Arrogant scientists: Creation was not science.

Excellent display of god of the gaps...really a great effort

"Oh look, scientists can't explain XYZ, ergo god did it!"

Laughable considering the horrible track record of "god did it"...plagues an act of god, nope, comets a sign of god, nope, humans just popping up on earth in their current form without evolution, nope...and the list goes on

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by DisappearCompletely

 

Science, or the scientific method, can't "prove" a science. And the "scientific method" is what? Now think about your response.... I can give you a hint... is the "scientific method" a science? or a philosophy? or...?

Our readers want to know!

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. I said: until religion can be scrutinized using the scientific method, then it is not science -- which is why creationism is not science. The scientific method is a method (yes, right there in the title for you!) to test and prove (with the most accurate testable data available to us) observations about the natural world. It is neither a science or philosophy, but a tool that allows us to deduce facts about reality.

Obviously nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can understand -- with empirical evidence -- a lot about the universe.

Now go troll somewhere else.

It is depressing how much a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty this forum has become.

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely
It is neither a science or philosophy, but a tool that allows us to deduce facts about reality.

Obviously nothing can be proven with absolute certainty, but we can understand -- with empirical evidence -- a lot about the universe.

Now go troll somewhere else.

It is depressing how much a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty this forum has become.

Thanks for responding DisappearCompletely. It's a good thing I asked you to "think about your response", in hope of receiving something rather insightful. First the Scientific method being a "Method" as your answer claims, is amusing. Who would have considered that answer?

Even a Religion ... such as Christianity has that Method.. For example:

1 John 4

1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

There is a "TEST" method...

The scientific method you mentioned is philosophy, from the logic to the "empirical evidence" all of which is philosophy. Logical fallacies = Philosophy... Logic = Philosophy. I understand people can confuse the two, somehow coming to separate the philosophy from the "science"... many do this to the point of believing EVERYTHING is science. Many forget where this "scientific method" came from and what it in FACT is.

Calling something a "method" means nothing lol... as it is a method of philosophies. Next time you apply this method... remember the logical fallacies you MUST consider in the application of the "method". Those logical fallacies are philosophy. "Logic" is philosophy and don't even think "Science" can STEAL it. lol

Originally posted by DisappearCompletely

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem......

Now go troll somewhere else.

It is depressing how much a cesspool of intellectual dishonesty this forum has become.

Now DisappearCompletely, that's some examples of logical fallacies... Maybe those interested in SCIENCE are ignorant of them, but any philosopher worth their salt recognizes these...

Appeal to ridicule? ring any bells? intellectual dishonesty is what? Begging the Question... troll? I asked you to THINK about your response and you returned with the most base examples of errors in thinking... not WHAT you thought... but HOW. I wonder that "science" is not within your reach, when you can't get past the philosophy of logic.

Science has what to say about Light? Gravity or Magnetism? What of Electricity? I don't know which Physicists you talk with, but not ONE physicist knows what any of these things ARE? Somehow I wonder that you imagine the "scientific method" answers the question that no physicist has answered eh? Even as if you claim the "scientific method" can't answer the creation or religion answers? lol The Scientific method has NEVER answered what electricity is.

Meanwhile rather then THINK.... you troll me with your ridicule and shallow response. Try applying the scientific method to psychic phenomena or death... use the method to make a list of ALL the errors "science" ( people ) have pushed on a world that gives these scientific people the benefit of the doubt... while they ACT like some method of science is VALID... meanwhile scientific ERRORS and outright lies and deceptions have assaulted many an environment and person. All in the name of "Science".

Your view on religion or creation is philosophy NOT science. But NEVER claim it's science that denies these things... because it is NOT Science or a "scientific method" that omits it or proves it false... YOU DO.

