Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[hay_you]

We will never see an eye evolve in the lab. Such a complex structure would take too many generations to develop. But that is unnecessary, since the basic concept has been observed in the lab with simpler mechanisms. If evolution works AT ALL, then it proves that it is the mechanism by which all species came about.

That's what scientists do, they set up experiments to test the principle from a simplified example.

This it is only speculation then, that this could happen. So science does not know if this eye could come from something that had no eye material at all. This is really point about this, science can't say that creation not possible. So then how can they take a side, in this question, if they have no proof or have never seen it done.
Evolution says that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time. But Darwin himself said that, the number of intermediate (transitional) varieties, which have formerly existed, must be truly enormous. He was hoping that the fossil record would show that, because when he was alive there were no fossils that supported that. He was hoping they would be found at a later time. But they have not.
What I am saying is not new. Darwin thought about it. And saw it as a huge problem. And it still is.
Science does not know how life started or how evolution could get to what we see today, and in the fossil record.

 

[spidergoat]

Please do not assert things you are ignorant of. Many, many so-called transitions have been found in the fossil record since Darwin's time.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

[Dywyddyr]

Hay_you has just been reported for trolling.

He's done nothing but repeat the same statements and "arguments" that were shown to be incorrect in the Denial of Evolution thread.

 

[James R]

hay_you:

You are officially warned that repeating arguments in which your errors have already been explained to you may be considered trolling.

 

[hay_you]

I followed one of those links that I was given and from that another link, and came up with this. I had not seen this page before.

http://www.icr.org/article/4787/
Common DNA Sequences: Evidence of Evolution or Efficient Design?
Share this Article
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. *

I know before you even say anything that you won't like it. But thats too bad.
It is from a scientists. And this brings up something interesting. How can scientists come up with totally different ideas on the same information? Is this science or misdirection and who is doing the misdirecting? Does science come down to just who is doing the interpretation? Or does science have any facts that are real?
If it seems to you that I repeat the same things, well science does the same thing, none here have brought up anything I had not looked to before. I am only bringing up a different side of this question.
But I can see that science is not interested in being tested, so I will not bother you guys with this any more.
We have talked about it enough anyway.
But i did enjoy the discussion.
Thanks

 

[baftan]

It is from a scientists.

I just read your link. The subject article is not from a scientist. It's from a creationist.

And this brings up something interesting.

No, it does bring up a brain which didn't understand how hereditary system works. Nobody understood it perfectly. They just know that it exists. Science admits that there are more to know. Your creationist says something like "God is the ultimate programmer".

How can scientists come up with totally different ideas on the same information?

Mostly, rather than scientists, speculators come up with totally different ideas. Scientists are scientists only if they support their papers with certain accepted credentials, well defined experiments and observations, related data presentation, and measurements.

Is this science or misdirection and who is doing the misdirecting?

If you are asking specifically for your linked article: It is a creationist misdirecting from science to the idea of God.

Does science come down to just who is doing the interpretation? Or does science have any facts that are real?

You have a real problem with what is fact and what is a hoax.

If it seems to you that I repeat the same things, well science does the same thing, none here have brought up anything I had not looked to before.

No, you haven't done this. You thought that you did, but actually you just constantly repeated same sentence over and over again, you did not try to support your claim with any evidence or any familiar example.

I am only bringing up a different side of this question.

You see, sometimes "what we think" -like you think you are only bringing up a "different" side of this question- is not what is really going on...

But I can see that science is not interested in being tested

Science is nothing but testing itself over and over again. But not with creationist movement, by new observation, by new evidence, by new pattern.

so I will not bother you guys with this any more.

Don't do that, try to follow, this is not a bad site, I learned a lot in here, and still learning. I have some problems with functionality, and I have problems with some of the ideas; however it's a nice environment to know about other ideas. Just follow the format rules.

But i did enjoy the discussion.

That's the Spirit!...

