Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[Dywyddyr]

It's too late for that.It's already happened.

Strangely (ha ha I'm joking here, it isn't strange at all, but typical) that also is not the case.
Science spells out exactly what it knows, and how it knows and leaves it up to anyone interested to check the data and show where it could be wrong*. Unlike, say, religion, which claims to know all the answers and makes questioning that claim punishably heretical.

* Of course, when I say "show where it could be wrong" I mean by using actual evidence and reasoning, not just unsupported belief.

 

[Pipes75]

It doesn't matter whether you agree or not.
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.

So your saying scientists don't go searching for new evidence???
I disagree.
Science is always looking for new evidence.

Beliefs in the spiritual don't contradict the physical evidence. Our interpretations of the spiritual things we don't understand can change though.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So your saying scientists don't go searching for new evidence???
I disagree.
Science is always looking for new evidence.

Which isn't the same as thinking of a theory and looking for evidence to support the out-of-blue-theory that you've just come up with. I simply pointed out that you had the process reversed.

Beliefs in the spiritual don't contradict the physical evidence.

Nope, but evidence contradicts beliefs of the spiritual.

 

[spidergoat]

It's not the lack of fossils it is the lack of the transitional fossils. For any of these to pass on the changes evolution is supposed to do, they would have to become mature and reproduce, so eith way there should be millions of these. But none are found.

What transition would you like explained?

 

[hay_you]

What transition would you like explained?

Well there is a lot here. How about a cell with no DNA to a cell with DNA, then how did it start developing body parts we see today.

 

[spidergoat]

Evolution happens whether we can explain how it first came about or not. How do body parts develop? By the same variations you said you believe in. Fish with fins led to fish with lobed and muscular fins to help them get around the bottom. Then, the weak bones characteristic of fish changed over time into bones that could support the fish's weight out of water, then the fish spent most of it's time out of water and lost it's gills, then eventually, humans appear. It's just a matter of nature selecting favorable variations.

 

[Doreen]

Here's a suggestion:

You guys are pretty much off topic and have been for a while. In a very loose sense we have scientists and mystics working together, but not really gettting anywhere. Why don't both sides try to work together. My suggestion for what this might look like would be for the Mystics to come forward with what they feel they contribute that the scientists do not. The scientists can then, in a spirit of openness, say what they would need for this added whatever to be appreciated by them. Together both sides could see if there is some practical way to bridge the gap. Given that scientists approach knowledge in a certain way and given that mystics approach knowledge in a certain way, how can the two work together?

 

[James R]

hay_you:

No this is not transitional. There is variety in people , and is a real problem in operations where organs are transplanted for example. The body tries to reject them. We are not clones of one another.

Exactly. So, you are not the same as your parents. They are not the same as their parents. etc. etc. Work it back far enough and you'll find your direct ape ancestor.

What a transitional animal would be, from a cell, to evolve would have to start making say a bone material, but this would not be in any shape or position in the cell that would be useful. It is just some bone material. This could kill the cell and evolution would stop.

But natural selection culls out the changes that don't work. Every animal in an evolutionary chain had to "work" well enough to reproduce and pass on its genes to the next generation. Nature dispensed with the animals that didn't work and kept the ones that did - which is the whole point of evolution.

But what is found is completed animals with a protecting shell or complete legs etc. This all has to have the whole system working ( like blood, veins, heart brain, before a leg is useful)

That's wrong. For example, whales don't have complete legs. But they do have all the same bones inside their bodies that you have in your leg.

Why did your Creator design whales to have useless bones inside their bodies?

Regarding eyes - a favorite topic of creationists - half an eye is better than no eye at all, and there are many examples of animals that have eyes less developed than our own. And human eyes are not the best eyes in the animal kingdom either, so in that sense our eyes aren't "complete".

How could evolution produce a complete leg with everything the right shape the right size and connected to one another, without all the transitional steps.

There were transitional steps. For example, ancestral species of whales had legs. We know because there are fossils of those animals. Do you think those legs were "errors"? There were not. They were perfectly useful and functional in the whale ancestor species.

Once you get to animals with DNA, mutations are usually bad.

Wrong. Most mutations are neutral. But even if most were bad it wouldn't matter, because nature keeps the good and throws away the bad.

Or an extra pair of arms. This mutation would also be in the fossil record.

Wrong. As I explained to you before, fossilisation is an exceedingly rare thing. You'd need thousands of humans with extra arms to have a tiny chance of seeing one extra-armed fossilised human.

DNA fries to keep things centered, and not deviate too much.

DNA doesn't "try" to do anything.

So in whales if they were evolving to change the position of the fins , why would it go to a different position, why would it go directly to what we see as completed flippers in the right spot.

They didn't go directly there. The position of fins on whales, and their size and so on evolved over many generations, gradually. By the way, do you know why whales' tails move up and down rather than side to side? Please give me your creationist explanation for that, because evolution has an explanation.