Next time you THINK before responding.... Try and consider what you DON'T know as well as what you imagine you know. And please don't appeal to ridicule with me again... humor I like... the use of ridicule and shallow points I challenge... if you are worth challenging... which you probably are eh? Who knows eh? Maybe I've stepped in puddles deeper then your "intellect"

Test the Spirits man..... Try applying the scientific method to YOUR WILL.... see what you can PROVE.

reply to post by DisappearCompletely


Sorry man my response was in a quote box and probably didn't inform you of a response... Hopefully this one does.

reply to post by newcovenant

Here is a different view from another man who takes this as evidence of a soul.
www.planetwisdom.com...

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn't be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, "It wasn't me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago." No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

Complete bullcrap and nonfactual. The body does not replace itself every seven years and I would be very interested to know how this myth originated.

reply to post by sirnex


That is not a Myth man.... Didn't you research this before you scoffed? It's the cells that are most all less then 7 years old at any given time... The Majority of all cells in the body. "Science"... biology has found that this is valid... There are some cells that they've not quite figured are the same in the body.... But as it stands, most all our body is less than 7 years old.

Here this may help...

Your Body Is Younger Than You Think

This has long been something most "evolution / anti intelligent design" people have ignored and omitted. The post is accurate in consideration.... Think about what that post is saying.

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by sirnex

 

That is not a Myth man.... Didn't you research this before you scoffed? It's the cells that are most all less then 7 years old at any given time... The Majority of all cells in the body. "Science"... biology has found that this is valid... There are some cells that they've not quite figured are the same in the body.... But as it stands, most all our body is less than 7 years old.

Here this may help...

Your Body Is Younger Than You Think

This has long been something most "evolution / anti intelligent design" people have ignored and omitted. The post is accurate in consideration.... Think about what that post is saying.

Yea, I did research it before I scoffed. Try a scientific article rather than a media article. Might help, just saying... Sure, NY times might be good for basic news, maybe even sensationalized articles and possibly some scientific news, but this one thing they did indeed get wrong. Part of being human I guess.

reply to post by linliangtai


They're not arrogant. They operate out of logic, unlike proponents of creationism.

I say the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Not creationism, not evolution but a mix of both.

Originally posted by linliangtai
Many scientists said Creation was not science. If so, why don’t they create an inhabitable Mars, or a bird or a grass? Answer: No one can ever do those things. The reasons are:

I do not understand this. Are you saying that because scientists say creationism is not science, they should be able to recreate it? I would think that you would only ask them to recreate it if they DID say it was science and therefor understood and perhaps recreatable. I do not think zombies are science. Should I then have to create a zombie to stand by that?

reply to post by sirnex


man ... lol the people the article was about are very real researchers man lol.... I don't care if you read about it in your own publication, in place of the NYT.... There are people that have known these things for decades... not just the Latest Research from 2005 or even 2011... It is fact. You can refuse to deal or "work" with it or consider the meaning... but it is Valid.

You might also consider that brain cells being rejuvenated are being found now as well.. that in fact the DNA is being changed in our bodies as we "grow" through our lifetime.... Unlike what's mentioned in that 2005 article of "science".... It is NOT a myth that most all cells in the body are very very young. Right off the bat, 90% of our bodies are outright NEW... i.e. H2O

reply to post by mcsteve


The soul is the fundamental energy machine that drives our existence.
It has 3 primary aspects to it, and 32 primal dimensions.

Aspect 1: Filters the fundamental energy that sustains out being
Aspect 2: Controls and forms all our physical, mental, and spiritual existence and experience.
Aspect 3: Perceives states of feeling and consciousness, and outputs that perception to our consciousness, and can generate its own perspectival dimensions without limit.