 

[hay_you]

Science is nothing but testing itself over and over again. But not with creationist movement, by new observation, by new evidence, by new pattern.

The trouble is if you go in with one idea it limits any possibility, of seeing the whole picture.

Don't do that, try to follow, this is not a bad site, I learned a lot in here, and still learning. I have some problems with functionality, and I have problems with some of the ideas; however it's a nice environment to know about other ideas. Just follow the format rules.

I do follow the rules I am very careful about that ,it is not easy for a mod. to ban me.:bugeye: Science repeats the same old stuff also.

I just read your link. The subject article is not from a scientist. It's from a creationist.

The question really is are evolutionists real scientists? They don't have proof or a solid foundation in this. That is not what science is about. The evidence of the design in life, will be sciences undoing. But I guess we will have to wait and see.
The thing is though I have learned a lot through science, as the world has, and it is really amazing some of the things that science has found out. And developed.
It was known that people would come to the conclusion that science has, of claiming there is no God. It was written about, thousands of years ago, in a time when really no one thought that way. This has come true.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The trouble is if you go in with one idea it limits any possibility, of seeing the whole picture.

Correct. That's why science doesn't limit itself to one idea.

I do follow the rules I am very careful about that ,it is not easy for a mod. to ban me.:bugeye:

Wrong again. I've mentioned many times that you're repeating the same old tired and previously debunked "arguments".

Science repeats the same old stuff also.

In this case it's because you keep asking the same question.
How many different ways are there of answering "What's 2 plus 2?"?

The question really is are evolutionists real scientists?

Yes.

They don't have proof or a solid foundation in this.

You see? YET AGAIN you're repeating something that has been shown to false, many times. But you still come back and state it as if it's true.

That is not what science is about.

As has been pointed out, you clearly have no idea what science is really about, only your distorted perceptions of the same.

The evidence of the design in life, will be sciences undoing.

There is none. Again.

The thing is though I have learned a lot through science

Evidently not.

 

[spidergoat]

I followed one of those links that I was given and from that another link, and came up with this. I had not seen this page before.

I know before you even say anything that you won't like it. But thats too bad.
It is from a scientists. And this brings up something interesting. How can scientists come up with totally different ideas on the same information? Is this science or misdirection and who is doing the misdirecting? Does science come down to just who is doing the interpretation? Or does science have any facts that are real?
If it seems to you that I repeat the same things, well science does the same thing, none here have brought up anything I had not looked to before. I am only bringing up a different side of this question.
But I can see that science is not interested in being tested, so I will not bother you guys with this any more.
We have talked about it enough anyway.
But i did enjoy the discussion.
Thanks

That's from a creationist website, that's not science. Of course, science is not opposed to new ideas, but they must be tested. The relationship between animals with similar DNA sequences is known, and proves that evolution is how they came about. In fact, you can use DNA as a clock and determine approximately how long ago two distinct species branched off from a common ancestor.

Ideas are fine, but they must become hypothesis and then theories if they are to compete with the greatest and most well-supported theory in biology.

You must stop asserting that there is no proof of evolution. I pointed out examples over and over. You are a disingenuous fraud, as are all creationists I have ever discussed this with.

 

[Pipes75]

Alot of pages, I didn't read, but somehow evolution seems to be the hot topic.

Science and mystics can work together.
Evolution really happened, but not all of it is explained when it comes to man's evulotion.
Mystics don't need to contradict evolution!
Although some might look for the most absurd possiblities when it comes to the missing pages of Human evolution!

Science and mysics do work together. The most brilliant scientists of yesterday and today generally have a spiritual side. They look for absurd possibilities, but then try to see what they can find evidence for.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science and mystics can work together.

Which is why you should read more pages before posting. No they can't (except on things related to neither science nor mysticism).

Science and mysics do work together.

Nope.

The most brilliant scientists of yesterday and today generally have a spiritual side.

Which isn't quite the same.

