Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[Pipes75]

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.

All the particles to life can be found in star dust.
Once the dust finds some water to rest at, the particles only need one last thing to come alive, a charge.
A charge can be produced by lightening.
DNA is the product of certain particles finding water, and getting a charge.
The water is a result of Ice from the cold space finding enough warmth from a star that the ice simply melts.

Developing body parts is just life adapting to the conditions. It took a great deal of time for single cell organisms to become the kind of life we see today!

However there are still holes in evolution. Human evolution seems to have happened much to rapidly for me to believe it was natural. Apes, monkeys, and man all flourished, so I don't see why the need for change since evolution is from species adapting to the environment because they needed to for survival!

 

[hay_you]

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.

Yes that is correct. There is an answer though. We are here and are real. The trick is to find it. I mentioned this before, but I call this the misinformation age. Information has exploded in the 100 years or so and in that 30 years communication has become so global it is astounding. I saw a elementary student riding his bike to school while talking his cell phone. He could have been talking to his dad on the other side of the earth. The information now at our finger tips ( like the web) is also amazing. But the real answers are hidden in all of this.

 

[Pipes75]

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

That's the point. Theories can be adapted and built on to. But until testing provides evidence, all theories are, are assuptions of what the known evidence has to do with the bigger picture.

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

That's because of all the assumptions that theories have. The tested evidence is much different then the theory. Problem is not everything can be tested.

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.

This is your perspective. Their is no physical evidence that shows spiritual experiences are brain malfunctions!
If that was the case, then my brain malfunctioning was the best thing that ever happened to me!

 

[spidergoat]

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?

The cell is already highly evolved and complex, but we can imagine simpler cells. You could say the same thing about humans, just take out the heart and we wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that hearts didn't evolve. We can observe evolution happenning in the lab using simple RNA molecules. The fact is that some molecules are complex enough to exhibit heredity. Iteration and heredity are all that's required for an evolutionary process to begin.

 

[hay_you]

The cell is already highly evolved and complex, but we can imagine simpler cells. You could say the same thing about humans, just take out the heart and we wouldn't work. That doesn't mean that hearts didn't evolve. We can observe evolution happenning in the lab using simple RNA molecules. The fact is that some molecules are complex enough to exhibit heredity. Iteration and heredity are all that's required for an evolutionary process to begin.

The precursors to life are not life. And not DNA with instructions. We know that the materials for life are here. It's how or who put them together. These complex cells, are only assumed to evolve, because science doesn't know how life actually started. That's why science should try to create life in a lab, it will teach them what it takes to do it. I use the single cell because that is what scientists, like to start with. But creation may have started with completed organisms, and cells are part of that.
That word 'evolved' has become so ingrained in people that they think it actually is real. People today also use the meaning of that word as intelligent change. ( His ideas evolved over time. ) But I don't think that this is the meaning that scientists use it for.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That word 'evolved' has become so ingrained in people that they think it actually is real.

It IS real.

People today also use the meaning of that word as intelligent change. ( His ideas evolved over time. )

And another error: there is no "intelligent change" implied in the evolution of ideas.

 

[spidergoat]

We know cells do evolve, no matter how the process got started. That's why abiogenesis is considered a separate field from evolution. If creation were true, then the fossil record should show the same animals that are around now. That is false, so creationism is false.

 

[hay_you]

All the particles to life can be found in star dust.
Once the dust finds some water to rest at, the particles only need one last thing to come alive, a charge.
A charge can be produced by lightening.
DNA is the product of certain particles finding water, and getting a charge.
The water is a result of Ice from the cold space finding enough warmth from a star that the ice simply melts.

Developing body parts is just life adapting to the conditions. It took a great deal of time for single cell organisms to become the kind of life we see today!

However there are still holes in evolution. Human evolution seems to have happened much to rapidly for me to believe it was natural. Apes, monkeys, and man all flourished, so I don't see why the need for change since evolution is from species adapting to the environment because they needed to for survival!

This is an assumption because science has already, tried this and failed.
Besides DNA are instruction that need correct coding for it to be useful. Not only that but we have thousands of lightning strikes all the time and they don't produce life.
This is a fallacy with scientists that a cell can evolve into what we see. They have not been able to do this in a lab or any other experiments. There is no evidence that it could happen at all or did.
The holes in evolution are major flaws in the theory, because over time they should be answered, but the the research and discoveries, do not fill those holes , but actually stall the theory altogether. It is just that some scientists what to jump the gun and claim it as a fact, before they have the evidence, solidly in place. This is to say 'WE' are right come and listen to us.
Scientists doing the experiments on the beginning of life, can only show that it took intelligence to do that ( scientists in a lab). Which is creation. They can only observe it happening on it's own to say that it did happen that way.
They can't win with this. Unless they do find it happened somewhere.
About survival , where did a cell get this from? How does a cell know it has to survive? Where did it get it's ability to copy itself? It can't just split or crush itself, it is a very amazing thing that a cell can copy itself. Also a cell can't mess around it needs to do this faster than it dies off. And it had to do this with the very first cell of life. Scientists have not answered any of this.

