Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together? [Archive]

Pandaemoni

11-04-09, 04:00 PM

No.

That is wrong. Mystics and scientists can work together, just not on science. Put them on the same Left 4 Dead squad though, or side by side building a house for Habitats for Humanity, and they will function together perfectly well.

As for "will humans evolve to be more adapted to the cosmos" it depends on what is meant. Humans will evolve to be more adapted to their local environment, but not the "cosmos" as a whole. That local environment is likely to change in next few centuries, but it seems unlikely that adaptation to the "cosmos" will confer a greater survival advantage than niche adaptations.

That said, it seems likely to me that our adaptation will be both biological (as biological evolution is a process that is unlikely to ever be halted), as well as technological. Some may assert that there will be "social" evolution as well, but there I would just say there will be social "changes." Social change, imo, should not count as "evolutionary" because society changes in a manner that does not seem to be especially adaptive. Society is largely responsive to the modes of philosophical thought which just happen to be prevalent in the current generation (with a bit of a lag), and as such it varies much in the same way that "fashion" does, or "etiquette."

Technology, on the other hand, seems to have a more definite course to it. Since it tends to build on preexisting invention, and only rarely are those inventions lost (at least in the modern era) it is a seemingly steady march of progress there. It is only a matter of time before we learn to integrate such technologies into the human routine. Even now we are pretty good at integrating it as a fix for those who are injured, so we just have to take that nest step.

GeoffP

11-04-09, 04:40 PM

sniffy

11-05-09, 06:11 AM

No.

Come now Ben what came first the science or the imagination?

“What is now proved was once only imagined.” William Blake

Sometimes scientists lack imagination and that's where the mystics come in. My interpretation of mystic is perhaps broader than the narrow theistic/spiritualistic interpretation usually associated with the word. To me a mytic is simply one that uses imagination to ponder what may not be immediately obvious to those who lack it.

On spacetime for instance:

Incas regarded space and time as a single concept, named Quechua: pacha, long before the Europeans. The peoples of the Andes have kept this understanding till now.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

In throwing out the 'bathwater' we should be careful not to throw the 'baby' out as well.....

superstring01

11-05-09, 06:40 AM

Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

No, in their respective fields.
Yes, in life, in general, there's no reason they shouldn't get along.

~String

Stryder

11-05-09, 07:18 AM

There is working together and the of course one dominating the other.

Scientists wouldn't want to be dominated by Mystics because to a scientist they would frown on the unscientific taking such a position over them (Why do you think Scientists aren't fond of politicians?).

The mystics just get upset because the scientists are "always right"...(There perception here is that a Scientist will come across as a pedantic know-it-all.) Scientists usually end up being right however because they will crunch the numbers until they get the right result. Perhaps they aren't so much dissimilar to psychics in that sense, after all they will just crunch guesses until they get a near miss that someone will say is a hit.

joepistole

11-05-09, 08:42 AM

The original scientists were mystics. They are both seekers of truth. Unfortunately there is a sizeable segement of folks calling themselves mystics these days that are way off the deep end of things. Those folks can and never will be reconciled with science.

But for a true mystic, a classical mystic, there is no conflict with science. Each is a seeker of truth and knowledge.

GeoffP

11-05-09, 10:19 AM

But mysticism = poop.

sniffy

11-05-09, 10:32 AM

But mysticism = poop.

But the mystic aztecs discivered spacetime before the unpoopy scientists.

shichimenshyo

11-05-09, 10:33 AM

I thought poop=poop but I guess I was mistaken.

Doreen

11-06-09, 04:36 PM

No.You are incorrect. They have. Scientists have monitored all sorts of body functions in long term meditators and mystics for a variety of reasons and with a variety of results.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=searching-for-god-in-the-brain

This has been going on for decades, at least.

Fraggle Rocker

11-06-09, 05:25 PM

I mean not simply biological evolution into bigger muscles or other physical attributes, but into a species more adapted to this cosmos.In case you missed the last couple of hundred thousand years, humans have steadily been turning that around and adapting their environment to themselves. I would argue that the essence of humanity is our desire and ability to transcend nature. We've done that with our own nature, by overriding our instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior, arguably having converted ourselves from the pack-social species that our inner caveman still occasionally reverts to, into a herd-social species of anonymous strangers living in harmony and cooperation with one another.

And we've also done it with external nature. What percentage of your time do most of you spend outdoors?
In that regard, some say humans will evolve into robots while others say humans will evolve into super beings. How do you see it?As I have noted before, we have already "evolved" into a super-organism known as civilization. We are its cells and it has many or most of the attributes that define life. Particularly the new succinct definition: a local reversal of entropy.

After all, this is how the original single-cell lifeforms evolved into complex organisms: by joining up and becoming something larger than the sum of its parts.
Evolution never stops since mutations never stop. Yet when conditions (usually environmental) change dramatically mutations try to catch up, or adapt more rapidly.That's a bit of anthropomorphism. Mutation is a force without direction and it proceeds at the same pace, subject to variations in cosmic radiation, etc. What happens is that when there's an upheaval in the environment, mutated individuals may suddenly be more suitable for survival in it than those with the original DNA, so they're the ones who reproduce more successfully.

This even happens with simple hybridization. Cross-pollination is ubiquitous among the angiosperms because of the random way pollen is distributed by wind, insects, hummingbirds, etc. Yet hybrid plants rarely survive to reproduce, because they are not as well adapted to the conditions of soil, weather, etc., as the ancestral species. But let man come along and screw up the environment, and all bets are off. Biologists know that the place to look for stands of hybrid plants is along roadways.
No.I'm not sure how you're defining "mysticism," but supernaturalism comes pretty close. Supernaturalists and scientists are not only able to work together, but in an enormous number of cases they are the same person. Look at all the scientists who belong to churches and honestly believe in supernatural beings who capriciously perturb the operation of the natural universe. Yet when they go back to the lab they wouldn't think of violating the scientific method by accepting an extraordinary hypothesis without extraordinary evidence, especially an extraordinary hypothesis that gainsays the fundamental premise underlying all science.

This is cognitive dissonance, and it's rampant, especially in the USA: The ability to believe two things that are mutually exclusive.
. . . . biological evolution is a process that is unlikely to ever be halted . . . .I'm not so sure about that. Evolution is not just the occurrence of mutations. It is also the survival of the mutated organisms because a change in the environment makes it more difficult for the unmutated organisms to survive.

That speaks to one of the aspects of nature that we are determined to transcend: survivability. We routinely expend great quantities of resources saving, nurturing and protecting people who could not possibly survive naturally because of illness, injury, or even genetic problems. Look at all the quadriplegics, the deaf and blind, the ones with Down Syndrome, and the other people who would have been left to die fifty thousand years ago--not because their communities were crueler (I'm sure their mothers loved them just as much then as they do now because love, thankfully, is not rational), but simply because there was no technology then to allow them to survive.

If our environment starts to change--whether by the caprice of nature or by our own hand--to make it more difficult for "normal" children to grow to adulthood, you can bet that the entire GDP of this planet will be diverted into inventing the medicines, shelters, appliances, software, and other technologies needed to overcome the new "universal handicap." Hell, if we do that for "the crips and retards," do you doubt that we would do it for everybody? Have you ever worked in a hospital and seen our species at its most noble, rallying around a premature baby?

We can't stop mutation, but we will do our best to stop the other component of the vector that turns mutation into evolution: We won't let the people with the unmutated DNA die off.
Some may assert that there will be "social" evolution as well, but there I would just say there will be social "changes."And I call that the evolution of the organism named "civilization."
Social change, imo, should not count as "evolutionary" because society changes in a manner that does not seem to be especially adaptive.Absolutely correct. Civilization does not evolve to adapt to nature. Civilization evolves to increase its ability to transcend nature, to make nature adapt to it. Every Paradigm Shift has been a step in that transcendence.

The Agricultural Revolution, the precursor to civilization, freed us from the "nature" of the famine cycle by creating the first food surplus that ever existed. The technology of civilization itself freed us from the humdrum of village life by making division of labor and economies of scale possible, allowing people to become professional teachers and artists and permitting the production of goods and services that were not essential to survival. Metallurgy finally freed us from the Stone Age. Writing freed us from the knowledge attrition of oral communication. Industry freed us from the 98% inevitability of "careers" in food production and distribution. Electronics... well it gave us SciForums.:)

With each step we overcome a little more of nature and live in a universe a little more of our own design. Here you and I are at this moment, living in a "virtual universe" that has almost nothing at all of nature in it.;)

Doreen

11-06-09, 06:10 PM

This is cognitive dissonance, and it's rampant, especially in the USA: The ability to believe two things that are mutually exclusive.Perhaps the case where one must believe something that contradicts current scientific knowledge, but not the case if there is no contradiction. A Christian biologist who believes the earth formed 5,000 years ago has this problem. A theist does not necessarily at all.

Unless one limits all of one's beliefs to those generally accepted by the scientific community as experimentally validated, we all believe in things without sufficient evidence. And extraordinary is a very subjective and non-scientific term. It has enormous cultural biases built into it. Note how it is brought up in these contexts without reference 'to whom' it is extraordinary.

There is no neutral eye.

Thank goodness, for example, animal trainers did not avoid seeing animals as having consciousness, intentions, motivations, etc. despite the scientific community thinking this notion required extraordinary evidence and the Judao-Christians ruling these out.

Now we would say it is extraordinary to assume they did not have these things in some form.

Then it was seen by some as extraordinary to assume they did and that we could trust our intuition on it.

Fraggle Rocker

11-06-09, 06:35 PM

Perhaps the case where one must believe something that contradicts current scientific knowledge, but not the case if there is no contradiction. A Christian biologist who believes the earth formed 5,000 years ago has this problem. A theist does not necessarily at all.Theism is the belief in at least one god: a supernatural creature who lives in a supernatural universe. Up to this point it is not antiscientific. However, since it is an extraordinary assertion unsupported by extraordinary evidence, which Laplace tells us we are not obliged to treat with respect, it is certainly unscientific.

But theism as practiced by the religions which we have to make space for in the USA goes one step further. This supernatural creature, at random intervals, brings supernatural forces to bear upon the natural universe, perturbing its behavior. At this point we have an antiscientific assertion. It contradicts the fundamental principle that underlies all science: that the natural universe is not acted upon by external forces, that on the contrary its behavior is entirely the result of its own natural laws, and that this behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

A scientist who believes merely in a god who sits out in some unobservable dimension watching us for his own amusement does not contradict science, he merely has an active imagination. Even a scientist who hews to the Cosmic Watchmaker story, that a god had a hand in causing the singularity we call the Big Bang but is now out there with the other god observing the results of his handiwork, does not contradict science.

But a scientist who believes in a god who talks to humans, turns them into pillars of salt, parts seas, sets bushes on fire and resurrects people when they're dead believes that the universe suffers exceptions to its natural laws at the whim of an external force that is not bound by natural laws. That belief thrusts its middle finger in the face of science and constitutes cognitive dissonance.

The issue is not that theism contradicts current scientific knowledge. Theism--at least the familiar Abrahamic variety--contradicts science itself.

hay_you

11-07-09, 09:23 PM

The issue is not that theism contradicts current scientific knowledge. Theism--at least the familiar Abrahamic variety--contradicts science itself.

Actually science and creation are really the same thing, just describing different points of view of the same universe. Science attempts to explain how things are made, religions attempts to explain why. The seemingly conflict with science and religion is from the misinformation on both sides. Truth is when both come together.

Doreen

11-07-09, 09:40 PM

Theism is the belief in at least one god: a supernatural creature who lives in a supernatural universe.Right there you are using word that leads to problems: supernatural. You do not have to believe that God is unnatural as a theist.

Up to this point it is not antiscientific. However, since it is an extraordinary assertion unsupported by extraordinary evidence, which Laplace tells us we are not obliged to treat with respect, it is certainly unscientific. This sounded a lot like an appeal to authority. And from what neutral ground do we determine 'ordinary'?

But theism as practiced by the religions which we have to make space for in the USA goes one step further. This supernatural creature, at random intervals, brings supernatural forces to bear upon the natural universe, perturbing its behavior. At this point we have an antiscientific assertion. It contradicts the fundamental principle that underlies all science: that the natural universe is not acted upon by external forces, that on the contrary its behavior is entirely the result of its own natural laws, and that this behavior can be understood and predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.While I don't want to defend for example fundamentalist Christianity, I don't think science would take a position on what exceptions might or might not take place. It would simply consider these natural. I feel like words are problematic here. If we take universe to mean everything, including an entity that is outside of what we normally experience, then there is a problem. IOW this is like the word 'supernatural'. That we could have rules and then that these rules are apparently broken by something outside of what we usually are capable of experiencing can happen. It has happened, for example, to Native groups in the US during contact. IOW technological differences allowed this to happen. In relation to animals, we humans can seemingly break rules. That there may be some higher order entity that can break what we consider rules - but in fact simply reflect our lack of knowledge of the whole set of rules and conditions, is not ruled out by science. Science cannot rule out, for example, that we are in a simulation that on occasion is twiddled with by some other intelligences. And I realize how simulation questions are moot in many ways, but I use it as an example of how scientists can be correct about all the rules they have found - which can also be true given the set up parameters in a simulation - AND YET, these rules can be broken, on occasion, but the ones who designed the 'universe'. The fact would remain that the scientists were skilled and effective at learning empirical patterns in their world. At the same time what seem to be exceptions would actually not be once one knew the larger context and set of rules in the UNIVERSE that is our universe + the simulator's.

A scientist who believes merely in a god who sits out in some unobservable dimension watching us for his own amusement does not contradict science, he merely has an active imagination. Even a scientist who hews to the Cosmic Watchmaker story, that a god had a hand in causing the singularity we call the Big Bang but is now out there with the other god observing the results of his handiwork, does not contradict science.
I agree.

But a scientist who believes in a god who talks to humans, turns them into pillars of salt, parts seas, sets bushes on fire and resurrects people when they're dead believes that the universe suffers exceptions to its natural laws at the whim of an external force that is not bound by natural laws. That belief thrusts its middle finger in the face of science and constitutes cognitive dissonance.See above.

The issue is not that theism contradicts current scientific knowledge. Theism--at least the familiar Abrahamic variety--contradicts science itself.I am not sure what the distinction is.

Pick any period, somewhat distant in the past, and the then current scientific knowledge would have label acts we are now capable of as breaking rules. We later learned not only new things but a wider range of contexts. We don't know all the rules and how some of these unknown one might apparently contradict some of the ones we know.

baftan

11-07-09, 09:58 PM

That’s the definition of Anthropomorphism:

… the attribution of human characteristics to non-human creatures and beings, phenomena, material states and objects or abstract concepts.
Wikipedia.

This is the passage you quoted:

Originally Posted by baftan
Evolution never stops since mutations never stop. Yet when conditions (usually environmental) change dramatically mutations try to catch up, or adapt more rapidly.

This is your comment:

Mutation is a force without direction and it proceeds at the same pace, subject to variations in cosmic radiation, etc. What happens is that when there's an upheaval in the environment, mutated individuals may suddenly be more suitable for survival in it than those with the original DNA, so they're the ones who reproduce more successfully.

And my question is, where is this Anthropomorphism?

Could you also please elaborate “Mutation is a force without direction and it proceeds at the same pace” thing. Because your following sentence (when there's an upheaval in the environment, mutated individuals may suddenly be more suitable for survival in it than those with the original DNA) sounds like a bit contradicting statement to the previous one (same pace vs suddenly being more suitable due to environmental upheaval). You can not isolate DNA from its environment. Whatever happens in environment must be evaluated by DNA and its mutation. This also determines the rates, as much as the direction of mutation within the system. Anthropos has nothing to do with it other than trying to understand what is actually going on using their own terms, mathematics, symbols.

hay_you

11-07-09, 10:31 PM

But a scientist who believes in a god who talks to humans, turns them into pillars of salt, parts seas, sets bushes on fire and resurrects people when they're dead believes that the universe suffers exceptions to its natural laws at the whim of an external force that is not bound by natural laws. That belief thrusts its middle finger in the face of science and constitutes cognitive dissonance.
This comes from a surface knowledge , of things beheld. With no understanding of why. I know that science is more interested in the 'how' of things , but the 'why' is actually more important. Science with it's interest in the universe and life, should be part of the answer of what is truth, but instead try to bury it.

baftan

11-07-09, 10:43 PM

Actually science and creation are really the same thing
No they are not; moreover, there is no such a thing called "creation". Give us an example of something created out of nothing.
just describing different points of view of the same universe
False statement: Creation has nothing to do with this universe, it's nothing but a product of human imagination.
religions attempts to explain why. Religion attempts nothing but telling short sighted stories for agricultural societies, it doesn't and can not explain anything.
The seemingly conflict with science and religion is from the misinformation on both sides. There is no conflict between science and religion. Science deals with existing things, religion deals with lullabies.
Truth is when both come together.
What truth?

hay_you

11-07-09, 11:12 PM

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
Actually science and creation are really the same thing
”
No they are not; moreover, there is no such a thing called "creation". Give us an example of something created out of nothing.
“
just describing different points of view of the same universe
”
False statement: Creation has nothing to do with this universe, it's nothing but a product of human imagination.
“
religions attempts to explain why.
”
Religion attempts nothing but telling short sighted stories for agricultural societies, it doesn't and can not explain anything.
“
The seemingly conflict with science and religion is from the misinformation on both sides.
”
There is no conflict between science and religion. Science deals with existing things, religion deals with lullabies.
“
Truth is when both come together.
”
What truth?
Here is what the dictionary , says

cre⋅a⋅tion
/kriˈeɪʃən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kree-ey-shuhn] Show IPA
Use creation in a Sentence
See web results for creation
See images of creation
–noun
1. the act of producing or causing to exist; the act of creating; engendering.
2. the fact of being created.
3. something that is or has been created.
4. the Creation, the original bringing into existence of the universe by God.
5. the world; universe.
6. creatures collectively.
7. an original product of the mind, esp. an imaginative artistic work: the creations of a poetic genius.
8. a specially designed dress, hat, or other article of women's clothing, usually distinguished by imaginative or unique styling: the newest Paris creations.

False statement: Creation has nothing to do with this universe, it's nothing but a product of human imagination.
Has science or any one else proved that? Science has never shown that it is even possible for all we see came about on it's own.

Religion attempts nothing but telling short sighted stories for agricultural societies, it doesn't and can not explain anything.
Is this a scientific fact? Or conjecture?

There is no conflict between science and religion. Science deals with existing things, religion deals with lullabies.
Science deals with the notes of a symphony, and says there is no music. Religion deals with the music.

What truth?
Truth is the actual answer. With no other possibility. Because we are here, and are real, there is truth.

baftan

11-08-09, 12:18 AM

Here is what the dictionary , says

Dictionaries are human farts, not natural facts. They are not measurable. Read back your dictionaries, maybe you can find how things popped up out of nothing. And your sorry dictionary explains creation with words of creature, create, creating and created. Self explanatory recycle.

Has science or any one else proved that? Science has never shown that it is even possible for all we see came about on it's own.