In spiritual Jargon Aspect 2 is known as The Holy Spirit
Aspect 3 is known as the Essence

reply to post by Serafine


Cell death and growth is not evidence of a spirit at all, how have you even come to this conclusion? If I replace the parts of my car frequently due to wear and tear, does that mean it has a spirit too?

reply to post by Serafine

It is NOT a myth that most all cells in the body are very very young. Right off the bat, 90% of our bodies are outright NEW

Yea, actually it is a myth, based on everything I've read it's a nearly hundred year old myth as well. At least that's one account. The time frame for this mythical brand spanking new body is anywhere from a few weeks to ten years depending on which source you go through as well. Hell, I even found an article where the researcher mentioned in the NYT article concludes that neurons are not replaced at all, based on his very own studies. But hey... you like myths, that's fine...

reply to post by john_bmth

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by Serafine

 

Cell death and growth is not evidence of a spirit at all, how have you even come to this conclusion? If I replace the parts of my car frequently due to wear and tear, does that mean it has a spirit too?

I think I understand the points you are making, but I don't see them fitting. I did not claim or make a premise or conclusion as you presented.

Cell death and growth is not evidence of a spirit at all, how have you even come to this conclusion?

I was pointing out that the statement / post made by sirnex, is in error. He was commenting on a post by newcovenant

Originally posted by Serafine
reply to post by sirnex

 

That is not a Myth man.... Didn't you research this before you scoffed? It's the cells that are most all less then 7 years old at any given time... The Majority of all cells in the body. "Science"... biology has found that this is valid... There are some cells that they've not quite figured are the same in the body.... But as it stands, most all our body is less than 7 years old.

Here this may help...

Your Body Is Younger Than You Think

newcovenant post...

Originally posted by newcovenant

Here is a different view from another man who takes this as evidence of a soul.
www.planetwisdom.com...

First, the physical atoms of the body are almost entirely replaced every seven years. Apart from a few aspects of our neurological system, the physical components of your body are continuously being regenerated. Thus, if you were solely your body, your identity would be constantly fluctuating. But practically and legally speaking, we know this is not true. In fact, our entire legal system is based upon sameness of identity over time. If you were just your body, then you couldn't be held accountable for a crime you committed in the past. Can you imagine a defendant saying to the judge, "It wasn't me! The person who committed that crime disappeared a long time ago." No reasonable judge would accept such a defense. There must be something non-physical that accounts for sameness of identity over time. The soul is the best explanation.

The it's a Myth / not a Myth dance.... about every cell in the body renewing every seven years. Sirnex claims it's a myth. The issue was the body renewing ( not that it's evidence for a soul ). How can it even be considered "evidence" for a soul, if not accepted as even half valid by Sirnex? Sirnex is claiming there's no evidence for the body renewing, the point posted through Newcovenant.

Originally posted by Serafine

This has long been something most "evolution / anti intelligent design" people have ignored and omitted. The post is accurate in consideration.... Think about what that post is saying.

Notice I didn't claim the post is accurate in CONCLUSION .... I stated "consideration".

Originally posted by john_bmth

If I replace the parts of my car frequently due to wear and tear, does that mean it has a spirit too?

This is an apple and orange number... Yes they are BOTH fruit, but two different things. A Car is NOT animated or "alive". Replace all the parts completely and you still have an inanimate car. Now the DRIVER of the car is an excellent example of the point initially provided by Newcovenant.

If the car is taken for the BODY and the driver is taken for the ENTITY.... Your point will stand as an example of what was meant. Replacing all the car parts yet the driver remains.... A body being "new" every 7 years in a PHYSICAL sense, yet the entity remaining in the body.

This opens up much to "consider"... To investigate... How does it all function? How does it work? What is the model now? how is the model changing, regarding understanding and comprehension? on and on...

This is for philosophers... various "science" fields and even investigative journalist and academic "researchers" to consider. The waste of time defending logical fallacies, such as God doesn't exist... or creation never happened ( knowing full well "creation" did happen and happens, just a matter of HOW ), or what? No "evidence" of intellgent design? What has such errors in thinking have to do with "seeking the truth"?

