I ask a simple question and you impute all of those motives to me.
Wrong again.
Wrong. As usual.
Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?
- Thread starter Dredd
- Start date
Wrong again.
Which reinforces your ignorance of history once more.
War is war, but they're fought for different reasons.
Tell me, since you've shown yourself to be clueless on science and history is there any subject on which you're genuinely knowledgeable?
You asked me personally to explain...
And you display further ignorance of science.
There is no "faith" involved and there's no chance of it turning out to be "ridiculous."
The only ridiculous thing here is your constant refusal to read anything presented to you (or if you do read it, to understand it) so that you can preserve your own viewpoint.
Er wrong, science is looking. As previously stated (many times).
It isn't the case, regardless science takes things as they show themselves to be rather than specifying beforehand what the answer "should" be, in other words if it were the case science would say "Wow, we've got an answer at last". However there is no evidence that science = creation.
Which proves what?
That different circumstances require different approaches and that, being human, we can't always find the perfect solution.
Congratulations, you may have learnt something.
You were claiming sciences side in this, you don't have to answer me, just like scientists can't answer this.
The real questions make it impossible for science to answer, that is why they can't prove either the start to life or evolution.
And as for science as not trying to disprove creation , that is obviously not true, other wise they would have come to the conclusion of creation a long time a ago.
There is no way they can win this. Their whole premise, is based on a lie.
This would become apparent as soon as you start to analyze what has to take place, in evolution.
You asked me personally (in my own words). You didn't ask for a link or book to show "science's" answer. (Those HAVE been given to you).
Science answers everything it can.
One more (last) time: science HAS shown evolution to be true.
Wrong: you suppose that because you have a vested interest in creation being the answer. You're castigating science for looking for answers that you have already made your mind up about, with no supporting evidence.
Utterly and totally wrong.
So you prefer to remain clueless and ignorant.
Fine.
I'm done with you.
Just as I said earlier, would happen.
Science really is intimidation and bluff. On this issue.
I am willing to examine the evidence with you. Or anyone else, for that matter. Even giving science , the advantage, of starting evolution from life, they can not explain evolution. The fossil record, really , supports only creation , it can not help explain evolution.
Scientific evidence supports creation. They are the same thing.
Outright lies.
You asked me for MY explanation.
Another lie: you have been shown where the evidence is (most specifically in the evolution thread) you ignored it then and you're ignoring it now.
Blindly wrong.
Wrong again.
You've shown yourself to lie to make your "point" and to ignore everything put in front of you. You're not worth responding to any more.
You see, it was that easy to give a simple answer to a simple question. You haven't lost an organ, haven't lost your faith, or your money; you have just shown that we can communicate, that's it. Thank you for that. I appreciate it, I am a happy person now.
Who is Noah, when did he live, is he a fictional or factual character? Forget it, let's say he existed as human. In this case, yes, he must have been similar to anyone else.
It was his personal path, understandable, apart from the "God" part.
It sounds like an harmless hobby, apart from the fact that believing in non-human and non-proven deities can not be categorized as an "harmless hobby".
It sounds like you are a teenager. Don't worry, it's a temporal condition, you will eventually get over it. I have been there, I was a teenager once...
As far as I can see, he tried to convince everyone that there was a God... I can understand how others felt about this revelation...
It does make a difference, doesn't it? You want to talk according to the identity of other person. It doesn't matter what he/she say; it is more important to know whether or not he/she believes in a kind of God. What do you believe in about humans? Do you think a believer and a non-believer can never come up with the same question? Do you think my identity or belief system would make any difference about the existence of the question. Imagine if your own brain had produced a question; would you question your own identity. Imagine if you saw the question anonymously written on some wall and you accidentally saw it; wouldn't you repeat the question in your brain, since you don't know the identity of anonymous writer? I can easily ask the same question saying that "I believe in green men", or "I believe in aliens"; the question will still be there. That's why I hate being called anything with I would not define myself, Atheist, agnostic, humanist, this or that. I am not chasing to create a society of followers of x movement, I am not trying to find some comrades among likeminded people. I just don't find humans so special within wider life and universe, yet I think we are somehow much higher than the entire spectrum of existence, because we think, we imagine, and we produce new dimension to this universe: knowledge. I hate my species, and I adore my species because of huge amount of stories about their history and their dreams. And I asked my question with this psyche, not with any other identity title. Yet this will not deter you to categorize me according to your own system of classification and I do understand that: Because I classify people as "believers in God", "followers a certain religion", or "creationists", I know how does it feel. However, it never occured to me to answer a question imagining "who is behind this question?" My answer is this: A human intelligence is behind of every question: What is their political party, belief system, gender, race, nationality, etc., I don't care. I do care about their experience, their ways of descriptions, their knowledge, and this sort. If a machine asks me a similar question (this is nothing to do with Turing test, please do hesitate to bring this issue into this discussion, not here), or animals started to talk and asks an intelligable question, I wouldn't mind if they were humans or not. i simply wouldn't care.