Tell me any type of method to prove an already "non-existent" thing. What if I say that "there is a pink elephant outside of this universe", how can you "disprove" it? Prove or disprove objects of science are not archaic (or modern) stories that aim to create delusions in people's minds.
Science doesn't deal with non-existent, unobservable, unmeasurable fantasies such as Gods, angels, heaven and hell. Science deals with physically existing movements, patterns, relations, interactions, transformations, shapes, waves, energy, matter and these sorts.
Science is not there to provide any material for any kind of belief or non-belief whatsoever. Beliefs or disbeliefs may use scientific jargon if they find it complementary, yet this is actually the area of politics of human discourses, not science itself. Neither it is the job of science to deal with religious stories nor science is a useful tool for religion to prove its deity. Try another method, such as making them believe through life after death stories, they would work better for religion.

Is this a scientific fact? Or conjecture?

This is the sad history of apes.

Science deals with the notes of a symphony, and says there is no music.
Science deals with waves, ear, brain cells, as well as how human brain work out environmental signals. Science observes and notes the effects of music in human minds, so it necessarily accepts the existence of music. Science never says that "there is no music", where did you find this idea? Or did you just come up with such an arbitrary verdict by accident? How does your logic tell your brain that science rejects music, or does not deal with music?

Religion deals with the music.

Religion is a lullaby for agricultural ears.

Truth is the actual answer. With no other possibility. Because we are here, and are real, there is truth.

According to this logic, because gods are not here, they are not real, is that so?

hay_you

11-08-09, 12:43 AM

Dictionaries are human farts, not natural facts. They are not measurable. Read back your dictionaries, maybe you can find how things popped up out of nothing. And your sorry dictionary explains creation with words of creature, create, creating and created. Self explanatory recycle.
Is this the same with science, terms?

Tell me any type of method to prove an already "non-existent" thing. What if I say that "there is a pink elephant outside of this universe", how can you "disprove" it? Prove or disprove objects of science are not archaic (or modern) stories that aim to create delusions in people's minds.
Science doesn't deal with non-existent, unobservable, unmeasurable fantasies such as Gods, angels, heaven and hell. Science deals with physically existing movements, patterns, relations, interactions, transformations, shapes, waves, energy, matter and these sorts.
Science is not there to provide any material for any kind of belief or non-belief whatsoever. Beliefs or disbeliefs may use scientific jargon if they find it complementary, yet this is actually the area of politics of human discourses, not science itself. Neither it is the job of science to deal with religious stories nor science is a useful tool for religion to prove its deity. Try another method, such as making them believe through life after death stories, they would work better for religion.
Actually science , has never shown that life could start on it's own or that evolution could even happen. Who really creates delusions in people's minds.

Science deals with waves, ear, brain cells, as well as how human brain work out environmental signals. Science observes and notes the effects of music in human minds, so it necessarily accepts the existence of music. Science never says that "there is no music", where did you find this idea? Or did you just come up with such an arbitrary verdict by accident? How does your logic tell your brain that science rejects music, or does not deal with music?

“
Religion deals with the music.
”
Religion is a lullaby for agricultural ears.
That is why I said science deals with the notes, religion deals with the music. Science tries to understand how an ear works or a brain, it doesn't realize there is more to a man than just the physical parts. Religion tries to answer the real questions , how did we get here, why are we here, what is the future going to bring.

According to this logic, because gods are not here, they are not real, is that so?
Can you prove that? Has science ever proved that?

baftan

11-08-09, 12:54 AM

Is this the same with science, terms?
I don't know, check out your dictionary...

Actually science , has never shown that life could start on it's own or that evolution could even happen. Who really creates delusions in people's minds.

Your science maybe. Other science can prove both.

Religion tries to answer the real questions , how did we get here, why are we here, what is the future going to bring.

Wrong. Religion tries to divert human intelligence out of real questions. It doesn't ask any question at all, it's neither the practice nor the aim of religion to answer the questions you mentioned. Religion tries to fit the reality into its own ready answers: How did we get here: God created us. Why are we here: Because God wanted. What is the future going to bring: Only God knows. These are the answers. Religion adapts everything according to same nonsense...

Can you prove that? Has science ever proved that?
You prove that a pink elephant is not ruling the universe, I'll prove your God doesn't exist. Or give us some physical element from this god, science would start to deal with it. You can not expect science will take your fantasy as a subject for its studies. And you can not expect others will satisfy your dreams. It's your God, you need to prove its existence. Simple as that.

hay_you

11-08-09, 10:47 AM

Actually science , has never shown that life could start on it's own or that evolution could even happen. Who really creates delusions in people's minds.
”
Your science maybe. Other science can prove both.
The reality is that science has not shown that either, of these is not a result of creation. The interesting thing about this is that , science's failure on this, gives support for creation.
So science and creation can work together. The problem is really the attitudes of scientists and religious leaders, and what they think they know.

You prove that a pink elephant is not ruling the universe, I'll prove your God doesn't exist. Or give us some physical element from this god, science would start to deal with it. You can not expect science will take your fantasy as a subject for its studies. And you can not expect others will satisfy your dreams. It's your God, you need to prove its existence. Simple as that.
There are many proofs of a creator. They are in the creation itself, the design in creation. People marvel , at the design of a cat for example. Science has never shown that from some simple life , eventually at cat or trees, or all the other life could happen. What science is really doing is trying to learn about the things that are already here. That is like finding a bicycle, taking it apart and finding out how it was put together. Science would say no one designed it, it just happened. And religion would say it was created but have disagreements on who the designer is, and show by their actions, that they have no idea on how to use the bike.
So both sides think the other is ridiculous, in their thinking. The answer is in both, but you have to try and get to what is accurate from both. And it really comes down accurate knowledge but also to attitude. Do you really want the truth of things, or do you want, what you want.

(Q)

11-08-09, 11:05 AM

science's failure on this, gives support for creation.

In other words, whenever an answer has not been considered to your liking or is not readily available, you immediately assign mythical beings and magic as the alternative, despite the fact you nor anyone else has ever seen these beings or observed magic. Well done, hayseed.

Science has never shown that from some simple life , eventually at cat or trees, or all the other life could happen.

You are lying.

Science would say no one designed it... religion would say it was created ...both sides think the other is ridiculous, in their thinking.

But, there is no thinking on the side of theists, it is only faith based belief.

...get to what is accurate from both. Do you really want the truth of things, or do you want, what you want.

Clearly, you do not want to "know" things, you merely want to thump the bible and regurgitate creationist drivel.

hay_you

11-08-09, 11:28 AM

In other words, whenever an answer has not been considered to your liking or is not readily available, you immediately assign mythical beings and magic as the alternative, despite the fact you nor anyone else has ever seen these beings or observed magic. Well done, hayseed.

"Well done, hayseed" This must be a typo! :)

Not so at all, I have come to my thinking from a neutral place, ( not siding with either) and then checking both out.

“

Science has never shown that from some simple life , eventually at cat or trees, or all the other life could happen.
”
You are lying.

This is actually true. It was one of things that surprised me when I was looking into this.
“

Science would say no one designed it... religion would say it was created ...both sides think the other is ridiculous, in their thinking.
”
But, there is no thinking on the side of theists, it is only faith based belief.
Science is also faith based, because, science believes they will be proved correct in the future. Because as it is now, they can neither , prove life started on it's own, or that evolution can even happen as they say.( this is why new theories keep coming, to try and explain things that don't fit. One of these is the abiogenesis theory)
”

Clearly, you do not want to "know" things, you merely want to thump the bible and regurgitate creationist drivel.
If the evidence supported science I would be with science, but the truth is it doesn't support, the theories of science. There is a difference between theory and facts or evidence.

(Q)

11-08-09, 11:37 AM

This is actually true. It was one of things that surprised me when I was looking into this.

If you had looked into it, which I seriously doubt, you'd know you were lying.

Science is also faith based

It's clear you haven't the faintest notion of what science entails. Why would you continue lying about it?

If the evidence supported science I would be with science, but the truth is it doesn't support, the theories of science. There is a difference between theory and facts or evidence.

The difference is how little you know of science and the fact that your intentions are to lie about it in order to support your faith based delusions.

hay_you

11-08-09, 11:48 AM

If you had looked into it, which I seriously doubt, you'd know you were lying.
Actually I have looked into it. Science claims a lot of things but most of them are only theories. There is no actual proof.

It's clear you haven't the faintest notion of what science entails. Why would you continue lying about it?
As I said before I have looked into this.

The difference is how little you know of science and the fact that your intentions are to lie about it in order to support your faith based delusions.
In reality, the real delusions, comes from science. I base this not on faith but on evidence, the same evidence that science uses. When it comes to the start of life , science really has nothing. Even the theories are not really there yet. As to evolution no scientists has ever showed how all the life we see could come from some 'simple' cell ( no cell is really simple) without the DNA in it , that we see today. No scientist can show or has seen one animal turn into another over time.
That is really the bottom line, in this.

(Q)

11-08-09, 11:54 AM

Actually I have looked into it. As I said before I have looked into this.

So, is it the fact that you're so completely brainwashed into believing the religious drivel that's been pounded into your head that causes you to lie, or are you just a pathological liar?

In reality...

Pulleeeze. :rolleyes:

hay_you

11-08-09, 12:09 PM

So, is it the fact that you're so completely brainwashed into believing the religious drivel that's been pounded into your head that causes you to lie, or are you just a pathological liar?
Actually, since you brought this up. Science education has been taught in the school for a long time, evolution is also taught. If you take science in University, you are also taught evolution. You are not taught anything about creation, or if that is even possible, so who are the brainwashed ones? ( I do not advocate any teaching any religion in the schools, there is too much there with Christmas , Easter, Halloween, now.) But if your going to teach science then teach real science, not made up stuff.
The real bottom line is that science does not know how life started, or that evolution really exists.

hay_you

11-08-09, 12:23 PM

I am open to anyone who can show me that I am wrong here. Show the science that says science is correct on this and that creation is not possible.

baftan

11-08-09, 10:01 PM

I am open to anyone who can show me that I am wrong here.
No you are not, you haven't shown any sign of it. You do not even hint what do you understand from a "proof". You can not put into any statement or logic, because of the single most important reason: Because whatever method of "proof" you claim will also be used against the existence of God. So, stop asking for "proof", because you don't know the meaning of the word for a beginning.

Why don't you give us any kind of definition however you wish. Any type, any model, any system as a way of proving something to your mind. Then we'll see what we can do.

...Show the science that says science is correct on this and that creation is not possible.

Correction to this: Science do not prove or disprove non-existent phenomenons such as "creation", it's not the job of science. Science doesn't care about "creation" stories. There is no sign of creation in existence, so it is a myth.

hay_you

11-08-09, 11:46 PM

No you are not, you haven't shown any sign of it. You do not even hint what do you understand from a "proof". You can not put into any statement or logic, because of the single most important reason: Because whatever method of "proof" you claim will also be used against the existence of God. So, stop asking for "proof", because you don't know the meaning of the word for a beginning.

Why don't you give us any kind of definition however you wish. Any type, any model, any system as a way of proving something to your mind. Then we'll see what we can do.

Correction to this: Science do not prove or disprove non-existent phenomenons such as "creation", it's not the job of science. Science doesn't care about "creation" stories. There is no sign of creation in existence, so it is a myth.
Well if science found that , life was coming from non life somewhere, and then evolving to all sorts of other life. That would be very convincing.
The evidence that there is , is that life comes from life and we don't see animals turning into some other animal. Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.
But to be fair many religions have also , claimed things, that could not possible be correct either. Or conducted themselves in a way that , many people now want nothing to do with religion or a God.
But it doesn't have to be that way. It 's not really that the science is bad, it is only the interpretation that is not correct.
This is really the age of misinformation. Causing a lot of confusion for people.

baftan

11-09-09, 12:07 AM

Well if science found that , life was coming from non life somewhere, and then evolving to all sorts of other life. That would be very convincing.
You can always google it to find out if science found out it or not. But I seriously suspect that your intention is really understand that. And you still didn't answer what kind of proof you would accept. There is no such an organisation which is called "science", there are numerous brances and disciplines of scientific research, observation, experiments and theories that depend upon them. Yet since you do not have any perspective about the concept of proof (because you can not say what does it look or sound like), you are not able to differentiate or conceive the evidence.

The evidence that there is , is that life comes from life and we don't see animals turning into some other animal. Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.
Again what is your criteria of proof that you can deduce creation out of fossil records. Which specific fossil supports this claim and using which definition of proof?

But to be fair many religions have also , claimed things, that could not possible be correct either.
Give example, and under which understanding you can say that "could not possible be correct"? Did you come to this judgement using the same "not-defined-yet" norms of proof?

Or conducted themselves in a way that , many people now want nothing to do with religion or a God.
So God and Religion are pure there, but some people represent them so badly. What are the pure forms of these Gods or Religions that you find them correct, (and please again, according to what proof?)

But it doesn't have to be that way. It 's not really that the science is bad, it is only the interpretation that is not correct.
Stop defending science. You were defending creationism. And you haven't come up with an idea that shows any relation between science and religion. One deals with existence, other deals with non-existence. Where is the relation?

This is really the age of misinformation. Causing a lot of confusion for people.
You are presenting your personal state of mind as if it was part of general conspiracy of "the age of misinformation".

Nasor

11-09-09, 09:20 AM

Actually science and creation are really the same thing, just describing different points of view of the same universe. Science attempts to explain how things are made, religions attempts to explain why. The seemingly conflict with science and religion is from the misinformation on both sides. Truth is when both come together.
This ignores the fact that many religions do indeed attempt to explain how things were made, in addition to why. It's fine if your personal philosophy is that "science attempts to explain how things are made, religions attempts to explain why," but that's a viewpoint that's not held by a huge fraction of religious people.

(Q)

11-09-09, 09:21 AM

I am open to anyone who can show me that I am wrong here. Show the science that says science is correct on this and that creation is not possible.

Can you show me why leprechauns and unicorns are not possible? If not, then they must exist, right?

(Q)

11-09-09, 09:25 AM

Well if science found that , life was coming from non life somewhere, and then evolving to all sorts of other life. That would be very convincing.

It is convincing.

The evidence that there is , is that life comes from life and we don't see animals turning into some other animal.

Are you saying we should be witnessing a dog turning into a cat, or something?

Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.

You are lying again.

This is really the age of misinformation. Causing a lot of confusion for people.

And, clearly you are misinformed and very confused or you are a pathological liar and are only here to further misinform and confuse.

Nasor

11-09-09, 09:45 AM

Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.
Wow, what a complete pile of bullshit. You are either lying, or you have been duped into believing that by people who were lying to you.

hay_you

11-09-09, 09:58 AM

Again what is your criteria of proof that you can deduce creation out of fossil records. Which specific fossil supports this claim and using which definition of proof?
Well the fossil record does not show the transitional fossils. The ones that evolution would do before bone was useful for example. Placement would have to be trial and error , before a useful limb could be made. Also many parts have to be in place for any of this was to work. Life is really systems that work together. Even if somehow a single cell just happened, there would be no DNA with the instructions to make something. There would be no heredity, to start from. Even a single needs to divide, , but there are many parts in a cell, so this on it's own is amazing, that it can do this and still live. Science has not show that a single cell can become all the trees and grass, and animals that there are on this earth. Even today we should see all sorts of misplaced limbs and other parts, that are supposed to be still evolving.
None of this is in the fossil record. But with creation all of this is possible, actually it is the only way the life we see could happen.
Because animals look similar to another, does not mean it evolved. If you use DNA to create variety of life and your going to make millions of animals, why not make an animal with a slight change to the DNA and make another. This is what is found today and in the fossil record.
This is evidence from the same material science has found, creation fits this, evolution does not. Besides the design in the life we see, is way beyond what mans intelligence can do , we try to copy it or at least learn form it, and when we do we call that intelligent design, but science forgets to give credit to the original designer.
Science and creation are really the same thing.

hay_you

11-09-09, 10:54 AM

This ignores the fact that many religions do indeed attempt to explain how things were made, in addition to why. It's fine if your personal philosophy is that "science attempts to explain how things are made, religions attempts to explain why," but that's a viewpoint that's not held by a huge fraction of religious people.
I was trying to think of what some religions say as to how things are made.
If you consider science to be a type of religion , maybe then that is so. But maybe you can tell me which religion explains how.

hay_you

11-09-09, 11:16 AM

It is convincing.

Are you saying we should be witnessing a dog turning into a cat, or something?

You are lying again.

And, clearly you are misinformed and very confused or you are a pathological liar and are only here to further misinform and confuse.

Well, that is sort of correct. Because if you start with a single cell with no DNA with no instructions, in it, you eventually have to get to all the life we see. Including trees, grass, and all animal life. So they have to 'evolve' into something they are not. Like a cat and dog. We should still be seeing all of this transformation now, this is a major flaw in the theory of evolution. Science is trying to come up with theories to explain this but so far, they are only theories. The transitional mistakes that would have to happen with evolution are not there. You would need to see where the nerves and muscles and bone and blood and heart and lungs an kidneys, all formed at the same time to make a working system.
What science needs to do is take a single cell with no DNA and show us all how evolution could happen from that.
Show us that evolution is possible.
Science is claiming it as a fact when they don't even know if it could happen. And all the evidence we see, tells us it was done with creation.
In reality the start to life and evolution , are without proof or real evidence to show that it is possible as science says.
How can science prove something that is unprovable, that is why there are no answers from science on this.
Real science and creation , are in harmony. It is only scientists and their ideas that are not.

hay_you

11-09-09, 11:18 AM

Wow, what a complete pile of bullshit. You are either lying, or you have been duped into believing that by people who were lying to you.
Actually science has been lying to people for a long time now. If you can show me different, then please do that.

(Q)

11-09-09, 11:18 AM

Like a cat and dog. We should still be seeing all of this transformation now, this is a major flaw in the theory of evolution.

No, it is a major flaw in your presentation here, which is clearly void of any knowledge of evolution or science. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

(Q)

11-09-09, 11:20 AM

Actually science has been lying to people for a long time now. If you can show me different, then please do that.

It's not a matter of showing you anything other than first level books on science and biology.

hay_you

11-09-09, 11:43 AM

No, it is a major flaw in your presentation here, which is clearly void of any knowledge of evolution or science. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It's not a matter of showing you anything other than first level books on science and biology.
These books theorize on how things could happen. They don't show that's what did happen or if it could happen the way they say. Show us in the real world that the start to life or evolution could happen in the real world, as science says. It's one thing to take life that is already existing and and say it can divide, but how does science know that was not built into it! By the way if science did eventually make life from non life that would only prove that it was possible with creation ( the scientists as the creator) It doesn't show that it could happen on its own.
It is science that doesn't have a clue. Science is supposed to prove things, so that we can trust what they say. Well prove it!
Show us all that all the life we see can come from non creation. ( with no intelligence involved) That means no scientist mixing chemicals etc. If it takes a trained scientist to do it, then does not that mean creation!

(Q)

11-09-09, 11:53 AM

Show us in the real world that the start to life or evolution could happen in the real world, as science says.

Show me creation. Create an animal, now!

It is science that doesn't have a clue. Science is supposed to prove things, so that we can trust what they say. Well prove it!

Once again, you show your true self as a liar and fraud. Science does not prove anything.

GeoffP

11-09-09, 11:55 AM

I disagree strongly with one of the points above.

