Science-Religion. Which wins?

Pre-College Topics High School Life
981

<p>Seems like this discussion is quite futile in any case, and serves nothing more than being an intellectual discourse; now “who has the better understanding of science” is being debated. If people who claim to know what the science is can’t even reach an agreement; how will the average layperson fair? It’s all very well to say that “the science supports or doesn’t support this or that,” but what does one say to the person who does not care about or understand science whatsoever? I am sure there are a substantial number of people out there in the world who don’t even know what exactly the scientific method is. Indeed, it seems that in order to “win”, belief in scientific principles would either have to be * forced * on such people (if such a thing can even be done, and if it would even be ethical) or a massive worldwide educational reinforcement of scientific principles would have to be implemented somehow. Or, governments would have to isolate regions of concentrated religious belief and remove children from those areas and raise them elsewhere…it all seems very distasteful to me personally. It seems that expecting people to accept the conclusions of scientific enquiry as objective truth without understanding the methods of said enquiry should be unprincipled to the “science-minded” person. Raving about people being stupid and/or ignorant would certainly not solve anything either.</p>

<p>This said, I cannot see either science or religion “winning” for the forseeable future. Perhaps the influence of religion at the political level might be mitigated, but I do not see it dying out all together.</p>

982

<p>@Sithis
[Argument</a> to moderation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation]Argument”>Argument to moderation - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Also contrary to what is seen on a forum loaded with religious prejudice, scientists really aren’t in much disagreement about the age of the earth or the broad-scale mechanisms of evolution. </p>

<p>

Coming from someone who clearly hasn’t taken it at an advanced level. </p>

<p>

Coming from someone who doesn’t even know what new genetic information is. Before I continue this ridiculous argument, I’m going to lay down some definitions.</p>

<p>Genetic information = The sequence of nucleotides in a gene is translated by cells to produce a chain of amino acids, creating proteins. New genetic information = ANY SEQUENCE THAT HASN’T BEEN SEEN BEFORE. YOU FLIP FLOP IT, CUT IT UP, ADD SOMETHING TO IT… IT’S NEW!</p>

<p>

Insertion mutations are neither invariably fatal nor invariably detrimental. You’re once again spewing misinformation. </p>

<p>

It’s not? Under [Frameshift</a> mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frameshift_mutation]Frameshift”>Frameshift mutation - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>“Frameshift mutations can also be beneficial. For example, a frameshift mutation was responsible for the creation of nylonase.”</p>

<p>

Ever hear of Down’s Syndrome? Aka Trisomy 21?
[Chromosome</a> abnormality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_mutation]Chromosome”>Chromosome abnormality - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Yes. Most large chromosome changes in animals ARE detrimental. It’s theorized that it’s more likely a gradual process - a series of smaller mutations. In fact the vast majority of changes occur at the smaller scale. However, aneuploidy (deletion or addition of chromosomes) is actually seen in some plants (YES VIABLE FERTILE OFFSPRING-MAKING LIVING PLANTS), and there ya go, NEW genetic information at the macro scale! </p>

<p>Let’s face it. New genetic information (in the form of mutation) occurs all the time. Most you won’t notice - most won’t have any major effect. The bad ones die out, the good ones make babies, and voila - Darwin’s theory of evolution.</p>

983

<p>I’ll work from the bottom up: </p>

<p>

</p>

<h2>I said chromosomal mutations recreate/delete an existing chromosome. Aka down syndrome. This doesn’t answer how say, a primate with 42 chromosomes evolves into humans with 46 chromosomes because the difference isn’t in the number, but the content in the chromosomes. If the primate acquired 4 new chromosomes from recreating them in chromosomal mutations, then the new chromosomes would be copies, and not new information. </h2>

<p>

</p>

<p>A series of recent studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggest that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase (Which is nylonase).</p>

<p>That takes care of that.</p>

<hr>

<p>

</p>

<h2>Mixed insertion up with frameshift. You’re right. </h2>

<p>

Let me just say DNA. How do you get new DNA? Some organisms have 42 chromosomes, and some 66. There is a notable difference in content and number in these chromosomes. How can you get there via mutations, the mechanism of macroevolution?</p>

984

<p>@thequestionmark</p>

<p>I’m not sure what the logical fallacy for lacking reading comprehension skills is, or if there even is one, but if I could link you to it, I would. Your assumption is that logically sound = realistic. I disagree with this, but that’s beside the point. No where did I argue that a compromise between science and religion was right, or that I want there to be a formal “compromise” at all. </p>

