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

[CathyInBlue]

what would it say?

Real Atheist Christmas display at U.Wisc.

 

[CathyInBlue]

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.

So, you're saying no fetus can ever again grow an eyeball, because it wouldn't have the nerve with it, nor an optic nerve because it wouldn't have an eyeball attached.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

So, you're saying no fetus can ever again grow an eyeball, because it wouldn't have the nerve with it, nor an optic nerve because it wouldn't have an eyeball attached.

So, you're saying the human race evolved to complete maturity in 10 months?

 

[jamil]

I despise the term "open-minded".

I suppose it's a silly term for its purpose. But I don't think anyone infers the literal meaning. If you say you're open minded I think you're telling me you're willing to give new ideas at least some consideration.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Electro-chemistry. Life is the self-perpetuating sequence of chemical reactions which allows an organism to perpetuate itself macroscopicly. The tree is alive because it takes in sunlight, water, and CO[SUB]2[/SUB], which allows it to emit O[SUB]2 [/SUB]and grow its tissues larger, grow and shed flowers and leaves, etc. The earthworm is alive if it can continue to operate its muscles through muscular contraction and relaxation due to the impulses of nerves, which allows it to seek out new food sources to digest for fuel. Electro-chemical reactions, one and all. And I believe I mentioned that piles of raw constituent chemicals would decay and oxidize and no longer be the original chemicals that composed the earthworm above, did I not. So, there is definitely a time/freshness constraint on this earthworm construction project.

So, if you managed to build a fresh earthworm, and the electro-chemistry did not immediately take over, it would be because you didn't include enough molecular energy in the cells when you built them instantaneously.

Note that I'm a physicist, not a chemist or a biologist, so if you asked a chemist or a biologist, you're likely to get a substantially more detailed answer than this.

Biology is just applied chemistry.
Chemistry is just applied atomic physics.
But physics is just applied math.

How can you tell the three principle sciences apart? If it wiggles, it's biology. If it stinks, it's chemistry. And if it doesn't work, it's physics.

You are explaining how an organism feeds itself and propels itself, but you're not explaining the essence that makes it do these things. That's what I'm getting at. You're (and that can be a generic "you're") attempting to explain the "what" and the "how", but you're not addressing the "why". Why is one group of elements and chemical compounds "alive", while another is inanimate? Don't feel bad. No human being that has existed up to this point has been able to do that. That is what I'm getting at. What is that "essence" that makes something "alive"? And, where does that "essence" come from? You can attempt to explain it, but it is not something that can be reproduced (not even close) in a lab. That, to me, is what is missing from science's attempt to explain the natural world. Until that "essence" is discovered, and is able to be reproduced, then it remains an unknown, yet we "know" it exists. To put it another way, we have "faith" that it exists.

 

[CathyInBlue]

So, you're saying the human race evolved to complete maturity in 10 months?

No.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

what would it say?

"This Space For Rent"

 

[hoosierdoc]

Completely different. I'm discussing mutation of the genetic code to tell your body to make an eye. You're discussing processing of that code to create the result. Why would the million random mutations that would have to occur to start that process be retained when they gave zero evolutionary benefit? We're talking astronomically impossible odds just to make an eye, yet each of those atronomically long odds have to be multiplied together to get all the mutations in the same person/organism. Poppycock.


Same with random molecule organization creating the first proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.

So, you're saying no fetus can ever again grow an eyeball, because it wouldn't have the nerve with it, nor an optic nerve because it wouldn't have an eyeball attached.

 

[mbills2223]

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.

The most logical answer is usually the correct one: because God willed it.

 

[jamil]

Real Atheist Christmas display at U.Wisc.

i would consider this "vinegar", which is the apparent intention.

 

[CathyInBlue]

You are explaining how an organism feeds itself and propels itself, but you're not explaining the essence that makes it do these things. That's what I'm getting at. You're (and that can be a generic "you're") attempting to explain the "what" and the "how", but you're not addressing the "why". Why is one group of elements and chemical compounds "alive", while another is inanimate? Don't feel bad. No human being that has existed up to this point has been able to do that. That is what I'm getting at. What is that "essence" that makes something "alive"? And, where does that "essence" come from? You can attempt to explain it, but it is not something that can be reproduced (not even close) in a lab. That, to me, is what is missing from science's attempt to explain the natural world. Until that "essence" is discovered, and is able to be reproduced, then it remains an unknown, yet we "know" it exists. To put it another way, we have "faith" that it exists.