I don't think that scientists and mystics would be effective at destroying zombies together after all.

hay_you

11-09-09, 12:07 PM

Show me creation. Create an animal, now!
I am not a creator, I don't know how to create something like that. But I do know that if I look at a lump of dirt for billions of years, it is not going to be come some animal. The reason that is , is because of the incredible amount of knowledge it would take to do it.( creation)

Once again, you show your true self as a liar and fraud. Science does not prove anything.
Then science should say nothing about it. Just say they don't know. Could be creation also. That would be the honest thing to do. Why take a stand for something they don't know.

(Q)

11-09-09, 12:08 PM

Why take a stand for something they don't know.

Yes, why do you?

hay_you

11-09-09, 12:16 PM

I disagree strongly with one of the points above.

I don't think that scientists and mystics would be effective at destroying zombies together after all.
Why, does science believe in Zombies. There are many things we can't see physically that even science believes in. We can't see electricity, but we see the results, we can't see pressure but we can see the results of wind.. We can see life on this planet, why is it so hard to not think that there is invisible , intelligence. We see the results from that, through all creation. Science believes in gravity, but does not know everything about it.

hay_you

11-09-09, 12:18 PM

Yes, why do you?
I know know a lot through the creation.

(Q)

11-09-09, 12:20 PM

I know know a lot through the creation.

You mean the bible.

hay_you

11-09-09, 12:39 PM

You mean the bible.
I was talking about the creation itself. I can see the vastness of space, I also can see very minute things. I see how the earth is different than any other planet. I see animals with intelligence and instinct. I see the incredible movements of animals, how they are designed to survive, I see the talents man has and ability to communicate, with speech and writing, and building computers. I know the intelligence it takes to make a simple robot, or machine.
The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence. Man also knows about creating things, that act of creation is not something that man does not know about. If man wants a loaf of bread, he does not just wait for it to happen, because he knows he has to create it. It can only happen that way.
Science has to go against the evidence that is here, to say life started on it's own and that evolution is possible.
Science should know this. But they want to go their own way. And have lied to us all and to themselves, for many years.
Because they can't prove their stand, they say science doesn't prove anything. That really is a cop-out, the truth is they can't prove a false idea.

(Q)

11-09-09, 03:58 PM

I was talking about the creation itself.

That would be the bible or the Quran or some other holy book. They appear to be the sources of your claims.

I see the incredible movements of animals, how they are designed to survive

That would a lie. You are only speculating they were designed based on your holy book.

I know the intelligence it takes to make a simple robot, or machine.

But, you don't see the intelligence in learning about evolution.

The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence.

No, it does not.

Science has to go against the evidence that is here, to say life started on it's own and that evolution is possible.

That is exactly what the evidence suggests and what science has helped us understand.

Science should know this. But they want to go their own way. And have lied to us all and to themselves, for many years.

No, YOU are the liar.

the truth is they can't prove a false idea.

Exactly. You must be able to demonstrate your false idea isn't false. You haven't done that.

baftan

11-09-09, 04:06 PM

The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence.

And the evidence of life and evolution tells you there is no intelligence.

You can not prove creation, because you have no tool, logic, method other than belief. You are talking about vastness of things, universe, humans, and everything else. Fair enough. And your logic goes like that: "If everything are so much and complex, so they can not emerge by themselves, a creator must be behind of everything." Ask yourself "why"? Why do you think that complexity can occur only through a creator? You have raised the human examples (bread, machines, etc.), yet there is no single human being or single time or place behind all these human inventions (factual or fictional); they are the results of accumulation and combination of many individuals accross the planet and throughout millennia.

Anyway, I will not go through the examples from technology, such as how any complicated device (a car, a computer, a scanner, etc.) has evolved throughout centuries. I will just ask you to start to think about two concepts for a beginning: Heredity (history of everything) and the immense time span was (comparing to the life span of an individual, a country, a religion, a species) required to reach actual situation of reality which present itself upon us. Plus don't underestimate the possibilities which may and do arise from the co-existence of things (physical) their environment. It's like thinking of internet environment as a combination of many individual ideas, projects, contributions, demands, as well as technology behind it. No single person could create the internet, no matter how intelligent they were.

I think I can not give you anything more than this. Because idea of evolution is not trying to sell you a brand new belief: The whole idea is to test your belief against reality. Try better devices to see the reality. No matter how better your eyesight is, you cannot see microorganism or distant galaxies without the help of microscopes or telescopes respectively. No matter how intelligent you or somebody else is, you can not create complex mechanisms (internet, cosmos, life) single handedly let alone suddenly.

hay_you

11-09-09, 05:23 PM

But, you don't see the intelligence in learning about evolution.
The idea of evolution is really a man made idea. But it is not something that really happens. We great variety in life and variety of a certain kind of life. ( like all the different sizes and looks of dogs.) But we don't see dogs turning into other kinds of animals. They are dogs. Man has used his intelligence to create different breeds of dogs. But they are still dogs. We don't see legs of a dog coming out of his back or sides or head or anything like that. A dog has four legs on the ground, and all wired so they are useful. The jaw and teeth are in the correct spot and so on... No transitional parts.
Where is the intelligence in learning about something that doesn't apply in our world.

hay_you

11-09-09, 05:25 PM

Science has to go against the evidence that is here, to say life started on it's own and that evolution is possible.
”
That is exactly what the evidence suggests and what science has helped us understand.
But science is supposed to go with the evidence where ever it takes you. Not against the evidence, and make up your own..

hay_you

11-09-09, 05:27 PM

Exactly. You must be able to demonstrate your false idea isn't false. You haven't done that.
Actually I have. Can science demonstrate that the start to life and evolution is correct?
I have showed that the evidence from science shows creation. So can science show that it is not?

spidergoat

11-09-09, 05:29 PM

Science does have several plausible explanations for the origin of life.

What was your evidence that science supports supernatural creation?

baftan

11-09-09, 05:37 PM

The idea of evolution is really a man made idea.

Evolution is not a man made idea. It is a human way of understanding and formulating what is going on in reality. Scientist have been doing experiments on fruit flies and observing many creatures to test the understanding of evolution. Nothing has come up yet to falsify the evolution of species. If you want to ignore the entire scientific research and data on the issue, it's your problem. Yet, evolution is not an idea, it's a fact. Try to live with it. Because it is obvious that you have no intention to conceive the factors of nature such as time, environment, mutation, adaptation, population, heredity or any other phenomenon whatsoever.

baftan

11-09-09, 05:39 PM

I have showed that the evidence from science shows creation.
No you didn't. Where is it? Give the thread number, or write it down again: What is your understanding of evidence or proof, how do you understand something is proven, or disproven (with an example please!), and how does creation fit in evidence.

hay_you

11-09-09, 05:50 PM

And the evidence of life and evolution tells you there is no intelligence.

You can not prove creation, because you have no tool, logic, method other than belief. You are talking about vastness of things, universe, humans, and everything else. Fair enough. And your logic goes like that: "If everything are so much and complex, so they can not emerge by themselves, a creator must be behind of everything." Ask yourself "why"? Why do you think that complexity can occur only through a creator? You have raised the human examples (bread, machines, etc.), yet there is no single human being or single time or place behind all these human inventions (factual or fictional); they are the results of accumulation and combination of many individuals accross the planet and throughout millennia.

Anyway, I will not go through the examples from technology, such as how any complicated device (a car, a computer, a scanner, etc.) has evolved throughout centuries. I will just ask you to start to think about two concepts for a beginning: Heredity (history of everything) and the immense time span was (comparing to the life span of an individual, a country, a religion, a species) required to reach actual situation of reality which present itself upon us. Plus don't underestimate the possibilities which may and do arise from the co-existence of things (physical) their environment. It's like thinking of internet environment as a combination of many individual ideas, projects, contributions, demands, as well as technology behind it. No single person could create the internet, no matter how intelligent they were.

I think I can not give you anything more than this. Because idea of evolution is not trying to sell you a brand new belief: The whole idea is to test your belief against reality. Try better devices to see the reality. No matter how better your eyesight is, you cannot see microorganism or distant galaxies without the help of microscopes or telescopes respectively. No matter how intelligent you or somebody else is, you can not create complex mechanisms (internet, cosmos, life) single handedly let alone suddenly.
Yes you can prove creation.
You can theorize all you want , that bread could happen through natural forces. But if you want any bread you have to create it. Science gives people IQ tests, how much of an IQ do you need to make bread.
How much intelligence does it take to send a man to the moon? All the parts have to be created, and built, over years of research. Would you say that was a little intelligence or or a lot. But so far man can't create life, do you think it takes more study , from very intelligent people to be able to do that.

You mentioned telescopes and microscopes, both built with intelligence.

"If everything are so much and complex, so they can not emerge by themselves, a creator must be behind of everything." Ask yourself "why"? Why do you think that complexity can occur only through a creator? You have raised the human examples (bread, machines, etc.), yet there is no single human being or single time or place behind all these human inventions (factual or fictional); they are the results of accumulation and combination of many individuals accross the planet and throughout millennia.
You have answered the question here. These things have all come from intelligent creation. Man builds on other men's learning, until he has enough knowledge to make it. You mentioned telescopes and microscopes, both built with intelligence. People also use the word evolution to mean intelligent progression of knowledge. So does that mean you are saying evolution is really intelligent design, which is creation. Or is that just a corruption of the word evolution.

(Q)

11-09-09, 05:51 PM

evolution ... is not something that really happens.

we don't see dogs turning into other kinds of animals. They are dogs.

We don't see legs of a dog coming out of his back or sides or head or anything like that.

Yes, we do. They are called mutations and can happen before birth.

Is there any other part of reality you wish to deny?

baftan

11-09-09, 06:04 PM

Yes you can prove creation.
How, using which method?

Man builds on other men's learning, until he has enough knowledge to make it. You mentioned telescopes and microscopes, both built with intelligence. People also use the word evolution to mean intelligent progression of knowledge. So does that mean you are saying evolution is really intelligent design, which is creation. Or is that just a corruption of the word evolution.

Yes, but humans do exist. Where does this your creator exist, how does it interact with its creation. And you are trying to impose a new concept to creationism: "Intelligent progression of knowledge". In previous episode of creationism, the superintelligent almighty god had created everything out of nothing and suddenly; he created man as a man, rabbit as a rabbit, world as a world. So what happened now? Have you just introduced a new concept of "progressing creator", just as its creations (humans)? Progress means evolution. Are you trying to say "intelligent evolution"?

hay_you

11-09-09, 07:38 PM

Yes, we do. They are called mutations and can happen before birth.

Is there any other part of reality you wish to deny?
When we see mutations today they are usually bad for an animal. And we don't see mutations , making new animals from it, they are still dogs. This is the same with people, we see 2 heads, extra arms, legs, even dwarfism, but they are all still people. Mutations do not account for new types of animals.

hay_you

11-09-09, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by hay_you
Yes you can prove creation.
”
How, using which method?
By using how much intelligence it would take a man to do it. It is a comparative measure.
Making bread, for instance, a 6 or 7 year old could do that if shown. But to physics, maybe a high school student. To build something like a cat, is so far beyond human ability, at this point.
Just compare what it would take for men to do.

hay_you

11-09-09, 08:07 PM

Yes, but humans do exist. Where does this your creator exist, how does it interact with its creation. And you are trying to impose a new concept to creationism: "Intelligent progression of knowledge". In previous episode of creationism, the superintelligent almighty god had created everything out of nothing and suddenly; he created man as a man, rabbit as a rabbit, world as a world. So what happened now? Have you just introduced a new concept of "progressing creator", just as its creations (humans)? Progress means evolution. Are you trying to say "intelligent evolution"?
Does science consider intelligence as part of evolution? If so, who is that intelligence?

baftan

11-09-09, 09:24 PM

Does science consider intelligence as part of evolution? If so, who is that intelligence?

I hope you wanted to ask "what is that intelligence". Science consider intelligence as one of the results of evolution, among many other brain capabilities. So intelligence is not behind the evolution of life, it is one of the outcomes of the evolution.

Doreen

11-09-09, 09:33 PM

YOU GUYS ARE ALL OFF TOPIC.

Not that the topic fits the forum.

But a discussion of evolution is not remotely comparative religion, or does everyone participating here support the idea that a discussion pro and con of evolutionary theory is a comparative religion discussion?

hay_you

11-09-09, 10:11 PM

YOU GUYS ARE ALL OFF TOPIC.

Not that the topic fits the forum.

But a discussion of evolution is not remotely comparative religion, or does everyone participating with to suppor this idea?
OK..
Science and creation compliment one another.
The problem is the scientists and religious leaders.

baftan

11-09-09, 11:34 PM

OK..
Science and creation compliment one another.
The problem is the scientists and religious leaders.

What are you, a comedian?

hay_you

11-09-09, 11:45 PM

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
OK..
Science and creation compliment one another.
The problem is the scientists and religious leaders.
”
What are you, a comedian?
It would be funny, if it wasn't so sad. It causes division where none is warranted.

Dywyddyr

11-11-09, 04:42 AM

OK..
Science and creation compliment one another.
No they don't.

The problem is the scientists and religious leaders.
Nope, it's a problem of education.
Were more people to be educated then they'd realise that the two aren't complimentary.

hay_you

11-11-09, 09:23 AM

No they don't.

Nope, it's a problem of education.
Were more people to be educated then they'd realise that the two aren't complimentary.
Actually education has done that already. And a lot of people have swallowed it completely. Now it is very hard to get some to think anymore. It probably will take something dramatic, for many to realize that.
Science and creation are really the same thing.

Dywyddyr

11-11-09, 09:34 AM

Actually education has done that already.
Well since you persist in the ridiculous and insupportable belief that

Science and creation are really the same thing.
then obviously education really hasn't done it already.

Or maybe you just decided to skip an education.

Now it is very hard to get some to think anymore.
Perhaps people are simply following your lead.

phlogistician

11-11-09, 10:50 AM

Science and creation are really the same thing.

Only if you're a physicist studying the 'Big Bang'.

hay_you

11-11-09, 11:58 PM

Well since you persist in the ridiculous and insupportable belief that
Well that really is sciences theories and beliefs that are unsupported.
But I would like to ask you why you ( science ) are against creation? I mean science admits that they don't know how life started, and what about evolution , that makes it impossible for creation?

hay_you

11-12-09, 12:02 AM

Only if you're a physicist studying the 'Big Bang'.
Well science admits there are things about the so called 'big bang' they don't know about.

Bebelina

11-12-09, 02:12 AM

Haven't read the entire thread, but I think some of them should be able to get along.

phlogistician

11-12-09, 03:06 AM

Well science admits there are things about the so called 'big bang' they don't know about.

It's not an 'admission' it's expected, and predicted by science itself.

Also, the fact that science does not have all the answers does not open the door for mystic bullshit to come in.

THMag

11-12-09, 03:49 AM

hay_you

11-12-09, 10:06 AM

Haven't read the entire thread, but I think some of them should be able to get along.
If you think about it, a creator by definition needs to know all the disciplines of all of science, and maybe some that science hasn't even been thought about yet. So all science is doing is trying to understand what already has been done. Science is really good at finding the laws that are there and chemical make up of things etc. So really science and creation are the same thing.

It's not an 'admission' it's expected, and predicted by science itself.
Prediction can come from an organized way of creation. If the creator is going to make millions of creatures, slight variations in the DNA can do that. But also yo can have major changes in life also. Because science has not found in the fossil record the transitional animals, this means that evolution would have to get things right the first time, every time. But that is not what evolution is about . Evolution is about trial and error , until something is useful. There should be more of this type of record, than animals that have all their limbs and teeth and everything else they need. Prediction comes from creation , it does not come from evolution.

hay_you

11-12-09, 10:53 AM

To Hay

I know you have done your own research, but its not really the job of anyone to do the legwork to show you all the "proof" of evolution. There really is a mountain of evidence, and you could literally spend a lifetime reading it all (there really is that much). But I can quote some people who have done a bit of research themselves:

"some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

--Pope John Paul II

"it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

--Pope Benedict XVI (current pope)

"Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

--Fr. George Coyne (Vatican's chief astronomer)

There is so much evidence, that anyone who does the legwork to look at lot of it, cannot ignore it (even the deeply spiritual). The official position of the Catholic church actually accepts the basic premise of evolution (that man evolved from other creatures, and current creatures evolved from others). They also acknowledge Big Bang, by the way.

The problem is the idea of "proof". "Where's the proof!?" you say. Well, we have tons of evidence. That is the very nature of science. We gather all we can to try and understand. There is just a limit to how effectively you can "prove" something that happens over the course of millions of years, when we as humans, live much relatively shorter (with written history only a few thousand years). Even if the already gigantic pile of evidence to evolution were magnified 1000fold, I know that not every man-woman-and-child would be convinced. The only way evolution will be "proven" to them is if an immense godly being physically appeared on the planet, made an earthquake, and then said "yeah, evolution was the idea all along". Actually... I bet a few still wouldn't be convinced (because they were expecting to see someone else).

My main problem with your line of reasoning, Hay, is that you basically say "this seems too complicated for man to understand or prove 100%, therefore it must be creation." But science, by nature, keeps trying to understand. Science, knows we don't always have it 100% for sure. Science is a search. Science doesn't resign to a "because God wanted it this way" explanation, because that explanation doesn't really add to understanding the world around us. If we had resigned to a "God wanted it this way" explanation to everything we didn't fully understand, we would never develop things like medicine "God wanted you to stay sick." Do we understand the human body completely? No. Do we 100% know how every cell and organ works? Of course not.

Please understand, that because something has a "scientific" explanation, does not necessarily make it anti-god. The medicine example is why I think that a benevolent god might want us to understand the world around us better (but that can be just my opinion).

Many deeply spiritual people, as exemplified by the quoted, think of evolution as a far more elegant sort of emergence for mankind. To imagine a god that built a universe from a bang that would result in a planet that could bring life from from primordial ooze, to cells, to humans... over the course of billions of years -- is a far grander thing to some people. They see that degree of foresight and understanding as far grander than

Shazzzzaammmmm! --> Man exists

From this comment I sense that you have made a sincere attempt, to answer this.
The proof of evolution is on the scientists. They are the ones that have come up with this. It is their idea, if they can't support it, or prove it, they have nothing.
You may have missed some of my posts, but I have already mentioned that religious leaders are just as much to blame as science in this. Religion has misrepresented, the creation accounts and their own teachings, of of what is right, for generations of time.
Now there is no proof of evolution or the start to life, as science says. Science has a lot of theories, and ideas, but no actual, evidence that any of this is possible without creation. Science tries to bury you in details, on how this or that, could have happened or this or that is possible. But no real evidence that it could.
By science doing the experiments on the start to life only can show creation by the scientists, doing the experiments. Which is what creation is.
It is not just a reaction to the inability of science to know everything. No one knows everything. I can't explain everything about the creator. But what is known through science and reason , is that creation is the only possibly. One evidence that science totally ignores is that life comes from life, we know of nothing other than that. For science to say life came from non life, they are going to have to prove that. But reason and the evidence says different.

