Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[(Q)]

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.

It is convincing.

The evidence that there is , is that life comes from life and we don't see animals turning into some other animal.

Are you saying we should be witnessing a dog turning into a cat, or something?

Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.

You are lying again.

This is really the age of misinformation. Causing a lot of confusion for people.

And, clearly you are misinformed and very confused or you are a pathological liar and are only here to further misinform and confuse.

 

[Nasor]

Also the fossil supports creation in this, and not evolution.

Wow, what a complete pile of bullshit. You are either lying, or you have been duped into believing that by people who were lying to you.

 

[hay_you]

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?

Well the fossil record does not show the transitional fossils. The ones that evolution would do before bone was useful for example. Placement would have to be trial and error , before a useful limb could be made. Also many parts have to be in place for any of this was to work. Life is really systems that work together. Even if somehow a single cell just happened, there would be no DNA with the instructions to make something. There would be no heredity, to start from. Even a single needs to divide, , but there are many parts in a cell, so this on it's own is amazing, that it can do this and still live. Science has not show that a single cell can become all the trees and grass, and animals that there are on this earth. Even today we should see all sorts of misplaced limbs and other parts, that are supposed to be still evolving.
None of this is in the fossil record. But with creation all of this is possible, actually it is the only way the life we see could happen.
Because animals look similar to another, does not mean it evolved. If you use DNA to create variety of life and your going to make millions of animals, why not make an animal with a slight change to the DNA and make another. This is what is found today and in the fossil record.
This is evidence from the same material science has found, creation fits this, evolution does not. Besides the design in the life we see, is way beyond what mans intelligence can do , we try to copy it or at least learn form it, and when we do we call that intelligent design, but science forgets to give credit to the original designer.
Science and creation are really the same thing.

 

[hay_you]

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.

I was trying to think of what some religions say as to how things are made.
If you consider science to be a type of religion , maybe then that is so. But maybe you can tell me which religion explains how.

 

[hay_you]

It is convincing.



Are you saying we should be witnessing a dog turning into a cat, or something?



You are lying again.



And, clearly you are misinformed and very confused or you are a pathological liar and are only here to further misinform and confuse.

Well, that is sort of correct. Because if you start with a single cell with no DNA with no instructions, in it, you eventually have to get to all the life we see. Including trees, grass, and all animal life. So they have to 'evolve' into something they are not. Like a cat and dog. We should still be seeing all of this transformation now, this is a major flaw in the theory of evolution. Science is trying to come up with theories to explain this but so far, they are only theories. The transitional mistakes that would have to happen with evolution are not there. You would need to see where the nerves and muscles and bone and blood and heart and lungs an kidneys, all formed at the same time to make a working system.
What science needs to do is take a single cell with no DNA and show us all how evolution could happen from that.
Show us that evolution is possible.
Science is claiming it as a fact when they don't even know if it could happen. And all the evidence we see, tells us it was done with creation.
In reality the start to life and evolution , are without proof or real evidence to show that it is possible as science says.
How can science prove something that is unprovable, that is why there are no answers from science on this.
Real science and creation , are in harmony. It is only scientists and their ideas that are not.

 

[hay_you]

Wow, what a complete pile of bullshit. You are either lying, or you have been duped into believing that by people who were lying to you.

Actually science has been lying to people for a long time now. If you can show me different, then please do that.

 

[(Q)]

Like a cat and dog. We should still be seeing all of this transformation now, this is a major flaw in the theory of evolution.

No, it is a major flaw in your presentation here, which is clearly void of any knowledge of evolution or science. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[(Q)]

Actually science has been lying to people for a long time now. If you can show me different, then please do that.

It's not a matter of showing you anything other than first level books on science and biology.

 

[hay_you]

No, it is a major flaw in your presentation here, which is clearly void of any knowledge of evolution or science. You really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

It's not a matter of showing you anything other than first level books on science and biology.

These books theorize on how things could happen. They don't show that's what did happen or if it could happen the way they say. Show us in the real world that the start to life or evolution could happen in the real world, as science says. It's one thing to take life that is already existing and and say it can divide, but how does science know that was not built into it! By the way if science did eventually make life from non life that would only prove that it was possible with creation ( the scientists as the creator) It doesn't show that it could happen on its own.
It is science that doesn't have a clue. Science is supposed to prove things, so that we can trust what they say. Well prove it!
Show us all that all the life we see can come from non creation. ( with no intelligence involved) That means no scientist mixing chemicals etc. If it takes a trained scientist to do it, then does not that mean creation!

 

[(Q)]

Show us in the real world that the start to life or evolution could happen in the real world, as science says.

Show me creation. Create an animal, now!

It is science that doesn't have a clue. Science is supposed to prove things, so that we can trust what they say. Well prove it!

Once again, you show your true self as a liar and fraud. Science does not prove anything.

 

[GeoffP]

I disagree strongly with one of the points above.

I don't think that scientists and mystics would be effective at destroying zombies together after all.

