Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[hay_you]

The life we generally talk about is carbon based. Carbon is like the glue that holds cells together (all life we understand is carbon based). Carbon holding other particles together was a crucial ingredient for DNA life to evolve.

I'm not sure if you're talking about all of life in general (many of which is venturing into the unknowns) or if you are sticking to the life on earth that we do know of. But either way you seem confused. Their are plenty of holes in science that you can dream of unimaginable things without the need to contradict the evidence!!!!!

There are the materials on the earth for life. The question is can they come together on their own and make life? Or does it take intelligence to do it?
Both science and creation say that life came from the ground.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Both science and creation say that life came from the ground.

Nope. Science says it probably started in the oceans.

 

[hay_you]

this does not make sense--spirit, cause? i do not see the correlation.

“
The reason why everything is here, that includes physical and unseen.
If any of this is unscientific then none of it is real.
”
huh? by "unseen" do you intend "non-physical"? there is plenty which is "unseen" which is quite physical.

Yes the cause. How did our universe and life come about. The cause of it.
We see the results of that which is unseen. Our eyes are sensors of light, there are many things we can't see, but are still real.

 

[parmalee]

Nope. Science says it probably started in the oceans.

or scientists do, rather; i'm not sure that science "says" anything.

 

[Dywyddyr]

or scientists do, rather; i'm not sure that science "says" anything.

Ho ho!
Science tells us a lot, but indirectly.
It translates from nature and scientists translate from science.

 

[hay_you]

Ho ho!
Science tells us a lot, but indirectly.
It translates from nature and scientists translate from science.

or did something get lost in the translation!

 

[Pipes75]

This idea science of non creation has really only been popular for the last 150 years, or so. ( not that it is totally new idea) But for the vast majority some spiritual way of life was the norm. When things started to change in the world with industry and and science started to be a bigger part of things, when this idea of no God, and scientific 'evidence' seemed to support that many people went along. After all people hadn't heard from God for awhile and all these new things were around. And science had this high ideal of logic and testing for proof. Now people like it that there is nothing really to answer to , we can get rich , we can do this or that, without answering to anyone else. WE are free. People want to believe in science. All they need is something to believe in. ( it is still a spiritual thing, )
But the the trouble with this is scientists did not think this through, even Darwin knew that. There were holes in this idea of evolution. These holes are still there. But now more insurmountable, than before. Because more is known and in fossil record at least , more damaging to evolution. Scientists because they are on this path now, are trying very hard to support evolution with their findings. But you noticed they still can't prove how life started or that evolution actually happens where one animal over many years becomes something else.
There is a problem on the religious side as well, the thinking of many creationists were not correct either, which leads to confusion also. It is not mentioned in any kind of detail about dinosaurs for example. When scientists started pulling these things out of the ground, religions didn't know how to react to this sort of thing. So religious clergy denounced scientists, so that now there are two camps. But when you get to down to this, there is really no reason that science and a spiritual thinking can not get along. Actually science and creation are the same thing.

I'm a very spirtual person. I don't believe in creation.
I do admit their is much to the life cycle(s) I don't understand, and one day my believe could change. But evolution will always be a major part of the cycle on earth.

I know evolution is factual, however some pieces are not complete, that's why it is still a theory. I have trouble with human evolution being natural considering the differences compared to other evolution on earth prior to ours. But we still evolved whether it was natural or with help is my question.

You keep ignoring the tests - the right amount of particles, water, and a charge - DNA life has been reproduced in labs. Your claim that it hasn't been proven is false, but it does need perfect conditions.

Darwin only had one problem. He saw Man, Monkey, and Ape all had a common ancestor, and he never found the missing link. He never could fully understand our stages of evolution without knowing what we were before we changed. The rest of evolution has been proven pretty conclusively for the most part. Animals slowly adapt to a changing environment or they could perish, it's pretty straight forward.

Darwin did have one other problem. The confused world that believed in creation didn't understand the spirtual guidance is the opposite of the physical reality. Most religious minds feared science would disprove religious beliefs, when the reality is spiritual beliefs are symbolic meaning to another side. Darwin himself was religious but he questioned his own faith. More important was his devoted catholic wife, that Darwin loved with all his heart. Darwin was afraid to publish his own work for many years not because of lack of evidence (although the human evolution had holes) but more so because he didn't want to anger the church (or his wife). He never published most of his work till he was on his deathbed.

