Can Scientists & Mystics Work Together?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Dredd, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Well that really is sciences theories and beliefs that are unsupported.
    But I would like to ask you why you ( science ) are against creation? I mean science admits that they don't know how life started, and what about evolution , that makes it impossible for creation?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Well science admits there are things about the so called 'big bang' they don't know about.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bebelina kospla.com Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,036
    Haven't read the entire thread, but I think some of them should be able to get along.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    It's not an 'admission' it's expected, and predicted by science itself.

    Also, the fact that science does not have all the answers does not open the door for mystic bullshit to come in.
     
  8. THMag Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Shazam

    To Hay

    I know you have done your own research, but its not really the job of anyone to do the legwork to show you all the "proof" of evolution. There really is a mountain of evidence, and you could literally spend a lifetime reading it all (there really is that much). But I can quote some people who have done a bit of research themselves:

    "some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies – which was neither planned nor sought – constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

    --Pope John Paul II

    "it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

    --Pope Benedict XVI (current pope)


    "Intelligent design isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, intelligent design should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science."

    --Fr. George Coyne (Vatican's chief astronomer)


    There is so much evidence, that anyone who does the legwork to look at lot of it, cannot ignore it (even the deeply spiritual). The official position of the Catholic church actually accepts the basic premise of evolution (that man evolved from other creatures, and current creatures evolved from others). They also acknowledge Big Bang, by the way.

    The problem is the idea of "proof". "Where's the proof!?" you say. Well, we have tons of evidence. That is the very nature of science. We gather all we can to try and understand. There is just a limit to how effectively you can "prove" something that happens over the course of millions of years, when we as humans, live much relatively shorter (with written history only a few thousand years). Even if the already gigantic pile of evidence to evolution were magnified 1000fold, I know that not every man-woman-and-child would be convinced. The only way evolution will be "proven" to them is if an immense godly being physically appeared on the planet, made an earthquake, and then said "yeah, evolution was the idea all along". Actually... I bet a few still wouldn't be convinced (because they were expecting to see someone else).

    My main problem with your line of reasoning, Hay, is that you basically say "this seems too complicated for man to understand or prove 100%, therefore it must be creation." But science, by nature, keeps trying to understand. Science, knows we don't always have it 100% for sure. Science is a search. Science doesn't resign to a "because God wanted it this way" explanation, because that explanation doesn't really add to understanding the world around us. If we had resigned to a "God wanted it this way" explanation to everything we didn't fully understand, we would never develop things like medicine "God wanted you to stay sick." Do we understand the human body completely? No. Do we 100% know how every cell and organ works? Of course not.

    Please understand, that because something has a "scientific" explanation, does not necessarily make it anti-god. The medicine example is why I think that a benevolent god might want us to understand the world around us better (but that can be just my opinion).

    Many deeply spiritual people, as exemplified by the quoted, think of evolution as a far more elegant sort of emergence for mankind. To imagine a god that built a universe from a bang that would result in a planet that could bring life from from primordial ooze, to cells, to humans... over the course of billions of years -- is a far grander thing to some people. They see that degree of foresight and understanding as far grander than

    Shazzzzaammmmm! --> Man exists
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  9. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    If you think about it, a creator by definition needs to know all the disciplines of all of science, and maybe some that science hasn't even been thought about yet. So all science is doing is trying to understand what already has been done. Science is really good at finding the laws that are there and chemical make up of things etc. So really science and creation are the same thing.

    Prediction can come from an organized way of creation. If the creator is going to make millions of creatures, slight variations in the DNA can do that. But also yo can have major changes in life also. Because science has not found in the fossil record the transitional animals, this means that evolution would have to get things right the first time, every time. But that is not what evolution is about . Evolution is about trial and error , until something is useful. There should be more of this type of record, than animals that have all their limbs and teeth and everything else they need. Prediction comes from creation , it does not come from evolution.
     
