Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 monalee1
Joined: 10/22/2007
Msg: 124
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?Page 4 of 26    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26)
"Your child is a real entity, others can experience your child whether or not they also experience your deity,


hi .. but the same holds True for knowing God but lets put that aside for now... the question was not how ~you~ would know it was how I would know and my answer remains>> I am the one who went through it... until you have walked a mile in my shoes walking with God you can only have an opinion that it was a delusion.... blessings though
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 126
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:00:22 PM
legitimate science and legitimate religion can't be in conflict.

now how do we judge them to be legitimate?
 lateā„¢
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 127
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:02:00 PM

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig." --Robert Heinlein


And often, ...it annoys the teacher as well.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 10:46:48 PM
Good points made, but at least one important fact missed:

Watches and apple pies are at least partially mechanical in origin. Biology is, at its root, purely chemical. Chemical reactions follow basic rules of physics and the derived rules of chemistry. The "creator" of life is the rules of chemistry. Mechanical objects only exist by pure chance, or by being fabricated. Consequently, complex mechanical objects ONLY exist if they have been "made". Simple objects, like a fulcrum [log fallen on a rock] come and go, but do not lead to more complex devices on their own.

Additionally, watches, pies, and other mechanical objects are known and observed to be created, and they have a known and observable creator. No life form has been observed to be "created" ex nihilo, nor has such a creator ever been defined OR observed. Given the laws of chemistry, such a fantasy is also redundant.


First of all, evolution has no answer for where the atoms came from in the first place, other than to say that nothing exploded and created everything.

Nor do the theories of electromagnetism, gravity, immunology, cell biology. What are your problems with these theories, which are EQUALLY dependent on the origin of the universe? Would you dispute the functioning of your computer, monitor, or gravity?

Could you present an argument which is FREE of fallacy, and is logically consistent?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 129
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 11:19:24 PM
I never like to use mechanical analogies.

I just go for the no real proof, or smarter people then me would have seen it too.

and

the super complex nature of nature.

the workings that go on inside of a cell are unexplainable without a designer.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/media/a/the-wisdom-in-your-cell/

and I do think that running over the intricate laws of physics without reflecting on their appearance makes chemistry seem the most natural thing in the world, almost self actualizing.

correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the matter [or chemistry] in this universe would not exist as it is if the power of the electromagnetic force wasn't pretty close to what it is, I believe 10 to the 40th stronger than gravity.

but ya, chemistry works fine pretty much without us.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 130
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/26/2010 11:59:12 PM

I never like to use mechanical analogies

Wise choice.


I just go for the no real proof

Fallacy. No true Scotsman.


or smarter people then me would have seen it too

And millions have, individually and collectively, including the world's largest Christian denomination.


the super complex nature of nature

Fallacy. Appeal to personal incredulity.


the workings that go on inside of a cell are unexplainable without a designer

Fallacy. Appeal to personal incredulity. Also the fallacy of being a false statement.


and I do think that running over the intricate laws of physics without reflecting on their appearance makes chemistry seem the most natural thing in the world, almost self actualizing

If I understand correctly, "gut feeling supercedes evidence"?


correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the matter [or chemistry] in this universe would not exist ...

Fallacy. Post hoc. All probabilities are 100% after the fact. No-one can speak on behalf of all or any universes which might have rules differing from our own. For all anyone knows, there could be [and likely are] underlying rules which determine exactly how universes are formed. For all anyone knows the tiny chance of our own universe existing might well be offset by countless other universes which "rolled the dice" differently.
Fallacy. Appeal to numbers.
Fallacy. Appeal to personal incredulity.

Anyone [apart from those arguing in favor of science] care to try for an argument not entirely dependent on fallacy?

Slightly back on topic...

Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?

Religion as a whole? No. That would require that ALL religions make claims contradicting science, and I don't see that that is the case.
Religion on average? Yes. Most religions make claims which contradict science.
A particular religion? Depends on which one. If you mean any kind of desert monotheism, yes.
Some religion, some time? Absolutely. Only one [among many] has to contradict science once, EVER, for the answer here to be "yes".