Many deeply spiritual people, as exemplified by the quoted, think of evolution as a far more elegant sort of emergence for mankind. To imagine a god that built a universe from a bang that would result in a planet that could bring life from from primordial ooze, to cells, to humans... over the course of billions of years -- is a far grander thing to some people. They see that degree of foresight and understanding as far grander than

Shazzzzaammmmm! --> Man exists
The trouble with is a number of things. It is still creation and you would what to know who that creator was. The other thing is that , this is not the evolution that science is teaching. The start to life and evolution as science says is that no intelligence was involved. Some scientists are beginning to see that the 'big bang' has more order in it than they once thought. Abiogenesis theory is an idea that is closer to creation, than other theories.
Science expects people to believe that Shazzzzaammmmm!, over billions of years, man and all the other life happened by chance out of the dirt. But science can not show that any of their ideas actually happened or can or are still happening. Humans are human, dogs are dogs, cats are cats. This goes for all the vegetation also. If I plant an apple tree, I get apples.
If you look what science actually says and what they can show to be true and workable, science has no evidence at all.
The other big question is why do scientists, want to show that no creator was involved? It is not because of evidence, they have to go against the evidence that is here?
It is much more interesting to have a creator than not. It doesn't change any of the real science that has been learned, but it does add new possibilities in the future. Also it answers many important questions that affects all of mankind.
Science has not thought this through, that is why they can not prove the start to life just happened and that evolution is even possible.

(Q)

11-12-09, 11:16 AM

Science has a lot of theories, and ideas, but no actual, evidence that any of this is possible without creation.

I can't explain everything about the creator. But what is known through science and reason , is that creation is only possibly.For science to say life came from non life, they are going to have to prove that.

Clearly, you're just trolling now. You claim not to know everything about an alleged "creator". You then go on to say that it is "science" that establishes creation through "science and reason". You contradict yourself and have absolutely nothing to offer, as you've admitted yourself.

Troll.

hay_you

11-12-09, 11:30 AM

Clearly, you're just trolling now. You claim not to know everything about an alleged "creator". You then go on to say that it is "science" that establishes creation through "science and reason". You contradict yourself and have absolutely nothing to offer, as you've admitted yourself.

Troll.
This threat of 'trolling' comes when science gets to see that all they have learned, has no backing.
Scientists, don't know everything about science, or they would stop learning, and go home, and watch TV. So is science trolling?
I have given anyone here the opportunity to explain why evolution or the start to life could and did happen. But no one has answered this.
The truth is that science or anyone else has seen or and show that life just happened from the ground. Or that evolution could happen.
Please give your evidence.

(Q)

11-12-09, 11:45 AM

I have given anyone here the opportunity to explain why evolution or the start to life could and did happen. But no one has answered this.

You are bold faced liar.

hay_you

11-12-09, 11:59 AM

You are bold faced liar.
Well has science proved that life has come from non life without intelligence involved? I know science tells about all the precursors and it is just chemicals reactions, and science has done experiments to try show that life could have happened that, but did it? How does science know, because they have tried to do in experiments, but failed so far. So how does science know, that life started without intelligence?
On evolution , has science proved from a single cell that all the life we see could come from that( evolved ) ? Why does the fossil record not show the trial and error's that would have to happen with evolution, to get to what we see today?
Science has lied to the world about this.

THMag

11-12-09, 03:16 PM

The argument you keep making is like this analogy:

A woman is murdered. No witnesses. The husband is found covered in her blood. A knife with her blood on it is found in his trunk. Husband's skin and blood is found under the woman's nails. Witnesses can't confirm where husband was when she died. Science will just say "husband likely did it". You can always always argue that Science doesn't KNOW 100%. Science wasn't there, it wasn't a witness. It can't KNOW. Only God really knows. And really, you would be right, only God truly knows. But to set him free in the physical world because "only God really knows" is not useful.

Again, Science is not a field of KNOW 100%. Science is a field of SEARCH. It seeks to understand, and we gather all we can to explain as best we can what may have happened. This is why we disagree and test our thoughts against each other. Currently, a mountain of evidence points to evolution. As stated before, science cannot satisfy you with any 100% certainties the way a faith based religion might try to.

It is this search to understand that gives us useful information. Again, like medicine, just because we don't know the body 100% does not mean that we shouldn't keep trying, because we've learned a lot that is useful to us. It is not a search for things to undermine religion (as you seem to think it is).

Before modern medicine (e.g. science) if you got sick, all you could really do was pray. Something that moves invisibly from person to person and infecting them seems pretty godlike. Illness was not understood. All you could really do long ago was pray. This is perhaps where science seems to "undermine" religion, as people now had something other than god to turn to (science). Again, that is not the goal of science. If we kept resigning to "God wants you to be sick" to everything, we wouldn't get anywhere. That explanation is not useful. The Creation theory is not useful.

Science, in general, is not trying to disprove that there is no "creator" as you know it. Many people reconcile the two in their own way. Science is not interested in the idea of gods or souls, etc. Science is not interested in things it cannot measure or observe. It is not seeking to disprove you have a soul, or a god, it is not interested in that at all. That is outside the realm of science. Some individual scientists may try to push atheism, but that is not the goal of Science at all.

Again, it is not the nature of science to give 100% faith-like answers. It is willing to correct itself in light of new evidence. Currently, the evidence points to evolution. So much so that it seems highly unlikely to change. Again...it is not a field of KNOW 100% The fact that it is willing to correct itself this way, makes it vastly different than religion. The fact that it doesn't offer easy answers to physical (not spiritual) phenomena makes it vastly different than religion.

As I have said, there is lots of random evidence against specific intelligent design. Again, this does not mean God has no hand in anything. But why do whales have hipbones floating in a sea of blubber not attached to their legs or spine? Why do some snakes have hip and leg bones inside their body attached to no legs? Why do chickens still have the genes to make dentin (teeth material)? Why does every human have gill slits as an embryo? Science seeks to understand and explain how it may happen. Evolution can explain those things. Specific intelligent design, cannot.

I think your argument is semantic. It does not mean evolution happened with no intelligence involved at all (e.g. a "creator": science is not interested in that), just not through the definition specifically applied to the words "intelligent design".

A way the catholic church for example, reconciles with science:

"The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability....This....inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science....where did this rationality come from?" to which he answers that it comes from the "creative reason" of God."

At the moment, you are either arrogant enough to claim that you understand the science and evidence greater than the hundreds of thousands of scientists... or you are arrogant enough to claim to be more spiritually pure and aware of scripture than the popes. You want an easy answer, we have lots of evidence, science is not a field of faith-like answers. It is a search for useful knowledge. You keep wanting someone to give you "proof", and as I have stated the kind of "proof" you desire would probably require god himself (as you would envision him/her) coming down and telling you.

lightgigantic

11-12-09, 04:14 PM

That is wrong. Mystics and scientists can work together, just not on science. Put them on the same Left 4 Dead squad though, or side by side building a house for Habitats for Humanity, and they will function together perfectly well.
.

and there you have it.

As the everyday scientific workplace illustrates, they can and do work together. The differences arise from a philosophical consideration. If someone wants to argue that they can't, it would only be in those (rare) situations where the philosophy/ethics of science (whatever the hell that may be) is at the forefront of an issue (like for instance, determining the cut off point for late term abortions).

And even then, its, more often than not, not a mystic vs science thing but a ball game played within the confines of moral and civil justice.

hay_you

11-12-09, 05:13 PM

As I have said, there is lots of random evidence against specific intelligent design. Again, this does not mean God has no hand in anything. But why do whales have hipbones floating in a sea of blubber not attached to their legs or spine? Why do some snakes have hip and leg bones inside their body attached to no legs? Why do chickens still have the genes to make dentin (teeth material)? Why does every human have gill slits as an embryo? Science seeks to understand and explain how it may happen. Evolution can explain those things. Specific intelligent design, cannot.
This is also answered in the act of creation. As I said before DNA is an amazing way to create things. You could compare it too using 4 colors to paint all the pictures in the world. DNA is like that , Or you could compare it to computer code, where different blocks of code, can be called when needed, or blocked out. If you are going to create millions of creatures, why would you start from scratch with each one. Especially when they are made of mostly the same material. Science is learning more about DNA all the time, question they have had about this, are slowly being answered. Bones in whales that to science at this point aren't understood , does not mean the moved to be legs or flippers. Actually there is no evidence for this.
On the snakes with legs, this is very interesting. If you look at the bible account when God cursed the snake, he said that from now on you would go on your belly. So... how did the snake move around before that? Did it have legs? Remember this was written over 2000 years ago. Has science found fossils of this earlier version of a snake.? The chicken with teeth material in the DNA, shows that it is like computer code. It is not just a teeth like material in DNA it is also, all the code for the nerve material and the 'wiring' of it to all the places it has to go to be useful. It has to travel through the body to work a muscle, it has to be connected to the brain, and each nerve, has to be connect in this manor. Coming from non life with no instructions in the DNA for any of this, science has to show could happen. Even in humans , we have wiring harness of nerves that branch off on go to where they are intended.They have been designed to be in the spine for protection , and yet exit it so that the nerve can go to the muscle. This is amazing design. These systems have to be complete before anything works. So you need brain, blood, bones, nerves, lungs, filter systems all together at the same time, before any of this is any good. In evolution would would need millions of trial and errors before any of this could possible happen. But there is no record of these in the fossils. Also body parts would not know where to be placed all of this has to be worked out. And rewired, for any part to be useful.
With creation even man can see how this is accomplished , but how does this happen just on it's own? Even is you give science, a completed cell without DNA, can science show that any of this could happen. There is no heredity in that first cell, so how does it know it has to survive and copy itself? What did it mutate into, how did DNA with instructions get into this cell?
This is what science is saying, but they can not show even the first step. They can not show any of the steps actually happened. Cells are really machines that have to be complete to live. But how can all the parts evolve if the cell is not alive.
The reality is that, science with what it actually knows, and creation are the same thing. Sciences interpretation of the evidence found, is in error of the evidence. Because science has come up with this idea of non creation, the burden of proof comes totally on them. If they say it, back it up.
The added problem is that science doing the experiments, can only show creation. The creator said he made man from the dust of the ground. If science does the same thing, how can science claim non creation?

hay_you

11-12-09, 05:29 PM

As the everyday scientific workplace illustrates, they can and do work together. The differences arise from a philosophical consideration. If someone wants to argue that they can't, it would only be in those (rare) situations where the philosophy/ethics of science (whatever the hell that may be) is at the forefront of an issue (like for instance, determining the cut off point for late term abortions).

And even then, its, more often than not, not a mystic vs science thing but a ball game played within the confines of moral and civil justice.
The actual science and creation, are the same. Through out history though, it has been a battle of wrong interpretations on both sides. Religions have not understood the creation account , and so science has not understood what the religions where saying. But science has misinterpreted heir own evidence.

Non creation is an impossibility, with life.
I call this the misinformation age.

hay_you

11-12-09, 07:38 PM

A woman is murdered. No witnesses. The husband is found covered in her blood. A knife with her blood on it is found in his trunk. Husband's skin and blood is found under the woman's nails. Witnesses can't confirm where husband was when she died. Science will just say "husband likely did it". You can always always argue that Science doesn't KNOW 100%. Science wasn't there, it wasn't a witness. It can't KNOW. Only God really knows. And really, you would be right, only God truly knows. But to set him free in the physical world because "only God really knows" is not useful.
No this is not correct. The evidence comes from all that we see. You don't need science to tell you how it was done. But personally I like to know how it was done. So I am not against science learning these things. What has happened is that science has lost it's way. What I mean is that science has gotten into the details , but lost site of the fact of creation. An example would be the making of bread. Science could go into all the ingredience and chemical make up of bread, and theorize how it could just happen if all the stuff mixed together over billions of years. But the reality is that bread needs to be created.

hay_you

11-12-09, 08:03 PM

At the moment, you are either arrogant enough to claim that you understand the science and evidence greater than the hundreds of thousands of scientists... or you are arrogant enough to claim to be more spiritually pure and aware of scripture than the popes. You want an easy answer, we have lots of evidence, science is not a field of faith-like answers. It is a search for useful knowledge. You keep wanting someone to give you "proof", and as I have stated the kind of "proof" you desire would probably require god himself (as you would envision him/her) coming down and telling you.
Ok I understand what you say here. I know it sounds like that. That is why is am willing to discuss this topic with scientists and with religious leaders, about religion. I am not interested in taking what I have come to understand and and just ignore either science or religions. If science could show that the start to life or evolution actually happens , my understanding would be different. But the truth is that science can not show any of this. It is only their theories that science has. Its all talk with no evidence.
It is the same with religions, I have taken this same approach with them.
But in the end I found that actual science and creation fit together. Despite what science or religions say.

Nick123

11-13-09, 07:27 PM

Mystics will give imagination to scientists while scientists will give the necessary instruments to mystics. Both of them working FOR a common purpose is possible but working TOGETHER is not.

baftan

11-13-09, 08:49 PM

If science could show that the start to life or evolution actually happens , my understanding would be different.
I guarantee that science will never be able to show this to you until the end of time. That means your understanding will never be shaken.

But the truth is that science can not show any of this.
This is actually right, because logically, if it could, it would have shown them to you as well. If science had any explanatory power, it could already have explained to you, or proved to you that you were wrong. But it can not. If science could not do this, I think science is not valuable other than repeating, copying some already existing creation, or tools through technology. Other than this, it's nothing.

It is only their theories that science has. Its all talk with no evidence.
That's utterly correct. I sensed this as well, actually science just farts, and some people call them theories. No evidence whatsoever, because if there was any evidence, they would have proved at least one or two things about God. If science can not do that, that means it does not have any credible evidence at all. It's logical. Whole science do this, do that , yet it can not produce a single evidence to you.

It is the same with religions, I have taken this same approach with them.
This very paralellship between science and religion are obvious and clear one. It was religion a thousand year ago, and somehow now; but rising fashion is science now. In reality, I mean in its core, there is no difference between science and religion at all. We can also see the evidence of this similarity from your approach with them as same phenomenon, or idea.

But in the end I found that actual science and creation fit together. Despite what science or religions say.

Actual science and creation do more than fitting together: They are actually two sides of the same coin, or required two keys for a same key hole, it's like "intelligent evolution". Whatever science is doing was already said by religions before; and whatever religions promised is what science is doing now. Yet as you mentioned truly, they tend to say different things...

hay_you

11-13-09, 08:55 PM

Mystics will give imagination to scientists while scientists will give the necessary instruments to mystics. Both of them working FOR a common purpose is possible but working TOGETHER is not.
In the atmosphere you see today, with science and creation that is maybe true. But it doesn't have to be. There is really nothing that science has found out that conflicts with creation. The most widely known creation account, from the bible is in complete harmony with the actual evidence from science. So really where is the problem?

baftan

11-13-09, 09:00 PM

In the atmosphere you see today, with science and creation that is maybe true. But it doesn't have to be. There is really nothing that science has found out that conflicts with creation. The most widely known creation account, from the bible is in complete harmony with the actual evidence from science. So really where is the problem?

I can not see any problem at all. Bible complements science. Science has produced nothing whatsoever to show a single conflict with creation. Especially widely known creation account has complete harmony with anything scientific evidence can submit to our brains. Total harmony...

hay_you

11-13-09, 09:11 PM

I guarantee that science will never be able to show this to you until the end of time. That means your understanding will never be shaken.
Why can not science show this? If it actually happened that way , all science would have to do is wait and let it happen again, after all it has been billions of years. If science can't prove it, then that doesn't say much for the theory in the first place. It also brings up the question if science can not prove it why use it in all the science papers, and TV programs and schools. Why doesn't science tell the truth, and say they can't prove it and creation is likely also?
Could you imagine the back lash from the world , and from science itself, when you think of all the stuff, evolution is mentioned in, using a big black marker to cross it all out.
Science has chosen a path, of no return, and they can't even prove it, and will never be able to.

baftan

11-13-09, 09:32 PM

Why can not science show this?
Maybe because it's just useless. And why is it useless, because you give the answer in question format, yet still an answer:

if science can not prove it why use it in all the science papers, and
TV programs and schools. Why doesn't science tell the truth, and say they can't prove it and creation is likely also?
Because science is a delusion created by liars, and it occupies every corner of modern life, yet unable to produce anything which make sense.

Maybe you already know the answer:

Science has chosen a path, of no return, and they can't even prove it, and will never be able to.

Could you imagine the back lash from the world , and from science itself, when you think of all the stuff, evolution is mentioned in, using a big black marker to cross it all out.
Personally I can not, since I know that science is a part of an intentional plan to deceive everyone with unsupported claims such as "evolution". There is no way to prove it, yet some people use science to protect their position, and that's why there is no way they will cross their claims, unless if they come up with a new theory.

If it actually happened that way , all science would have to do is wait and let it happen again, after all it has been billions of years.
Exactly, they claim that they can play with genes and see mutations which would normally take millions of years in nature. But I think this is part of their propaganda.

hay_you

11-13-09, 09:35 PM

This is actually right, because logically, if it could, it would have shown them to you as well. If science had any explanatory power, it could already have explained to you, or proved to you that you were wrong. But it can not. If science could not do this, I think science is not valuable other than repeating, copying some already existing creation, or tools through technology. Other than this, it's nothing.
This is true. But science has been saying evolution is a fact. They were better off saying it was a theory. Also you have to realize that evolution is based on ,the assumption that life started from non life on it's own. When science finds out that life needs intelligence , for it to be possible, evolution as science claims now will be just, a myth. Because how do you know a creator did not program all the DNA to slowly change into all the variety of life we see.
Science and industry copy's creation all the time. A movie camera, is just a copy of our eye and brain. We can focus automatically, and see moving images , and calculate depth, and speed, and then move our bodies accordingly. Does not science and engineers try to do the same. Science would like to copy a bird feather, but still is not able too. Sonar and radar were done in creation first.
But I don't minimize sciences achievements , though.There are many things science has learned, and done. Because all things we see are from creation, does not mean science should be of no use or not interesting, it just the opposite of that. The things in the future, that can be learned, will out strip anything science has learned now.

Actual science and creation do more than fitting together: They are actually two sides of the same coin, or required two keys for a same key hole, it's like "intelligent evolution". Whatever science is doing was already said by religions before; and whatever religions promised is what science is doing now. Yet as you mentioned truly, they tend to say different things...
This is absolutely correct. WE are here and real. It took the understanding of what man calls 'science' to create all of this. Science and a creator are the same thing.

hay_you

11-13-09, 09:38 PM

Personally I can not, since I know that science is a part of an intentional plan to deceive everyone with unsupported claims such as "evolution". There is no way to prove it, yet some people use science to protect their position, and that's why there is no way they will cross their claims, unless if they come up with a new theory.
This is an interesting statement! I'm wondering what you mean by that?

baftan

11-13-09, 09:41 PM

This is an interesting statement! I'm wondering what you mean by that?

I mean what I say, there are secret and dangerous people behind all these science policy, and their unique intention is to destroy religious thinking and ideas. And according to their plans, they can come up with unproven ideas such as evolution.

Beware of them...

hay_you

11-13-09, 09:53 PM

I mean what I say, there are secret and dangerous people behind all these science policy, and their unique intention is to destroy religious thinking and ideas. And according to their plans, they can come up with unproven ideas such as evolution.

Beware of them...
This is a world of misinformation, designed to hide , any real answers.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I to do think there is an intentional, purpose from all the institutions of this world. It has always ( at least for man) been there, but is intensified in this time.

baftan

11-13-09, 10:11 PM

This is a world of misinformation, designed to hide , any real answers.
How can you say that, which part of my statement made you think that I gave you misinformation, and I designed above paragraph to hide "any" real answers?
Could you clarify please?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean
Yet you say that it's misinformation, a deception (don't reply with that "I didn't say deception" correction, I know that, I just understood that way)

but I to do think there is an intentional, purpose from all the institutions of this world.
Is it like tangible, known organizations, or some underground secret organizations. Or the ones look like legal (such as universities, United Nations, etc.) but actually play some other games behind closed doors?