Short answer to your curiosity: I don't believe in any mumbo jumbo.
If you like we can start to define what science and scientist are, what are they doing, how do they work, how do they produce the most important and valuable products of all: Knowledge? Then we can start discussing other issues: So what is science for you?
Actually, as I mentioned above, it answer my question. But my question was not an arbitrary question. Because if you truly believe in your both statements:
1) Men ends up wrong.
2) I am part of men, and I can also do wrong.
The end result is obvious: You can perfectly be wrong anytime. Just as you could be wrong now. According to your statement it includes me (baftan) could be wrong too. So how do we find the "correct" way, if everybody is wrong. I say that we can always check what is wrong or correct through non-human observation: Observation through scientific methods. Because in its core activities (measuring, collecting data, finding patterns in nature), science is above human choices of truth or reality. Science can use microscopes and telescopes. It provides information to crack the rules of the universe.
You say that only way to find the truth is finding God. Following Bibles and Qur'ans and reaching the entire knowledge about human relations, working mechanisms of nature, and everything else. What we should do; "believing" in a God.
Remember that you can be wrong too... And ask yourself, what if you are wrong in your faith? And don't stop yourself discussing these things, this is the comperative religion subforum. What if you are wrong?
Last edited:
Ha Ha glad to hear that.
That is correct.
Well it is more like a day job, than a hobby.
The trouble is that some people never get out of the baby stage. I think it is the love of the pablum. Just can't take the meat and potatoes.
It sure does. If all I believed in was fictitious, would that make any difference to the question at hand? Would that make science correct? Of course not. Science has to stand on it's own with this. It is their theories that have to be held up, with the evidence. The evidence does not support what science is saying. Even if there was no creator, the evidence does not support, evolution. Science would have to come up with a different theory. So to science it really doesn't matter if Noah was real or not.
Obviously you don't.
exactly
suppose that the wider application of evolution (eg - abiogenesis, shift between genus to genus, etc) was refuted
What doable practices would be jeopardized?
Now compare to ....
suppose that the idea that water has a boiling point of around 100 degrees was refuted
Just imagine all the doable practices that would be jeopardized.
In short, the pride in science is getting the job done, so as long as that is at the forefront of a scientific endeavor, mystics and scientists can get along just fine.
All that has been shown is examples like milky sapped plants giving rise to other milky sapped plants.
Other claims like this are more the business of inductive logic (and all its potential follies)
lightgigantic I liked the cartoon.
It shows what scientists think evolution is.
But this cartoon does not show all the transitional stages that would have to take place in evolution before you would get animals with say 4 legs on the ground. You would have to see animals with bits of bone material , jaws in the wrong place, limbs that would be useless, parts of the body not wired to the brain, one leg on the ground, the other three in all sorts of places etc.etc. There would be millions of these types of animals in the world today and in the fossil record. But none are found. Also you have to have the plants of the earth , in a similar state of transition.
Science has to go against the evidence that there is to say there is such a thing as evolution. It is a total fabrication. Science has lied to the world and themselves.
It shows what scientists think evolution is.
But this cartoon does not show all the transitional stages that would have to take place in evolution before you would get animals with say 4 legs on the ground. You would have to see animals with bits of bone material , jaws in the wrong place, limbs that would be useless, parts of the body not wired to the brain, one leg on the ground, the other three in all sorts of places etc.etc. There would be millions of these types of animals in the world today and in the fossil record. But none are found. Also you have to have the plants of the earth , in a similar state of transition.
Science has to go against the evidence that there is to say there is such a thing as evolution. It is a total fabrication. Science has lied to the world and themselves.