Regardless though, it's more accurate to say that religions conflict with science. Science deals with facts and theories, while religions often make claims which violate both. Which creates the conflict, the facts, or the fantasies?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 132
view profile
History
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 1:25:38 AM
which brings me to the point that legitimate religion and legitimate science have to totally be in unison or one or both are wrong.

religions for the very most part are quite embarrassing.
science by its very nature of progressing is wrong on the way to its goals.
and sometimes its just wrong. google.

Fallacy. Post hoc. All probabilities are 100% after the fact. No-one can speak on behalf of all or any universes which might have rules differing from our own. For all anyone knows, there could be [and likely are] underlying rules which determine exactly how universes are formed. For all anyone knows the tiny chance of our own universe existing might well be offset by countless other universes which "rolled the dice" differently.
and I don't believe that the laws of physics are a fluke.



I'll say this much, the majority are ignorant and afraid to debate the issue of evolution.
or smarter people then me would have seen it too

And millions have, individually and collectively, including the world's largest Christian denomination.

catholics, we won't go there.

I don't care what you call it, for me it works just fine to say that mathematically the odds of life and cells to turn up by themselves is calculated to be impossible.
after I think about it, I'll go with that.

my point is that the laws of physics are another real entity that is largely ignored by society.
without them this universe would not exist.

where did they come from?
I don't really care what you or anyone else thinks.

how did they get fine tuned?
Its over some of our heads, so its not deemed to be important by some.
or it can never be explained by science, so forget it.

and the workings of a cell ARE unexplainable without a creator, because they are incredibly complex, not enough time since the beginning of time to happen on there own.
Unless it found a system all on its own, of which there is no evidence.

someone has to win the lottery, but the laws of physic have no reason to be here.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 134
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 8:50:23 AM

my point is that the laws of physics are another real entity that is largely ignored by society.
without them this universe would not exist.


Utterly frivolous statement. Attributing special meaning to the universe and its relationship to the laws of physics is like attributing special meaning to a bird and the colour of its wings. Yet another lame attempt at bringing in "Godidit." Please!


someone has to win the lottery, but the laws of physic have no reason to be here.


The laws of physics are here because the universe is here. Again, thoroughly frivolous and meaningless statement. A veiled appeal to numbers. "Reason" implies "intent." "Intent" implies "intender." Hmmm...wonder who that could be. God perhaps?

What amazes me with the creationist mindset, it's the stubborn insistence in sticking with tried and failed arguments and the wilful ignorance and denial of clear evidence.
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 135
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 8:55:03 AM

To get a grasp on the size of numbers for such trial and error, consider the number of atoms in a grain of sand then how many are in a planet. Just for fun, now consider how many are in the universe. Now consider that life did not "appear" for billions of years. Once the building block molecules form, they replicate. Its not like throwing a watch in the air and expecting a whole watch but throwing billions of watch parts in the air billions of times and expecting a couple of the parts to fall together. Then take billions of those attached part combinations with billions of the other parts and throw them in the air billions of times until another part becomes attached. Continue this process billions of times. Its not a game of starting over, its a game of multiplying and building on past development. Science itself is very much emulates "evolution" in that it is a building process.

Evolution is not about accidentals changes causing apes do evolve into humans.

First of all, Darwin never claimed that Apes developed into humans, he only (and rightfully so) argued that apes and humans share a common ancestor.
Second, no matter how many millions of apes you sit down in front of a typewriter machine, they will never, ever come up with the collected works of Shakespeare.
The same goes for your watch example. I don't care how many billions of watch parts you throw up into the air, they will never come down as one fully assembled, working TIMEX piece.

There is a fine but distinguished line between Theoretic Science and Practical Reallity.
Likewise, I don't care how holy you claim your breath is, you can breath onto a lump of clay 6 days a week for all eternity, and it will still not produce a living human being.

Fact is that Evolution is about Change. We live in a changing world and have so ever since the Universe got started.
Evolution is about live forms adapting to that change, or about those who don't going extinct.
Random genetic mutations are thought to be the process that allows species to change over time.

For now that is the point of knowledge where science stands.
Nobody ever produced anything close to a functioning organism out of sheer nothingness.
No priest, no pope and no scientist either.

I don't know how live got started on this planet and I laugh about anyone who claims to be sure that process was repeated elsewhere in the Universe - because he could just as well claim to be able to foretell next week's lottery numbers.

