Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
The only way a scientist could have no problem with creation is by ignoring (or denying) science at some level.
Unfortunately, especially in your case, "being interested in" and "keeping up with" science doesn't at all conflate with understanding it.
So far the only reason you appear to have even a familiarity with scientific terminology (I say "familiarity" since it's also obvious you assign your own meaning to such terminology) is to deny it.
Quite true, but you've shown yourself as incapable of distinguishing correctness and truth from mistakes, ignorance and lies.
Actually it all has to fit, for it to be correct. The evidence we see now, and can get from history, and what is reasonable , and what is really known.
When you do this then you realize that what scientists are saying can not be true. There are too many holes in this, the start to life or 'evolution' to have been real.
That's right. And it does fit.
No, what we've actually come to realise is that you're willing to hold on to your insupportable creationist fantasy despite the evidence through the simple expedient of stubbornly preserving your own ignorance.
In a way it's sort of admirable: if one could ever consider "La la la I can't hear you" to be admirable at all.
I must admit that you have changed my perspective on human nature though. I hadn't ever quite understood that it was possible for a person to remain so wilfully blind to actuality.
Besides, Creationists aren't mystics. They think they know, there's no mystery about it.
We know life was created, as to how ,we learn from science and the scientists.
For people interested in science, the how it was done is interesting, filled with discovery.
But most people are interested in other things. For most people , they like their cell phone or internet and like that the satellites are up there so they can watch the hockey game live. When they cook or anything like that, they are not thinking about the science of it.
Nope, YOU believe it was.
Science doesn't.
You "know" creationism was how life came about, so you ignore the science that says otherwise.
There are scientists that have no problem with creation, it is just the 'dinosaurs', that have a problem. ( sorry I couldn't resist that, that fits on so may levels:bugeye
There is nothing in the slightest bit regressive about naturalistic evolutionary science.
hay_you:
That's because there is a continuous line of descent between species and change is gradual. We look at the state of existing animals now and draw arbitrary lines between species. We can do that because well over 99% of the ancestor species (the "intermediates", as you'd incorrrectly call them) are extinct. But this has already been explained to you.
You are not the same as your mother. If you have children, they will not be the same as you. Think about the implications of that over even the short time of 1 million years. How different will your children's children's children's children's (repeat 400 times) children be to you?
You've reduced yourself to spouting empty creationist rhetoric. I assume you've run out of actual arguments. Correct?
Yes it did. It's simple and obviously true, and even if you don't find it obvious there's ample evidence to show that it happened.
And you have no alternative except the bland "god did it" non-explanation.
If you think this "goes against the facts that we have", you need to explain which facts you're talking about and how the theory doesn't fit those facts. But you cannot.
So you admit that evolution is a better theory. Good. Now we're making progress!
You're making the mistake of thinking that evolution has a plan. Random mutations are just that - random. Once they exist, natural selection will work on them.
In a sense, though, you're right. Look at alligators. They haven't changed much in hundreds of millions of years, because there were no environmental pressures driving such a change. The same cannot be said for many other species. It is changes in the environment that drive evolution.
Correct, but it also has a disadvantage - the offspring are identical to the parent. And that means that the entire population of clones is susceptible to the same diseases, the same climatic changes, etc. Sex results in more variation and greater resilience to change in the environment, and that is why it has been naturally selected in many species.
That's because there is a continuous line of descent between species and change is gradual. We look at the state of existing animals now and draw arbitrary lines between species. We can do that because well over 99% of the ancestor species (the "intermediates", as you'd incorrrectly call them) are extinct. But this has already been explained to you.
You are not the same as your mother. If you have children, they will not be the same as you. Think about the implications of that over even the short time of 1 million years. How different will your children's children's children's children's (repeat 400 times) children be to you?
You've reduced yourself to spouting empty creationist rhetoric. I assume you've run out of actual arguments. Correct?
Yes it did. It's simple and obviously true, and even if you don't find it obvious there's ample evidence to show that it happened.
And you have no alternative except the bland "god did it" non-explanation.
If you think this "goes against the facts that we have", you need to explain which facts you're talking about and how the theory doesn't fit those facts. But you cannot.
So you admit that evolution is a better theory. Good. Now we're making progress!
You're making the mistake of thinking that evolution has a plan. Random mutations are just that - random. Once they exist, natural selection will work on them.
In a sense, though, you're right. Look at alligators. They haven't changed much in hundreds of millions of years, because there were no environmental pressures driving such a change. The same cannot be said for many other species. It is changes in the environment that drive evolution.
Correct, but it also has a disadvantage - the offspring are identical to the parent. And that means that the entire population of clones is susceptible to the same diseases, the same climatic changes, etc. Sex results in more variation and greater resilience to change in the environment, and that is why it has been naturally selected in many species.
Logic is knowledge too .
Not in the slightest.
Then let them display some, or be silent.
hay_you:
You're free to disagree as much as you like.
What you are not free to do is to continue to claim that there's no evidence for this or that when the evidence has been shown/explained to you previously. Because that amounts to simple trolling.
You're free to disagree as much as you like.
What you are not free to do is to continue to claim that there's no evidence for this or that when the evidence has been shown/explained to you previously. Because that amounts to simple trolling.