EVOLUTION, what a lie.

[Magic Man]

I suspect you misunderstand yet again. Science was not to establish the reality of God . . . my meditation experiences do that quite routinely now. I am a rational and intelligent man who REQUIRES something be grounded in what I DO KNOW. I needn't know everything . . . but it must have SOME connection to what I know to be reality (that would be science). There are also myriad explanations, myths, theories, philosophies about God . . . that kind of incoherence is anathema to my mind. I needed closure and coherence in ALL aspects. I found it to my satisfaction and am content. I am saddened when the existence and misunderstanding of science causes so much angst among those who want to believe there is a God . . . because I KNOW (personally) there is and that there is NOTHING contradictory in science.

I see. So, your theory and philosophy about God are not incoherent or anathema, but others are. Does that really make sense to you?

Your presumptions about me and my knowledge and abilities prevent your engaging in an honest discussion on this topic.

Well, those presumptions are based directly on your comments in said discussion. If you would show something more than the average fundamentalist knowledge of science, then I would think differently. Until then, I'll assume you're railing against something you don't even understand.

My "ramblings" are NOT anti-science . . . they are a request for TRUE neutrality . . . not the negative one supported by the Friar's silly razor.

And if you understood science at all, you'd understand that it's already neutral. That's the point.

I couldn't agree more . . . but neither should they be rejected or implied to be unnecessary or unsupported by science . . . since they clearly are supported and not contradicted.

They say that an intelligent being is unnecessary for pretty much everything, as in things could very well be the way they are without an intelligent designer. That's not to say they are, just that it's a possibility with the way things work.

To me . . . it is the supreme irony . . . that science finds indisputable design (ex. DNA), method (ex. survival), and then engages in extreme intellectual gymnastics to try to suggest how the hell they came to be.

I see. So, it's just that you're under the false impression that such things absolutely have to be designed. Well, there you go letting your belief get in the way. It seems it is you who are engaging in extreme intellectual gymnastics. Good luck with that.

 

[Magic Man]

If you have to ask . . . I must assume you are less of a scientist than you have been billed as.

No, your mentioning of it makes me assume you know nothing about science, or probably more accurately, you know some bits that make you think you know a lot, but in reality you only know a little bit here and there.

A "field" refers to an area under the influence of some force, such as gravity or electricity. A universal (or unified) field theory would reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of various individual field theories to create a single comprehensive set of equations.

What makes you think there has to be such a universal field. Scientists like Stephen Hawking don't think so. So, what knowledge do you possess that they don't?

As Michio Katu said, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God." Absent a field our mathematics would not work and be meaningless.

The first sentence is right, the second, not so much. Absent such a field, our mathematics still work and are still very meaningful. Certain things just work differently in different situations. All they're trying to do is find one thing that works in all situations. That doesn't mean such a thing exists.

Maxwell's electromagnetic field and Einstein's gravity field became problematic when Quantum theory (strong and weak nuclear forces) emerged. Relativity explains the macro world and quantum theory explains the micro . . . but they are incompatible. The idea that "nature" would prescribe two completely incompatible ways for the world to work was unacceptable . . . the Holy Grail became the search for the universal (or unified) field theory that would reconcile ALL the forces that establish the current fields. The standard model reconciles the electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces . . . but not gravity. NO field is NOT an option.

This is what I figured. You know a little bit and from that little bit you make gross mischaracterizations and think you know a lot more than you do. This is why I say you're not really any different from people who deny evolution. They know little bits about it, but nothing substantial, and yet they think they know enough to dismiss it. You think you know enough to make your own hypotheses about the subjects you bring up here, but in reality, you have a huge lack of understanding.

The fact that people are looking for a unified theory doesn't mean one has to exist. It just means they hope it does because it would mean that we as humans could explain and predict everything. It's just as possible that no one will ever find such a thing, and we'll continue to use several different theories to explain everything. Our theories still work to explain things, we just have to use more than one.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

To me . . . it is the supreme irony . . . that science finds indisputable design (ex. DNA), method (ex. survival),

Help me out here, Mystic. You are obviously much wiser than the rest of us on this thread, so I'm sure this will be no problem at all for you.