  10. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    From this comment I sense that you have made a sincere attempt, to answer this.
    The proof of evolution is on the scientists. They are the ones that have come up with this. It is their idea, if they can't support it, or prove it, they have nothing.
    You may have missed some of my posts, but I have already mentioned that religious leaders are just as much to blame as science in this. Religion has misrepresented, the creation accounts and their own teachings, of of what is right, for generations of time.
    Now there is no proof of evolution or the start to life, as science says. Science has a lot of theories, and ideas, but no actual, evidence that any of this is possible without creation. Science tries to bury you in details, on how this or that, could have happened or this or that is possible. But no real evidence that it could.
    By science doing the experiments on the start to life only can show creation by the scientists, doing the experiments. Which is what creation is.
    It is not just a reaction to the inability of science to know everything. No one knows everything. I can't explain everything about the creator. But what is known through science and reason , is that creation is the only possibly. One evidence that science totally ignores is that life comes from life, we know of nothing other than that. For science to say life came from non life, they are going to have to prove that. But reason and the evidence says different.

    The trouble with is a number of things. It is still creation and you would what to know who that creator was. The other thing is that , this is not the evolution that science is teaching. The start to life and evolution as science says is that no intelligence was involved. Some scientists are beginning to see that the 'big bang' has more order in it than they once thought. Abiogenesis theory is an idea that is closer to creation, than other theories.
    Science expects people to believe that Shazzzzaammmmm!, over billions of years, man and all the other life happened by chance out of the dirt. But science can not show that any of their ideas actually happened or can or are still happening. Humans are human, dogs are dogs, cats are cats. This goes for all the vegetation also. If I plant an apple tree, I get apples.
    If you look what science actually says and what they can show to be true and workable, science has no evidence at all.
    The other big question is why do scientists, want to show that no creator was involved? It is not because of evidence, they have to go against the evidence that is here?
    It is much more interesting to have a creator than not. It doesn't change any of the real science that has been learned, but it does add new possibilities in the future. Also it answers many important questions that affects all of mankind.
    Science has not thought this through, that is why they can not prove the start to life just happened and that evolution is even possible.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  11. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    Clearly, you're just trolling now. You claim not to know everything about an alleged "creator". You then go on to say that it is "science" that establishes creation through "science and reason". You contradict yourself and have absolutely nothing to offer, as you've admitted yourself.

    Troll.
     
  12. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    This threat of 'trolling' comes when science gets to see that all they have learned, has no backing.
    Scientists, don't know everything about science, or they would stop learning, and go home, and watch TV. So is science trolling?
    I have given anyone here the opportunity to explain why evolution or the start to life could and did happen. But no one has answered this.
    The truth is that science or anyone else has seen or and show that life just happened from the ground. Or that evolution could happen.
    Please give your evidence.
     
  13. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,855
    You are bold faced liar.
     
  14. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Well has science proved that life has come from non life without intelligence involved? I know science tells about all the precursors and it is just chemicals reactions, and science has done experiments to try show that life could have happened that, but did it? How does science know, because they have tried to do in experiments, but failed so far. So how does science know, that life started without intelligence?
    On evolution , has science proved from a single cell that all the life we see could come from that( evolved ) ? Why does the fossil record not show the trial and error's that would have to happen with evolution, to get to what we see today?
    Science has lied to the world about this.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  15. THMag Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    The argument you keep making is like this analogy:

    A woman is murdered. No witnesses. The husband is found covered in her blood. A knife with her blood on it is found in his trunk. Husband's skin and blood is found under the woman's nails. Witnesses can't confirm where husband was when she died. Science will just say "husband likely did it". You can always always argue that Science doesn't KNOW 100%. Science wasn't there, it wasn't a witness. It can't KNOW. Only God really knows. And really, you would be right, only God truly knows. But to set him free in the physical world because "only God really knows" is not useful.

    Again, Science is not a field of KNOW 100%. Science is a field of SEARCH. It seeks to understand, and we gather all we can to explain as best we can what may have happened. This is why we disagree and test our thoughts against each other. Currently, a mountain of evidence points to evolution. As stated before, science cannot satisfy you with any 100% certainties the way a faith based religion might try to.

    It is this search to understand that gives us useful information. Again, like medicine, just because we don't know the body 100% does not mean that we shouldn't keep trying, because we've learned a lot that is useful to us. It is not a search for things to undermine religion (as you seem to think it is).