Yes Scientists and Mystics can work together but Hay, don't expect evidence to be ignored!!!

You are just as extreme as the ones that only trust logic - you don't trust any logic!!!

For science and the spiritual to work together, balance is crucial.

 

[Dywyddyr]

or did something get lost in the translation!

That would be why we have many scientists checking the information, and re-checking.
To find out if anything is lost, or if there can be a different "translation"made.

 

[spidergoat]

...however some pieces are not complete, that's why it is still a theory.

Incorrect. It will always be a theory.

 

[spidergoat]

There are the materials on the earth for life. The question is can they come together on their own and make life? Or does it take intelligence to do it?
Both science and creation say that life came from the ground.

If intelligence is needed to create life, what created the intelligence?

 

[Dywyddyr]

If intelligence is needed to create life, what created the intelligence?

I've asked that one.
Apparently his reasoning stops once he gets to the first creator.

 

[spidergoat]

But how can that be? Perhaps God is the result of some evolutionary process.

 

[Pipes75]

No it isn't.


Supposition.


Unsupportable supposition.

There are the materials on the earth for life. The question is can they come together on their own and make life? Or does it take intelligence to do it?
Both science and creation say that life came from the ground.

Dyw - you say 'no' quick to things you don't understand. You are no different then hay_you, only your on the opposite side of the extreme . Since you don't understand the spiritual side of things, you think it doesn't exist - and you seem to have a believe that those the know of the spirtual side of things are wrong - lol. You are quick to judge, and your balance is so out of whack, when I say your 'too logical' you'd probably take it as a compliment. Anyway, I got nothin but love and respect for you big guy, but I do wish you could open your mind one day.

Hay - carbon acts as a glue this allows particles to cluster together. Water and a charge when the propper porportions are present = DNA life.
Tested and proven. This is not new info, it is old info. Although testing multiple different conditions is still being tested.
And again, life is not created. It is converted outta other life.
ie: star dust - the death of a star, the dust of the star is potential life, from life. Propper conditions convert the potential life into new life. Much like Fossil fuels being decayed animal and plant matter that get used to convert energy. Energy and Life have a strong conection. Neither is created or destroyed - only converted. But we don't fully understand Life as well as we understand energy. I will say, much like energy, potential Life is still a form of life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Well that would sort of invalidate his entire argument wouldn't it?
So it's an inadmissible question.
You're missing the point.
It's perfectly okay for creationists to point out (perceived) errors in science (in order to convert them to creationists).
But you're not allowed to ask similar questions about creationism.
It spoils the illusion of having any real answers.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Dyw - you say 'no' quick to things you don't understand.

And you seem to be equally quick on assuming what knowledge I have.

Since you don't understand the spiritual side of things, you think it doesn't exist

There's no evidence of it.

With regard to your nonsense about opposites creating life this has not been shown to be a requirement.
If you have any actual evidence please do present it.

And again, life is not created. It is converted outta other life.
ie: star dust - the death of a star, the dust of the star is potential life, from life.

Stars were not, at any stage, alive. So that's that disposed of.
"Potential life" is not life.

Energy and Life have a strong conection. Neither is created or destroyed - only converted.

Life is not destroyed?
Evidence?
Or more supposition?

I will say, much like energy, potential Life is still a form of life.

On what evidence?
Where is it "stored" until the materials conglomerate sufficiently to "require" it?
Does it just "hang around" until the materials are there, wait for them to form up into an acceptable configuration and then just climb in?

 

[hay_you]

Hi Pipes75

I'm a very spirtual person. I don't believe in creation.
I do admit their is much to the life cycle(s) I don't understand, and one day my believe could change. But evolution will always be a major part of the cycle on earth.

I know evolution is factual, however some pieces are not complete, that's why it is still a theory. I have trouble with human evolution being natural considering the differences compared to other evolution on earth prior to ours. But we still evolved whether it was natural or with help is my question.

You keep ignoring the tests - the right amount of particles, water, and a charge - DNA life has been reproduced in labs. Your claim that it hasn't been proven is false, but it does need perfect conditions.