There were many kinds of animals that have gone extinct. Many very different than we have now. But still these are complete animals. Without badly deformed bodies.

On the whole, yes, because most animals function well. If they did not function from birth they would quickly have died and probably not been fossilised.

On the other hand, we do find fossils of animals with broken bones or deformities, just like if you were to go to a cemetery and start digging you'd find some humans with deformities.

There have been millions of animals and all use DNA, so there are many that look similar, but that doesn't mean they evolved from one to another. There is not evidence of this.

There's abundant evidence. Go out, buy yourself a copy of Richard Dawkin's latest book The Greatest Show on Earth and educate yourself.

Scientists have to get from some life, to all we see . That means vegetation and all animal life. So if one didn't evolve into another how do scientists, explain all the life we see?

You appear to have a silly, linear picture of life. Species are more like the branches on a tree. No modern animal evolved from any other modern animal. Humans didn't evolve from chimpanzees. Both humans and chimps share a common ancestor. We're on two adjacent branches of the evolutionary tree, not on a ladder with humans at the top and chimps below.

Actually evolution is an emotional stand against a creator. If scientists had evidence of evolution that would be different.

You're either uneducated or in denial. Which is it?

 

[hay_you]

You guys are pretty much off topic and have been for a while. In a very loose sense we have scientists and mystics working together, but not really gettting anywhere. Why don't both sides try to work together. My suggestion for what this might look like would be for the Mystics to come forward with what they feel they contribute that the scientists do not. The scientists can then, in a spirit of openness, say what they would need for this added whatever to be appreciated by them. Together both sides could see if there is some practical way to bridge the gap. Given that scientists approach knowledge in a certain way and given that mystics approach knowledge in a certain way, how can the two work together?

Doreen,
This is exactly the point, and my intention.
I have thought about this for a long time,and I have thought that with a difference of direction science would be further ahead in the sciences itself.
An example of this would be in, how the first life form was made. What I see from science is that they try to recreate the conditions that they think life started from in the long ago past. They are not having success doing this , why not take the direction of maybe it was created, so what they could do, is to set up the best possible conditions to make life from non life. Now science and creationists, say the same thing. Life was made from the dust of the ground.
This only makes sense because scientists doing the experiments, can only show that it took intelligence to create life. So science can only prove that anyway, when they do these experiments.

 

[spidergoat]

The Miller-Urey Experiment replicated one set of likely conditions that characterized the early Earth. Complex molecules like amino acids were produced, the building blocks of life. I would have thought creationists would be a little more knowledgeable about the state of the debate.

 

[hay_you]

The Miller-Urey Experiment replicated one set of likely conditions that characterized the early Earth. Complex molecules like amino acids were produced, the building blocks of life. I would have thought creationists would be a little more knowledgeable about the state of the debate.

I am familiar with the Miller experiment, but they were also trying to replicate early earth conditions. This is also where creationist can help the scientists. Scientists assume that life was took a long time to come about. But in creation this is not so, certain life could have been created suddenly this would start the working of the sand and rock and the atmosphere, this process would take some time, and then more creation, trees for example could take thousands of years to spread across the land. Other creation would come as the earth is getting ready for them. the creation would not take long but the spreading and working the land would take some time.
What science is doing now, is theorizing how bread for example could come about naturally with no intelligence to do it. And then spend time trying to prove that , and trying to get everything to fit with that idea. Then saying it is proved that you don't need anyone to make it. But the truth is it takes a intelligence to make it, and in about one hour you can sit down and enjoy your creation slap some butter on it, and be satisfied.
The science, and creation are the same thing. I do think they could work together, and do much better than it is now.

 

[Dredd]

So your saying scientists don't go searching for new evidence???
I disagree.
Science is always looking for new evidence.

Beliefs in the spiritual don't contradict the physical evidence. Our interpretations of the spiritual things we don't understand can change though.

New evidence is also often looking for scientists too. Scientific textbooks on many fronts have a short lifetime. Buy stocks in companies that make those books, the publishers are cranking.

The "science" in this thread is in large part know-it-alls looking into the rear-view mirror in an attempt to find out where we are going by arguing about where we have been.

Biological evolution is very lame in that sense, whereas, since scientists have predicted the doomsday of this planet, it seems much more wise science to determine where we must go to avoid the doomsday predicted by science.

 

[Dredd]

The Miller-Urey Experiment replicated one set of likely conditions that characterized the early Earth. Complex molecules like amino acids were produced, the building blocks of life. I would have thought creationists would be a little more knowledgeable about the state of the debate.

Recent evidence changes many fundamental assumptions about the conditions on the early earth.

Not that such evidence would change the Miller-Urey outcome, it is just that the exercise needs to be applied to the new data.

Complex molecules are highly sophisticated machines, so a transition from that into the amino acids may be the phase of going from machine into biological.

