Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Thank you for finally conceding that your beliefs are founded on a logical fallacy.

</p>

<p>My beliefs are not founded on an infinite regress, because I do not belive every effect had a cause. If you do believe this, you will reach an infinite regress in any worldview.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Of course it does. And indeed, it has wielded an affirmative influence on all of those within the Pastafarian faith. It even has its own bible – the word of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. In fact, there has even been a painting created to demonstrate the “moment of creation,” titled Touched by His Noodly Appendage.

</p>

<p>Everything I have observed about the Pastafarian belief indicates that it is a satirical belief whose adherents do not actually believe to be true.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Of course – in essence, you are conceding that your belief is based on non-evidenced avowal, on a spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

</p>

<p>Perhaps, my belief in Christ is not based on evidence you would accept. However, that is not my main argument here. My main argument is to reject Naturalism and to show Deism to be just as logical (or, to say the same thing differently, illogical) as Naturalism.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

No – evolution is an inevitable and wholly natural consequence of any progenitive existence. It’s not something derived from “random chance” in the sense that you state since environmental context facilitates evolution of biological organisms. Your viewpoint simply misrepresents the phenomenon.

</p>

<p>Evolution would be the natural result if a useful trait arose by random chance. Given the number of traits that exist, and the small chance of each one, I find this highly improbable.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Then why abide by it?

</p>

<p>I do not “abide by it” except in the probablistic sense that I consider it most likely to be close to the truth until further evidence is presented.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

It is clearly evident that you have a tenuous, or, in far greater likelihood, a completely absent understanding of the concepts of mutualism, symbiosis, and animal communication. </p>

<p>First of all, the relationship is clearly established on a mutually beneficial basis – the removal of deceased tissue and ectoparasites is hygienic for the grouper whereas for the cleaner fish it provides the sustenance required for survival. In the absence of such symbiosis, the grouper fish would perish from the steady accumulation of histophagous ectoparasites. Accordingly, the ectoparasites would be biotically unfit due to the lack of nourishment. Such provides the basis for the existence of reciprocated altruism – an evolutionarily established behavior to increase fitness within the environment. The failure of altruistic behavior and repeated interaction inevitably results in disadvantageous circumstances for both species.</p>

<p>Groupers signal their availability for cleaning by adopting a particular posture whereas cleaner fish perform a ritualized movement as part of a reciprocated interspecific communication device. Consequently, other species, such as the sabre-toothed blenny, have adopted a cleaner fish mimicry to defend against predacious harm and feed on healthy tissue in exploitative fashion – to the obliviousness of the species in which the cleaner fish typically benefits.

</p>

<p>You have made an excellent case for my argument. As stated by you, if only one side a symbiotic relationship exists, the result will be detrimental.</p>

<p>Yet unless a large population of groupers developed the instinct to not harm cleanrerfish, AND a large population of cleanerfish developed the instinct to clean groupers, AND this happened AT THE SAME TIME, then a one-sided relationship is exactly what you would have. Being detrimental, it would be eliminated by Natural Selection.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

with tens of thousands of independently conducted dating procedures

</p>

<p>I call your bluff. I do not believe that there actually are tens of thousands of independent dating procedures.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Once again, that is completely incorrect. </p>

<p>MosbyMarion, you honestly need to desist. Every single point that you bring up regarding objective matters is wholly incorrect (with the exception of natural selection) and is established with an artificial cogency to obscure your cluelessness.</p>

<p>Regarding evolution, there is an unassailable fortification of evidence that inevitably merges to a pronounced and unequivocal conclusion.

</p>

<p>If that is the case, you should have no trouble in presenting an example of observed upward evolution.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>Re: your long post:</p>

<p>I do not have time to read and respond to this right now, and will not have internet for a couple days. I will hopefully be able to respond in a few days</p>

[DistanceDan]

<p>Hey look, a couple of self-perceived intellectuals arguing about religion and science.</p>

<p>I believe in both, sue me.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ There’s nothing illogical about believing in both. The illogical thing is to divide truth into two sections and then decide that you only believe one.</p>

[estrat1]

<p>

@DistanceDan

I believe in both, sue me.

</p>

<p>

@George Orwell

To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

</p>

<p>Genius, innit?</p>

[Adenine]

<p>MM, please just shut up. It’s pretty clear that mifune has your argument nailed. And it’s dishonest for you to say that his statements support yours in some cases. They don’t. Post 639 is absolutely brilliant especially the part about the conditions for evolution NOT to occur which is basically impossible. You need to totally rethink your perspective if you can even debate this correctly.</p>

[DistanceDan]

<p>

@estrat1

Genius, innit?

</p>

<p>I suppose. It’s a shame almost none of that pertains to me, though.</p>

[estrat1]

<p>

@DistanceDan

It’s a shame almost none of that pertains to me, though.

</p>

<p>Science starts from observation whereas religion starts from an idea. Science seeks the truth whereas religion already knows it. Science is falsifiable whereas religion is the standard for perfection.</p>

<p>As ways of looking at life, they are inherently contradictory.</p>

[CelaPlusAimaple]

<p>

Hey look, a couple of self-perceived intellectuals arguing about religion and science.</p>

<p>I believe in both, sue me.

</p>

<p>Yeah DistanceDan! That’s why this thread is doomed to eternal failure. There’s no conflict here</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>This thread has deteriorated immensely in quality. Now it’s just like the other normal HSL threads.</p>

<p>=(</p>

[Adenine]

<p>But it’s obvious when someone denies evolution and believes that the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and humans coexisted within the past few thousand years that mosby is completely wrong.</p>

<p>Religion already assumes to know all the answers while science derives it. It’s obvious which is better for finding truth.</p>

[leafblade1354]

<p>

@leafblade1354

Some threadjacking is in order here.

What shall we discuss this time? :D</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>How about our favorite flavor of cake?</p>

<p>MosbyMarion, I don’t see why you fight evolution so much. It doesn’t even contradict the possibility of God.</p>