This is all a brilliant and wondrous endeavor to investigate... Yes! considering what is learned and CONSIDERING what is NOT known, is part and parcel of such work. The understanding of biology is rather small compared with what research is TRYING to understand. The FACT that an entity has affect on their bodies... The FACT that will can outright design the body over time, including "evidence" or NEW Understanding that DNA is being changed in living bodies, not only by environment but by the WILL. These factors and much more need to be considered.

You asked about evidence of "spirit"... How is spirit defined? What about will? How about ideas or ideals or love? how about an entities MIND? Any serious research into various sciences will reveal, it's NOT KNOWN. Some try to claim Love is a chemical and a series of "reactions" including Hormones.... As if an understanding of the human body is THAT extensive.. lol

Such claims are Theories and not only that... Philosophy of those holding the theories. The "science" and scientific method ... or any method, does NOT "prove" the conclusion. Showing a physical reaction concerning any such point doesn't prove what is the cause and what the effect.

So even among "Scientists"... from biologists to philosophers.... The claims are a matter of theories and philosophies and NOT "proof". Any researcher seeking "evidence" of spirit can NOT claim "No Spirit" because they haven't found one. That would not be Valid research. There's already "evidence" a body can be designed by the will of the entity in the body i.e. a guitar player designing the body through "playing". This is evidence of intelligent design.

Granted as I mentioned in a post in this thread... it's Co-Creation and NOT CREATION. Man has never created anything and can't do it. Man can only co-create with that already created... a co-creation.

If you are interested in evidence of spirit, try applying a scientific method, if you are inclined to that philosophy, to death... to will, to the mind, to the nature of ideas and ideals.. to the essence of "what is the self"? Who and What is the entity in a body? on and on... even psychic phenomena... or in academic terms... Parapsychology will be a worthy work, for such a quest.

Some consider many of these things scientific or the realm of philosophies etc etc... But the Seeking for Truth... for learning, understanding and comprehension can use EVERYTHING to learn. Imagine that the "scientific method" is PHILOSOPHY... Logic is PHILOSOPHY... it's much like Descartes ( Father of Modern Philosophy ) claiming "I Think, Hence I AM"...... try this conclusion..... "I AM, Hence I Think"

Post Script: Psychic means ... Pertaining to soul

Originally posted by Serafine
You asked about evidence of "spirit"... How is spirit defined? What about will? How about ideas or ideals or love? how about an entities MIND? Any serious research into various sciences will reveal, it's NOT KNOWN. Some try to claim Love is a chemical and a series of "reactions" including Hormones.... As if an understanding of the human body is THAT extensive.. lol

If the nature of "spirit" is "not known," then how do you know that it exists at all? How can you sit here and tell us that "spirit" exists, but can't tell us how to find evidence for it?

reply to post by sirnex

Originally posted by sirnex
reply to post by Serafine

 

Yea, actually it is a myth, based on everything I've read it's a nearly hundred year old myth as well. At least that's one account. The time frame for this mythical brand spanking new body is anywhere from a few weeks to ten years depending on which source you go through as well. Hell, I even found an article where the researcher mentioned in the NYT article concludes that neurons are not replaced at all, based on his very own studies. But hey... you like myths, that's fine...

The first mention I know of this is from an Edgar Cayce Reading in 1934. He mentioned it a furthur 12 times in the over 14,000 readings... for example:

4. Yet, as the body replenishes itself every seven years, and
there is a continued growth in not only the structural
portion but of each center, each fibre, each atomic
influence, we find that there may be added in the body
those things that become necessary to meet the needs,
in such quantities and in such measures those elements
and influences as to bring about - with this gradual growth
- the creating of a balance in the system; so that each
atomic center, each gland, may be so stimulated as to bring
for all portions of the body the proper resuscitating and
sustaining influences as to make for a normal balance in
this body of [735].

READING 735-1 ( 1934 )

*******

To continue this thread on "How old is a human body" etc... a new thread might be required. If you are really interested in this, then how about making it a suggestion in the Research Forum? Yourself... newcovenant.... serafine and others interested can do the research, after choosing a project leader, of course?