But I do know that live did get started - I am because I think.
And whatever else exists "out there" needs to be evaluated based on fact and actual reality.
Not speculation, myth or religiously based fantasy.

I don't bother trying to prove that God exists or doesn't exist.
Because his/her/its existence is meaningless in a Universe governed by the laws of Physics with an ironclad hand.
We all have to obey the laws that govern Gravity, Energy and Space-Time - no matter how holy we claim to be.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 136
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:01:37 AM

So we are being told that if we throw pieces of a watch in the air enough times, eventually they will all come together, and that proves evolution is true. This is the kind of specious speculation that makes otherwise intelligent people look like fools. This is fantasy land material. First of all, evolution has no answer for where the atoms came from in the first place, other than to say that nothing exploded and created everything. If you believe this, you've got enough blind faith to create your OWN religion. Who is supposed to have created the pieces of the watch in the first place??? Secondly, the pieces of watch would destroy each other by clashing together long before anything could fit together. Ever hear of the law of entropy increase? Thirdly, where are all of the partially made watches in rock strata? You know ... the ones that had the hour hand longer than the minute hand and were therefore rejected by the gods of evolution. They should be all over the place. What a laughable joke. There should be millions of graduated watch fragments of watches in various degrees of becoming full blown watches, among the dinosaur bones, according to this kind of logic. Those who believe this kind of stuff and the other imaginary unprovable harebrained ideas related to evolution, already have their religion. And guess what ... it really DOES contradict legitimate science. Every thing from watches to apple pie must have a creator. If scientific logic or at least, common sense, does not convince you of that, get help. Or perhaps we can just throw you into the air several times until you finally come down in your right mind.


The watch analogy was first mentioned by me in message 77. It is analogous to evolution, which describes how life has evolved to be what it is today (eg. how today's world has been created). It is NOT intended to be analogous to the big bang. If you want, you can re-read what I wrote in message 77 and if your still having trouble, ask me and I'll try and explain it better.

All your response indicates is that you don't understand the analogy. That's fine, there isn't isn't any need to be so rude about it.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 137
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:06:03 AM

The watch analogy was first mentioned by me in message 57. It is analogous to evolution, which describes how life has evolved to be what it is today (eg. how today's world has been created). It is NOT intended to be analogous to the big bang. If you want, you can re-read what I wrote in message 57 and if your still having trouble, ask me and I'll try and explain it better.


It's also specious. If the laws of chemistry governed putting a watch together, it might work. But if you hear something repeated enough without thinking about it, the fallaciousness of that argument is easily missed.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 138
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:08:59 AM
^^^^

Message 77, not message 57. Sorry. I had to edit it. Read what I wrote, it's just an analogy. It doesn't need laws of chemistry apply. It's not science, it's an analogy and it's a good one. To be honest, I got it off a religious person (as message 77 explains).
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 139
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:23:41 AM

he watch analogy was first mentioned by me in message 77. It is analogous to evolution, which describes how life has evolved to be what it is today (eg. how today's world has been created).

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.
If you throw a ga-zillion watches into the air, all that's gonna happen is that you're going to get hit by an awful lot of falling debris

Its called "Gravity", and I know that she can be a ****.

Evolution is not about Random Change, but about live adapting to an ever changing environment.
If the Earth hadn't changed, plates had not moved, hot and cold periods not mingled with each other and no meteorite had hit our planet ~77 million years ago, then we wouldn't even be ruled by cold blooded reptiles.

Because then only anorexic single cell organisms could thrive in the Sulphur infested atmosphere our planet would have.

I just wish people on either side could get away from that "single straight line" simplification that seems to befuddle their mind when it comes to the topic of evolution.

We are here because the environment is what it is and was what is used to be during the past few billion years.
We are just as much a direct result of this world as the looks this world has today is the result of our activity on it.

There wasn't any more a "great design(er)" behind it, than there was an inevitability of change.
That silly Watch Argument just tries to substitute Random Change for God.

So are we now to go an pray before the Lottery Office?
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 140
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:41:36 AM
^^^^

Dude, drop the watch thing. If you're not going to refer to it correctly, stop referring to it!! I said it in message 77, and I meant it only in the context that I said it. Anyone who can not be bothered properly reading message 77 should abstain from commenting on it.