<p>Your ivory-tower intellectualism would be laughable if it wasn’t disturbing. However, if you have an actual, relevant response to my points I would be interested in hearing it.</p>

<p>EDIT with a quote from Lord Russell, just for fun…</p>

<p>"It has been said that man is a rational animal. All my life I have been searching for evidence which could support this. "</p>

985

<p>The anti-evolution side is spewing gross amounts of misinformation. They learn their science from other creationists not actual scientists. Even when creationists get their asses kicked in these debates by being proven wrong by scientific papers they continue w/ their psudoscience and misrepresentation. If they want to remain ignorant then thats their choice.</p>

986

<p>@Sithis perhaps I’m misinterpreting

<br>
Seems like a compromise to me. The way I interpreted your statement: since neither science nor religion promise comprehendable conclusions to the “average layperson” nor does everyone care about even reaching such conclusions, neither religion nor science can win (which I interpret as achieving a greater truth). </p>

<p>

There’s no such thing as a relevant response to an irrelevant point. </p>

<p>Either way, since you have no clear interest in scientific debate(why are you here?)and because of your use of irrelevant ad hominem, consider this my last post addressed to you. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Whether or not this particular case of a particular species is actually a frameshift mutation is a little irrelevant isn’t it? I mean, I still don’t see any evidence here that insertions and deletions are invariably fatal or detrimental as you say they are. Show me the evidence please?</p>

<p>

I thought we went over this. Creating, copying, adding… and ESPECIALLY the addition of a new chromosome, would add new genetic information. </p>

<p>In genetics, 1234 does NOT equal 12341234 or 1234 1234. THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNIQUELY different!</p>

<p>

Well there’s not a big difference. Cause and effect really… </p>

<p>

Until you agree that small genetic changes (not chromosomal-scale) ones accumulate to new genetic information, the argument is rather moot, but I’ll continue with the popular theories anyways. </p>

<p>[Chimpanzee</a> genome project - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<a href=“shows%20the%20particular%20case%20of%20how%20the%20differences%20between%20Chimpanzee%20and%20Human%20chromosomes%20can%20be%20explained”>/url</a></p>

<p>[url=<a href=“http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/dec97/875507503.Ge.r.html]Re:”>Re: How do species evolve different numbers of chromosomes?]Re:</a> How do species evolve different numbers of chromosomes?](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project]Chimpanzee”>Chimpanzee genome project - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>In short, this is a four part argument. Tell me which of these you have trouble with:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Spontaneous chromosome deletions, accidental copies, fuses, and additions occur. These scenarios can either lead to the addition or loss of whole chromosomes.</p></li>
<li><p>The vast majority of these mutations result in death. Even fewer are viable. </p></li>
<li><p>The small percentage of viable ones continue to reproduce. </p></li>
<li><p>Overtime, genetic drift and speciation lead to new species with different chromosome numbers.</p></li>
</ol>

987

<p>Eastfrobeauty - prove every single one of your statements. You don’t understand anything about debate or proving statements.</p>

<p>And tell me why Allah is the correct god. Why isnt it
Jesus christ? Or brahma or Athena and so on?</p>

988

<p>Eh Adenine, you’re not exactly one of the best debaters on this thread (you’re not really even in this debate, as far as I’ve seen). Most of your comments are just a few lines long, and they’re usually filled with ad hominem attacks, irrelevant restatements of things you’ve already said, or awe-filled congratulations to debaters on your side of the argument. Of all the people here, you certainly are not one to tell someone else that they “don’t understand anything about debate or proving statements.”</p>

<p>This is from someone who considers himself to have no stake whatsoever in this debate, and thus won’t be saying anything regarding the subject matter. I’m merely commenting on your style of tactic.</p>

989

<p>And now looking back, why are we going to the specifics? You two don’t even accept evolution’s most basic mechanisms, how can we go deeper?</p>

<p>Evolution’s premises:

  1. Mutations happen.
  2. Good mutations gets passed down.
  3. Add these mutations up and you have something different then what you started with. </p>

<p>Resolving chromosomal differences, specific mutualism in nature, aneuploidy, frameshift mutation, is highly complex material when considering what the basic premises of evolution are.</p>

