Science-Religion. Which wins?

[thequestionmark]

<p>

Yet look at what happens when i try to do this:
If I cite the lack of observed cases of mutations producing new organs or structures, I am told “well of course! It takes way to long for humans to observe!”

Well of course! When you take your information from creation.com, you’re bound to run into problems. In fact, they do a much better job than you do of holding their claim. You know come to think of it - your spiderweb and organ arguments are remarkably similar to <a href=“http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_76-82.pdf[/url]”>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j19_2/j19_2_76-82.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.
Am I right? </p>

<p>Well that said - you read it, scratch your head like I did, and think hmm… it seems convincing - but someone smarter than me, you, and creation.com has obviously figured out what’s wrong with the argument. So you search google and you find: [CB340:</a> Evolution of complex organs](<a href=“http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB340.html]CB340:”>CB340: Evolution of complex organs). And voila, you get this enlightened feeling in you head. </p>

<p>

If I cite the lack of transitional fossils, “naturally very few organisms are fossilized, so we shouldn’t expect to find the transitional forms”.

Well then your creationist parents/websites/peers say: well look at X animal and you’ll see that there’s a missing link in the chain. Somehow they delude you into believing that such fossils don’t exist at all! Then, as a rational person, you scratch your head. Search google… and you find wow [List</a> of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils]List”>Transitional fossil - Wikipedia). There are really a huge ton of them! </p>

<p>

If I point out things like the cleanerfish that couldn’t evolve by a series of gradual stages, I am told “we don’t understand that yet, but future research will surely find the answer”.

Then your creationist websites/buddies (let’s be honest here, you didn’t think about this on your own, and you probably had no idea what they were before you read about them on some creationist website) point out well: there’s a hole! Explain this evolution nerds! And the explanation isn’t there - creationists go ape****, while the scientists learn to find out more. </p>

<p>Evolution isn’t an explain-all theory. It’s not God.</p>

<p>

What would be different about the world if evolution were false?

Well, we’d all be single-celled organisms I suppose!</p>

<p>According to both scientific and philosophical definition(<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability&lt;/a&gt;), evolution is a falsifiable claim. You probably have difficulty falsifying it because most evidence points to it being true! The same can be said about the force of gravity - in principle the claim is falsifiable (if your apple didn’t drop on the floor, it’d be falsified), though in practice we accept it to be true.</p>

<p>Interestingly enough if you read about falsifiability more you find:

"Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton in the McLean v. Arkansas ruling to determine that ‘creation science’ was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools. In his conclusion related to this criterion he stated that “While anybody is free to approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, they cannot properly describe the methodology as scientific, if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during the course of the investigation.”

</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Evolution isn’t an explain-all theory.

</p>

<p>This is an extremely rational point.</p>

[Relevance]

<p>lolol. I thought his arguments were semi-original. Guess he can’t think for himself, good find.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

@Relevance

I thought his arguments were semi-original.

</p>

<p>*What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time. *</p>

<p>Ecclesiastes 1:9-10</p>

[Relevance]

<p>

What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which one can say, “Look! This is something new”? It was here already, long ago; it was here before our time.

Tell that to the keyboard you type on, internet provider you use, and monitor you look at. You think these existed a hundred years ago?</p>

<p>Don’t devalue the importance of originality. If it’s not original, it’s almost certainly been debunked before, as thequestionmark has aptly pointed out.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

@Relevance

Don’t devalue the importance of originality. If it’s not original, it’s almost certainly been debunked before, as thequestionmark has aptly pointed out.

</p>

<p>I was not speaking about technological advancements, Relevance, nor was I trying to stir up a discussion. Rather, my quote was intended to address the issue of originality in thought when it comes to the endless science versus religion debate.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Well of course! When you take your information from creation.com, you’re bound to run into problems. In fact, they do a much better job than you do of holding their claim. You know come to think of it - your spiderweb and organ arguments are remarkably similar to <a href=“http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...19_2_76-82.pdf[/url]”>http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j...19_2_76-82.pdf&lt;/a&gt;.
Am I right?

</p>

<p>Nope, haven’t read that link. The spider thing was thought up by yours truly after I really did spend an hour watching one. The organ thing is from The Origin of the Species.</p>

<p>And the second link you posted is nothing new to me. Nor does it answer my question. It debunks several false claims against organ development without answering the question of how they did emerge, or how they can be formed through a series of chance mutations, each of which is useful enough to be preserved, without the improbability becoming far beyond MY faith in the truth of Evolution.</p>

[Relevance]

<p>Well, God vs. no God? Yea that could be endless and pointedly unoriginal.</p>

<p>Evolution? Don’t think so. Meh, if I were to guess, it’ll be accepted with as much backing as the heliocentric solar system in 500 years. The religious people jump on and deny the relatively new “contradictions”, but once evidence reaches a certain threshold they gradually incorporate them into a subjective view, just as the Pope has done. </p>

<p>[url=&lt;a href=“- YouTube”&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReV0nCuObcs]YouTube</a> - Religulous - Religion taught as science<a href=“religion%20coexisting%20with%20science”>/url</a></p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Well, God vs. no God? Yea that could be endless and pointedly unoriginal.