I am not going to respond to the "evolution" statements you made, because I'm a biologist by profession and can't be bothered. However I will respond to this:


Evolution is not about Random Change


Wrong. Evolution is ALL about the random changes. Gene mutations cannot be planed, they only happen randomly. Selective environmental pressures then determine which genes [or lack of] result in optimal survival. Those genes live on, while the others die out, and this is why species appear to 'adapt' to their environment.

And just for the record, I DON'T believe in a creator. You would know that if you read message 77.
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 141
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:55:48 AM

I am not going to respond to the "evolution" statements you made, because I'm a biologist by profession and can't be bothered. However I will respond to this:

Well, if you claim to be a Biologist by profession, then I fear for the students you might be teaching:


Wrong. Evolution is ALL about the random changes. Gene mutations cannot be planed, they only happen randomly.

WROOOONG.
Gene Mutations are NOT "Evolution".
They are just mutations. Not more, not less.

Its the process of natural selection that happens over time, which determines what species evolve into to, or which ones die out.
And that process of selection is anything but random!

If you don't understand even that, then you got not business calling yourself a "Biologist by Profession".
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 142
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 9:59:47 AM
Herminius, Ahron, I'm confused. Are you two agreeing or disagreeing?
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 143
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:01:50 AM
And just for the record, you very much "believe in a creator".
Its just that yours is called "Mr. Random" instead of "God"

I on the other hand already stated that I don't give a damn about the whole issue.
I accept the reality of cause and effect, the pressures of an ever changing environment that weeds out those who are unfit to adapt.
Those who can pass on their genetic essence to coming generations are allowed to survive and those who can't are sentenced to extinction by a process who only rewards the survivors.

And that process is not random at all, its is indeed very much focused and aimed at those who are the most agile and flexible.

Evolution is NOT about survival of the strongest, as otherwise the Dinosaurs would still be ruling the earth.
It is about survival of those who manage to be the most productive, within a given set of resources and who can keep being productive, as those resources keep on chainging.
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 144
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:08:09 AM

Herminius, Ahron, I'm confused. Are you two agreeing or disagreeing?

We disagree very much on one basic premise.
She believes in the inevitability of random chance, while I don't see anything in Nature random at all.
Outside the realm of Quantum Physics, *everything* in Nature happens based on Cause and Effect.

A volcano erupts and its gases alter the earth's atmosphere.
Sulphur clouds hold back sun light and temperatures drop.
Plants and animals able to adapt survive, those who are not able to change, perish.

There is nothing random or accidental about this process.
It is as logical as it is self evident and natural.
On what basis should those unable to adapt be rewarded with survival?

You would have to alter the foundations of the very Universe we live in to enable a creature who can not adapt to sudden cold to thrive in a a suddenly very much colder world.
The very laws of physics, chemistry and nature itself, upon which we base our understanding of the Universe, would become meaningless then.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 145
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:16:14 AM
Agreed. Accept I do not believe in a creator. I also am quite comfortable accepting the logical consequences and outcomes of cause and effect. However when trying to sway people away from creationism I often say that "I believe in a very powerful creating force, and it is called evolution" and then I explain it to them. I just find that I get a better response that way. These people need to believe that the world was created, and they need to know the answer to questions such as "why" even though there is no good evidence that any answer even exists.

I'm the most anti-religious person in the world. Some non-religious people say they are indifferent to religion. I am not. Religion irritates me, and so do some other forms of stupidity. That's why your previous rant was mis-directed when aimed at me.

Evolution is not random, but the changes which drive it are 100% random. It is the selection process which is not.
 Ahron123
Joined: 10/16/2009
Msg: 146
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 10:18:45 AM

Herminius, Ahron, I'm confused. Are you two agreeing or disagreeing?



Ha ha, belive it or not I think this is us trying to agree ha ha ha ha.

I'm not doing a very good job though. It's 0318 over here, nearly time to wake up and I havnt even gone to bet yet ha ha.

Goodnight :)
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 148
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 11:07:28 AM
Anna - Sort of...