It has always ( at least for man) been there, but is intensified in this time.

What has always been there , deceiving other people?

hay_you

11-13-09, 10:56 PM

How can you say that, which part of my statement made you think that I gave you misinformation, and I designed above paragraph to hide "any" real answers?
Could you clarify please?

Oh ... I didn't mean you, personally. I meant the world in general. I was interested in your statement , about people intentionally trying to mislead. I wasn't sure what you meant by that. Did you mean an organized group?

baftan

11-13-09, 11:00 PM

Did you mean an organized group?
Did I sound like "unorganised, arbitrary, coincidential, unaware of each other" people? I think such a great plan wouldn't be achieved without an organisation, or group of organizations, located in core institutions of the world...

hay_you

11-13-09, 11:01 PM

Is it like tangible, known organizations, or some underground secret organizations. Or the ones look like legal (such as universities, United Nations, etc.) but actually play some other games behind closed doors?
This is a more religious answer, that explains the world we see, and why it is the way it is. I thought it was an interesting comment on your part.

baftan

11-13-09, 11:04 PM

This is a more religious answer
How come it's religious, I didn't get this part. I am talking about man-made organizations...

hay_you

11-13-09, 11:09 PM

How come it's religious, I didn't get this part. I am talking about man-made organizations...
OK , this religious answer , is in control of man's organizations. This includes religions, governments, education, science , financial, entertainment etc.

baftan

11-13-09, 11:13 PM

OK , this religious answer , is in control of man's organizations. This includes religions, governments, education, science , financial, entertainment etc.

Is there any point, idea, material, thing, I mean anything that you would call "out of religion", or everything is necessarily religious?

hay_you

11-13-09, 11:24 PM

Is there any point, idea, material, thing, I mean anything that you would call "out of religion", or everything is necessarily religious?
Put it this way, man's institutions are puppets. Man thinks he is in control, but he is not. That is the reason the world is the way it is. Just about everything man does ends up to be the wrong.

baftan

11-13-09, 11:43 PM

Put it this way, man's institutions are puppets. Man thinks he is in control, but he is not. That is the reason the world is the way it is. Just about everything man does ends up to be the wrong.

Does it include your actions as well? So should we accept everything you say as "wrong" categorically? So if you are thinking that everything man does ends up to be wrong, and you are a member of this species, do you believe that everything you say will end up the wrong?

hay_you

11-14-09, 12:17 AM

Does it include your actions as well? So should we accept everything you say as "wrong" categorically? So if you are thinking that everything man does ends up to be wrong, and you are a member of this species, do you believe that everything you say will end up the wrong?
There has always been a few that , get a look at what absolute truth is. This is done in an organized way. But it depends on a few things, one is that it depends on attitude, humility, accurate knowledge, and timing. This sounds a little cryptic,I know. But there is more to this, but I don't really want to get into a religious discussion, in a public forum, it never gets anywhere.
But no one should believe what I say, without proving things to yourself.
My only purpose is to get people to think about things. Many have turned to science, but the reality is science doesn't have the answers. That is why they can't prove it.

baftan

11-14-09, 02:08 AM

There has always been a few that , get a look at what absolute truth is. This is done in an organized way. But it depends on a few things, one is that it depends on attitude, humility, accurate knowledge, and timing. This sounds a little cryptic,I know. But there is more to this, but I don't really want to get into a religious discussion, in a public forum, it never gets anywhere.
But no one should believe what I say, without proving things to yourself.
My only purpose is to get people to think about things. Many have turned to science, but the reality is science doesn't have the answers. That is why they can't prove it.

Hang on a minute, I asked a very simple question over your statement:

Your statement: "Just about everything man does ends up to be the wrong."
My question: Does this statement include you too?

Why did you start "cryptic" (-your own word-) expressions, I didn't get it... You can just say yes, no, or I don't know. I don't even ask for an explanation. If you like, you can give an explanation, it's up to you. All I want to learn is that if your statement includes you. Why is it religious, why is it complicated, I honestly didn't get why...

S.A.M.

11-14-09, 03:24 AM

Some wonder if or how humanity will evolve further (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/10/will-humans-evolve-further.html).

I mean not simply biological evolution into bigger muscles or other physical attributes, but into a species more adapted to this cosmos.

In that regard, some say humans will evolve into robots while others say humans will evolve into super beings.

How do you see it?

The earliest mystics were the scientists. The earlierst scientists were the mystics. I'd say science is applied mysticism. :)

(Q)

11-14-09, 09:32 AM

The earliest mystics were the scientists.

No, they weren't, as they did not apply the Scientific Method. Mystics were the original "Pseudoscientists" and "Religious Nutters"

S.A.M.

11-14-09, 09:46 AM

No, they weren't, as they did not apply the Scientific Method. Mystics were the original "Pseudoscientists" and "Religious Nutters"

No it was Muslims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm) who did that. Apply the scientific method. But we don't discount the work of those who came before them. The shamans were the original scientists in term of discovery and invention and application. Many of their "home remedies" are being utilised to this day.

(Q)

11-14-09, 10:18 AM

No it was Muslims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7810846.stm) who did that. Apply the scientific method. But we don't discount the work of those who came before them. The shamans were the original scientists in term of discovery and invention and application. Many of their "home remedies" are being utilised to this day.

"In a short autobiography, Ibn al-Haytham tells us that in his youth he scrutinized the claims of the many religious sects teeming around him. In the end it was the empirical strain and rational thinking he recognized in Aristotelian natural philosophy, and the rigor of mathematics, that finally won his heart."

He ended up living in what is described as a domed structure, probably a modest mausoleum, outside the Azhar Mosque and its famous school in Cairo. There he supported himself by teaching and by copying Arabic translations of Greek mathematical classics such as Euclid’s Elements and Ptolemy’s Almagest.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

S.A.M.

11-14-09, 10:22 AM

"In a short autobiography, Ibn al-Haytham tells us that in his youth he scrutinized the claims of the many religious sects teeming around him. In the end it was the empirical strain and rational thinking he recognized in Aristotelian natural philosophy, and the rigor of mathematics, that finally won his heart."

He ended up living in what is described as a domed structure, probably a modest mausoleum, outside the Azhar Mosque and its famous school in Cairo. There he supported himself by teaching and by copying Arabic translations of Greek mathematical classics such as Euclid’s Elements and Ptolemy’s Almagest.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/09/ibn-al-haytham.html

And? You should read a bit more about him. Ibn Haytham did not consider religion and science to be mutually exclusive. Note that I critique the claims of many religious sects too.

Not sure IIRC, but I believe he claimed he would rather study the work of God than the words of men, because men were imperfect and only God was perfection.

edit: pretty close

Born in Basra in 965, Ibn al-Haytham first studied theology, trying unsuccessfully to resolve the differences between the Shi'ah and Sunnah sects. Ibn al-Haytham then turned his attention to the works of the ancient Greek philosophers and mathematicians, including Euclid and Archimedes. He completed the fragmentary Conics by Apollonius of Perga. Ibn al-Haytham was the first person to apply algebra to geometry, founding the branch of mathematics known as analytic geometry.

A devout Muslim, Ibn al-Haitham believed that human beings are flawed and only God is perfect. To discover the truth about nature, Ibn a-Haitham reasoned, one had to eliminate human opinion and allow the universe to speak for itself through physical experiments. "The seeker after truth is not one who studies the writings of the ancients and, following his natural disposition, puts his trust in them," the first scientist wrote, "but rather the one who suspects his faith in them and questions what he gathers from them, the one who submits to argument and demonstration."

http://www.ibnalhaytham.net/

(Q)

11-14-09, 10:28 AM

And? You should read a bit more about him.

I have, and it appears he was no Muslim, in that he wanted nothing to do with Islam or the murderous Caliph who had him under house arrest when he feigned insanity.

S.A.M.

11-14-09, 10:30 AM

Actually he was a devout Muslim. Where do you get this information?

He was anti-sectarian and could not understand the divisiveness of sectarianism. Its why he rejected sectarian beliefs in favour of a more universal view of Islam.

hay_you

11-14-09, 10:46 AM

Hang on a minute, I asked a very simple question over your statement:

Your statement: "Just about everything man does ends up to be the wrong."
My question: Does this statement include you too?

Why did you start "cryptic" (-your own word-) expressions, I didn't get it... You can just say yes, no, or I don't know. I don't even ask for an explanation. If you like, you can give an explanation, it's up to you. All I want to learn is that if your statement includes you. Why is it religious, why is it complicated, I honestly didn't get why...
I try to explain this a little better.
OK... the inclination of the world is wrong. and will eventually end in destruction. We are seeing this now. This was known thousands of years ago.
Religion is really about government. Who has the right to rule this earth.
It is obvious that God is not ruling this world. That is why we see the conditions on this earth now. That is also why I said there was a purpose to the misinformation in the world. It was so people would not believe in a God or to use false religion to misdirect people.

If you have noticed on TV all the programs on Armageddon, or dooms day , there are all sorts of predictions of the end of the world as we know it. People have known for a long time that, it is going to happen. It's just when and how, that is not known.

So I do not support mans governments, but I support God's government.
It is not complicated, that is it . My actions, support that. There has always been some people , through out history to do the same. But it is not the majority, these supports the governments now, as shown by their actions.
The reason this is always a religious question is that there are only 2 sides, your on God's side or you are not. There is no middle ground.

hay_you

11-14-09, 10:49 AM

Is it like tangible, known organizations, or some underground secret organizations. Or the ones look like legal (such as universities, United Nations, etc.) but actually play some other games behind closed doors?
it is interesting that you mentioned the UN, this is mentioned in the bible.

Dywyddyr

11-14-09, 08:31 PM

I can not see any problem at all. Bible complements science. Science has produced nothing whatsoever to show a single conflict with creation. Especially widely known creation account has complete harmony with anything scientific evidence can submit to our brains. Total harmony...
On the contrary (I do hope you're being sarcastic though).
Evolution itself contradicts creation.

This is true. But science has been saying evolution is a fact.
It IS a fact.

When science finds out that life needs intelligence , for it to be possible
That's an assumption. Based on wishful "thinking".

Sonar and radar were done in creation first.
Really?
Where does radar occur in nature?

But I don't minimize sciences achievements , though.
You do little but.

Science and a creator are the same thing.
No they aren't.

it is interesting that you mentioned the UN, this is mentioned in the bible.
Where?

baftan

11-14-09, 11:26 PM

I try to explain this a little better.
OK... the inclination of the world is wrong. and will eventually end in destruction. We are seeing this now. This was known thousands of years ago.
Religion is really about government. Who has the right to rule this earth.
It is obvious that God is not ruling this world. That is why we see the conditions on this earth now. That is also why I said there was a purpose to the misinformation in the world. It was so people would not believe in a God or to use false religion to misdirect people.

If you have noticed on TV all the programs on Armageddon, or dooms day , there are all sorts of predictions of the end of the world as we know it. People have known for a long time that, it is going to happen. It's just when and how, that is not known.

So I do not support mans governments, but I support God's government.
It is not complicated, that is it . My actions, support that. There has always been some people , through out history to do the same. But it is not the majority, these supports the governments now, as shown by their actions.
The reason this is always a religious question is that there are only 2 sides, your on God's side or you are not. There is no middle ground.

This has nothing to do with the question I ask. I repeat, for the sake of mutual discussion:

Your statement: "Just about everything man does ends up to be the wrong."
My question: Does this statement include you too?

Is it too impossible, not understandable, or too difficult to answer this question. I am not saying religion, I am not saying anything else; just a simple question to understand your position against your own initial assumption: "man does ends up to be wrong", you claimed, "is that claim applicable to you?"

Tell me that you do not want to answer this question, I will understand. I just want to see a light, an evidence, a clue that you are talking (or writing) to what I am talking about. I want to make sure that you read what I wrote. Just simply say that "I understood your question, but I don't want to answer it". Something related to the question. It has been three times I asked you the same question. You even quoted it in your reply. Yet you don't say anything about it. If you are not going to say anything about it, why do you quote? Do you just need any piece of paragraph with somebody else's name written on top of it? Is that the reason that you quoted my paragraph, yet you talk about something absolutely different. Why are you doing this?

hay_you

11-15-09, 12:59 AM

Is it too impossible, not understandable, or too difficult to answer this question. I am not saying religion, I am not saying anything else; just a simple question to understand your position against your own initial assumption: "man does ends up to be wrong", you claimed, "is that claim applicable to you?"

Tell me that you do not want to answer this question, I will understand. I just want to see a light, an evidence, a clue that you are talking (or writing) to what I am talking about. I want to make sure that you read what I wrote. Just simply say that "I understood your question, but I don't want to answer it". Something related to the question. It has been three times I asked you the same question. You even quoted it in your reply. Yet you don't say anything about it. If you are not going to say anything about it, why do you quote? Do you just need any piece of paragraph with somebody else's name written on top of it? Is that the reason that you quoted my paragraph, yet you talk about something absolutely different. Why are you doing this?
I don't want to get into a deep religious answer. But since you asked and want a clear answer, I will explain it this way , if you know anything about Noah from the bible, he lived in a world that that was totally against God. But God spared him and his family. There were about a million people at that time( just an estimate). So the question is, was Noah the same as the rest of the world? Was he wrong also? Or did his conduct prove to be different? Noah's day pictures our day. This shows that a number of people will survive Armageddon, but just as in Noah's day the number would be comparatively few. So the question is, are these ones wrong as the rest of the world is? It is a way of life , not just a belief, so all daily activity , is based on a different direction than that of the world.
Do you understand this?

baftan

11-15-09, 01:12 AM

I don't want to get into a deep religious answer. But since you asked and want a clear answer, I will explain it this way , if you know anything about Noah from the bible, he lived in a world that that was totally against God. But God spared him and his family. There were about a million people at that time( just an estimate). So the question is, was Noah the same as the rest of the world? Was he wrong also? Or did his conduct prove to be different? Noah's day pictures our day. This shows that a number of people will survive Armageddon, but just as in Noah's day the number would be comparatively few. So the question is, are these ones wrong as the rest of the world is? It is a way of life , not just a belief, so all daily activity , is based on a different direction than that of the world.
Do you understand this?

Therefore, you are Noah, is that what you want me to understand? How can you do this, how can you divert a question -which is specifically designed uniquely for you, only you, nobody else- to somebody else (such as Noah). Maybe I am trying to understand if your statement ("men end up wrong") binds you as a member of humanity or not. What's Noah, or religion got to do with it? Are you trying to say that your statement was actually not "your own statement", but actually a "religious" statement? Are you trying to say that you made this statement, but actually didn't include yourself into it? Are you trying to say that you don't know the answer? Are you trying to say that you wrote down the statement like a prophet, yet you didn't accept yourself as a part of humanity in question?
Noah is a religious concept, and you said many times that you do not want to get into a religious discussion. And where are you by the way? Writing to "comparative religion" section. Yet I don't mind; let's say you don't want to talk about religion in religion section. I go along with it, I support you, I say "let's accept your suggestion and let's stop talk about religion". Let's talk about your answer to my many times repeated simple question:

Is your statement of "men always end up wrong" applicable to you?

Dredd

11-15-09, 08:15 AM

Good job.

Very broad based coverage of the subject by members (pro & con) has been done in this thread.

Mainly concerning the past, concerning origins.

What about the future? :shrug:

The tenets of Ecocosmology (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/09/tenets-of-ecocosmology.html) give equal respect to all individuals, mystic or scientist, who can offer something concerning the future, concerning the survival of our species.

Dredd

11-15-09, 08:43 AM

Science is also faith based, because, science believes they will be proved correct in the future.

By definition the realm of science is supposed to be proof based, and religion / mysticism is supposed to be faith based.

But in fact the two realms do mix, scientists exhibit great faith (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/rebel-science-dark-matter-of-faith.html) in their hypotheses from time to time.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 09:57 AM

But in fact the two realms do mix, scientists exhibit great faith (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/rebel-science-dark-matter-of-faith.html) in their hypotheses from time to time.
Wrong.
There's no "faith" involved.
You misunderstand the level of "attachment" to dark matter.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 10:10 AM

I don't want to get into a deep religious answer. But since you asked and want a clear answer, I will explain it this way , if you know anything about Noah from the bible
Except that the story of Noah isn't exactly an historical fact. :rolleyes:

hay_you

11-15-09, 11:35 AM

Therefore, you are Noah, is that what you want me to understand? How can you do this, how can you divert a question -which is specifically designed uniquely for you, only you, nobody else- to somebody else (such as Noah). Maybe I am trying to understand if your statement ("men end up wrong") binds you as a member of humanity or not. What's Noah, or religion got to do with it? Are you trying to say that your statement was actually not "your own statement", but actually a "religious" statement? Are you trying to say that you made this statement, but actually didn't include yourself into it? Are you trying to say that you don't know the answer? Are you trying to say that you wrote down the statement like a prophet, yet you didn't accept yourself as a part of humanity in question?
Noah is a religious concept, and you said many times that you do not want to get into a religious discussion. And where are you by the way? Writing to "comparative religion" section. Yet I don't mind; let's say you don't want to talk about religion in religion section. I go along with it, I support you, I say "let's accept your suggestion and let's stop talk about religion". Let's talk about your answer to my many times repeated simple question:

Is your statement of "men always end up wrong" applicable to you?

The answer is that all men have the inclination to do wrong. Me included in that.I am no different than any one else. Just as Noah was not different than anyone else. But what Noah did was to choose to live under God's standards instead of what the rest of the world was doing. There are many people doing that today, I also choose that. All these people are just like anyone else, me included, the difference from the world is this choice, along with actions.
So left to my own devices, I would be the same as the world is. And actually it is always a battle , to fight that.
Now this choice is open for everyone, but it is known that most people don't want it. Just like in Noah's day.
I don't want to get into too much the religious aspect, because I don't know what you think about a God. I don't know if you believe in a God or not or who you think he is etc.
Also it was not my intention to direct anyone in that direction. My only intent was to get ones to at least check out what science is saying. Scientist do not have the answer, but the science does support creation.

I hope this answers your question. It is a good question, but really has a religious answer.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 11:39 AM

but the science does support creation.
No it doesn't.

hay_you

11-15-09, 11:46 AM

Good job.

Very broad based coverage of the subject by members (pro & con) has been done in this thread.

Mainly concerning the past, concerning origins.

What about the future?

The tenets of Ecocosmology give equal respect to all individuals, mystic or scientist, who can offer something concerning the future, concerning the survival of our species.
This is a good question, and is really what concerns people today.
The answer is, a great future. But before that happens it's going to get much worse. To the point people are going to wonder if anyone will survive. There will have to be an intervention, other wise the people on this planet will be lost.
It's not so much that people don't know what to do, it is more that they don't have the will. And as other posts mentioned , there is a force driving man in the wrong direction.

hay_you

11-15-09, 11:49 AM

By definition the realm of science is supposed to be proof based, and religion / mysticism is supposed to be faith based.