Darwin only had one problem. He saw Man, Monkey, and Ape all had a common ancestor, and he never found the missing link. He never could fully understand our stages of evolution without knowing what we were before we changed. The rest of evolution has been proven pretty conclusively for the most part. Animals slowly adapt to a changing environment or they could perish, it's pretty straight forward.

Darwin did have one other problem. The confused world that believed in creation didn't understand the spirtual guidance is the opposite of the physical reality. Most religious minds feared science would disprove religious beliefs, when the reality is spiritual beliefs are symbolic meaning to another side. Darwin himself was religious but he questioned his own faith. More important was his devoted catholic wife, that Darwin loved with all his heart. Darwin was afraid to publish his own work for many years not because of lack of evidence (although the human evolution had holes) but more so because he didn't want to anger the church (or his wife). He never published most of his work till he was on his deathbed.

Yes Scientists and Mystics can work together but Hay, don't expect evidence to be ignored!!!

You are just as extreme as the ones that only trust logic - you don't trust any logic!!!

For science and the spiritual to work together, balance is crucial.

Ok I understand that about being spiritual.
Now as far as evolution is concerned . There is no evidence that evolution as scientists say is real or factual. Or that life could start on it's own.
One fact that scientists always ignore is that life comes from life.In creation that still holds true, but scientists go against this fact. Scientists say, well it had to start from non life because once there was no life. But that is only an assumption, saying that is not scientific. It goes against the the evidence. Science is now on a limb, they have to prove what they say. You could also say that under perfect conditions the natural world would make a nice loaf of bread ready for me to eat. All the material are there fro making bread. But we know that it takes intelligence to do it. So scientists that make a loaf of bread, does not prove that the bread came about on it's own. It only show creation.
Now when it comes to evolution there is no evidence , that it happens at all.
Darwin knew that his theory depended upon, finding transitional animals that are in many different stages of development , before you got say four legs on the ground. But there are not fossils that are like that.Evolution has no goal, no intelligence, you should see millions of mistakes before you even close to animal that that functions properly.

This is really not an extreme position, it is more an effort to get scientists to think about what they are saying. To think it through. The interesting thing about this subject is that scientists can not prove either stand. The start to life or evolution. And can't demonstrate it in experiments. Or find it happening anywhere!

 

[Dywyddyr]

There is no evidence that evolution as scientists say is real or factual.

Lie.

One fact that scientists always ignore is that life comes from life.

Lie.

In creation that still holds true, but scientists go against this fact.

Lie.

It goes against the the evidence.

Lie.

You could also say that under perfect conditions the natural world would make a nice loaf of bread ready for me to eat. All the material are there fro making bread. But we know that it takes intelligence to do it. So scientists that make a loaf of bread, does not prove that the bread came about on it's own. It only show creation.

Lie.

Now when it comes to evolution there is no evidence , that it happens at all.

Lie.

Darwin knew that his theory depended upon, finding transitional animals that are in many different stages of development , before you got say four legs on the ground.

Erroneous explanation.

This is really not an extreme position, it is more an effort to get scientists to think about what they are saying.

Unfortunately it IS an extreme position since every single point above has been presented by you before and shown to to be incorrect. Yet you still persist in maintaining the lie.

The interesting thing about this subject is that scientists can not prove either stand.

Lie.

Or find it happening anywhere!

Lie.

Still trolling.
Your ban won't be long coming.

 

[hay_you]

If intelligence is needed to create life, what created the intelligence?

Something has to have no beginning. I can't understand no beginning.
Creationists say that God had no beginning.
But science has the same problem, what was before the big bang? Was it energy? Well where did that energy come from?

It's like asking where is the start of space and where is it's end, before the material universe.

 

[hay_you]

There have been studies on fruit flies, as scientists were trying to speed up 'evolution' by radiating them with X-rays clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity. Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.
This really show s that DNA tries to keep everything in order. It allows for variety, but does not let you become something else. So evolution is not possible with DNA. Only mutations.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As previously explained to you at great length (by James R most recently IIRC) you have no understanding of what evolution means and continually "use" this misunderstanding to "support" your ridiculous belief.