 

[hay_you]

Show me creation. Create an animal, now!

I am not a creator, I don't know how to create something like that. But I do know that if I look at a lump of dirt for billions of years, it is not going to be come some animal. The reason that is , is because of the incredible amount of knowledge it would take to do it.( creation)

Once again, you show your true self as a liar and fraud. Science does not prove anything.

Then science should say nothing about it. Just say they don't know. Could be creation also. That would be the honest thing to do. Why take a stand for something they don't know.

 

[(Q)]

Why take a stand for something they don't know.

Yes, why do you?

 

[hay_you]

I disagree strongly with one of the points above.

I don't think that scientists and mystics would be effective at destroying zombies together after all.

Why, does science believe in Zombies. There are many things we can't see physically that even science believes in. We can't see electricity, but we see the results, we can't see pressure but we can see the results of wind.. We can see life on this planet, why is it so hard to not think that there is invisible , intelligence. We see the results from that, through all creation. Science believes in gravity, but does not know everything about it.

 

[hay_you]

Yes, why do you?

I know know a lot through the creation.

 

[(Q)]

I know know a lot through the creation.

You mean the bible.

 

[hay_you]

You mean the bible.

I was talking about the creation itself. I can see the vastness of space, I also can see very minute things. I see how the earth is different than any other planet. I see animals with intelligence and instinct. I see the incredible movements of animals, how they are designed to survive, I see the talents man has and ability to communicate, with speech and writing, and building computers. I know the intelligence it takes to make a simple robot, or machine.
The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence. Man also knows about creating things, that act of creation is not something that man does not know about. If man wants a loaf of bread, he does not just wait for it to happen, because he knows he has to create it. It can only happen that way.
Science has to go against the evidence that is here, to say life started on it's own and that evolution is possible.
Science should know this. But they want to go their own way. And have lied to us all and to themselves, for many years.
Because they can't prove their stand, they say science doesn't prove anything. That really is a cop-out, the truth is they can't prove a false idea.

 

[(Q)]

I was talking about the creation itself.

That would be the bible or the Quran or some other holy book. They appear to be the sources of your claims.

I see the incredible movements of animals, how they are designed to survive

That would a lie. You are only speculating they were designed based on your holy book.

I know the intelligence it takes to make a simple robot, or machine.

But, you don't see the intelligence in learning about evolution.

The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence.

No, it does not.

Science has to go against the evidence that is here, to say life started on it's own and that evolution is possible.

That is exactly what the evidence suggests and what science has helped us understand.

Science should know this. But they want to go their own way. And have lied to us all and to themselves, for many years.

No, YOU are the liar.

the truth is they can't prove a false idea.

Exactly. You must be able to demonstrate your false idea isn't false. You haven't done that.

 

[baftan]

The evidence of life and creation tells you there is intelligence.

And the evidence of life and evolution tells you there is no intelligence.

You can not prove creation, because you have no tool, logic, method other than belief. You are talking about vastness of things, universe, humans, and everything else. Fair enough. And your logic goes like that: "If everything are so much and complex, so they can not emerge by themselves, a creator must be behind of everything." Ask yourself "why"? Why do you think that complexity can occur only through a creator? You have raised the human examples (bread, machines, etc.), yet there is no single human being or single time or place behind all these human inventions (factual or fictional); they are the results of accumulation and combination of many individuals accross the planet and throughout millennia.

Anyway, I will not go through the examples from technology, such as how any complicated device (a car, a computer, a scanner, etc.) has evolved throughout centuries. I will just ask you to start to think about two concepts for a beginning: Heredity (history of everything) and the immense time span was (comparing to the life span of an individual, a country, a religion, a species) required to reach actual situation of reality which present itself upon us. Plus don't underestimate the possibilities which may and do arise from the co-existence of things (physical) their environment. It's like thinking of internet environment as a combination of many individual ideas, projects, contributions, demands, as well as technology behind it. No single person could create the internet, no matter how intelligent they were.

I think I can not give you anything more than this. Because idea of evolution is not trying to sell you a brand new belief: The whole idea is to test your belief against reality. Try better devices to see the reality. No matter how better your eyesight is, you cannot see microorganism or distant galaxies without the help of microscopes or telescopes respectively. No matter how intelligent you or somebody else is, you can not create complex mechanisms (internet, cosmos, life) single handedly let alone suddenly.

 

[hay_you]

But, you don't see the intelligence in learning about evolution.

The idea of evolution is really a man made idea. But it is not something that really happens. We great variety in life and variety of a certain kind of life. ( like all the different sizes and looks of dogs.) But we don't see dogs turning into other kinds of animals. They are dogs. Man has used his intelligence to create different breeds of dogs. But they are still dogs. We don't see legs of a dog coming out of his back or sides or head or anything like that. A dog has four legs on the ground, and all wired so they are useful. The jaw and teeth are in the correct spot and so on... No transitional parts.
Where is the intelligence in learning about something that doesn't apply in our world.