I think there are going to be challenges to Dollo's Law if focus can be put on the transition from machine to biological, and clear conclusions drawn.

It will then challenge those prominent scientists today who are proclaiming that we will evolve into sentient robots (machines) possibly violating Dollo's Law by a reversal of evolution back onto itself.

We shall see.

 

[hay_you]

Biological evolution is very lame in that sense, whereas, since scientists have predicted the doomsday of this planet, it seems much more wise science to determine where we must go to avoid the doomsday predicted by science.

This doomsday prediction from science , is interesting because it is science that has given man the ability to ruin this planet. Not that science has done it themselves, but people have used science in not very responsible ways.First is the military, with nuclear bombs and chemical weapons, etc. We have garbage now that can last 1000s of years, where in the past a person could benefit the earth through out his life. This can't be put down as over population because all the people alive today can fit in the state of Texas, with about a couple of square yards, around them. We have to treat the water before we use it, there are growth hormones in our food, people here want to to buy wild salmon, instead of farmed salmon. There are pesticides, herbicides, on the food and in the ground. All of these sorts of things. And yet half the world is starving.
I know it's not just science fault, but if science looked at the natural world as the right way to go, science could take the lead in that, instead of trying to 'improve' the natural way. The natural way was designed to be the best way.
It's not that the science is wrong, it really is the interpretation from the scientists, that needs a change. I also think that scientists would be much further ahead if they weren't wasting their time on trying to fit evolving into everything. It is really holding them back , from moving ahead.

 

[spidergoat]

...Scientists assume that life was took a long time to come about. But in creation this is not so....

OK, where is your evidence?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Doreen,
This is exactly the point, and my intention.

And here's a perfectly good example of why it wouldn't work:

An example of this would be in, how the first life form was made. What I see from science is that they try to recreate the conditions that they think life started from in the long ago past. They are not having success doing this , why not take the direction of maybe it was created

So science should decide life was created?
Fine, So the way to prove that is... get god to create some more and say "There you are boys, all done".

This only makes sense because scientists doing the experiments, can only show that it took intelligence to create life. So science can only prove that anyway, when they do these experiments.

Wrong.

I am familiar with the Miller experiment, but they were also trying to replicate early earth conditions.

Because the life we know of, the ONLY life we know of, is... on Earth.

This is also where creationist can help the scientists.

Go on, tell us how.

But the truth is it takes a intelligence to make it

Assumption.

The science, and creation are the same thing.

Wrong.

 

[hay_you]

OK, where is your evidence?

The evidence comes from the design. Even a cell is is not simple. But a cell needs all of it's parts, to survive. Because a cell is biological, it will deteriorate very quickly. Even with sciences idea life would have to happen quickly, or you have rotting material. So a cell would have to be made all together at one time very quickly or you have nothing. A human body if not able to breath for just a few minutes, will stop working, and then decays. So all the parts need to be in place at the same time and working, before any of it is any good. This begs the question how do biological parts get formed before they start to decay and become useless. So this material sitting around for 1000s of years is not possible. Besides the problem of how did this first cell know how to copy itself, with all the parts in it, before it died?

 

[Dywyddyr]

It's already been explained to you that your view is incorrect on that.
In other words you're persisting in argument from ignorance.

 

[Pipes75]

Which isn't the same as thinking of a theory and looking for evidence to support the out-of-blue-theory that you've just come up with. I simply pointed out that you had the process reversed.


Nope, but evidence contradicts beliefs of the spiritual.

Not everything searched for has a completed theory. Most theories are on going. Looking for evidence to support a belief is done regularly.

Evidence doesn't contradict spiritual beliefs. Evidence is in the form of the physical. However nobody fully understands the spiritual side of things, and therefor spiritual beliefs can change in what the symbolic meaning might actually mean in the physical form.
Most of us get our spiritual messages in the form of symbolic meaning. We can misinterpret the metephores if we believe the symbolic meaning applies to one specific part of the physical. Physical evidence helps to clear up our mis-interpretations, but it doesn't contradict the spiritual belief itself, it can only contradict our interpretations of the spiritual belief.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Not everything searched for has a completed theory. Most theories are on going.

There's no such thing as a "completed theory".

Looking for evidence to support a belief is done regularly.

Belief?
On the contrary, more time is spent trying to invalidate a theory than support it.

Evidence doesn't contradict spiritual beliefs. Evidence is in the form of the physical.

Hence my statement.

Most of us get our spiritual messages in the form of symbolic meaning.

In other words subjective impressions...

Physical evidence helps to clear up our mis-interpretations, but it doesn't contradict the spiritual belief itself, it can only contradict our interpretations of the spiritual belief.

Physical evidence can show that the "spiritual experience" was in fact nothing of the sort, but rather a mis/ mal function of the brain and /or senses.