Exactly where has science found "indisputable design"? Please refer me to the study where science was even looking for evidence of design, and the peer reviewed acceptance of the study.

 

[Magic Man]

Help me out here, Mystic. You are obviously much wiser than the rest of us on this thread, so I'm sure this will be no problem at all for you.

Exactly where has science found "indisputable design"? Please refer me to the study where science was even looking for evidence of design, and the peer reviewed acceptance of the study.

He was saying that those things are design according to him, not according to science. His point was that those things are obviously evidence of design, but science tries to explain them away without using design. Basically, he knows better than thousands of scientists, many of whom are theists. I wish he would just write his book, so that the rest of us can be enlightened like him. It would be nice for the entire world to have all the answers, like he does.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

He was saying that those things are design according to him, not according to science.

That's what I thought he was saying, but then I went back and re-read his post. When I got to the statement "science finds indisputable design", I stopped.

I think he is actually trying to say that, because he sees design, science itself found it. He is projecting his prejudice onto science, and then claiming that science is lying about its true findings.

Maybe I'm slicing hairs here, but I think he believes that science actually found design.

I really want him to clear this up for me.

 

[Jose Fly]

MysticPhD,

God is everything that comprises and establishes our reality (Panentheism . . . not pantheism) . . . the Universal Field that accounts for the parameters and metrics we use so cavalierly in science is established by God's consciousness. The purpose of the Universe is to procreate that consciousness using life.

I understand that you believe those things to be so, but as it stands from my perspective, they are nothing more than bald assertions. Things are not so simply because someone on the internet says they are.

Our universe requires a universal field to establish the parameters of it (reflected in physics "laws" and our mathematics).

Again, another bald assertion.

The fact that 95+% of our Universe is comprised of unmeasurable forms of energy (dark energy and dark matter) that are not directly accessible to our technology (only indirect measures of activity and effects).

It wasn't that long ago that all sorts of energies were not "directly accessible to our technology". Are you assuming that our technologies and abilities are at their end point? If so, why? If not, then how are you distinguishing between "cannot currently be measured" and "cannot ever be measured"?

The fact that consciousness requires a field to "exist" or it is just an abstraction or illusion

Again, bald assertion.

As someone claiming a scientific bent, you'll understand that many of us here are not prone to accepting suites of bald assertions without supporting data. If you can provide the data to support your assertions, great. If you cannot, then you should appreciate our skepticism.

 

[LittleNipper]

Help me out here, Mystic. You are obviously much wiser than the rest of us on this thread, so I'm sure this will be no problem at all for you.

Exactly where has science found "indisputable design"? Please refer me to the study where science was even looking for evidence of design, and the peer reviewed acceptance of the study.

One might ask, where does science demonstrate that there is no design? Obviously, if one may do an experiment and achieve the same results over and over, that would be a domonstration of design rather than random happenstance.

 

[LittleNipper]

Science is a tool. It maybe used by bias people in an attempt to prove almost anything. A person who has a bias that's pro-evolution, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving evolution are useful and those that cause questions to arise are misapplied or not to be trusted.

 

[themadhair]

Perhaps I need to be very clear . . . I fully understand and accept science, scientific method, and specifically (to stay OT) evolution theory . . . except for the IMPLIED ACCEPTANCE OF RANDOMNESS, CHANCE, OR WHATEVER as the explanation for the appearance of mutations.

No MysticPhD, you do not fully understand. If you did you would realise the total and utter absurdity of what you just wrote. Please reread your comment here and try to understand that your own ignorance is not a basis for argument.

Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
^ Look at all the information that explains how mutations occur. It is almost as if MysticPhD doesn’t actually know what the word ‘random’ means in a scientific context.

