion and atheism, but the demographics of EvC Forum provides little support.Still, I don't think atheists think someone is missing a few marbles just for believing in a Higher Being. It's those who not only believe in a Higher Being but also claim to have proof of his existence that are thought to be playing with less than a full deck. This is well-stated as if made by someone from the religious side. We're frequently accused of ignoring the supernatural, as if there were supernatural events taking place before scientists eyes everyday, and the scientists just go about their business as if nothing had happened. "I was following the path of Comet Hall-bop-bop-do-we-bop and saw nothing unusual other than the occasional supernatural event, which of course we ignore."But the problem with supernatural events is that they don't seem to have any observable effect on the real world. Without anything to observe there's nothing for science say. It isn't that science ignores the supernatural. It's that the supernatural, if it exists, seems to be ignoring us.--Percy