Posted: Nov 17, 2010 8:13 am
Indeed, what-if's are the only thing darwin2 has given us after 8 pages of discussion. So far he has wrongly assumed that simply because consciousness might persist after death, that his claim is somehow a scientific statement worthy of scientific inquiry. Apparently he missed the part in science class where it is explained that science only deals with reality and not fantasies and wishful thinking. Science goes where the evidence leads it. Darwin2 has repeatedly admitted that he has none whatsoever.
His most profound failure is that he apparently thinks scientists erect blind assertions and then go looking for evidence to fit said assertion. This is utter FAIL. Scientists base their conclusions upon the available evidence, not the other way around. Darwin2 is assuming the conclusion ("consciousness may persist after death") and then suggests scientists should go looking for evidence for his fabrication. This is simply not how science works. So his persisting in claiming that his assertions are in any way scientific, are laughable at best, for the simple fact that he admittedly has no evidence whatsoever for said assertions.
Furthermore, even though he has been asked several times, he has failed to answer the question why his claim should be considered less absurd than claims about invisible pink unicorns, aliens in my backyard, purple fig leaves the size of Wales and orbiting teapots and should therefore be considered more worthy of scientific inquiry. He has not provided any arguments, only his personal opinion and a seemingly emotional attachment to his fantasy.
"What if" and utter failure to understand the scientific method is all we have so far.