 

[spidergoat]

Your ignorance is not an argument.

 

[hay_you]

Your ignorance is not an argument.

I thought I was doing OK.

 

[Dywyddyr]

This is an assumption because science has already, tried this and failed.

If at first you don't succeed, give up?
Nonsense.

Besides DNA are instruction that need correct coding for it to be useful. Not only that but we have thousands of lightning strikes all the time and they don't produce life.

Specious nonsense.

This is a fallacy with scientists that a cell can evolve into what we see.

No, the fallacy is in your understanding.

The holes in evolution are major flaws in the theory

Wrong.

because over time they should be answered

Exactly.
How much time are you allowing for the really big questions to be answered?
A week?
Two weeks?

It is just that some scientists what to jump the gun and claim it as a fact, before they have the evidence, solidly in place.

It IS a fact, and we DO have the evidence.

Scientists doing the experiments on the beginning of life, can only show that it took intelligence to do that ( scientists in a lab).

You misunderstand completely what an experiment shows (as has already been pointed out to you: trolling again).

They can't win with this.

Certainly they can't "win" against against wilfully-maintained ignorance.

 

[hay_you]

You misunderstand completely what an experiment shows (as has already been pointed out to you: trolling again).

The example that I give for this is the loaf of bread.
I know I have said this before but you seem to not get it.
Scientists can theorizes , that a loaf of bread could happen on it's own, all the materials are on this earth for that. But if scientists want to make a loaf of bread in the lab, that does not prove that it could happen on it's own somewhere. What scientists have shown is that the loaf of bread can be created in a lab. Creation.

 

[Dywyddyr]

The example that I give for this is the loaf of bread.
I know I have said this before but you seem to not get it.

No, I DO get it.
And as pointed out before (several times) when you made the comparison it IS NOT valid.

 

[spidergoat]

Hay you:

So you would not accept the evidence which you are asking scientists to produce?

What's wrong with this picture?

 

[hay_you]

Hay you:

So you would not accept the evidence which you are asking scientists to produce?

What's wrong with this picture?

I do check out the evidence science discovers.I use this same evidence.
Some things that science does in the lab can also be found in the natural world. Scientists do weather models in the lab and they prove to be pretty good. That is not what I am saying.
Because science can do things in a lab, does not mean they can happen in the real world. That is why the loaf of bread is a good example. We know it doesn't just happen, but but we with our intelligence, can create it. So people know that it has to be created. Science can not rule that out for the start to life. So doing the experiment does not show, anything but the creation answer to this. They need to find it just happening somewhere, to prove that it could and then did.

 

[spidergoat]

You have to admit that you don't know. Abiogenesis could have happened through entirely natural processes. Even if there were supernatural intervention here, it means that God did not create human beings, because evolution by natural selection explains everything from the cell to modern living things.

The fossil record is not compatible with creationism. Do you have any other evidence?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I do check out the evidence science discovers.I use this same evidence.

Misuse and misrepresent, not "use".

Scientists do weather models in the lab and they prove to be pretty good.

Actually they're fairly crap (as acknowledged by the modellers themselves).

Because science can do things in a lab, does not mean they can happen in the real world.

Again you show a complete failure to understand what an experiment shows.

That is why the loaf of bread is a good example. We know it doesn't just happen, but but we with our intelligence, can create it.

Failure to understand, still.

So people know that it has to be created.

No.

So doing the experiment does not show, anything but the creation answer to this.

Utterly wrong.

 

[hay_you]

You have to admit that you don't know. Abiogenesis could have happened through entirely natural processes. Even if there were supernatural intervention here, it means that God did not create human beings, because evolution by natural selection explains everything from the cell to modern living things.

Abiogenesis is an idea that is very close to creation. Sudden complete life forms.
That is what you would find in creation.

This is from the dictionary.

a⋅bi⋅o⋅gen⋅e⋅sis
  /ˌeɪbaɪoʊˈdʒɛnəsɪs, ˌæbioʊ-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-bahy-oh-jen-uh-sis, ab-ee-oh-] Show IPA
Use abiogenesis in a Sentence
See web results for abiogenesis
See images of abiogenesis
–noun Biology.
the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

 

[spidergoat]

No it's not. Abiogenesis describes the very first entities with iterations and heredity, not the spontaneous generation of complete complex life forms as we would now think of them.

How do you explain that 99% of all life forms that ever existed are extinct?

The simpler the life form, the easier it is for it to form spontaneously without any "intelligent" intervention.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Abiogenesis is an idea that is very close to creation. Sudden complete life forms.
That is what you would find in creation.

Except that abiogenesis (should it ever happen) would have a scientific foundation, as opposed to goddidit.