Peanut Gallery

Dodge (again).Do you have any evidence for the supernatural or not?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Is there any evidence for the supernatural?You keep ducking this question, yet your answers all seem to be based on your belief that there is a supernatural.What's your evidence? Is it anything but belief and wishful thinking?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

No, not interested.That proposed post is nothing more than has been posted many times before, a meaningless word salad that demonstrates once again that philosophy is nothing more than naval gazing.I have better things to do than to go around in philosophical circles.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

What nonsense is this?You have been doing your best to snipe any and all attempts to point out to you that the supernatural is not supported by the evidence.You are using logic and debating tricks instead of providing evidence that the supernatural does exist.I'm not going to play that game. Either provide evidence for the supernatural or don't, but lay off the silly debating tricks.And no, the issue is not settled. In not one of these threads have you provided any evidence for the supernatural. Until we have some evidence, the default position for science is that the supernatural doesn't exist. Without evidence all the philosophy and debating tricks you can muster won't make change that.Add: And I will continue to snipe from the sidelines.Edited by Coyote, : No reason given.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I am wrong for asking for evidence of the supernatural that so many folks around the world believe in? (And apparently do so without any real evidence.)In these threads you are trying to change the default position from showing the evidence for the supernatural to making skeptics prove that it does not exist. Utter nonsense.That's why I won't participate in that proposed "great debate" thread. It is flawed from the start and will just go around in philosophical circles (as philosophers have done for 2,500 years or more) without getting anywhere.Philosophy is no substitute for evidence.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I like it! Well phrased.Both the science and the literary content.As an archaeologist I can relate to the "get dirty" part.As we say (or used to say in our youth): "Think Dirty -- Shower with an Archaeologist!"

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Coyotes are smarter than wolves.Proof? Coyotes are dining on poodles in Beverly Hills, while wolves are extinct in most of the lower 48 states.Archaeologists are mostly good folks, you know--down to earth types?And we want evidence for things. Like the exodus thread--there should be lots of evidence around, and that would help settle the matter. Or the supernatural thread--again, where's the evidence?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You're cherry picking things that might be interpreted to be accurate.How about those things that are clearly wrong?

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

How about trying to explain the massive boo-boo of the global flood?Before you try to claim that "dust" equals a host of specific chemicals, try to explain how this "Super Natural Being" missed it so badly with that flood story.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Many of the last 20-30 posts: too much philosophy, too little common sense.And perhaps that's why philosophy is a discipline that is now in the wilderness crying, "But we were here first, pay some attention to us too! (Sniff.)"And why should we? We see how much use it is, as this theme now spans several long threads and is no closer to a resolution than when the debate started.Naval gazing is unlikely to produce much more than lint.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

You want to know if there is a pen on the desk or not?1) Hire any kind of scientist and have him/her take a look. Heck, you could hire the town drunk. Either will tell you "Yes, there is a pen" or "No, there is no pen."2) Do not let any philosophers anywhere near the investigation or you'll never know the answer.

After reading the direction of the current "Great Debate" tread two things are obvious:--RAZD is being a troll--This outcome was inevitable. That is why I declined the invitation to participate.In spite of several whole threads devoted to sophistry, philosophy, artful dodging, obfuscation, hyper-definition, and applied "logic" things are still going around in circles. Or rather, because of ...The issue is simple: is there evidence for supernatural critters or not?RAZD is doing his best to avoid that simple question, and in doing so has been running this whole website around in circles.(The woo is strong in that one!)

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

I gave up reading those long ago.