    Before modern medicine (e.g. science) if you got sick, all you could really do was pray. Something that moves invisibly from person to person and infecting them seems pretty godlike. Illness was not understood. All you could really do long ago was pray. This is perhaps where science seems to "undermine" religion, as people now had something other than god to turn to (science). Again, that is not the goal of science. If we kept resigning to "God wants you to be sick" to everything, we wouldn't get anywhere. That explanation is not useful. The Creation theory is not useful.

    Science, in general, is not trying to disprove that there is no "creator" as you know it. Many people reconcile the two in their own way. Science is not interested in the idea of gods or souls, etc. Science is not interested in things it cannot measure or observe. It is not seeking to disprove you have a soul, or a god, it is not interested in that at all. That is outside the realm of science. Some individual scientists may try to push atheism, but that is not the goal of Science at all.

    Again, it is not the nature of science to give 100% faith-like answers. It is willing to correct itself in light of new evidence. Currently, the evidence points to evolution. So much so that it seems highly unlikely to change. Again...it is not a field of KNOW 100% The fact that it is willing to correct itself this way, makes it vastly different than religion. The fact that it doesn't offer easy answers to physical (not spiritual) phenomena makes it vastly different than religion.

    As I have said, there is lots of random evidence against specific intelligent design. Again, this does not mean God has no hand in anything. But why do whales have hipbones floating in a sea of blubber not attached to their legs or spine? Why do some snakes have hip and leg bones inside their body attached to no legs? Why do chickens still have the genes to make dentin (teeth material)? Why does every human have gill slits as an embryo? Science seeks to understand and explain how it may happen. Evolution can explain those things. Specific intelligent design, cannot.

    I think your argument is semantic. It does not mean evolution happened with no intelligence involved at all (e.g. a "creator": science is not interested in that), just not through the definition specifically applied to the words "intelligent design".

    A way the catholic church for example, reconciles with science:

    "The process itself is rational despite the mistakes and confusion as it goes through a narrow corridor choosing a few positive mutations and using low probability....This....inevitably leads to a question that goes beyond science....where did this rationality come from?" to which he answers that it comes from the "creative reason" of God."

    At the moment, you are either arrogant enough to claim that you understand the science and evidence greater than the hundreds of thousands of scientists... or you are arrogant enough to claim to be more spiritually pure and aware of scripture than the popes. You want an easy answer, we have lots of evidence, science is not a field of faith-like answers. It is a search for useful knowledge. You keep wanting someone to give you "proof", and as I have stated the kind of "proof" you desire would probably require god himself (as you would envision him/her) coming down and telling you.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2009
  16. lightgigantic Banned Banned

    Messages:
    16,330
    and there you have it.

    As the everyday scientific workplace illustrates, they can and do work together. The differences arise from a philosophical consideration. If someone wants to argue that they can't, it would only be in those (rare) situations where the philosophy/ethics of science (whatever the hell that may be) is at the forefront of an issue (like for instance, determining the cut off point for late term abortions).

    And even then, its, more often than not, not a mystic vs science thing but a ball game played within the confines of moral and civil justice.
     
  17. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    This is also answered in the act of creation. As I said before DNA is an amazing way to create things. You could compare it too using 4 colors to paint all the pictures in the world. DNA is like that , Or you could compare it to computer code, where different blocks of code, can be called when needed, or blocked out. If you are going to create millions of creatures, why would you start from scratch with each one. Especially when they are made of mostly the same material. Science is learning more about DNA all the time, question they have had about this, are slowly being answered. Bones in whales that to science at this point aren't understood , does not mean the moved to be legs or flippers. Actually there is no evidence for this.
    On the snakes with legs, this is very interesting. If you look at the bible account when God cursed the snake, he said that from now on you would go on your belly. So... how did the snake move around before that? Did it have legs? Remember this was written over 2000 years ago. Has science found fossils of this earlier version of a snake.? The chicken with teeth material in the DNA, shows that it is like computer code. It is not just a teeth like material in DNA it is also, all the code for the nerve material and the 'wiring' of it to all the places it has to go to be useful. It has to travel through the body to work a muscle, it has to be connected to the brain, and each nerve, has to be connect in this manor. Coming from non life with no instructions in the DNA for any of this, science has to show could happen. Even in humans , we have wiring harness of nerves that branch off on go to where they are intended.They have been designed to be in the spine for protection , and yet exit it so that the nerve can go to the muscle. This is amazing design. These systems have to be complete before anything works. So you need brain, blood, bones, nerves, lungs, filter systems all together at the same time, before any of this is any good. In evolution would would need millions of trial and errors before any of this could possible happen. But there is no record of these in the fossils. Also body parts would not know where to be placed all of this has to be worked out. And rewired, for any part to be useful.
    With creation even man can see how this is accomplished , but how does this happen just on it's own? Even is you give science, a completed cell without DNA, can science show that any of this could happen. There is no heredity in that first cell, so how does it know it has to survive and copy itself? What did it mutate into, how did DNA with instructions get into this cell?
    This is what science is saying, but they can not show even the first step. They can not show any of the steps actually happened. Cells are really machines that have to be complete to live. But how can all the parts evolve if the cell is not alive.
    The reality is that, science with what it actually knows, and creation are the same thing. Sciences interpretation of the evidence found, is in error of the evidence. Because science has come up with this idea of non creation, the burden of proof comes totally on them. If they say it, back it up.
    The added problem is that science doing the experiments, can only show creation. The creator said he made man from the dust of the ground. If science does the same thing, how can science claim non creation?
     
