Creationism Vs Evolution

ZOMG RANT ALERT

It sickens me how many people in this country don't believe in evolution.  I heard a statistic that it's around half, but I doubt it's that many.  Science is about rational thought and testable ideas and experiments.  Rejecting the scientific theory of the origin of the human race is like not believing in friction, saying something like that it's god's will that things don't move infinitley.  Even though most fundamental scientific principles are proved indirectly at first (like the spherical nature of the earth), when we are able to directly observe it, we are right because it has been tested indirectly so much.  Religious extremists dismiss evidence like fossils as "tricks by god to test our faith" or something like that.  I bet if someone took a born again christian or another religious extremist in a time machine back 65 million years ago, observed dinosaurs, and returned, they would still reject their direct observations as "hethanistic trickery" or something like that.  Courts have ruled in some places that scientific arguments in favor of creationism can be taught in public schools, what will they have to show?  This intelligent design theory they yammer about is nothing more than pseudoscience, and a lazy underestimation of the power and magnitude biodiversity, natural selection, and time can accomplish.

the _clinical data_ is anecdotal.
his head in a jar is a quaint little trophy, truly meaningless

why you place so much emphasis on gage is beyond me, he is perhaps the earliest documented case of a person who survived a massive brain injury and continued to live in some capacity... but there is no lack of brain damaged individuals today in any hospital in the country.. the difference is today we have properly vetted clinical methods and technology (versus the 1800s)

i applaud technical advances in neuroscience, but even when(if) we understand to the last how the brain works technically... it will still come short of explaining consciousness. this has always been the largest "given" in the neural sciences

retreating to your parroted attempt at reductio ad absurdum argumentation "invisible pink unicorns" is becoming laughable, i suggest you find a less feeble way to make your points

speaking of "invisible" how is the mathematical k-theory currently being used quantify m-theory/sst not an "invisible pink unicorn".. its math, right.. it must be concrete and unchallengeable, right..

mathematics is a conceptual method of processing the observable input gathered by our 5 senses just as mathematics is a way to scrutinize any random theory conjectured out of thin air

at high energy particle colliders data is collected and then visualized into 3 dimensional plots so we can comprehend it's meaning.. the scatter angles of quarks relate to geometry more than anything else

biomassive conception simply means a critical mass of minds thinking the same thing, read jung for his definition of "archetypes" and how they are distributed through the "collective subconscious"

collective consciousness is being scientifically tested as we speak, there has been too much anecdotal evidence collected and more recently directly observed by researchers to ignore. see the princeton study

there is a slight leap from collective consciousness(if verified) to a conclusive "non-physical plane", but it raises a plausible possibility... and that possibility is all that is being argued here

conclusive proof that there is no "god", "soul" etc.. will never be found and conclusive proof to the contrary will never be found
i do not believe in a "god" per-se.. in the classical sense

what strikes me most, is your insistence that there can not be a  plane of the non-physical, what makes you so sure, why do you assume our perceptions are at their ultimate development.. that we can therefore see or know all that exists.. your argument is akin to shouting at the darkness

it is baselessly arrogant to assume we can even theorize(let alone prove) the mechanics of all aspects, planes, dimensions or facets of the universe(physical and otherwise)
our current perceptive abilities are the limiting factor, that fact does not mean supra-perceptive aspects can not exist

the possibility of a non-physical aspect is wholly plausible and is currently being experimentally researched as best it can be ...while we waste time arguing