They look for absurd possibilities, but then try to see what they can find evidence for.

A perfect example of why they can't work together. Scientists don't work that way at all: they observe the evidence FIRST and then try to work out what it means.

 

[spidergoat]

No, I actually agree with Pipes75, there is no reason scientists and people with a mystical worldview cannot work together. I and hay_you have worked together to show he's wrong, and it worked just fine. Now hay_you needs to go back to the drawing board and get another idea.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No, I actually agree with Pipes75, there is no reason scientists and people with a mystical worldview cannot work together. I and hay_you have worked together to show he's wrong,

You mean the way he and I have done two or three times previously?
Working together usually means achieving a satisfactory result. Him coming back with the same tired crap isn't on my list as a "satisfactory result".

 

[spidergoat]

I can imagine another hypothetical person who would come up with similar "mystical" ideas, but who would be more open to science. Scientists can be open to them if they are open to science.

 

[hay_you]

You mean the way he and I have done two or three times previously?
Working together usually means achieving a satisfactory result. Him coming back with the same tired crap isn't on my list as a "satisfactory result".

Science likes to have something they can measure. Most people would think that scientists are very intelligent people. Science has come out with IQ tests, to try and measure intelligence. I would think that most scientists would rate pretty high on that measurement. Do you think it is possible, for the average person to do the work that say biologists do in a lab? Or do you think it would be over his or hers head? Even if that person, took some collage courses? I mean could an average person do the experiments that scientists do? Or does it take, only the smartest ones to be able to do it?

 

[synthesizer-patel]

I mean could an average person do the experiments that scientists do? Or does it take, only the smartest ones to be able to do it?

performing the type of experiment that I do is something anyone can do with a little practical training - the tricky part is asking the question that leads to the experiment - designing the experiment - and interpreting the results

 

[hay_you]

performing the type of experiment that I do is something anyone can do with a little practical training - the tricky part is asking the question that leads to the experiment - designing the experiment - and interpreting the results

What kind of work do you do?

 

[Dredd]

Working together usually means achieving a satisfactory result.

Exactly. The rift between mystics and scientists in some cases stems from entrenchment. Each can think the other is inferior which does not bode well for success.

The first thing to do might be to answer the question "what types of scenarios can there be any possibility of mutual input towards a mutually appreciated result".

If there are no situations conceivably beneficial, what is the use?

One I can think of is the necessity of morphing into a species that is not dependent on space travel to find other habitable planets when our Sun begins to destroy us.

Both scientists and mystics have both opined on the need to deal with the problem.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Exactly. The rift between mystics and scientists in some cases stems from entrenchment. Each can think the other is inferior which does not bode well for success.

The FACT that one "side" has evidence to support its views while the other has nothing more than supposition and wishful thinking doesn't help much either.

One I can think of is the necessity of morphing into a species that is not dependent on space travel to find other habitable planets when our Sun begins to destroy us.

Um, "morphing"? Not dependant upon space travel? So you're expecting (hoping? speculating?) that we'll "evolve" into something that can stay alive on Earth once the Sun has boiled the water and atmosphere away?

Both scientists and mystics have both opined on the need to deal with the problem.

Well it convinced me : Server not found.
The opinions of crackpot mystics don't mean a great deal, even when they are available...

 

[Dredd]

How does creationism show life coming from non-life?

Interesting that "life" may have various meanings. Does it include machines? Big Bang cosmology is a story of the emergence of machines.

Simple quanta become particles then particles become atoms then atoms become more sophisticated Elements, then Elements become molecules.

Biological evolution takes those then-existing molecular machines produced by the Big Bang cosmology, and then puts skin on those machines.

The skin is still composed of the smaller molecular, atomic, and quantum machines, however.

"Life" seems to be a description or adjective we tend to use to describe a cyborg scenario at some point without any really minute distinction.

Evidently the word "life" is intended to distinguish from the earlier purely machine phase somehow.

How sayest thou?