 

[Tristesse]

One might ask, where does science demonstrate that there is no design? Obviously, if one may do an experiment and achieve the same results over and over, that would be a domonstration of design rather than random happenstance.

It's not science job to show that there is no design, the one claiming design has to demonstrate design, but what evolution did, was show that our perception of design could occur by purely natural causes. Leaving the need for a designer at the door.

 

[Jose Fly]

A person who has a bias that's pro-evolution, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving evolution are useful

A person who has a bias that's pro-erosion, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving erosion are useful.

 

[LittleNipper]

It's not science job to show that there is no design, the one claiming design has to demonstrate design, but what evolution did, was show that our perception of design could occur by purely natural causes. Leaving the need for a designer at the door.

Sorry, to differ but the very opposite is true. Nature demonstrated that in order to create special breeds of cats, dogs, etc.; if takes the conscientious involvement of a human in the very least. The Tangerine (as an example) did not come about as the result of natural selection but HUMAN CHOICE AND MANIPULATION.

HOWEVER, man has never been either able to create life nor produce a new species for all his tampering...

 

[Kilgore Trout]

A person who has a bias that's pro-erosion, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving erosion are useful.

I'm getting really sick of the erosionists pushing their agendas in the schools. Why can't alternatives to erosion be taught?

 

[LittleNipper]

A person who has a bias that's pro-erosion, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving erosion are useful.

Erosion is useful to the diamond cutter.

 

[Tristesse]

Sorry, to differ but the very opposite is true. Nature demonstrated that in order to create special breeds of cats, dogs, etc.; if takes the conscientious involvement of a human in the very least. The Tangerine (as an example) did not come about as the result of natural selection but HUMAN CHOICE AND MANIPULATION.

HOWEVER, man has never been either able to create life nor produce a new species for all his tampering...

How does this differ with what I said?

 

[painted wolf]

Sorry, to differ but the very opposite is true. Nature demonstrated that in order to create special breeds of cats, dogs, etc.; if takes the conscientious involvement of a human in the very least. The Tangerine (as an example) did not come about as the result of natural selection but HUMAN CHOICE AND MANIPULATION.

And we see the same pressures being applied in nature without human intervention. Environment, predation, sexual selection... all do the same thing that humans do, without the need of choice or design.

HOWEVER, man has never been either able to create life nor produce a new species for all his tampering...

I think you may be confusing species with a higher level of taxonomy. We have made several species in the lab. We have also made artificial bacteria.

wa:do

 

[The Voice of Reason]

One might ask, where does science demonstrate that there is no design?

One might ask that question, if one did not understand that science does not demonstrate that there is no design. Science does not address design. Try to stay on the same page. Your slowing the rest of the class down.

Obviously, if one may do an experiment and achieve the same results over and over, that would be a domonstration of design rather than random happenstance.

It would demonstrate that the experiment were designed by the scientist to be repeatable.
You are confusing an experiment, which is designed by man, with the claims of design for the universe by a supernatural force (God).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Science is a tool. It maybe used by bias people in an attempt to prove almost anything. A person who has a bias that's pro-evolution, simply has made up his/her mind that studies applied toward the research of proving evolution are useful and those that cause questions to arise are misapplied or not to be trusted.

There is no question that individuals can intentionally try to twist science to meet their own goals. That is the reason for peer review of studies prior to their acceptance into the community at large.

You would be well served to learn how the scientific community polices itself against such hoaxes. It isn't perfect, but it does prevent the wholesale deception that you would like to believe exists.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

I'm getting really sick of the erosionists pushing their agendas in the schools. Why can't alternatives to erosion be taught?

I'm with Stranger on this one.

It's obvious that there is a supernatural being that designed mountains and riverbanks, and as is His will, they simply fall apart on their own accord.

The fact that rain, wind, and abrasion occur as these mountains and riverbanks decide to shed their outer skins is proof that it was designed to be so.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

well you cannot be a muslim if you beleive in evolution. so it is not an american thing but rather an islamic thing.

Oh no...