Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
Science does have several plausible explanations for the origin of life.
What was your evidence that science supports supernatural creation?
What was your evidence that science supports supernatural creation?
Evolution is not a man made idea. It is a human way of understanding and formulating what is going on in reality. Scientist have been doing experiments on fruit flies and observing many creatures to test the understanding of evolution. Nothing has come up yet to falsify the evolution of species. If you want to ignore the entire scientific research and data on the issue, it's your problem. Yet, evolution is not an idea, it's a fact. Try to live with it. Because it is obvious that you have no intention to conceive the factors of nature such as time, environment, mutation, adaptation, population, heredity or any other phenomenon whatsoever.
No you didn't. Where is it? Give the thread number, or write it down again: What is your understanding of evidence or proof, how do you understand something is proven, or disproven (with an example please!), and how does creation fit in evidence.
Yes you can prove creation.
You can theorize all you want , that bread could happen through natural forces. But if you want any bread you have to create it. Science gives people IQ tests, how much of an IQ do you need to make bread.
How much intelligence does it take to send a man to the moon? All the parts have to be created, and built, over years of research. Would you say that was a little intelligence or or a lot. But so far man can't create life, do you think it takes more study , from very intelligent people to be able to do that.
You mentioned telescopes and microscopes, both built with intelligence.
You have answered the question here. These things have all come from intelligent creation. Man builds on other men's learning, until he has enough knowledge to make it. You mentioned telescopes and microscopes, both built with intelligence. People also use the word evolution to mean intelligent progression of knowledge. So does that mean you are saying evolution is really intelligent design, which is creation. Or is that just a corruption of the word evolution.
Yes, we do. They are called mutations and can happen before birth.
Is there any other part of reality you wish to deny?
How, using which method?
Yes, but humans do exist. Where does this your creator exist, how does it interact with its creation. And you are trying to impose a new concept to creationism: "Intelligent progression of knowledge". In previous episode of creationism, the superintelligent almighty god had created everything out of nothing and suddenly; he created man as a man, rabbit as a rabbit, world as a world. So what happened now? Have you just introduced a new concept of "progressing creator", just as its creations (humans)? Progress means evolution. Are you trying to say "intelligent evolution"?
When we see mutations today they are usually bad for an animal. And we don't see mutations , making new animals from it, they are still dogs. This is the same with people, we see 2 heads, extra arms, legs, even dwarfism, but they are all still people. Mutations do not account for new types of animals.
By using how much intelligence it would take a man to do it. It is a comparative measure.
Making bread, for instance, a 6 or 7 year old could do that if shown. But to physics, maybe a high school student. To build something like a cat, is so far beyond human ability, at this point.
Just compare what it would take for men to do.
I hope you wanted to ask "what is that intelligence". Science consider intelligence as one of the results of evolution, among many other brain capabilities. So intelligence is not behind the evolution of life, it is one of the outcomes of the evolution.
YOU GUYS ARE ALL OFF TOPIC.
Not that the topic fits the forum.
But a discussion of evolution is not remotely comparative religion, or does everyone participating here support the idea that a discussion pro and con of evolutionary theory is a comparative religion discussion?
Not that the topic fits the forum.
But a discussion of evolution is not remotely comparative religion, or does everyone participating here support the idea that a discussion pro and con of evolutionary theory is a comparative religion discussion?
Last edited:
What are you, a comedian?
No they don't.
Nope, it's a problem of education.
Were more people to be educated then they'd realise that the two aren't complimentary.
Actually education has done that already. And a lot of people have swallowed it completely. Now it is very hard to get some to think anymore. It probably will take something dramatic, for many to realize that.
Science and creation are really the same thing.
Well since you persist in the ridiculous and insupportable belief that
then obviously education really hasn't done it already.
Or maybe you just decided to skip an education.
Perhaps people are simply following your lead.
Only if you're a physicist studying the 'Big Bang'.