Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[baftan]

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]

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]

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]

“
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]

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]

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]

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]

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)]

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]

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)]

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]

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)]

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.

 

[hay_you]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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)]

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?