I explained both the how, electro-chemistry, as well as the why, self-perpetuation. If the self-perpetuating electro-chemical reactions stop, the organism enters the last phase of its existence, known as composting, wherein other chemical reactions take over, which breaks down all of the far more intricate and complex chemicals into smaller bits that other living things called plants or fungi can then ingest in their own life processes.

Even people who feel they have nothing to live for tend to look both ways when crossing the street. Why? Self-preservation, another way of saying self-perpetuation.

 

[steveh_131]

The answer to the second one is that we don't want to graduate a generation of new citizens who are scientificly illiterate. That is what happens when Intelligent Design is offered as a plausible explanation for the world around us. If earthworms formed just 6,000 - 7,000 years ago because god spoke them into existence, or if cellular biology works the way it does just because its god's will, then there's no reason for students to study the chemistry of cellular metabolism in any detail because whatever the cells do is just part of god's grand plan. If gravity is just a theory and the ways in which mechanical objects can be assembled is able to be affected by prayer, then there's no reason for mechanical engineers to worry their pretty little heads about all those structural load calculations, just build the bridge and then pray that it stays up, and that's good enough. If we want our bridges and buildings to stay up when we build them, if we want our diseases to actually succumb to the next generation of medicines that we develope to fight them, then we want only solid science to be taught in our classrooms.

This is silly, Cathy. Surely you aren't really arguing that a belief in Intelligent Design precludes scientific literacy.

I grew up believing in intelligent design and still excelled at science. Yes, God created the principles of physics. So what? Why shouldn't I learn them?

 

[hoosierdoc]

No.

Yes, you did.

 

[hoosierdoc]

The most logical answer is usually the correct one: because God willed it.

Kinda like raising $1500 for charity on the Internet?

i I saw a CF patient last night. She was going to do the walk but backed out due to the rain. She raised $500. Said no way would she get tased for it, and she had the disease!

props to Mbills.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Completely different. I'm discussing mutation of the genetic code to tell your body to make an eye. You're discussing processing of that code to create the result. Why would the million random mutations that would have to occur to start that process be retained when they gave zero evolutionary benefit? We're talking astronomically impossible odds just to make an eye, yet each of those atronomically long odds have to be multiplied together to get all the mutations in the same person/organism. Poppycock.


Same with random molecule organization creating the first proteins, RNA, DNA, etc.

Except that at each mutation step, the incremental change was just useful enough to the organism to help the organism out compete its similars, find more food easier, avoid predators, and mate. In the next step, the mutation changed the early proto-eye just a little bit, which made the next generation just a little bit better at competing for resources. Repeat that through few million years and a few hundred thousand species from primitive multi-cellular life forms, through invertebrates, through vertebrates, through fish, through reptiles, through mammals, through hominids, through humans. From a primitive light-sensitive cell on the primitive neuro-nexus to exquisitely structured biological cameras separated from the well-developed brain by a bundle of nerves, a million intermediary steps, at each, the eye and the nerve evolved together.

Tell me all you know about the vocal nerve of the giraffe.

 

[CathyInBlue]

This is silly, Cathy. Surely you aren't really arguing that a belief in Intelligent Design precludes scientific literacy.

I grew up believing in intelligent design and still excelled at science. Yes, God created the principles of physics. So what? Why shouldn't I learn them?

On average, I believe it does. I believe there have been studies of popular science literacy showing that those taught religion as science have less of it than those taught science as science and religion as religion.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Yes, you did.

Prove it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

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.

Except that at each mutation step, the incremental change was just useful enough to the organism to help the organism out compete its similars, find more food easier, avoid predators

, and mate. In the next step, the mutation changed the early proto-eye just a little bit, which made the next generation just a little bit better at competing for resources. Repeat that through few million years and a few hundred thousand species from primitive multi-cellular life forms, through invertebrates, through vertebrates, through fish, through reptiles, through mammals, through hominids, through humans. From a primitive light-sensitive cell on the primitive neuro-nexus to exquisitely structured biological cameras separated from the well-developed brain by a bundle of nerves, a million intermediary steps, at each, the eye and the nerve evolved together.

Tell me all you know about the vocal nerve of the giraffe.

 

[CathyInBlue]

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.

I don't recall saying that the intermediate mutations had zero impact. Quite the opposite, in fact. You're either mistaken in that, or attempting to put words in my mouth. And mutations are changes in the genetic code. That's kind of the definition of the mutation

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Prove it.

Doc: Eyes and nerves need each other to exist.

Cathy: a baby develops eyes and nerves simultaneously.