But in fact the two realms do mix, scientists exhibit great faith in their hypotheses from time to time.
Science also needs to have blind faith that their "facts" will be proved correct in the future.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 11:51 AM

Science also needs to have blind faith that there "facts" will be proved correct in the future.
Also wrong.
You clearly have no idea what science is or how it works.
But you've demonstrated that consistently in your posts.

hay_you

11-15-09, 12:02 PM

Also wrong.
You clearly have no idea what science is or how it works.
But you've demonstrated that consistently in your posts.
Science doesn't know how life started, and if evolution actually happens. They have to have a blind faith, becasue they have to go against the evidence that there is,on both of these questions.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 12:10 PM

Science doesn't know how life started
Agreed.

and if evolution actually happens.
Wrong, we know evolution actually happens.

They have to have a blind faith, becasue they have to go against the evidence that there is,on both of these questions.
Blind faith in what?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "we don't know how life started"?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "this, this and this show that evolution happens"?
What "evidence"?
There isn't any evidence on creation.

hay_you

11-15-09, 01:40 PM

Wrong, we know evolution actually happens.
Actually that is not true. theorizing it, is not the same as proof. We do not see evolution working today or in the past. This goes for plants as well as animal life.
Why doesn't science try it. Get a single cell without DNA, and see if it starts turning into different forms of life. That it can start making brains, bones, muscles, nerves etc. Without science playing with it. It is not a fact until you can see that happen.
So to both of these questions, scientist have to have blind faith that they are correct. Because there is no evidence , that this could happen. The evidence is that life comes from life, and a dog stays a dog, doesn't evolve into something else. We should see all the transitional animals today, and in the fossil record, but we don't. Science supports creation, it is the scientist that don't.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 01:47 PM

Actually that is not true. theorizing it, is not the same as proof. We do not see evolution working today or in the past. This goes for plants as well as animal life.
You're wrong again.
And you're STILL ignoring the definition of "theory" which has been linked for you more than once.

So to both of these questions, scientist have to have blind faith that they are correct. Because there is no evidence , that this could happen. The evidence is that life comes from life, and a dog stays a dog, doesn't evolve into something else. We should see all the transitional animals today, and in the fossil record, but we don't. Science supports creation, it is the scientist that don't.
Wrong wrong and wrong.
Go away, stay away and LEARN something.
Then come back and try again.

hay_you

11-15-09, 01:54 PM

There isn't any evidence on creation.
The evidence is that life comes from life, and that there is design in the life we see. Sciences failure to show anything else is also a proof. In other words, it has been tested, by science, and proven to still stand as the way it happened.
Creation is the only answer, that science can come to in the end. They just don't know it yet. The theory of Abiogenesis, is a theory that is getting closer to creation all the time. With creation you would expect to see jumps or sudden appearances of some life forums.

hay_you

11-15-09, 02:00 PM

Wrong wrong and wrong.
Go away, stay away and LEARN something.
Then come back and try again.
Do you have something to offer in way of proof about evolution?
I mean did the first cell without DNA in it, what did it evolve into, and how did it do that?

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 02:10 PM

Do you have something to offer in way of proof about evolution?
You mean apart from all of the links that were given to you in the thread about evolution?
Or in science books?

I mean did the first cell without DNA in it, what did it evolve into, and how did it do that?
Erecting strawmen again?
:rolleyes:

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 02:14 PM

The evidence is that life comes from life
Even if that were entirely true it still wouldn't be evidence for creation.

and that there is design in the life we see.
No there isn't.

Sciences failure to show anything else is also a proof.
In other words you have no idea what "proof" means.
If I fail to show X does it mean Y is true?

In other words, it has been tested, by science, and proven to still stand as the way it happened.
Wrong again.

Creation is the only answer, that science can come to in the end.
Also wrong.
You're assuming that what what we know now is all we'll ever know for one thing.

They just don't know it yet. The theory of Abiogenesis, is a theory that is getting closer to creation all the time. With creation you would expect to see jumps or sudden appearances of some life forums.
More specious nonsense.
Please get an education.

hay_you

11-15-09, 02:16 PM

Erecting strawmen again?
Just tell me in your own words , how that first cell , evolved in to the life we see. It doesn't have to be a big thing , just tell me what happened once there was life?

lightgigantic

11-15-09, 02:17 PM

hay_you

11-15-09, 04:53 PM

for as long as science deals with things that are doable, they can get along just fine. introduce philosophy and its a different story (but then introducing philosophy in any medium spells the same result)
So far, for science, the start to life and evolution are not doable. It is a philosophy, rather than science.
If science had anything to say why don't they say it?

Agonaces Ecbatana

11-15-09, 05:02 PM

No point in scientists and mystics working together as scientists would only retard the work and progress of the mystics.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 05:15 PM

So far, for science, the start to life and evolution are not doable. It is a philosophy, rather than science.
If science had anything to say why don't they say it?
You display your massive ignorance in so many ways.
What do you mean "not doable"?
Evolution has been shown to be true.
Science admits it does not know how life started. But it hasn't stopped looking.

No point in scientists and mystics working together as scientists would only retard the work and progress of the mystics.
Ho ho.
Work and progress from mystics?
:rolleyes:

hay_you

11-15-09, 05:18 PM

More specious nonsense.
Please get an education.
Actually an education over a number years is what it takes to get people to believe what science says. Without the real questioning part. When in school you expect that the teachers are telling you the truth. So the tendency to not to question it.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 05:22 PM

Actually an education over a number years is what it takes to get people to believe what science says. Without the real questioning part. When in school you expect that the teachers are telling you the truth. So the tendency to not to question it.
Really?
What sort of education did you have?
When I was at school we worked up through stages so that we saw how things worked and everything was based on something already known and usually proven to oneself. Or if not then "why?" was an accepted, and answered, response.

hay_you

11-15-09, 05:26 PM

Evolution has been shown to be true.
Science admits it does not know how life started. But it hasn't stopped looking.
It has not been shown to be true. There are huge holes in the idea, that make it impossible the way science says.
If I give science the advantage of saying a single cell just happened. Then ask science how did it evolve from there, I never get an answer.
Explain to me in your own words, how a single cell became , all the life we see.
I will discuss this with you. So just start from this cell, what happened with it , to start it on it's path.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 05:29 PM

It has not been shown to be true.
Wrong.

Explain to me in your own words
Why?

hay_you

11-15-09, 05:46 PM

Really?
What sort of education did you have?
When I was at school we worked up through stages so that we saw how things worked and everything was based on something already known and usually proven to oneself. Or if not then "why?" was an accepted, and answered, response.
I had high school and after that took some other courses.
I remember in high school asking a teacher, why do we have to learn history. He told me to learn from the past, and not to make the same mistakes. I looked up at him and said no one learns from history , people always make the same mistakes. We get into the same wars, we are just as uncaring for people that live in another country, we build bigger and better bombs, etc. He had no answer. Why should science be any different, people build on what was passed down to them , and then build a society that supports that, and you better go along with it or your out. Change is not easy, most go along with the majority. They want to fit in. And of course it is about careers, now. There is a huge pressure to just go along.
This system we live in the world, is designed to mislead. School education is a good place to start.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 05:52 PM

I looked up at him and said no one learns from history , people always make the same mistakes. We get into the same wars, we are just as uncaring for people that live in another country, we build bigger and better bombs, etc.
Which just goes to show that you didn't learn history, let alone from history.
We make different mistakes, have different wars...

Why should science be any different, people build on what was passed down to them
Wrong again.
You learn science from the bottom up, verifying each step along the way.

This system we live in the world, is designed to mislead.
Balls.

hay_you

11-15-09, 05:59 PM

Why?
Well of course you don't have to. And it usually is fear of when science actually has to explain, what they have put their faith in, they start realize, how ridiculous it really is.
On these forums, what happens is out comes the 'troll' word, or they run off and stop up their ears.
The truth is science does not have answers to these questions. What people have done , built up a belief in theories. Not on evidence.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:02 PM

Well of course you don't have to. And it usually is fear of when science actually has to explain, what they have put their faith in, they start realize, how ridiculous it really is.
I ask a simple question and you impute all of those motives to me.
Wrong again.

The truth is science does not have answers to these questions. What people have done , built up a belief in theories. Not on evidence.
Wrong. As usual.

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:04 PM

Which just goes to show that you didn't learn history, let alone from history.
We make different mistakes, have different wars...
A war is a war. We have gravity, it maybe different strenths in other places but it is still gravity.

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:07 PM

I ask a simple question and you impute all of those motives to me.
Wrong again.
Not to you personally, I said science, I meant in general. Science does not really want to get into the real questions.
Because the end result means that science and creation are the same thing. Scientists do not want that to be the case.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:07 PM

A war is a war. We have gravity, it maybe different strenths in other places but it is still gravity.
Which reinforces your ignorance of history once more.
War is war, but they're fought for different reasons.

Tell me, since you've shown yourself to be clueless on science and history is there any subject on which you're genuinely knowledgeable?

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:12 PM

Which reinforces your ignorance of history once more.
War is war, but they're fought for different reasons.

Tell me, since you've shown yourself to be clueless on science and history is there any subject on which you're genuinely knowledgeable?
The reasons don't matter. It is a failure in the thinking of man to get into wars.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:13 PM

Not to you personally, I said science, I meant in general.
You asked me personally to explain...
And you display further ignorance of science.
There is no "faith" involved and there's no chance of it turning out to be "ridiculous."
The only ridiculous thing here is your constant refusal to read anything presented to you (or if you do read it, to understand it) so that you can preserve your own viewpoint.

Science does not really what to get into the real questions.
Er wrong, science is looking. As previously stated (many times).

Because the end result means that science and creation are the same thing. Science does not want that to be the case.
It isn't the case, regardless science takes things as they show themselves to be rather than specifying beforehand what the answer "should" be, in other words if it were the case science would say "Wow, we've got an answer at last". However there is no evidence that science = creation.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:14 PM

The reasons don't matter. It is a failure in the thinking of man to get into wars.
Which proves what?
That different circumstances require different approaches and that, being human, we can't always find the perfect solution.
Congratulations, you may have learnt something.

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:26 PM

You asked me personally to explain...
And you display further ignorance of science.
There is no "faith" involved and there's no chance of it turning out to be "ridiculous."
The only ridiculous thing here is your constant refusal to read anything presented to you (or if you do read it, to understand it) so that you can preserve your own viewpoint.

“
Science does not really what to get into the real questions.
”
Er wrong, science is looking. As previously stated (many times).

“
Because the end result means that science and creation are the same thing. Science does not want that to be the case.
”
It isn't the case, regardless science takes things as they show themselves to be rather than specifying beforehand what the answer "should" be, in other words if it were the case science would say "Wow, we've got an answer at last". However there is no evidence that science = creation.
You were claiming sciences side in this, you don't have to answer me, just like scientists can't answer this.
The real questions make it impossible for science to answer, that is why they can't prove either the start to life or evolution.
And as for science as not trying to disprove creation , that is obviously not true, other wise they would have come to the conclusion of creation a long time a ago.
There is no way they can win this. Their whole premise, is based on a lie.
This would become apparent as soon as you start to analyze what has to take place, in evolution.

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:32 PM

You were claiming sciences side in this, you don't have to answer me, just like scientists can't answer this.
You asked me personally (in my own words). You didn't ask for a link or book to show "science's" answer. (Those HAVE been given to you).
Science answers everything it can.

The real questions make it impossible for science to answer, that is why they can't prove either the start to life or evolution.
One more (last) time: science HAS shown evolution to be true.

And as for science as not trying to disprove creation , that is obviously not true, other wise they would have come to the conclusion of creation a long time a ago.
Wrong: you suppose that because you have a vested interest in creation being the answer. You're castigating science for looking for answers that you have already made your mind up about, with no supporting evidence.

There is no way they can win this. Their whole premise, is based on a lie.
Utterly and totally wrong.

This would become apparent as soon as you start to analyze what has to take place, in evolution.
So you prefer to remain clueless and ignorant.
Fine.
I'm done with you.

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:46 PM

So you prefer to remain clueless and ignorant.
Fine.
I'm done with you.
Just as I said earlier, would happen.
Science really is intimidation and bluff. On this issue.
I am willing to examine the evidence with you. Or anyone else, for that matter. Even giving science , the advantage, of starting evolution from life, they can not explain evolution. The fossil record, really , supports only creation , it can not help explain evolution.
Scientific evidence supports creation. They are the same thing.

hay_you

11-15-09, 06:51 PM

Hey baftan
Did I answer the question you posed to me?
I was kind of interested in why you thought there was a conspiracy , in misdirecting of the major institutions. We got started on that, I explained my side, I was wondering what your thinking on this was?

Dywyddyr

11-15-09, 06:55 PM

Just as I said earlier, would happen.
Science really is intimidation and bluff. On this issue.
Outright lies.
You asked me for MY explanation.

I am willing to examine the evidence with you. Or anyone else, for that matter.
Another lie: you have been shown where the evidence is (most specifically in the evolution thread) you ignored it then and you're ignoring it now.

Even giving science , the advantage, of starting evolution from life, they can not explain evolution. The fossil record, really , supports only creation , it can not help explain evolution.
Blindly wrong.

Scientific evidence supports creation. They are the same thing.
Wrong again.

You've shown yourself to lie to make your "point" and to ignore everything put in front of you. You're not worth responding to any more.

baftan

11-15-09, 08:55 PM

The answer is that all men have the inclination to do wrong. Me included in that.I am no different than any one else.
You see, it was that easy to give a simple answer to a simple question. You haven't lost an organ, haven't lost your faith, or your money; you have just shown that we can communicate, that's it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it, I am a happy person now.

Just as Noah was not different than anyone else.
Who is Noah, when did he live, is he a fictional or factual character? Forget it, let's say he existed as human. In this case, yes, he must have been similar to anyone else.

But what Noah did was to choose to live under God's standards instead of what the rest of the world was doing.
It was his personal path, understandable, apart from the "God" part.

There are many people doing that today, I also choose that. All these people are just like anyone else, me included, the difference from the world is this choice, along with actions.
It sounds like an harmless hobby, apart from the fact that believing in non-human and non-proven deities can not be categorized as an "harmless hobby".

So left to my own devices, I would be the same as the world is. And actually it is always a battle , to fight that.
It sounds like you are a teenager. Don't worry, it's a temporal condition, you will eventually get over it. I have been there, I was a teenager once...

Now this choice is open for everyone, but it is known that most people don't want it. Just like in Noah's day.
As far as I can see, he tried to convince everyone that there was a God... I can understand how others felt about this revelation...

I don't want to get into too much the religious aspect, because I don't know what you think about a God. I don't know if you believe in a God or not or who you think he is etc.
It does make a difference, doesn't it? You want to talk according to the identity of other person. It doesn't matter what he/she say; it is more important to know whether or not he/she believes in a kind of God. What do you believe in about humans? Do you think a believer and a non-believer can never come up with the same question? Do you think my identity or belief system would make any difference about the existence of the question. Imagine if your own brain had produced a question; would you question your own identity. Imagine if you saw the question anonymously written on some wall and you accidentally saw it; wouldn't you repeat the question in your brain, since you don't know the identity of anonymous writer? I can easily ask the same question saying that "I believe in green men", or "I believe in aliens"; the question will still be there. That's why I hate being called anything with I would not define myself, Atheist, agnostic, humanist, this or that. I am not chasing to create a society of followers of x movement, I am not trying to find some comrades among likeminded people. I just don't find humans so special within wider life and universe, yet I think we are somehow much higher than the entire spectrum of existence, because we think, we imagine, and we produce new dimension to this universe: knowledge. I hate my species, and I adore my species because of huge amount of stories about their history and their dreams. And I asked my question with this psyche, not with any other identity title. Yet this will not deter you to categorize me according to your own system of classification and I do understand that: Because I classify people as "believers in God", "followers a certain religion", or "creationists", I know how does it feel. However, it never occured to me to answer a question imagining "who is behind this question?" My answer is this: A human intelligence is behind of every question: What is their political party, belief system, gender, race, nationality, etc., I don't care. I do care about their experience, their ways of descriptions, their knowledge, and this sort. If a machine asks me a similar question (this is nothing to do with Turing test, please do hesitate to bring this issue into this discussion, not here), or animals started to talk and asks an intelligable question, I wouldn't mind if they were humans or not. i simply wouldn't care.
Short answer to your curiosity: I don't believe in any mumbo jumbo.

Also it was not my intention to direct anyone in that direction. My only intent was to get ones to at least check out what science is saying. Scientist do not have the answer, but the science does support creation.

If you like we can start to define what science and scientist are, what are they doing, how do they work, how do they produce the most important and valuable products of all: Knowledge? Then we can start discussing other issues: So what is science for you?

I hope this answers your question. It is a good question, but really has a religious answer.

Actually, as I mentioned above, it answer my question. But my question was not an arbitrary question. Because if you truly believe in your both statements:

1) Men ends up wrong.
2) I am part of men, and I can also do wrong.

The end result is obvious: You can perfectly be wrong anytime. Just as you could be wrong now. According to your statement it includes me (baftan) could be wrong too. So how do we find the "correct" way, if everybody is wrong. I say that we can always check what is wrong or correct through non-human observation: Observation through scientific methods. Because in its core activities (measuring, collecting data, finding patterns in nature), science is above human choices of truth or reality. Science can use microscopes and telescopes. It provides information to crack the rules of the universe.
You say that only way to find the truth is finding God. Following Bibles and Qur'ans and reaching the entire knowledge about human relations, working mechanisms of nature, and everything else. What we should do; "believing" in a God.
Remember that you can be wrong too... And ask yourself, what if you are wrong in your faith? And don't stop yourself discussing these things, this is the comperative religion subforum. What if you are wrong?

hay_you

11-16-09, 12:09 AM

You see, it was that easy to give a simple answer to a simple question. You haven't lost an organ, haven't lost your faith, or your money; you have just shown that we can communicate, that's it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it, I am a happy person now.
Ha Ha glad to hear that.

Who is Noah, when did he live, is he a fictional or factual character? Forget it, let's say he existed as human. In this case, yes, he must have been similar to anyone else.
That is correct.

It sounds like an harmless hobby, apart from the fact that believing in non-human and non-proven deities can not be categorized as an "harmless hobby".
Well it is more like a day job, than a hobby.

It sounds like you are a teenager. Don't worry, it's a temporal condition, you will eventually get over it. I have been there, I was a teenager once...

The trouble is that some people never get out of the baby stage. I think it is the love of the pablum. Just can't take the meat and potatoes.

It does make a difference, doesn't it?....................
It sure does. If all I believed in was fictitious, would that make any difference to the question at hand? Would that make science correct? Of course not. Science has to stand on it's own with this. It is their theories that have to be held up, with the evidence. The evidence does not support what science is saying. Even if there was no creator, the evidence does not support, evolution. Science would have to come up with a different theory. So to science it really doesn't matter if Noah was real or not.

hay_you

11-16-09, 12:17 AM

Another lie: you have been shown where the evidence is (most specifically in the evolution thread) you ignored it then and you're ignoring it now.
The question has not been answered.
You do not have to answer me, because I am really asking from the scientists, to tell me ,that given the advantage of life already here as a single cell, how did evolution happen? What did that cell turn into?

hay_you

11-16-09, 12:22 AM

You've shown yourself to lie to make your "point" and to ignore everything put in front of you. You're not worth responding to any more.
If you don't want to answer the question , that 's OK. I understand.