Otherwise a new ( research based ) thread could be opened in this Forum? But to continue on with the likes of...

Originally posted by sirnex

But hey... you like myths, that's fine...

in this thread, wouldn't ring any bells, ever!

So while you smile with that new flesh that covers your entire body, and we smile in return... think about it maybe?

reply to post by PieKeeper

Originally posted by Serafine

You asked about evidence of "spirit"... How is spirit defined? What about will? How about ideas or ideals or love? how about an entities MIND? Any serious research into various sciences will reveal, it's NOT KNOWN. Some try to claim Love is a chemical and a series of "reactions" including Hormones.... As if an understanding of the human body is THAT extensive.. lol

Originally posted by PieKeeper

If the nature of "spirit" is "not known," then how do you know that it exists at all? How can you sit here and tell us that "spirit" exists, but can't tell us how to find evidence for it?

How do you define spirit? What is the nature of spirit? How do you define will... ideas? ideals? how do you define Love?
What is the ( to Use your term ) nature of Love? What "evidence" is there for the will or an idea? what evidence does science have for LOVE and how is Love "defined'?

I'm trying to understand what your points are... You asked how do I know "spirit" exists at all? or are you asking how someone can KNOW it doesn't exist? How does anyone know the will or an idea exists? How does anyone know Love exists... or doesn't exist?

I'm looking for where I told anyone here "spirit" exists... which post? As well... I asked "How is spirit defined"? Try finding the evidence that you Love or that you have will... find the evidence for an idea.... Try and choose to make a statement that you have no choice to make the statement.... A sort of Hobsons Choice?

If it's science that answers such questions for you, or philosophy or experience etc etc... good on ya. But who is it in your body, what is it... that thinks about these matters? Science has an answer does it? Which person ( using a science ) has the answer to who and what he is? Is it "evidence"? or... a theory? Outright a "Thinking process" is it?

Seeking for Truth and the Nature of all things is a brilliant and worthy endeavor, at least to some. But where the paradox or the "matter" is for you, or in your question, I don't know. You probably know what you mean... But knowing the Nature of your SELF is another thing, even for people working various angles... science.. philosophy... or experiential etc...

So why do you ask if "spirit" exists or NOT? Do you know? Are you claiming there's no Proof ( that you accept ) that spirit ( however you define spirit ) exists or DOESN'T exist? Try applying that logic to WILL or MIND, if that's your stance. Knowing, let alone proving what YOU are is way beyond the science of today.

I don't know what you are asking... Maybe YOUR Nature you understand. Who and What you are, what it is inside your body that is conscious and has will... the Nature of such a reality is known? Maybe if you define that "entity" that you ARE, as spirit... you could answer my questions, that you commented on. As I asked...

"How is spirit defined?"

reply to post by inforeal


How do you know that? None of this has been proven, yet there are countless "intelligent" people who lap it up? Sorry, but I can't buy into that

"Aspect 1: Filters the fundamental energy that sustains out being"... what do you even mean by this? What is the "fundamental energy"? Is it the food we eat? The liquids we drink? I don't think we need anything to filter it other than out physical bodies to process it.

"Aspect 2: Controls and forms all our physical, mental, and spiritual existence and experience" ... This is a matter of opinion, mine is that our physical and mental are a result of millions of years of evolution, and require no such "control"...

Its getting boring... There are always "debates" over this topic. It's pointless. People who believe in this sort of thing always "win" because they say something along the lines of "since cant explain it so it must be (insert generic, irrational, nonsense). Either that or something along the ironically arrogant lines of "you just don't understand because you are not on the same level of intelligence/spirituality/enlightenment". Its pathetic. Obviously there is the other side, where people like myself, who like things to be proven before ill waste my life on it, always "win" on the basis that it cant be proven. Its pointless...