CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: The "Science -vs- Religion" debate...

[hoosierdoc]

You used your understanding of science to Incorrectly explain something. I used mine to refute it. Who made you right and me wrong?

I just used science to explain the origin of the eye to you. The fact that you were incapable of processing the explanation is a failing you'll have to learn to live with.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I know. So much fun to waste breath and argue.

I am so glad we got the go ahead to do this again...

View attachment 38873

 

[hoosierdoc]

Let's see how Darwin feels about the eye

‘To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivance for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.’[SUP]2[/SUP]

Then he goes and guesses about maybe tiny steps led to it, as you did. Propose those steps. Show us how they could be genetically coded and spread to the population in high enough concentration to become a definitive trait, even as the original trait was evolving.

not possible.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I know you said agree to disagree, but I don't agree. I would like you to specify how my explanation of the origin of the eye as an evolutionary adaptation from a photosensitive conglomeration of cells to a human oculus was scientificly incorrect.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Let's see how Darwin feels about the eye

Okay. So?

There was much that Darwin got wrong. Science doesn't focus on what past scientists got wrong, but what they got right, and it freely corrects itself when what it previously claimed is proven wrong. The natural selection pressures that governed the evolution of the eye being but one.

 

[hoosierdoc]

So he was wrong? He supported your view of the eye.

i'm done. You are a super genius in eveything. Sorry to muddle.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So he was wrong? He supported your view of the eye.

i'm done. You are a super genius in eveything. Sorry to muddle.

He did? How so? Your quote, assuming it's accurate, featured him calling my view of the eye absurd. Is absurdity a synonym for agreement in your opinion?

I was serious and earnest in wanting someone to detail for me how my explanation for the origin of the eye was scientificly incorrect. Can anyone correct it?

 

[hoosierdoc]

I did, you didn't accept it.

To beleive 3.14^10x8675309 things randomly happened in perfect sequential order to make so many perfect things is pie in the sky. Much easier to believe intelligent design. Randomness does not lead to perfection.

Google the quote and read further if you wish to learn what else he said.

 

[CathyInBlue]

I don't believe I have ever called any results of natural selection perfect. I believe I have always uniformly maintained that biologic adaptation has, at every step, been "good enough", and that that is all that evolution requires. And I think you swapped the arithmetic operators in your hyperbolicly huge number, multiplication where exponentiation would make more sense and vice versa. And, in response to your hyperbolicly huge number, I will reiterate the massively parallel nature of biologic evolution.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I'm sorry I misled you, I said I was done and kept talking. Time to buckle down and leave.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Having finished watching Roy Underhill and guest demonstrate how to true up a wooden carpenter's square, I think I shall go off for a nap myself.

 

[Denny347]

God cannot be proved. Some use this as an excuse to claim, therefore God does not exist. Yet so many things exist that cannot be proved beyond doubt. And perhaps God prefers it that way. The Christian religion places a great deal of importance on "faith." Faith being the a belief in that which is true but lacks evidence.

Some suffering from an over abundance in confidence forget 2 things. 1. Every few years a ton of stuff that we have "proved." is found to be only partially true, untrue, or faked by the "research" team. and 2. God cannot be proved but He cannot be disproved either.

What really interests me is why SOME Atheists get so upset about seeing Christian things and hearing Christian prayers. When hear someone talking about something that I consider to be a fairy tale, I roll my eyes and move on. I don't claim offense, I don't try to have their speech banned, I don't even care if they sing about it in public schools. What I believe is going on here is complex --but in many cases, I think these people (who claim to be offended by everything Christian) really do believe that there is a God (subconsciously, perhaps) and they know that they are acting against His will or they desire to act against His will, and thus they use these behaviours as a defense mechanism. Seriously, if you really didn't believe, how can it be that offensive to you? Hmmmm. Paging Dr. Freud....

My opinion, as a highly educated scientist and a Christian, is that God and religion are not necessarily at odds and those who think they are (from either camp,) are no where near as smart as they think they are.

IFITY

 

[steveh_131]

No, I put forward a belief that teaching children that <science topic> works the way it does because <religious tenet> does violence to popular science literacy. Given a religious person educated about science in a science classroom that teaches science as science, science, science can and usually does result in a religious person with high science literacy. But to do this regularly and repeatably, you can't be having religious dogma sneaking into the science curriculum under a thin veil of scientific language.

This is ridiculous. Almost no science topics taught to children are contradicted by a belief in intelligent design.

The laws of physics exist. The laws of chemistry exist. The mechanisms of biology exist. My belief about who or what created them has absolutely no bearing on my ability to learn them and implement them.

The topic of the origin of the universe doesn't even have a place in lower education. Why do kids need to learn about macro evolution theories? Genetics, mutations and natural selection are all fair game. Teach the fundamentals and let them draw their own conclusions based on the evidence that they perceive.

The theory of evolution or intelligent design, if they absolutely had to be taught in school, shouldn't amount to more than a brief explanation. But everybody has an agenda and their own propaganda to push.

This is why we homeschool.

 

[hoosierdoc]

steveh, tried to rep ya but couldn't.

 

[D-Ric902]

Got him

 

[jamil]

D-ric repping steveh? I just felt a ripple in the force.

 

[BugI02]

In a universe where entropy is a ruling factor, I find it curious that such beautiful organization, symmetry, and complicated systems exist, since entropy tells us the natural order is randomness and disorder.

To view the human eye as the result of random mutation is quite the stretch. An organ fails if the nerve is severed, and a nerve won't mantain if the organ is removed. So how did a massively complex system "evolve" where both key portions cannot exist without simultaneous function of each other? Answer... It can't.

You are aware that at least four distinct types of eye have evolved in the world at large aren't you. Why don't insects have the same eyes as humans, or arthropods, or octopi. There are structures in lower vertebrates that, while not eyes, provide some ability to respond to visual/visible information and could easily be evolutionary precursors to vision. And lastly, if God designed eyes why do they have design/structural flaws - shouldnt they be marvels of perfection?

 

[mbills2223]

Steve I never thought you and I would land on the same side of...well...anything. it's a monumentous day.

 

[BugI02]

Oh please. I understand the concept of natural selection, I'm saying it only makes sense at the end result. That tiny mutations that have zero impact make enough of a difference to change the genetic code of a species is absurd. Please tell me how one little amino acid helps a sloth find another sloth.

If that amino acid codes for a sex pheromone that another sloth searching for a mate can detect at a distance

 

[hoosierdoc]

If that amino acid codes for a sex pheromone that another sloth searching for a mate can detect at a distance

Nope, not how it works. A single amino acid doesn't do squat. Even if it did, so a mutation makes an animal more attractive, so you'd be selecting for increased pheromones, not eyes.