  18. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    The actual science and creation, are the same. Through out history though, it has been a battle of wrong interpretations on both sides. Religions have not understood the creation account , and so science has not understood what the religions where saying. But science has misinterpreted heir own evidence.

    Non creation is an impossibility, with life.
    I call this the misinformation age.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2009
  19. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    No this is not correct. The evidence comes from all that we see. You don't need science to tell you how it was done. But personally I like to know how it was done. So I am not against science learning these things. What has happened is that science has lost it's way. What I mean is that science has gotten into the details , but lost site of the fact of creation. An example would be the making of bread. Science could go into all the ingredience and chemical make up of bread, and theorize how it could just happen if all the stuff mixed together over billions of years. But the reality is that bread needs to be created.
     
  20. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    Ok I understand what you say here. I know it sounds like that. That is why is am willing to discuss this topic with scientists and with religious leaders, about religion. I am not interested in taking what I have come to understand and and just ignore either science or religions. If science could show that the start to life or evolution actually happens , my understanding would be different. But the truth is that science can not show any of this. It is only their theories that science has. Its all talk with no evidence.
    It is the same with religions, I have taken this same approach with them.
    But in the end I found that actual science and creation fit together. Despite what science or religions say.
     
  21. Nick123 Registered Member

    Messages:
    3
    Mystics will give imagination to scientists while scientists will give the necessary instruments to mystics. Both of them working FOR a common purpose is possible but working TOGETHER is not.
     
  22. baftan ******* Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,135
    I guarantee that science will never be able to show this to you until the end of time. That means your understanding will never be shaken.
    This is actually right, because logically, if it could, it would have shown them to you as well. If science had any explanatory power, it could already have explained to you, or proved to you that you were wrong. But it can not. If science could not do this, I think science is not valuable other than repeating, copying some already existing creation, or tools through technology. Other than this, it's nothing.

    That's utterly correct. I sensed this as well, actually science just farts, and some people call them theories. No evidence whatsoever, because if there was any evidence, they would have proved at least one or two things about God. If science can not do that, that means it does not have any credible evidence at all. It's logical. Whole science do this, do that , yet it can not produce a single evidence to you.

    This very paralellship between science and religion are obvious and clear one. It was religion a thousand year ago, and somehow now; but rising fashion is science now. In reality, I mean in its core, there is no difference between science and religion at all. We can also see the evidence of this similarity from your approach with them as same phenomenon, or idea.

    Actual science and creation do more than fitting together: They are actually two sides of the same coin, or required two keys for a same key hole, it's like "intelligent evolution". Whatever science is doing was already said by religions before; and whatever religions promised is what science is doing now. Yet as you mentioned truly, they tend to say different things...
     
  23. hay_you Registered Member

    Messages:
    433
    In the atmosphere you see today, with science and creation that is maybe true. But it doesn't have to be. There is really nothing that science has found out that conflicts with creation. The most widely known creation account, from the bible is in complete harmony with the actual evidence from science. So really where is the problem?
     

Share This Page