Science-Religion. Which wins?

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ Since about page 8 this debate has actually been “Atheism vs Theism: Which Wins” and “Evolution vs Creation: Which Wins”.</p>

[ksarmand]

<p>

Apparently you missed the point. I was told to revise my approach to this topic and essentially be more sympathetic towards the beloved mythology calcified into the minds of biblical fundamentalists or those who simply adhere to the certainty of belief in their particular god. But I am not going to compromise what I say for the sake of remaining excessively polite or politically correct just as a politician doesn’t have the need to adopt bipartisanship to appease political opposition.

</p>

<p>No one is suggesting that you alter, or even compromise, your fundamental message. What you’re missing is the fact that no one will listen to you until you learn how to speak to your audience. There’s a reason Jim Brown didn’t get much done, and another that Abraham Lincoln did.</p>

<p>Furthermore, you are outlining the weakness of your comparison in your own statement. A politician who is polite or politically correct is not necessarily one who adopts a spirit of bipartisanship.</p>

<p>Anyway, we can always continue this in person. You know where to find me.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

This is a flagrantly misconceived, yet very stereotypical, interpretation. On the topic of genomic mutation, creationists and evolutionary biologists will agree on the fundamental concept that mutation is relatively infrequent, stochastic, and largely unfavorable. But creationists process that information and regurgitate it with an erroneous inference (see above quote) that is wholly misrepresentative of what actually occurs.

</p>

<p>That quote was specifically referring to the one-horned deer which was presented as an example of upward evolution. See my other posts for a fuller explanation of my views on mutations.</p>

[Circular]

<p>So, as far as I understand this thread, I have one major question not answered:</p>

<p>Why does evolution preclude creation? Why does the system of evolution, in other words, forbid the existence of God? </p>

<p>By creation, incidentally, I do not mean the fundamentalist view of the “Bible”. That was never meant literally.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

On the Age of the Earth

</p>

<p>I don’t deny that there may be evidence that the earth is very old. I don’t currently believe that it is, but that is a tenative belief that may be changed as I learn more about the evidence involved. What I was saying there was that my worldview allows me to choose whichever seems most reasonable, but Evolution requires an old earth as one of its basic assumptions.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^^ It doesn’t. It may preclude some interpretations of the Bible, but it does not preclude God in any way.</p>

[Circular]

<p>^Exactly. </p>

<p>So, mifune seems to be arguing that because of evolution, God / supernatural beings cannot exist. I don’t understand his line of reasoning there.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>One possible explanation of the age of the earth: There is no reason why matter should not have existed before God shaped it into life and the world we know today.</p>

<p>And mifune, your linking to infidels.org is rather strange given your criticism of any linking to answersingenisis.org.</p>

[Circular]

<p>^Or the earth could be billions of years old and that does not invalidate any beliefs whatsoever.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>^ It invalidates the belief that the earth was created about 6,000 years ago, which is something many Christians infer from the Bible but which is not neccesarily true.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

What an asinine conceit. I previously established logical argument that disproves the simultaneous possession of certain commonly established characteristics of divine existence along with the other baseless assumptions that it is “everlasting,” “eternal,” or not confined by the constraints of logic.

</p>

<p>More specifically: you have previously established logical arguments that seem to invalidate some people’s understanding of God.</p>

<p>Invalidating “common characteristics” of something does not invalidate the something. That’s like saying “Many people believe that pigs fly. Pigs do not fly, therefore pigs do not exist.”</p>

<p>

I will enlarge on this point in a future post.

</p>

<p>Please do. You’ve been saying that for almost two months now.</p>

[Circular]

<p>^^Many fundamentalist Christians, which technically and historically do not represent the beliefs of true Christians (meaning Catholics) not to offend any Fundamentalists here.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

On Genesis

</p>

<p>There are ways to reconcile the account. The most obvious: Genesis was written to the ancient Hebrews. “In the beginning proto-cells developed from clay globules” would probably have had little meaning for them. A description of the things in the world, along with the purpose/rationale for each of them, might have been more appropriate.</p>

<p>I do not believe this interpretation to be correct, but I may be wrong in that belief.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Evolution has supplied an overwhelming abundance of evidence to corroborate its validity. By contrast, creationism and intelligent design, teach students not to acknowledge legitimate truth on the basis of evidence, but on revelation, authority, and faith.

</p>

<p>When in this argument have I ever asked you accept anything on the basis of “revelation, authority, and faith”?</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

There are various proposed mechanisms on what caused the Big Bang, each on trial until the proper technological means and relevant physics become available.

</p>

<p>As soon as any of those mechanisms are confirmed, you will have the exact same problem with them that you currently have with the Big Bang.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

Using the ostensibly commonsensical assertion that everything must have a cause and effect fails miserably with a modern understanding of physics. Not all physical interactions pair an effect to an underlying cause; to propagate the notion that “all effects must have a cause” is an enormous conceit.

</p>

<p>All effects must have a cause. If they do not have a cause, why do they happen? There are two possibilities:</p>

<p>1: They are determined by some mathematical principle (which is, then, the “cause”, and which, then, needs a cause of its own).</p>

<p>2: They are not determined by some mathematical principle (which is only explainable by the existence of agency in the universe, that things can just “decide” to do things without having to follow a set of laws).</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

This metaphysically conceited, pseudo-intellectual flapdoodle.

</p>

<p>That’s got to be the most verbose derogatory word sequence I’ve seen :P.</p>

<p>

If humans could somehow procure this “spiritual radiation” propagated from a intangible domain, these emanations would somehow have to interact with the brain and produce a thought. But there is no mechanism for this in the brain.

</p>

<p>How do you know that? Neurons only do the things they do because of unexplainable interactions at the sub-atomic level.</p>

<p>

Blocks falling from a stack due to gravity is not in any way comparable to the collective activity of neurons composing a soft-tissued organ.

</p>

<p>According to naturalism, they are EXACTLY analogous. Both are sets of matter that will change in a certain way due to the natural laws the control them. Neither are capable of making any choices along the way.</p>

[MosbyMarion]

<p>

So much for irrational dismissal of b3n5p34km4n’s perfectly valid and sobering point. Post #955 is a spot on remark to eastfrobeauty’s completely asinine “you’re going to rot in hell if you don’t believe in Allah” comment.

</p>

<p>I was specifically responding to this quote:</p>

<p>

@b3n5p34km4n

if I walk into a restaurant with a bomb on my person and proceed to annihilate myself and and all the patrons, I’d wake up in “heaven” with 40 or so females with intact hymens?

</p>

<p>Would you like to go on record as saying that is “spot on”?</p>

[mifune]

<p>

By my understanding of the article, they took the existing DNA sequence of Mycoplasma mycoides, inserted some custom code, and then used the existing “natural capacities of yeast and other bacteria to meld genes and chromosomes” to stich together this new sequence from the basic snippets.

</p>

<p>The genome was forged using a computer, chemically synthesized, and inserted into the recipient cell. It was modeled on the basis of existing genome but no fragment of the transplanted DNA was composed of naturally occurring genetic material. There is a very profound difference, which is precisely why this synthesis of a living, self-propagating cell from inanimate matter has been so widely extolled in the biological community.</p>

[mifune]

<p>

I think science and religion should not be compared at all. Two different operas, entirely…

</p>

<p>Indeed. In terms of systematic consideration and effective methodology for obtaining truth about the world, science and religion are diametrically opposed. Science and religion “meet” on the neurochemical level, specifically when considering why religion has been such a fanatical source of enthrallment to human nature even when its factual foundations (particularly with regard to the origins and history of biological sequence) are validly contravened.</p>