990

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, if that is your definition of “win,” then I suppose the argument to moderation fallacy might apply. My definition was “one causing the other to become obsolete/have no influence in people’s lives”</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How is my point irrelevant to the overall purpose of this thread? Just because the thread has turned recently towards a “scientific debate” does not make my post irrelevant.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>See above.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My apologies, I was merely vexed that you seemed to have missed the point of my post entirely, but it seems that we were operating on different objectives all together. It is, however, your right to ignore me, as others have done.</p>

991

<p>omg I need to get post 1000. What if I’m not at home??? :OOO</p>

<p>Actually, you guys, Mod, Almighty Jove, just posted in this thread, so you know He exists.</p>

992

<p>

</p>

<p>Thank you!!! :D</p>

993

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t claim that it does. I claim that we do not as yet have sufficient evidence to prove either case true.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>In this case the assertion is being made by the Old Earth believers that their theory is conclusively proven and that any alternative suggestion is “bull pseudoscience”.</p>

<p>And as I said before, this argument is irrelevant to the rest the debate, except that belief in Evolution absolutely requires belief in an Old Earth, while Creation can still be true if a Young Earth is the case.</p>

994

<p>^^^ That’s one of the problems with these types of debates, where the issue at hand is poorly framed. People will choose to debate the controversy that works to their advantage. Not so much a “strawman” but when the question is not clearly defined people are free to debate whatever they want, and they will pick those positions they feel give them a logical advantage.</p>

<p>It’s particularly easy for this to happen on an internet forum, which is susceptible to “hijack” by its very nature. Therefore this debate seems to have spanned everything from the very general question of whether there is an extra-natural creative force in the universe to the very specific questions of whether the Genesis account should be taken literally and which specific religion is more logical. And everything in between.</p>

<p>But as I wrote earlier, it has served as a good biology refresher for me.</p>

995

<p>

That’s not what your claiming here, stop moving the goalposts. Several of us debunked your website and posted much more credible sources, and now you are changing the argument. [Moving</a> the goalposts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts]Moving”>Moving the goalposts - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>The vast majority of the evidence used in there was not scientifically verifiable, sourced, or even accurate (they do not provide specific creation dates). In fact many of them used after-the-fact reasoning (the oldest living this is a"x" years old, Noah’s arch could’ve happened then!) See previous post for specifics. Moreover, a large portion predicted the Earth to be greater than the 6,000 years suggested - and thereby not adding to your arguments. </p>

<p>Multi-billion year old universe theory is verified by SEVERAL cross checks. Before you accuse anything of being pseudo-science (pseudoscience is a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific, or that is made to appear to be scientific, but which does not adhere to an appropriate scientific methodology, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, or otherwise lacks scientific status.), I’d suppose you’d have to know understand what the scientific consensus is, would you not? What’s wrong with the methods that MAINSTREAM scientists have used for decades?</p>

<p>and Mosby, it’s amusing how you’ve ignored the rest of my previous response to your post. Perhaps you have some biology to look into?</p>

996

<p>One day we’ll know who’s right. It’s just unfortunate that nobody can come back from the dead to tell us who’s really right.</p>

<p>I really don’t care about debating this anymore. We all have our different beliefs that we all believe in firmly and debating this won’t change anybody’s mind. If there is a God, I personally believe that he will reveal himself to you someday, but other than that, I don’t think there’s any point debating this. The only part I believe I should do as a Christian is to make other people aware of what Christianity believes and what I believe God’s gift to you is (through Jesus) and it’s up to yourself to decide whether you want to believe it or not.</p>

997

<p>@aeroengineer: First of all, stating that arguments are ignorant isn’t ad hominem. Creationist arguments which are psuedoscientific, non-peer reviewed, blatantly in contradiction to scientific fact and run on logical fallacies are ignorant - and thats putting it lightly. But its futile to debate one - it gives them a way to make ignorant attacks against objective proof. In truth, they’re a useless lot that debauches reasoning, logic and scientific proof. What good are they for other than misleading other people into false beliefs, cementing intellects and telling future generations of curious and scientifically minded people not to bother?</p>

998

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Before you accuse me of moving the goalposts, you should look at what I have been saying since long before you entered this argument.</p>

999

<p>

</p>

<p>As I have said all along, I am not here trying to prove old earth or evolution conclusively wrong, I am only trying to show that they have not been proven conclusively (or even convincingly) true.</p>

1000

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually, my dad called me to mow the lawn lol. I will get to that soon, if not today, then next week when I get back from summer camp.</p>