Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

[hay_you]

Also wrong.
You clearly have no idea what science is or how it works.
But you've demonstrated that consistently in your posts.

Science doesn't know how life started, and if evolution actually happens. They have to have a blind faith, becasue they have to go against the evidence that there is,on both of these questions.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Science doesn't know how life started

Agreed.

and if evolution actually happens.

Wrong, we know evolution actually happens.

They have to have a blind faith, becasue they have to go against the evidence that there is,on both of these questions.

Blind faith in what?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "we don't know how life started"?
What "blind faith" is needed to say "this, this and this show that evolution happens"?
What "evidence"?
There isn't any evidence on creation.

 

[hay_you]

Wrong, we know evolution actually happens.

Actually that is not true. theorizing it, is not the same as proof. We do not see evolution working today or in the past. This goes for plants as well as animal life.
Why doesn't science try it. Get a single cell without DNA, and see if it starts turning into different forms of life. That it can start making brains, bones, muscles, nerves etc. Without science playing with it. It is not a fact until you can see that happen.
So to both of these questions, scientist have to have blind faith that they are correct. Because there is no evidence , that this could happen. The evidence is that life comes from life, and a dog stays a dog, doesn't evolve into something else. We should see all the transitional animals today, and in the fossil record, but we don't. Science supports creation, it is the scientist that don't.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually that is not true. theorizing it, is not the same as proof. We do not see evolution working today or in the past. This goes for plants as well as animal life.

You're wrong again.
And you're STILL ignoring the definition of "theory" which has been linked for you more than once.

So to both of these questions, scientist have to have blind faith that they are correct. Because there is no evidence , that this could happen. The evidence is that life comes from life, and a dog stays a dog, doesn't evolve into something else. We should see all the transitional animals today, and in the fossil record, but we don't. Science supports creation, it is the scientist that don't.

Wrong wrong and wrong.
Go away, stay away and LEARN something.
Then come back and try again.

 

[hay_you]

There isn't any evidence on creation.

The evidence is that life comes from life, and that there is design in the life we see. Sciences failure to show anything else is also a proof. In other words, it has been tested, by science, and proven to still stand as the way it happened.
Creation is the only answer, that science can come to in the end. They just don't know it yet. The theory of Abiogenesis, is a theory that is getting closer to creation all the time. With creation you would expect to see jumps or sudden appearances of some life forums.

 

[hay_you]

Wrong wrong and wrong.
Go away, stay away and LEARN something.
Then come back and try again.

Do you have something to offer in way of proof about evolution?
I mean did the first cell without DNA in it, what did it evolve into, and how did it do that?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Do you have something to offer in way of proof about evolution?

You mean apart from all of the links that were given to you in the thread about evolution?
Or in science books?

I mean did the first cell without DNA in it, what did it evolve into, and how did it do that?

Erecting strawmen again?

 

[Dywyddyr]

The evidence is that life comes from life

Even if that were entirely true it still wouldn't be evidence for creation.

and that there is design in the life we see.

No there isn't.

Sciences failure to show anything else is also a proof.

In other words you have no idea what "proof" means.
If I fail to show X does it mean Y is true?

In other words, it has been tested, by science, and proven to still stand as the way it happened.

Wrong again.

Creation is the only answer, that science can come to in the end.

Also wrong.
You're assuming that what what we know now is all we'll ever know for one thing.

They just don't know it yet. The theory of Abiogenesis, is a theory that is getting closer to creation all the time. With creation you would expect to see jumps or sudden appearances of some life forums.

More specious nonsense.
Please get an education.

 

[hay_you]

Erecting strawmen again?

Just tell me in your own words , how that first cell , evolved in to the life we see. It doesn't have to be a big thing , just tell me what happened once there was life?

 

[lightgigantic]

for as long as science deals with things that are doable, they can get along just fine. introduce philosophy and its a different story (but then introducing philosophy in any medium spells the same result)

 

[hay_you]

for as long as science deals with things that are doable, they can get along just fine. introduce philosophy and its a different story (but then introducing philosophy in any medium spells the same result)

So far, for science, the start to life and evolution are not doable. It is a philosophy, rather than science.
If science had anything to say why don't they say it?

 

[Agonaces Ecbatana]

No point in scientists and mystics working together as scientists would only retard the work and progress of the mystics.

 

[Dywyddyr]

So far, for science, the start to life and evolution are not doable. It is a philosophy, rather than science.
If science had anything to say why don't they say it?

You display your massive ignorance in so many ways.
What do you mean "not doable"?
Evolution has been shown to be true.
Science admits it does not know how life started. But it hasn't stopped looking.

No point in scientists and mystics working together as scientists would only retard the work and progress of the mystics.

Ho ho.
Work and progress from mystics?

 

[hay_you]

More specious nonsense.
Please get an education.

Actually an education over a number years is what it takes to get people to believe what science says. Without the real questioning part. When in school you expect that the teachers are telling you the truth. So the tendency to not to question it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Actually an education over a number years is what it takes to get people to believe what science says. Without the real questioning part. When in school you expect that the teachers are telling you the truth. So the tendency to not to question it.

Really?
What sort of education did you have?
When I was at school we worked up through stages so that we saw how things worked and everything was based on something already known and usually proven to oneself. Or if not then "why?" was an accepted, and answered, response.

 

[hay_you]

Evolution has been shown to be true.
Science admits it does not know how life started. But it hasn't stopped looking.

It has not been shown to be true. There are huge holes in the idea, that make it impossible the way science says.
If I give science the advantage of saying a single cell just happened. Then ask science how did it evolve from there, I never get an answer.
Explain to me in your own words, how a single cell became , all the life we see.
I will discuss this with you. So just start from this cell, what happened with it , to start it on it's path.

 

[Dywyddyr]

It has not been shown to be true.

Wrong.

Explain to me in your own words

Why?

 

[hay_you]

Really?
What sort of education did you have?
When I was at school we worked up through stages so that we saw how things worked and everything was based on something already known and usually proven to oneself. Or if not then "why?" was an accepted, and answered, response.

I had high school and after that took some other courses.
I remember in high school asking a teacher, why do we have to learn history. He told me to learn from the past, and not to make the same mistakes. I looked up at him and said no one learns from history , people always make the same mistakes. We get into the same wars, we are just as uncaring for people that live in another country, we build bigger and better bombs, etc. He had no answer. Why should science be any different, people build on what was passed down to them , and then build a society that supports that, and you better go along with it or your out. Change is not easy, most go along with the majority. They want to fit in. And of course it is about careers, now. There is a huge pressure to just go along.
This system we live in the world, is designed to mislead. School education is a good place to start.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I looked up at him and said no one learns from history , people always make the same mistakes. We get into the same wars, we are just as uncaring for people that live in another country, we build bigger and better bombs, etc.

Which just goes to show that you didn't learn history, let alone from history.
We make different mistakes, have different wars...

Why should science be any different, people build on what was passed down to them

Wrong again.
You learn science from the bottom up, verifying each step along the way.

This system we live in the world, is designed to mislead.

Balls.

 

[hay_you]

Why?

Well of course you don't have to. And it usually is fear of when science actually has to explain, what they have put their faith in, they start realize, how ridiculous it really is.
On these forums, what happens is out comes the 'troll' word, or they run off and stop up their ears.
The truth is science does not have answers to these questions. What people have done , built up a belief in theories. Not on evidence.