Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
No you didn't (unless you're far more obtuse than I even suspected you to be).Oh... I thought you were talking about scientists.
That would be because you don't genuinely think and you don't read anythingthat disgarees with your narrow view point. Science and creationism are incompatible.
Also incorrect.
In the broadest sense, I'm a marine biologist - although broader still I suppose I'm just a behavioural ecologist who just happens to focus on marine organisms
Actually that sound like very interesting stuff. So are you doing the kind of work that is trying to understand the 'evolutionary' causes of variety in the behavior among populations and 'species'. As you probably already know I don't think that evolution is really any part of the life we see. And the changes we do see can be explained with adapting and reproduction , comparing that to dogs for instance. There are a lot of variety of dogs, but they are still dogs.
I was wondering what you think?
In less than a century, human selection has turned wolves into chihuahuas. When that sort of change happens over millions of years, one species turns into another. You have your own personal definition of what it means to be a dog, like you have your own personal definition of what it means to be a bird. And yet birds are just a form of dinosaur. The dinosaurs they evolved from are dead, so the transition between reptile and bird seems like a big jump, but actually it happened gradually.
Which is why you should read more pages before posting. No they can't (except on things related to neither science nor mysticism).
I disagree. Guess opinions vary
Nope.
Which isn't quite the same.
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.
I disagree. The most brilliant scientists don't wait for evidence, they go and find it. Where they look comes from their beliefs in what they will find. It starts out as an absurd possibility. Take Einsteins words for it
.Certainly that is a part of ethology (the study of animal behaviour) but its a broad field of study and not something that I or the department I work in spends much time on right now - we are much more interested in what's happening right now now and its implications on the future - so we are looking at how different organisms respond to different environmental stresses like climate change - pollution - physical disturbance, changes in ocean chemistry and circulation etc
well adaptation and reproduction are cornerstones of evolutionary theory - so you do accept it even if you think you dont - you've just (more than likely) been told that you arent allowed to accept it by the dangerous religious fanatics that have sequestered your mind and your free will.
So take heart - by pointing out that changes in species are caused by variation and reproduction you're part of the way there - and you're smarter than you realised.
It doesn't matter whether you agree or not.I disagree. The most brilliant scientists don't wait for evidence, they go and find it. Where they look comes from their beliefs in what they will find. It starts out as an absurd possibility. Take Einsteins words for it
Scientists even, or especially, the "brilliant" ones work from available evidence.
They do their absolute best to not let their beliefs colour their search for the actuality of things. That is why, having coming up with a theory they spend so much time trying to disprove it.
I would say Einstein worked more with math and images. In fact it took quite a while to even have a way to test some of his ideas - they did well. He certainly didn't test his way to his most famous ideas.
This seems a little ideal in conception. Even honorable scientists might move on to other studies and leave disproofs to others.
Agreed: but he didn't go haring off trying find evidence for his "absurd possibility" - he worked up to it from KNOWN information.
Initially (before publication, for one thing) they'll look for evidence against. Wouldn't want to publish and then have a first-year student turn round and say "But wouldn't that be wrong due to X?"
First of all you are assuming that domestic and wild are the same, or came from one another that may not be true. Some might have, but others could have been created, at least creation account say that. But what you just said took intelligence and planning to do. The word species is not conclusive with science , there are many definitions of what a species is. ( where is the line?) So it is not that easy to say. Even with the creation accounts the word kind is used. That also does not give a definition exactly where the line is.
The dinosaurs, have gone extinct but so have many animals in the last 150 years. The jump between reptile and birds is a huge jump. more like a leap of faith that, that could happen or did.
First of all reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded. But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: “Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals.
Lecomte du Noüy, the French evolutionist, said concerning the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: “This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution.” He also made the admission that birds have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation” but that is only to the theory of evolution.
This shows how evolutionists will say almost anything to try and prove evolution. But this is just the start what about scales to feathers. The real problem here is that the transitional animals are not found that show that any of this did happen.
There is also the gulf between Amphibian and Reptile. Then you have the gulf between Reptile and Mammal.
Physically, man fits the general definition of a mammal. However, even some evolutionists says that there can be more of tragic mistake could be made than to consider man ‘merely an animal.’ Man is unique; he differs from all other animals in many properties, such as speech, tradition, culture, and an enormously extended period of growth and parental care, also man is able to do mathematics, art, music, and creative talents, and able to build complex machines.
The real evidence is over whelming. We should be seeing Planet of the Apes types of animals today, in various stages of evolution, but there are none.
There really is no excuse for scientist that say evolution is correct. The evidence is just over whelmming.
But it has been shown to be.
No.
Really? It's a scientific word, therefore science defines it. What other definitions do you have?
Yep "kind" not "species".
Wrong again.
You're trolling again and repeating things already shown to be wrong.
Source? And look at the context.
More trolling.
Stop it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
You don't have to accept it. But any rational person would come to that conclusion. There is a huge jump from anything else and man.
This was something I found a few years ago, all I did was copy down the quote.
You don't have to accept it. But any rational person would come to that conclusion. There is a huge jump from anything else and man.
I asked what the other definitions were. That article implies that all of the definitions (in use) are scientific definitions, which invalidates your argument..
In other words you copied down a "quote" and ignored the context. Thus rendering it entirely meaningless.
Wrong.
Now you're talking. That has enlightened self-interest written all over it. But once it's out there, I would guess many try to extend rather then disprove their own work. Or find some other coup or grant/award worthy research to engage in.Initially (before publication, for one thing) they'll look for evidence against. Wouldn't want to publish and then have a first-year student turn round and say "But wouldn't that be wrong due to X?"
I'm not really against science making mistakes, or even coming to wrong conclusions. The real problem, is concluding something and calling it a fact with out all the ducks lined up. Science can have the theory, but there is nothing science has that says creation is not possible. If science was to be honest, they should not takes sides until they know for sure. That means in their papers, their programs and teaching in schools.
The problem now is that scientists have stuck their neck out, claiming it is a fact, and pushing it for over 100 years, I think they have to try and prove evolution no matter what now. That is why they are saying it is a fact.
The problem now is that scientists have stuck their neck out, claiming it is a fact, and pushing it for over 100 years, I think they have to try and prove evolution no matter what now. That is why they are saying it is a fact.
Unfortunately you're assuming that (in this case especially) science HAS come to the wrong conclusion. With no evidence whatsoever to support your opinion.
No the real problem is that you're so wedded to the ridiculous notion of creation that you don't understand what evidence and fact means.
Already shown to be wrong. Trolling again.
We do know.
Trolling, again.
Reported, again.