Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

My apologies. You guys are at 81 pages and I just wanted to answer the original question. If what I said offended any of you then I apologize as well. I didn’t mean for it to sound offensive to anybody. All I was stating is that, to me, it is more important to be a good person then a smart person. Never said you couldn’t be both. Just that if I were to pick one and could only be one I would pick being a good person.

</p>

<p>Not a problem! Just that we’re all a little war-weary here :P.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

People with blue eyes. The blue eye phenotype is a mutation unique to Europeans. It can be considered “evolution” because it is selected for because of how it makes some people very attractive to others.

</p>

<p>So you think blue eyes could not have been created as part of humans’ original genome?</p>

<p>

AIDS is also constantly evolving and mutating. The reason why it has existed for so long is because of evolution. If it wasn’t constantly evolving, organism would have built an immunity to it and it would be extinct.

</p>

<p>Mutating, but not evolving. HIV is still HIV, although your immune system doesn’t know that.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Without the change that evolution brings, we would not see some of the classic fossils, like triceratops, which did not exist, then did exist because something evolved into it, then didn’t exist.

</p>

<p>Excellent! But is it as clear as that? How do you think they determine how old a layer of rock is?</p>

<p>[Biostratigraphy</a> - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy]Biostratigraphy”>Biostratigraphy - Wikipedia)</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>

So you think blue eyes could not have been created as part of humans’ original genome?

I highly doubt it. If it was, then there should be by mere probability a fair number of blue eyed people amongst Native Americans, Asians, Africans, and those from the Middle East. However, that has not been observed. Furthermore, I would bet that the blue eyed gene is found only in Europeans, not in anyone else. That is why I consider it a mutation, and not a gene found in all humans. </p>

<p>

Mutating, but not evolving. HIV is still HIV, although your immune system doesn’t know that.

How is that not evolution? The virus adapts to pressures from the immune system so that mutated and therefore unrecognized forms are favored.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>

Excellent! But is it as clear as that? How do you think they determine how old a layer of rock is?

Are you saying that they use mass extinction to define rock strata? I see your point there, but explain how there are difference species in each mass extinction?</p>

<p>I’m not trying to insult you or demean. I have nothing against you. I just think you are wrong regarding evolution. Regarding God, I am not trying to disprove Him at all. I’m just trying to explain how true evolution is.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

I highly doubt it. If it was, then there should be by mere probability a fair number of blue eyed people amongst Native Americans, Asians, Africans, and those from the Middle East. However, that has not been observed. Furthermore, I would bet that the blue eyed gene is found only in Europeans, not in anyone else. That is why I consider it a mutation, and not a gene found in all humans.

</p>

<p>You said the reason yourself: Some people consider blue eyes “hot”. At some point in the past those people clustered in Europe.</p>

<p>The same is true for red hair, black skin, extremely small size, and all the other variations among races.</p>

<p>Of all things an Evolutionist should be familiar with [url=<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation]Speciation[/url”>Speciation - Wikipedia]Speciation[/url</a>].</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Are you saying that they use mass extinction to define rock strata? I see your point there, but explain how there are difference species in each mass extinction?</p>

<p>I’m not trying to insult you or demean. I have nothing against you. I just think you are wrong regarding evolution. Regarding God, I am not trying to disprove Him at all. I’m just trying to explain how true evolution is.

</p>

<p>One of the main ways rocks are dated is by the fossils found in them. Since some species are know to have evolved and gone extinct at certain times :rolleyes: rocks containing these fossils can be dated to these times.</p>

<p>And I know you aren’t trying to insult me. I am very thankful, you are the most respectful Evolutionist I have debated as yet.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

How is that not evolution? The virus adapt s to pressures from the immune system so that mutated and therefore unrecognized forms are favored.

</p>

<p>Because the virus is still a virus. It has gained nothing new. If these type of mutations continued forever they would not produce anything but an HIV virus.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>

The problem I have with you is that you don’t just poke holes in evolution - you must have your own alternate hypothesis, one that to you, provides a better explanation. Otherwise you don’t understand what the true nature of scientific endeavor is. Since you haven’t really backed an alternate explanation with sufficient evidence, I remind you that science is about picking the best theories, not the perfect ones. I’m almost completely certain that you use two different standards to judge whatever theories you have, when in reality, an objective standard should be used.

</p>

<p>This is a good point; if you wish to remain in the realm of science, MM, you must prove why your theory is better than evolution. You cannot say, scientifically, that “this theory (evolution) may be wrong/incomplete, so anything goes.”</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>

Because the virus is still a virus. It has gained nothing new. If these type of mutations continued forever they would not produce anything but an HIV virus.

Different HIV viruses. The viruses would not be the same. You can call them all HIV, but they are not all the same. I was using HIV to illustrate how mutations do exist, and how they can be evolutionarily selected for.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

One of the main ways rocks are dated is by the fossils found in them.

</p>

<p>This is factually incorrect. This may be an auxiliary method, but it certainly is not the main one.</p>

[r0kAng3l]

<p>HIV keeps mutating itself because your white blood cells keep replucating and the body does not realize that there is HIV. That is why nobody can ever get rid of HIV.</p>

[r0kAng3l]

<p>

This is factually incorrect. This may be an auxiliary method, but it certainly is not the main one.

You mean like Carbon 14?</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>^Yes, I am referring to methods of radiometric dating.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

This is a good point; if you wish to remain in the realm of science, MM, you must prove why your theory is better than evolution. You cannot say, scientifically, that “this theory (evolution) may be wrong/incomplete, so anything goes.”

</p>

<p>I’m not trying to prove my theory. I’m trying to show that neither CAN be proven, and it is hence not reasonable to consider anyone with a different view to be criminally ignorant.</p>

<p>I believe in God for very personal reasons that I wouldn’t expect to convince you.</p>

<p>I believe in Creation because of the design which is self-evident to me in all created things.</p>

<p>I’m not trying to claim that God is in the realm of science, I’m trying to claim the Evolution as commonly presented isn’t.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

This is factually incorrect. This may be an auxiliary method, but it certainly is not the main one.

</p>

<p>One of. There are other methods, of varying degrees of reliability. They tend to start with the assumption that the Evolutionary timeline is true, reather than end with it.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>It is almost midnight. I am going to bed. Night y’all.</p>

[hahalolk]

<p>Creation and evolution aren’t inherently contradictory though. Even the Pope believes in evolution.</p>

<p>Regarding God, yes, it certainly does appear impossible at the moment to either prove or disprove Him. Atheists and theists are not ignorant for whatever views they hold regarding God, that I agree.</p>

[Sithis]

<p>@MM: I never said anything about God. I was strictly referring to your creationism. As long as you are not asserting that creationism is more scientific than evolution, we’re ok.</p>

[alberttkimm]

<p>Have you guys experienced de-realization? This is one of the main reasons what I believe in God. During this moments, I find it impossible to believe that life in itself just started out of “nowhere.” I feel like every sense, every system in our body that amazingly supports our existence is way too complex and unreal for it no to be created without a purpose.</p>