</p>

<p>Yes, and this exactly why I posted that quote.</p>

<p>

Evolution? Don’t think so.

</p>

<p>Er, this isn’t really what my quote was supposed to address. If there was any ambiguity, I apologize.</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>Well, it doesn’t seem as though this thread has been very effective in persuading anyone thus far. Maybe once we hit 160 pages.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Well then your creationist parents/websites/peers say: well look at X animal and you’ll see that there’s a missing link in the chain. Somehow they delude you into believing that such fossils don’t exist at all! Then, as a rational person, you scratch your head. Search google… and you find wow List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. There are really a huge ton of them!

</p>

<p>Obviously I haven’t read that entire list. But browsing through them has yet to turn up an example of a true “transition”. Each of those creatures is a member of a distinct class, which would require a vast amount of change to turn it into the next supposed “step”.</p>

<p>To use a old Creation analogy, if I find a basketball, a baseball, a tennis ball, and a soccer ball, I could arrange them in order and claim that they demonstrate a progression from the small tennis ball through the baseball and soccer ball to the basketball. But in reality all the evidence indicates is that a variety of balls exist.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

@silverturtle

Well, it doesn’t seem as though this thread has been very effective in persuading anyone thus far. Maybe once we hit 160 pages.

</p>

<p>I think that this thread has been very cathartic for some. :)</p>

[silverturtle]

<p>

I think that this thread has been very cathartic for some.

</p>

<p>I had that same thought when I first wrote that, so I changed “effective” to “effective in persuading anyone.” :)</p>

[thequestionmark]

<p>

The organ thing is from The Origin of the Species.

By Darwin? You’ve read that book? And you realize that it’s over a century old, is not 100% correct by modern standards, and does not have the evidence we have today?</p>

<p>I’m dubious that you’ve read it and I’m equally dubious that the spider-web, cleaner fish, and organ structure arguments weren’t pulled off a creationist website, as that’s where they are commonly seen. </p>

<p>

It debunks several false claims against organ development without answering the question of how they did emerge, or how they can be formed through a series of chance mutations, each of which is useful enough to be preserved, without the improbability becoming far beyond MY faith in the truth of Evolution.

</p>

<p>Depends what you’re willing to accept. You have to start by accepting that small mutations happen all the time. That a very small percent of these mutations either improve the current genetic makeup or add new genetic traits. Once you get that far, you realize that all organs, which are dictated by an ever-changing genetic code, can gradually form over long periods of time. I suppose before that, you’d have to accept that there was a LONG period of time…</p>

<p>Since you haven’t even gone that far, it’s no wonder that you reject evolution. You’d have to first reject the ridiculous assertion that the earth is anything less than a few billions years old.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Then your creationist websites/buddies (let’s be honest here, you didn’t think about this on your own, and you probably had no idea what they were before you read about them on some creationist website) point out well: there’s a hole! Explain this evolution nerds! And the explanation isn’t there - creationists go ape****, while the scientists learn to find out more.

</p>

<p>To be honest, I first learned about cleanerfish by playing Odell Down Under :P.</p>

[thequestionmark]

<p>

Obviously I haven’t read that entire list. But browsing through them has yet to turn up an example of a true “transition”. Each of those creatures is a member of a distinct class, which would require a vast amount of change to turn it into the next supposed “step”.

What are your expectations? Revisit [List</a> of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils]List”>List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia)</p>

<p>Because human evolution is so rigorously studied, so is the fossil collection. The distance between each are only a few hundred thousand years apart, very small by evolution standards.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

By Darwin? You’ve read that book? And you realize that it’s over a century old, is not 100% correct by modern standards, and does not have the evidence we have today?</p>

<p>I’m dubious that you’ve read it and I’m equally dubious that the spider-web, cleaner fish, and organ structure arguments weren’t pulled off a creationist website, as that’s where they are commonly seen.

</p>

<p>Be dubious if you want to. The Origin of the Species is on my bookshelf right next to C S Lewis’s Mere Christianity, and I have read it. And I rarely read Creation web sites, because I know that Evolutionists discount their statements from the get-go and because I often find them unconvincing myself.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>Honestly, if the Pope of the Catholic Church, probably the most conservative man on the planet, supports evolution, then I don’t understand why other people can’t. </p>

<p>Seriously, I have never seen any evidence that actually disproves evolution, only things that challenges it. </p>

<p>We must ask ourselves: what would the world be like without evolution? No fossils, for one. AIDS wouldn’t be a problem. And many other things would be markedly different if there existed no such things as evolution.</p>

[xrCalico23]

<p>Have we gotten to the point where we’re arguing whether evolution exists? Um, your belief in it is actually irrelevant, since it exists whether you believe so or not…</p>

<p>o.O</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What are your expectations? Revisit List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>

<p>Because human evolution is so rigorously studied, so is the fossil collection. The distance between each are only a few hundred thousand years apart, very small by evolution standards.

</p>

<p>I already talked about that. If you go through that list, and arrange them in a family tree showing which species are believed to have decended from which, you will find that the tree forms a couple of horizontal lines, not a vertical one. The species still believed to be “transitions” are the ones which we have the least evidence for. Go ahead, do it! Read the wiki articles and make a chart!</p>