Dywyddyr

11-16-09, 02:35 AM

If you don't want to answer the question , that 's OK. I understand.
Obviously you don't.

lightgigantic

11-16-09, 03:45 AM

So far, for science, the start to life and evolution are not doable. It is a philosophy, rather than science.
If science had anything to say why don't they say it?
exactly

suppose that the wider application of evolution (eg - abiogenesis, shift between genus to genus, etc) was refuted

What doable practices would be jeopardized?

Now compare to ....

suppose that the idea that water has a boiling point of around 100 degrees was refuted

Just imagine all the doable practices that would be jeopardized.

In short, the pride in science is getting the job done, so as long as that is at the forefront of a scientific endeavor, mystics and scientists can get along just fine.

lightgigantic

11-16-09, 03:57 AM

You display your massive ignorance in so many ways.
What do you mean "not doable"?
Evolution has been shown to be true.
Science admits it does not know how life started. But it hasn't stopped looking.

All that has been shown is examples like milky sapped plants giving rise to other milky sapped plants.

http://www.wulffmorgenthaler.com/striphandler.ashx?stripid=4154bb7e-d590-4896-b036-f277c9654765

Other claims like this are more the business of inductive logic (and all its potential follies)

hay_you

11-16-09, 09:43 AM

lightgigantic I liked the cartoon.
It shows what scientists think evolution is.
But this cartoon does not show all the transitional stages that would have to take place in evolution before you would get animals with say 4 legs on the ground. You would have to see animals with bits of bone material , jaws in the wrong place, limbs that would be useless, parts of the body not wired to the brain, one leg on the ground, the other three in all sorts of places etc.etc. There would be millions of these types of animals in the world today and in the fossil record. But none are found. Also you have to have the plants of the earth , in a similar state of transition.
Science has to go against the evidence that there is to say there is such a thing as evolution. It is a total fabrication. Science has lied to the world and themselves.

Dredd

11-17-09, 11:32 AM

Wrong.
There's no "faith" involved.
You misunderstand the level of "attachment" to dark matter.

When it is said that something is "the most abundant matter in the universe" but have found none of it in fifty years of intensely serious looking, that is the absence of proof but the presence of faith if they still believe it exists.

A game of semantics will not change the fact that there are those types who fancy themselves to be scientists when they really are better described as hypocrites with a serious degree of attachment to their own illusions.

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 11:35 AM

When it is said that something is "the most abundant matter in the universe" but have found none of it in fifty years of intensely serious looking, that is the absence of proof but the presence of faith if they still believe it exists.
Wrong again.
You're making assumptions as to what is actually said, and the degree of reliance on it.

Dredd

11-17-09, 12:40 PM

Wrong again.
You're making assumptions as to what is actually said, and the degree of reliance on it.

I have made no assumptions you have made only unsupported assertions.

To support my assertion I linked to a post that is published scientists vs published scientist, either of which could honestly and competently out debate any one of us on this blog. The issue in the linked post is the faith of scientists.

Roger Penrose, who was teaching scientists while you and I were still soiling diapers, also points out the great amount of faith in the scientific thinking. Link (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2009/11/memes-of-penrose.html).

Intellectual honesty is slow to evolve.

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 01:03 PM

I have made no assumptions you have made only unsupported assertions.
Really?

When it is said that something is "the most abundant matter in the universe"
Assumption/ misreading.
It isn't said "to be" it's said to "possibly be" or that "currently we think".

but have found none of it in fifty years of intensely serious looking, that is the absence of proof but the presence of faith if they still believe it exists.
Ooh a whole fifty years...
And of course absolutely nobody is looking at alternatives are they?

Intellectual honesty is slow to evolve.
Quite.

So the fifty years you're talking about is for... what?
Cold dark matter? Only 25.

As to "faith", again you're you're assuming.
It's only so "popular" because it's the "best" answer we have at the moment. Other solutions are being sought and other options are being tested.
Science, and scientists are fully aware that ANY theory may prove to be incorrect should new evidence turn up.
Where's the faith?

Dredd

11-17-09, 01:31 PM

Really?

Assumption/ misreading.
It isn't said "to be" it's said to "possibly be" or that "currently we think".

Ooh a whole fifty years...
And of course absolutely nobody is looking at alternatives are they?

Quite.

So the fifty years you're talking about is for... what?
Cold dark matter? Only 25.

As to "faith", again you're you're assuming.
It's only so "popular" because it's the "best" answer we have at the moment. Other solutions are being sought and other options are being tested.
Science, and scientists are fully aware that ANY theory may prove to be incorrect should new evidence turn up.
Where's the faith?

Picky little word games.

I notice you are ignoring the published scientists I have linked to. Shall I put their quotes up?

Perhaps that way you can see that it is your opinion against their opinion, not your opinion versus mine.

The article I linked to tells what published, famous scientists say about faith in the scientific community, NOT what I say, but you fully ignore them saying I am the one saying it.

I am the one quoting what they are saying.

Leading scientists say that faith is a substantial part of today's scientific theories. Get it yet or shall I put up their quotes?

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 01:37 PM

I notice you are ignoring the published scientists I have linked to. Shall I put their quotes up?
Please do, since all I got from that link was

The Ecocosmology blog calls out for a movement toward a new physics free from the blind faith Penrose talks about.

Perhaps that way you can see that it is your opinion against their opinion, not your opinion versus mine.
So what?
They're entitled to their view of things, just as I am of mine.

The article I linked to tells what published, famous scientists say about faith in the scientific community
Not that I could see.

Leading scientists say that faith is a substantial part of today's scientific theories.
So what, again?
How many?
How many, ooh leading scientists, disagree?
Does the article mention those? Any quotes from the dissenters?
I mean, that's a carefully cherry-picked selection you've got there isn't it?

Dredd

11-17-09, 01:45 PM

Agreed.

Wrong, we know evolution actually happens.

Blind faith in what?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "we don't know how life started"?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "this, this and this show that evolution happens"?
What "evidence"?
There isn't any evidence on creation.

If "the scientists" being spoken of refers to cosmologists, many if not most of them start with the Big Bang.

The Big Bang is said to have caused machine evolution.

Machines evolved sequentially, not randomly. First atoms and molecules, then elements. From simple to complex. Finally complex stars, complex machines.

Then other machines evolved, such as planetary systems.

Then biological forms evolved after that.

If machines are "life" one scenario descends, however, if only biological entities are "life", then another scenario develops.

Which came first, machine life or biological life (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/09/putting-face-on-machine-mutation.html) needs to be answered? :shrug:

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 01:58 PM

The Big Bang is said to have caused machine evolution.
Machines evolved sequentially, not randomly. First atoms and molecules, then elements. From simple to complex. Finally complex stars, complex machines.
Then other machines evolved, such as planetary systems.
So what?

If machines are "life" one scenario descends, however, if only biological entities are "life", then another scenario develops.
Really?
And those scenarios would be...?

Which came first, machine life or biological life needs to be answered? :shrug:
Haven't you answered that yourself?

Then biological forms evolved after that.

And no, it doesn't need to be answered for evidence of evolution.

Dredd

11-17-09, 02:23 PM

So what?

Really?
And those scenarios would be...?

Haven't you answered that yourself?

And no, it doesn't need to be answered for evidence of evolution.

I think you forgot that the question is "what is life" ... that something you said science had no proof of its beginning. That depends on what life is.

Is a machine life or not is a different question than which came first life or non life.:bugeye: Is a machine life or does there have to be biological components too?

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 02:32 PM

I think you forgot that the question is "what is life"
No I didn't.

... that something you said science had no proof of its beginning
Not true.
I said we don't know HOW it began, not that we had no proof of it beginning.

Is a machine life or not is a different question than which came first life or non life.:bugeye: Is a machine life or does there have to be biological components too?
Doesn't particularly matter when the topic is evolution.
I.e. life has already started.
Science admits (as stated MANY times in this thread alone) that we do not as yet know how life started.

You're grasping at strawmen, or doing your own semantic juggling.
Whichever, you haven't posted any of these quotes from "leading scientists".
(With links to sources please, just so that context is available).

Dredd

11-17-09, 02:33 PM

Please do, since all I got from that link was

So what?
They're entitled to their view of things, just as I am of mine.

Not that I could see.

So what, again?
How many?
How many, ooh leading scientists, disagree?
Does the article mention those? Any quotes from the dissenters?
I mean, that's a carefully cherry-picked selection you've got there isn't it?
--------------
PENROSE: "But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics , you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right."

"You’re led to a completely crazy point of view."

"My own view is that quantum mechanics is not exactly right, and I think there’s a lot of evidence for that."

"INTERVIEWER: In general, the ideas in theoretical physics seem increasingly fantastical. Take string theory. All that talk about 11 dimensions or our universe’s existing on a giant membrane seems surreal.

PENROSE: You’re absolutely right. And in a certain sense, I blame quantum mechanics, because people say, “Well, quantum mechanics is so nonintuitive; if you believe that, you can believe anything that’s non*intuitive.” But, you see, quantum mechanics has a lot of experimental support, so you’ve got to go along with a lot of it. Whereas string theory has no experimental support."

"[My new book] is called Fashion, Faith and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe. Each of those words stands for a major theoretical physics idea. ['Fantasy'] is quantum mechanics at all levels...."
-------------
(LINK (http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=)).

An [I]entire section of the book deals with Faith ... in the New Physics of the Universe. That leading scientist, very proficient in advanced mathematics of physics, says there is faith in science even as we speak.

more? There are many more scientists who say the same thing without reference to Penrose.

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 02:50 PM

Hmm so what we have (from a promotional fluff piece) is Penrose claiming that QM isn't quite right. And ALSO claiming that it has evidence in its favour.
Oh wait, there's a sentence that says "An entire section of the book deals with Faith" and... oh, nothing else.
Is that your sentence? Or from the fluff piece?
So what's the book say?

And the link has a bit that says "It’s almost sacrilegious to attack them. And the other one, even more sacrilegious, is quantum mechanics at all levels—so that’s the faith. People somehow got the view that you really can’t question it."
Hmm people got the view? Which people? Him? It's not the case AFAIK. Physicists look down all sorts of avenues: QM may be the mainstream, and in use, but "sacrilegious" to look at alternatives? What does he mean by "attack"? Simply question? Or claim outright it's wrong with no alternatives offered?

So far you've dismally failed to illustrate, let alone support your contention.

All you've given is Penrose giving his opinion in a promotional piece trying to sell copies of his new book. No substance.

(Q)

11-17-09, 02:53 PM

--------------

An entire section of the book deals with Faith ... in the New Physics of the Universe. That leading scientist, very proficient in advanced mathematics of physics, says there is faith in science even as we speak.

Baloney. You clearly have misrepresented the quotes in that the "faith" referred isn't the same blind faith theists profess.

baftan

11-17-09, 03:30 PM

the question is "what is life" ... that something you said science had no proof of its beginning.
That depends on what life is.

"Science has no proof of its beginning" is misinterpretation of how science deals with "what is life" issue. Science can not pinpoint the beginning of life, because there is no such a point. It took around a billion years for DNA to evolve as a code carrier for life, and no body can select a date, a particular specific event to show as "the beginning". When you ask "what is life"? The answers require time specification. Then we can start to talk about, or define the "life of this or that era": It could be "life on planet earth 3.5 billion years ago", "2 billion years ago", "a billion year ago", or "life on planet earth today". Each stage has different catalogue of species, environmental conditions, and level of evolution. There was no "initial", "unchanged" state that we could call it as "life".
Just as everything else, DNA did not come out of nowhere, and suddenly. DNA itself has been evolving as a code generator of life, and mutating in different levels; forming new species, can/can not protect existing species, adapting/is not adapting according to changing conditions and many other functional improvements. You can call this as a mechanism, but calling it a "machine" requires a second thought.
Another issue about science dealing with life is that science has a dynamic, yet restricted definition of life: It is dynamic, because last 250 years of history brought the definition of "life" from animals and plants to bacteria, viruse and ultimately the complex structure of code sharing, mutating, evolving DNA and RNA molecule regime of planet earth. Yet, science did not extended the definition of life to atoms, or galactic systems: Because the major characteristics of life differ from non-alive things such as rocks, minerals or a burning star.
Separation points are already there: Life tends to grow (through replicating, copying genes, having sex, depending on species and their cell structures), non-life does not. The term "organic" does not make sense without life: At the end of the day, moleculer materials of DNA are lifeless chemicals, molecules. What makes this chemistry alive, is code, RNA or DNA. We define life on these basis, since earth has the only example of life we know. If any other life form exists in somewhere in the universe, science can not speculate about it, it is out of observation. Could there be a self replicating inorganic material out there? Nobody knows as fact.

Is a machine life or not is a different question than which came first life or non life.:bugeye: Is a machine life or does there have to be biological components too?

And I have a problem with this "machine life" expression: If you say that atoms are the expression of quantum "mechanism", I can understand that. However, atoms, planetery systems do not have internal replicating systems, which are crucial for out definition of life. They do evolve, like everything else in the universe. That doesn't mean that they evolve, or transform same as life do: Their existential dynamics are different than life. Moreover, you can predict the cycles of planets or reactions of atoms, while you can not guess how life will evolve in billion years time. Just as you couldn't guess human existence while dinosaurs were ruling the planet; or you couldn't guess animal and plant existence when you examined so called primordial soup of 3.7 billion years ago.

Machines, are parts of a project, or system. You can call a kidney as a machine within a living animal, yet animal itself is not a machine. You can call a clock as a machine, but not it is not the time itself. Clock only make sense if there is a civilization with a perception of time expressed as this clock machinery.

There is another problem with alinging mechanic existence with organic existence: They can both depend upon same material (let's say atom) and same conditions (gravity, pressure, light, etc.); yet performance and existential roles differ depending on the project: A carbon atom can be found as a piece of diamond, as well as an important component of life's cellular ingredients.

PENROSE: "But when you accept the weirdness of quantum mechanics [in the macro world], you have to give up the idea of space-time as we know it from Einstein. The greatest weirdness here is that it doesn’t make sense. If you follow the rules, you come up with something that just isn’t right."

You see, each levels of existence has different set of weirdness. If you are serious about this idea, you should also ask yourself how weird to have moving, caputulating, talking animals out of molecules.

hay_you

11-17-09, 03:47 PM

You see, each levels of existence has different set of weirdness. If you are serious about this idea, you should also ask yourself how weird to have moving, caputulating, talking animals out of molecules.
This is one the reasons science will have to capitulate , and say creation is the cause, it is not just a matter of mixing chemicals, that is why the evidence shows that life comes from life. Life does not come from none life.
You can have a healthy person, that has just died of lack of oxygen. All the chemicals are there, all the tissue is there, and the DNA is there. But there is no life.

Dywyddyr

11-17-09, 03:55 PM

This is one the reasons science will have to capitulate , and say creation is the cause, it is not just a matter of mixing chemicals, that is why the evidence shows that life comes from life. Life does not come from none life.
Still wrong.

You can have a healthy person, that has just died of lack of oxygen. All the chemicals are there, all the tissue is there, and the DNA is there. But there is no life.
And also wrong.
When the oxygen stops the reactions stop.

hay_you

11-17-09, 08:08 PM

And also wrong.
When the oxygen stops the reactions stop.
So science can not do this now. How is something that has never been alive going to get up and running? It is not just chemistry. Every thing is about systems. That is why life comes from life.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 10:21 AM

So science can not do this now. How is something that has never been alive going to get up and running? It is not just chemistry. Every thing is about systems. That is why life comes from life.
Failure of understanding again.
Part of the system is that the reactions once started need to keep going. Once halted how do they re-start?

hay_you

11-18-09, 11:38 AM

Failure of understanding again.
Part of the system is that the reactions once started need to keep going. Once halted how do they re-start?
That is why life comes from life, these systems, are started with the previous life, so that life is continuous. Even if it is a single cells the cell has to divide, to produce another one. Science has never found life coming from non life. Creation can do this, but how can it just happen on it's own? This is problem science faces with this idea they have. This also hold true if science creates life in a lab. They can not show that life just happened on it's own by doing that. That shows life comes from life.( scientists )

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 11:46 AM

That is why life comes from life
More assumptions.

Creation can do this, but how can it just happen on it's own?
Ah I see.
Because you don't know you assume...

This is problem science faces with this idea they have. This also hold true if science creates life in a lab. They can not show that life just happened on it's own by doing that. That shows life comes from life.( scientists )
Once again you're using a false argument.
Because something hasn't been shown you automatically assume that the opposite therefore must true.

hay_you

11-18-09, 01:11 PM

Once again you're using a false argument.
Because something hasn't been shown you automatically assume that the opposite therefore must true.
That's not true at all. Science has come up with this idea on their own. It is not something that makes sense, but if science can show that, that is what happened, then OK. But to go against the facts and the evidence, and then not be able to show that they are correct, is ridiculous. Some are now calling evolution a fact, when science themselves don't know the first thing about their own theory.
That is why science and creation are the same. But scientists and creation differ. They really should work together, if what people are looking for is truth.
But religions have been no better. They talk about three headed Gods and and the universe was created in six earth days, and spirits come out of you when you die. Is it no wonder scientists think religion is a joke.
But like I said earlier , this system is designed for misdirection.

spidergoat

11-18-09, 01:12 PM

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 01:19 PM

That's not true at all.
Actually it is true.
Because science can't come up with an answer you'll accept you ASSUME that your version must be the ONLY CORRECT answer.

Science has come up with this idea on their own. It is not something that makes sense, but if science can show that, that is what happened, then OK.
You don't what "making sense" means.

But to go against the facts and the evidence, and then not be able to show that they are correct, is ridiculous.
There are no facts and evidence to support your view. Science is not going against facts OR evidence.

Some are now calling evolution a fact
It is a fact.

when science themselves don't know the first thing about their own theory.
Can you see how utterly ridiculous that statement is?
Maybe not...

That is why science and creation are the same.
No they aren't.

But scientists and creation differ.
Of course they do, because science and creation differ.

They really should work together, if what people are looking for is truth.
You personally are in no position to discuss, let alone decide, what truth is or how it should be found, bearing in mind your wilful ignorance and continued efforts to ignore evidence.

Is it no wonder scientists think religion is a joke.
Because it is.

But like I said earlier , this system is designed for misdirection.
Another statement you've failed to provide evidence for.

hay_you

11-18-09, 02:32 PM

Evolution is a fact. Natural selection may be doubted as the operative mechanism, but evolution itself is a fact.

How does creationism show life coming from non-life? As far as I know, they only have a book.
Actually science can not show that evolution is anything but an idea.
How can science say it is a fact? What is it that is a fact?

hay_you

11-18-09, 02:33 PM

You personally are in no position to discuss, let alone decide, what truth is or how it should be found, bearing in mind your wilful ignorance and continued efforts to ignore evidence.
What evidence does science have?

spidergoat

11-18-09, 02:35 PM

Jesus dude, read a book (http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/1416594787).

Science can show evolution at work. The domestication of animals proves what evolution can do in mere centuries, and the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Imagine what evolution can do in millions of centures.

hay_you

11-18-09, 02:42 PM

But like I said earlier , this system is designed for misdirection.
”
Another statement you've failed to provide evidence for.
Every four years the people in the US for example, vote for a new government. They want a new direction , because they don't like the direction the president before took them. Many other countries are the same. We have religions say one thing science saying another. There are so many religions which is the correct one or is there any? This all misdirection. Mean while the earth is going down the tubes. We hear one thing from the media, and another, from government, intentional information is put out to mislead. There is alot of evidence for misdirection of information.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 02:43 PM

Actually science can not show that evolution is anything but an idea.
Once again displaying your total ignorance of what evidence is.

