Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

I hope you can raise this and your other detailed questions against your own belief system. You'd be surprised, "believe me"...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.” So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects .*.*. sheer invention.

This is from another clip I saved a few years ago. so you don' have to accept it.
At the time I didn't know I would need all the link etc. to this stuff.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is a good question. Just becasue scientists can not prove their ideas about 'evolution', does not mean that I know anything about who the creator is or anything about that. All this has been, is a discussion on the science, and why the start to life and 'evolution' is not possible.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Forget about scientists, imagine there wasn't any science or scientist. There is only you and your belief, your mind, your conscience, and your responsibility against yourself. Would you, or do you ask the similar questions? And if you don't know the entire process of creation, how can you convince yourself to believe in it?

 

The world can get along without scientists. They did for a long time. But I would not know very much at all about the things scientists have brought to our knowledge. As for a belief in a creator, that is so obvious that it takes a lot of schooling and peer pressure, to get you think that there might not be one. But you may have noticed its only been about 150 years or so, that the study of science, has really taken off. Though there has always been people that were looking into things.
We don't need to know everything about creation. That isn't required , for getting to know who or what the creator is. It really is just a simple answer yes or no. After that it is all you need. Actually most people don't really get into science very much. And if you live in some village in Africa and never went to school, you don't need to know any science to still choose creation. It's the answer in the end that is important.
Its the other questions we have that are much more important than the science.

 

There are many reasons why. Man has a need to create and explore and discover. There are no animals that are like humans in this. To go with this, we enjoy math, science, art, music. Another very important reason is that humans have a very advanced language, and we build very complicated homes. We ask the questions why, where, who, and are interested in the future, for ourselves and our children. We were not given the strength of apes, or the eyesight of an eagle, or the speed of a horse and big cats. We are basically helpless for many years. Even our skin is not like other animals.We have not fur or hair to protect us from the elements. But what we were given was a brain that puts us above anything else. We can enjoy life, not just exist, to procreate. Our brain tells us that we could keep learning and progressing, for a lot longer than 70 or 80 years. These are just some of things.

 

Just to get people that put their trust in scientists, to rethink it.
Also when I watch, or read, programs and papers from scientists and they start going into all this 'evolution' stuff it drives me nuts. They talk about it as though it was real, and try to fit everything into it. There are a lot of people that listen to this stuff.
Besides these forums have a section, where religions can be put down, with scientists superior knowledge.
Its all a lie. It might be that someone might be interested in knowing that.

 

I knew this is what you would say,

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

When was the last time you saw one of these build a rocket to go to the moon. When was the last time you saw one of these paint a Mona Lisa. Which one of these could replace a scientists?

Creation does not contradict science, it is scientists that contradict creation.

It is not the science that is wrong , it is the scientists.

Do you have any idea what some people think of the scientists for their stand on this.

This is a religious question, and answer is why the future looks bright.

That is exactly the answer, we are different than other animals.

 

Well I took that it was obvious that the brain was created for man. It didn't 'evolve' it was created that way.

Creation is the truth. Scientists are still looking for it.

Everyone does science, the scientists try to explain how it works.

Life was created in kinds, who knows what species are? But a fish is definitely different than elephant. ( you can't be serious )

Yes I do think that I better go. We really have talked about this enough.
I am interested in the real world, but I would like to see it better than it is now, headed for destruction.
Anyway thanks for the discussions. I really do think that scientists and creationists should work together. It's that some just don't want it.

 

You took it as obvious? How scientific is that?

That's an assumption.

Another assumption followed by an untruth.

Everyone does science? No they don't.

Assumption.

And you do that by ignoring or denying parts of it?

Why should they? Creationists have nothing to offer.

 

That's partially true. Without DNA, the exact relationship is unclear and probably complex, but the overall picture is clear, there is a progression from an upright-walking ape with the brain the size of a chimpanzee to what we think of as modern humans.

Yes, the family tree has been revealed to be complex, with many branches. If creationism were true, we would not see this phenomenon, all these seemingly related hominids forming a complex story of adaptation and increased intelligence.

You tell me, what's the definition of human?

Of course, the exact timeline cannot be observed as it happened, so scientists make inferences from the data. Where are they now? Some branches must have been a dead end, at least one led to us, maybe some branches united again after a time apart.

That would be Homo erectus. The fossils that bridge the gap are the ones that anthropologists fight about where to classify.

What do you define as "big"?

You still haven't defined what it means to be "an animal", as in one type of animal. There is no type, only an average of common traits.

How can a cell turn into something like a human? Your mother did it in about 9 months.

 

spidergoat, though it is tempting to keep going on this, I better go.
I think I have outworn my welcome.
I will leave you all with your own devices, and own conclusions.
But thanks for the discussions.

 

Bye bye! :bawl:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

What are "completed" animals? Extant ones?

I just explained all that. Would you at least do me the courtesy of looking at it?

Well, we have models of this also which make a great deal of sense.

Well, a large number of quite radical mutants exist with appropriate innervation and blood vessel support. So it appears that the body adapts quite substantially to new tissue milieus.

But now it is a herbivorous lizard. What happens if the source population goes extinct? In any event, the diverged subspecies is now free to evolve along other lines. New adaptations will occur which improve the ability of these lizards to utilize their new habitat.

 

You are welcome, happy to help.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!