CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: The "Science -vs- Religion" debate...

[BugI02]

You still aren't getting it. For a trait to be expressed and a new/different function/organ to exist takes a TON of mutation. How did all the insignificant mutation retain in the code if it didn't yet lead to any improvement??? And if it was maintained, it itself would be mutated away from development of a process. Amino acids don't "help" eyes develop. It's an all or nothing thing. There is no direction Or pathway where when enough building blocks exist suddenly an organ coalesces.

evolution is random. You seem to be forgetting that. It hinders organisms as much as it helps. Natural selection reinforces the mutations that help. BUT, how does that benefit expressed without a new function/adaptation expressed?

It's hard to mutate a species because there is so much dilution of the mutations. It takes a significant advantage to be expressed and increase genetic spread (babies). Humans are too wide spread and not isolated to significantly change now. Imagine that.

Perhaps you would care to explain why you have an appendix, if it hasnt been surgically removed somewhere along the way. Why do you have thick hair in your armpits and in -um, other areas - if, according two two of the worlds major religion, God is offended just by seeing the hair on top of your head. Are these and so many other human features intelligent/inspired design?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I am not sure which religions you refer to, they are not my beliefs and I cannot explain them. I do not have any problem with evolution as the origin of species. I do not know how God created life nor do I really care. I do know that man is the only creature that has the breath of life.

Perhaps you would care to explain why you have an appendix, if it hasnt been surgically removed somewhere along the way. Why do you have thick hair in your armpits and in -um, other areas - if, according two two of the worlds major religion, God is offended just by seeing the hair on top of your head. Are these and so many other human features intelligent/inspired design?

 

[BugI02]

Really? Where did the law come from?

Look, what I'm getting at is, there are things that cannot be explained scientifically. Saying "This works that way because that's the way it works" is circular logic, and is in essence no different than a person of faith saying, "This works that way because God makes it work that way."

Yes,we know. We do not dispute this. But this in no way invalidates science or the scientific method. And say 'this works this way because God decreed it to work that way is EQUALLY circular. You seem to think that by pointing out one or more things that science can't explain (yet) that you win and science is dicredited. Nothing could be further from the truth. And it is this desire to somehow win this discussion/argument that is the most off-putting.

 

[BugI02]

If by that you mean, once you drill down deep enough, you reach a point where you no longer know "why" something is the way it is, then yes. Science has gone a long way in explaining things that once were explained by mythology. It has not explained them all, nor do I suspect it ever will. It's like a parabolic curve that approaches vertical (or horizontal), but never quite gets there. In my opinion of course.

Asymptotic is the word you're looking for

 

[BugI02]

Religion and Science are NOT mutually exclusive....

Carry on folks.

Diogynes would rejoice

 

[BugI02]

Nope, not how it works. A single amino acid doesn't do squat. Even if it did, so a mutation makes an animal more attractive, so you'd be selecting for increased pheromones, not eyes.

In the post I responded to you asked 'Please tell me how one little amino acid helps a sloth find another sloth." I have done so. Your right though, didn't proofread my own work. DNA mutation codes for protein that when made functions as long distance pheromone

 

[BugI02]

I am not sure which religions you refer to, they are not my beliefs and I cannot explain them. I do not have any problem with evolution as the origin of species. I do not know how God created life nor do I really care. I do know that man is the only creature that has the breath of life.

Judaism (yarmulke) and Islam (hijab)

 

[BugI02]

Dinner time. L8s

 

[1DOWN4UP]

I ony kum to dis heer tred to lurn verry verry larje wurds. It iz a chowange cuz sum r knot n mye dixonary.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I am concerned you are having a cerebrovascular accident! Check yourself for dysdiadochokinesia stat!

I ony kum to dis heer tred to lurn verry verry larje wurds. It iz a chowange cuz sum r knot n mye dixonary.

 

[Cygnus]

Diogynes would rejoice

As would Carl Sagan

 

[hoosierdoc]

Multiple ways to exchange oxygen too. Lungs, gills, transdermally.

You're asking me why God did something? I do not think so highly of myself to presume to know. This question will never be answered while we're using our lungs.

You are aware that at least four distinct types of eye have evolved in the world at large aren't you. Why don't insects have the same eyes as humans, or arthropods, or octopi. There are structures in lower vertebrates that, while not eyes, provide some ability to respond to visual/visible information and could easily be evolutionary precursors to vision. And lastly, if God designed eyes why do they have design/structural flaws - shouldnt they be marvels of perfection?

 

[CathyInBlue]

This is ridiculous. Almost no science topics taught to children are contradicted by a belief in intelligent design.

Excellent. Then the greater part of science should be able to be taught without any objection from ID believers. Where science in high school science classrooms contradict belief in ID… tough. It's a science classroom, not a religion classroom. The children are in the science classroom to learn the science. To learn the religion of ID, they are free to attend the house of worship of their choice.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Excellent. Then the greater part of science should be able to be taught without any objection from ID believers. Where science in high school science classrooms contradict belief in ID… tough. It's a science classroom, not a religion classroom. The children are in the science classroom to learn the science. To learn the religion of ID, they are free to attend the house of worship of their choice.

.

 

[CathyInBlue]

More vinegar from the Religionists.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

More vinegar from the Religionists.

.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yet, you wear yours on your sleeve/screen name, but this is taking the thread away from a discussion of science and religion.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Yet, you wear yours on your sleeve/screen name, but this is taking the thread away from a discussion of science and religion.

.

 

[jamil]

More vinegar from the Religionists.

You are right. There is no shortage of it in this "respectful " debate.

Yet, you wear yours on your sleeve/screen name, but this is taking the thread away from a discussion of science and religion.

What's wrong with that?

 

[churchmouse]