How can science say it is a fact? What is it that is a fact?
See above.

What evidence does science have?
You have been given links MANY times to discussions and data showing the evidence. That you are still saying "what evidence" is yet another display of your wilfully bigoted attitude toward reality.

You aren't here to discuss anything, you aren't here to learn anything, you aren't here to pass on information.
Your sole purpose in this forum appears to be that you want to promote a deliberately ignorant viewpoint, and get others to share that ignorance.
In short you're trolling.

You're correct in your view if, and ONLY if, one is prepared to accept stupidity and totally ignore reality.

spidergoat

11-18-09, 02:44 PM

What evidence does science have?

There is a 20 year ongoing experiment with e. Coli for instance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment).

There is a recent study of lizards (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm)transferred from one island to another that was free from lizards. The lizards developed bigger jaws to munch vegetation, since the "mother" island had more insects. They also developed organs of digestion that enabled them to digest vegetable matter better.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 02:46 PM

Every four years the people in the US for example, vote for a new government. They want a new direction , because they don't like the direction the president before took them.
So you're also fundamentally ignorant of the reasons for elections too?
No real surprise there either.
That isn't the point, or the purpose, of electing a new government every four years.

This all misdirection.
Yes, you would see it as that.
Which is not to say that you're correct in that view.

hay_you

11-18-09, 02:50 PM

Jesus dude, read a book.

Science can show evolution at work. The domestication of animals proves what evolution can do in mere centuries, and the Earth is over 4 billion years old. Imagine what evolution can do in millions of centures.
Please not Dawkins's books. He has some comments on false religion that are pretty good, but when it comes to evolution, he is the same as other scientists, no evidence. This is a great example of misdirection.
The domestic animals were a special creation, and the earth and universe could be billions of years old, that is not a problem with creation.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 02:54 PM

he is the same as other scientists, no evidence.
Wrong.

This is a great example of misdirection.
The only misdirection going on here is your own.

Dawkins wasn't mentioned by anyone except you.
Go read an actual text book.

The domestic animals were a special creation
More of your specious misdirection.
Domestic animals weren't mentioned except by you.

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:04 PM

There is a 20 year ongoing experiment with e. Coli for instance.

There is a recent study of lizards transferred from one island to another that was free from lizards. The lizards developed bigger jaws to munch vegetation, since the "mother" island had more insects. They also developed organs of digestion that enabled them to digest vegetable matter better.
This is not evolution, this is a change because of adapting to your surroundings. There is great variety in humans for example. If tall humans were more successful in a certain area, and being tall was more favored, eventually there would be taller humans in that area. But they are all still human, not evolving into something other than human.
For evolution , as the way scientist say it, there would have to be evidence of failures, before anything would be a benefit, to a host. You would need a single cell to produce a bit of bone material, in different ways and shapes and placement on the cell, before you would get anything that was useful. But there is not record of this ever happening. This is the same for evolution in later stages as well. What is found is , four footed animals with their four feet on the ground , not all over the place , until the correct placement is found.
All science has to do is get an single cell and watch it evolve into all we see today. That would prove it.

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:06 PM

Dawkins wasn't mentioned by anyone except you.
Go read an actual text book.
I went to a link that I was given it was to buy Dawkin's book.
I already have some of his books.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 03:06 PM

What is found is , four footed animals with their four feet on the ground , not all over the place , until the correct placement is found.
I didn't think it was possible for so much ignorance to be contained in one single person.
Tell me, do you also take lessons on how to breath or is there a team of people there doing it for you?

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 03:08 PM

I went to a link that I was given it was to buy Dawkin's book.
My apologies, I didn't see the link.

I already have some of his books.
But haven't read or understood them, apparently.

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:11 PM

You have been given links MANY times to discussions and data showing the evidence. That you are still saying "what evidence" is yet another display of your wilfully bigoted attitude toward reality.
I have read a lot on this. Instead of sending me to read more stuff, why is it you can't use your own words and give the evidence?

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:18 PM

My apologies, I didn't see the link.

“
I already have some of his books.
”
But haven't read or understood them, apparently.
That's OK
I have read them, he has some good points, when it comes to religion, but he doesn't have the evidence for evolution , just as the rest of science doesn't.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 03:19 PM

I have read a lot on this.
And either ignored it or failed to understand it.

Instead of sending me to read more stuff, why is it you can't use your own words and give the evidence?
Because there's no point in giving MY words if you're ignoring the words of the people who've actually done the work.

This is typical example of your disingenuous attitude.
You yourself have previously stated that you won't even look at information on the grounds that it's someone else's opinion of other people's work and now you're asking for exactly that...
In other words you're taking every possible measure to preserve your precious ignorance.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 03:20 PM

but he doesn't have the evidence for evolution , just as the rest of science doesn't.
Exactly: you have failed completely to understand.
You have no integrity.

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:26 PM

Because there's no point in giving MY words if you're ignoring the words of the people who've actually done the work.
Ok give me a link then, that you think is correct, I will look at it.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 03:34 PM

Ok give me a link then, that you think is correct, I will look at it.
Misdirection again.
You've HAD the links.
You've got (you claim) the books.
Go read them.

Have you tried Google?
I doubt it...

spidergoat

11-18-09, 03:40 PM

This is not evolution, this is a change because of adapting to your surroundings. There is great variety in humans for example. If tall humans were more successful in a certain area, and being tall was more favored, eventually there would be taller humans in that area. But they are all still human, not evolving into something other than human.
For evolution , as the way scientist say it, there would have to be evidence of failures, before anything would be a benefit, to a host. You would need a single cell to produce a bit of bone material, in different ways and shapes and placement on the cell, before you would get anything that was useful. But there is not record of this ever happening. This is the same for evolution in later stages as well. What is found is , four footed animals with their four feet on the ground , not all over the place , until the correct placement is found.
All science has to do is get an single cell and watch it evolve into all we see today. That would prove it.

There is indeed a great variety present in any species. It can be represented by a bell curve. But what happens with evolution is that the peak of the bell curve shifts. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of genes in the gene pool (or, reproducing population).

For evolution , as the way scientist say it, there would have to be evidence of failures, before anything would be a benefit, to a host.
No.

You would need a single cell to produce a bit of bone material, in different ways and shapes and placement on the cell, before you would get anything that was useful.
No.

Evolution is observable. Evolution is change over time. This is proof that evolution does indeed occur. Evolution is a fact.

The theory of natural selection is a reasonable inference from observation, but it is still one of the best supported theories in all of science. Natural selection is not necessarily considered a fact, but it's very close. Consider, for instance, that the theory that the moon is smaller than the sun is less well supported.

hay_you

11-18-09, 03:59 PM

Ok I googled
Here is something I found on the eye.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

Michael J. Denton
Biochemistry Department
University of Otago
Dunedin, New Zealand

Rather than being a case of maladaptation, the inverted design of the vertebrate retina would seem to be a classic case of pre-adaptation--where an ancient adaptation was “chosen” long before its utility was of necessity. It is evidence for design and foresight in nature rather than evidence of chance. Evidently not all “tidy-minded engineers” get things right.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 04:05 PM

Ok I googled
Here is something I found on the eye.
Yes, funny how your Googling, rather than using a term such as, say, "Evidence for evolution" to find what science's evidence is, you go instead for an website intended to promote Intelligent Design.
So your claim that you'd actually read stuff provided was more misdirection and you choose, deliberately(?) to pick an anti-evolution site and quote that at us.
How very honest of you...
Not.

The equivalent of telling us Ferraris must be rubbish because the BMW site says nothing good about them.

hay_you

11-18-09, 04:12 PM

Yes, funny how your Googling, rather than using a term such as, say, "Evidence for evolution" to find what science's evidence is, you go instead for an website intended to promote Intelligent Design.
So your claim that you'd actually read stuff provided was more misdirection and you choose, deliberately(?) to pick an anti-evolution site and quote that at us.
How very honest of you...
Not.

The equivalent of telling us Ferraris must be rubbish because the BMW site says nothing good about them.
Ha ha science always says that about anyone who disagrees, or finds something that the rest of science doesn't like. The science is still correct in this article.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 04:15 PM

Ha ha science always says that about anyone who disagrees
Stupid argument. You deliberately chose an anti-science site get a scientific explanation?
Hardly honest.

The science is still correct in this article.
Only if you're incredibly stupid.
ID has no science.

hay_you

11-18-09, 04:26 PM

There is indeed a great variety present in any species. It can be represented by a bell curve. But what happens with evolution is that the peak of the bell curve shifts. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of genes in the gene pool (or, reproducing population).

No.

No.

Evolution is observable. Evolution is change over time. This is proof that evolution does indeed occur. Evolution is a fact.

The theory of natural selection is a reasonable inference from observation, but it is still one of the best supported theories in all of science. Natural selection is not necessarily considered a fact, but it's very close. Consider, for instance, that the theory that the moon is smaller than the sun is less well supported.

Evolution is not observable. You do not see cats becoming dogs. There is a large variety in cats, and dogs, but no cats become dogs.
Evolution is random, creation is not unless designed to be.
In creation if you have all the parts you need written, as DNA, to make some animal, then you change it up to make another type, that is creation , even though animals can be similar. The DNA still tells you that it was creation. Scientists will have to figure out how DNA got into the cell with instructions in it. In other words where did the instructions from to make a heart, or leg?

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 04:30 PM

Evolution is not observable. You do not see cats becoming dogs. There is a large variety in cats, and dogs, but no cats become dogs.
So you're still clueless as to what evolution is.

Evolution is random, creation is not unless designed to be.
Wrong again.

Your persistent refusal to bother reading anything that would give you some actual background on what evolutions is and how it works is becoming tedious.
You're still trolling.

hay_you

11-18-09, 04:35 PM

Stupid argument. You deliberately chose an anti-science site get a scientific explanation?
Hardly honest.

Actually no I didn't I was looking for the Lucy site because , that was supposed to be another missing link. But that turned out not to be correct either. I stumbled upon the article on the eye.
The point is that the science and the article are still correct. Science is not the only place to get answers. Science does not have all the answers, and in time even the ones they think they know, can change.

hay_you

11-18-09, 04:37 PM

So you're still clueless as to what evolution is.
Then correct me, given that you have the first bit of life,how did all the life we see come about?

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 04:41 PM

Actually no I didn't I was looking for the Lucy site because , that was supposed to be another missing link.
So you're not looking for the actual evidence...

The point is that the science and the article are still correct.
No, the "science" and article are wrong.

Science is not the only place to get answers.
On scientific questions it is the only place.

Science does not have all the answers, and in time even the ones they think they know, can change.
Strawman.
Misdirection again.
Still trolling.

hay_you

11-18-09, 05:15 PM

On scientific questions it is the only place.
You have to broaden out a bit, if all you do is get your information from science, then that is why yo are so indoctrinated, in that. You don't get a chance to really test these ideas out.
I am out here testing my ideas and what science says also.

synthesizer-patel

11-18-09, 05:17 PM

Ok I googled
Here is something I found on the eye.
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od192/invertedretina192.htm

Mods - can we have Oilismastery back please?

at least he was entertaining

spidergoat

11-18-09, 05:22 PM

Evolution is not observable. You do not see cats becoming dogs. There is a large variety in cats, and dogs, but no cats become dogs.
Evolution is random, creation is not unless designed to be.
In creation if you have all the parts you need written, as DNA, to make some animal, then you change it up to make another type, that is creation , even though animals can be similar. The DNA still tells you that it was creation. Scientists will have to figure out how DNA got into the cell with instructions in it. In other words where did the instructions from to make a heart, or leg?

It not only is observable, it has been observed in the lab and in the field. I gave you examples of both.

Now you want examples of evolution that changes an animal to such a degree it fits our definition of speciation. Speciation has been observed in the lab too, with fruit flies.

Evolution via natural selection is exactly the opposite of randomness.

You can see a cat become a dog. Follow the line of ancestors of dogs back far enough and you will find the common ancestor of the cat and the dog. Made a u-turn, and you can follow the evolution of that common ancestor into a dog. Every animal is linked in such a fashion to every other one.

The instructions for making an arm or leg or heart evolved from simpler structures, all the way back to a cell. We see animals with still successful structures that aren't complete hearts, they are more like tubes that contract.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 05:25 PM

You have to broaden out a bit, if all you do is get your information from science, then that is why yo are so indoctrinated, in that.
Correction: you're the one that's indoctrinated.
I at no time said, or implied, that all I do is get my information from science. What I did say is that for scientific information one should go to science.
For art information I go to an artist, etc.

I am out here testing my ideas and what science says also.
No you aren't, you're trolling and maintaining your ignorance.
You're testing nothing but our patience.

hay_you

11-18-09, 05:48 PM

“
Originally Posted by hay_you
You have to broaden out a bit, if all you do is get your information from science, then that is why yo are so indoctrinated, in that.
”
Correction: you're the one that's indoctrinated.
I at no time said, or implied, that all I do is get my information from science. What I did say is that for scientific information one should go to science.
For art information I go to an artist, etc.

“
I am out here testing my ideas and what science says also.
”
No you aren't, you're trolling and maintaining your ignorance.
You're testing nothing but our patience.

When do you jump in a say science has got it correct this time. Because the whole point of science is to correct itself, so I have been told. So how do you know what is said today is correct? If science finds that it takes creation for the start to life what happens then with evolution. Because now you have a creator?
Remember that science does not know how life started, so they have to have an open mind on this.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 05:50 PM

More ignorant trolling.
Goodbye.

spidergoat

11-18-09, 05:53 PM

When do you jump in a say science has got it correct this time. Because the whole point of science is to correct itself, so I have been told. So how do you know what is said today is correct? If science finds that it takes creation for the start to life what happens then with evolution. Because now you have a creator?
Remember that science does not know how life started, so they have to have an open mind on this.

Even if a creator created the first life, which seems unlikely, since every species from the first cell came about by evolution, that means that God did not deliberately create human beings, and that humans are the result of chance (not the evolution is chance, but there is no direction). Start the process all over again, and maybe humans would not be the result. That contradicts almost all creation stories, which is the source of the theory in the first place.

hay_you

11-18-09, 06:01 PM

It not only is observable, it has been observed in the lab and in the field. I gave you examples of both.

Now you want examples of evolution that changes an animal to such a degree it fits our definition of speciation. Speciation has been observed in the lab too, with fruit flies.

Evolution via natural selection is exactly the opposite of randomness.

You can see a cat become a dog. Follow the line of ancestors of dogs back far enough and you will find the common ancestor of the cat and the dog. Made a u-turn, and you can follow the evolution of that common ancestor into a dog. Every animal is linked in such a fashion to every other one.

The instructions for making an arm or leg or heart evolved from simpler structures, all the way back to a cell. We see animals with still successful structures that aren't complete hearts, they are more like tubes that contract.
This is the whole point what I have been saying. Because animals look the same or similar, does not mean they came from one another. Creation can do this. This is a leap science has taken with out the proof of it ever happening.
We don't see it today and the fossil record does not show it either. That is why theories come up time to time on jumps in the chain. Science would have to show this as happening. There would be no reason for evolution to stop doing this so we should see it today as well. Even if you have to start very simply , there would be great randomness in evolution because it doesn't know it is making something.
Why would a heart be started when none is need, or there is no muscles to pump blood to. And there are no bones to make the blood or veins to carry it, etc.
All these systems have to be complete before they are useful.
So from a single cell without DNA, how does this start to happen. If this is fact then science should know about this. If it just made up , they might not, have thought all of this through.

spidergoat

11-18-09, 06:12 PM

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 06:33 PM

Richard Dawkins has already admitted that evolution is not scientific in one of his theology books titled The God Delusion.

Dawkins states, and these are his exact words, "... Evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water. When challenged by a zealous Popperian to say how evolution could ever be falsified, J.B.S. Haldane famously growled: 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.'"
Which is nowhere near an admission.
It's a statement on what would falsify evolution.

Well unfortunately for Mr. Dawkins we now have a single fossil in the wrong geological stratum, namely, fossil octopuses in the Cretaceous.
An octopus is not a rabbit.
Please do learn something.

Evolution is a debunked and falsified religion.
Neither debunked nor a religion.

Karl Popper himself wrote, "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme."
Funny how you'll use one authority to make your argument and ignore all the rest.
So Popper was infallible?

spidergoat

11-18-09, 06:34 PM

You are incorrect John. While the discovery pushes back the origins of the octopus by tens of millions of years, it does not falsify evolution. A rabbit would, since we know rabbits are a modern form, like a dog or a bear.

Popper later changed his mind and recognized that natural selection is testable (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html).

I still believe that natural selection works in this way as a research programme. Nevertheless, I have changed my mind about the testability and the logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. My recantation may, I hope, contribute a little to the understanding of the status of natural selection.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 07:07 PM

Are you aware that an octopus can fossilize?
Since we have octopus fossils then it would appear to obvious.

You're not going to win any points by insulting people who are more educated than you are.
So much more educated that you post incorrect conclusions and spurious quotes to support your view?
More educated than me?
I'm not after "points".
Hmm on which subjects I wonder...

Your Messiah Richard Dawkins seems to have a high opinion of him.
Regardless, it doesn't make him infallible nor, (as Spidergoat has pointed out), correct in this case.

Evolutionists thought they knew octopuses were a modern form and they were wrong.
If you'll check, the octopus fossil discovered isn't a modern octopus.

What good is a hypothesis if all it's predictions are wrong?
All?
Any support for that?

Oh, and:

Your Messiah Richard Dawkins seems to have a high opinion of him.
Messiah?
What a curious term. :rolleyes:
Let me guess, you're making assumptions.

Dywyddyr

11-18-09, 07:14 PM

I am talking about an octopus identical to a modern octopus found in the Cretaceous.
Really?
Link please.

hay_you

11-18-09, 07:16 PM

You are just ignorant of the state of modern science. That's not a personal insult.

The proof is nicely compiled in Dawkin's recent book which I referenced. Evolution doesn't know how to make something, but as you said, there is great variation even within a species.

Here is a thought experiment. Suppose elephants needed big tusks to fight other males for the chance to mate with females. Suppose humans came along and killed all the males with big tusks for the ivory trade. The males left would have smaller tusks, and they would pass along their traits to their children.

If evolution were not true, average tusk size would remain the same. The species would remain unchanged by any selection pressure.

If evolution were true, average tusk size would decrease because only small tusked males would reproduce.

In fact, that's exactly what we see, the average tusk size of legally hunted elephants in Africa has decreased.
In your thought experiment , that would be the same for creation also. There is no difference. The point is that what ever gets to breed, passes on what it has. That why even in humans there is a variety tall to short, for example.
This has nothing to do with evolution. This need to test out the fittest animal, where did that come from? Where did the need to breed come from. It is not always the biggest, that gets to breed, for some it's how good of a home he can make. So in the DNA how does this information get in the DNA in the first place.
If a single is live some how , how does it know to divide to copy itself. It would have to do this correctly the first time and faster than it dies off.
Where did that ability come from?