Take for example mutations. Some are good, some bad, most neutral. Depending on the environment depends on if the neutral mutations are good or bad. Creatures who have bad mutations are much more likely to die off from predators or from the mutation killing them leaving mostly the good mutations left to be passed down from parent to child. The selection process that is not random is that we know that having bad mutations will prevent the organism from breeding through being prey or just dying from bad genes. We know that good genes prosper and aren't likely to kill an organism.
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 149
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 12:54:28 PM

These people need to believe that the world was created, and they need to know the answer to questions such as "why" even though there is no good evidence that any answer even exists.
I'm the most anti-religious person in the world. Some non-religious people say they are indifferent to religion. I am not. Religion irritates me, and so do some other forms of stupidity.

But at the same time you are behaving in a very, very religious way by trying to give an answer to question that only religion could even ask: WHY?

"Why" is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one.
A true scientist shouldn't even bother asking it, much less trying to answer it.

Why is the mountain high?
Its a silly question, because if it wouldn't be high then we wouldn't call it a mountain.
We'd call it "a plain" instead.

It is the mountain's nature to be high, so asking it why it is high makes about as much sense as accusing a circle of being round.

We are here, because if we were not then we couldn't even ask any questions to begin with.
Its a mute point and as such just a waste of everybody's time.
It is also utterly unscientific !


volution is not random, but the changes which drive it are 100% random. It is the selection process which is not.

You are still missing the point.
Evolution is not driven by random genetic changes, but it is *enforced* by an ever changing environment.
W/o those environmental changes, all your genetic mutations would simply result in a bunch of freaks getting excluded from the gene pool - as the "normal" members of their species would simply refuse to mate with them and through their sheer numbers drown out any differing genetic trait those mutants would carry.

The world the Dinosaurs lived in had a very dry, hot, desert like climate.
Perfectly suited to creatures who carry their own environment with them during early childhood (-> eggs) have a tough outer hide that looses little water (-> reptile skin) and don't have to waste a lot of energy on producing their own body heat (-> cold blooded) and can thus survive on little food for long stretches.

Mammals already existed during the age of the Dinosaurs. But in that environment, they were the inferior ones.
It was only after the Earth's environment had rapidly changed, and the Dinosaur's gene pool had proved to be to exhausted to adapt along with it, that the rise of the Mammals could begin.

There was nothing random or chance full about it, it was as inevitable as the trajectory of that Meteorite itself was.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 150
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 1:07:11 PM
"Why" is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one.
A true scientist shouldn't even bother asking it, much less trying to answer it.


I have to disagree with you on that one, herminius. "Why" is at the very heart of any inquisitive endeavour. However, the "why" is not a qualitative one but a quantitative one. Not "why is the mountain high" but "why is the mountain that high and no higher. Or no lower." Seeking answers to that question leads to underlying forces behind mountain building.


The world the Dinosaurs lived in had a very dry, hot, desert like climate.
Perfectly suited to creatures who carry their own environment with them during early childhood (-> eggs) have a tough outer hide that looses little water (-> reptile skin) and don't have to waste a lot of energy on producing their own body heat (-> cold blooded) and can thus survive on little food for long stretches.


On the contrary dinosaurs lived in a variety of environments and are thought by many to have, in fact, been warm blooded. The fact that several dinosaur species were found in areas that would have had arctic conditions in their time, for instance.

In some ways, I think you two are actually agreeing. Evolution does occur through random mutations but those mutations are only helpful if they provide some survival advantage to the animal. The Lensky experiment with e. coli is a prime example. Random mutations that appear to impart the ability to metabolize citrate and then allow the animal to continue onward.

It's truly elegant, if you think about it. But it doesn't need to be miraculous. Far from it.
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 151
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 1:13:28 PM

It seems that with the human race, those that maybe should not procreate, do and those that should, do not. I realize I am entering the world of values and ethics.

Accept that evolution is NOT driven by genetic changes, those genetic changes are simply a tool allowing species to adapt.
What drives, what enforces evolution are environmental changes. W/o those changes, species would not evolve at all.
Why should they? Evolution is not about "creating superior life forms" or for that matter "Uebermenschen".

Evolution is about survival. And that is already all there is to it.
Improving your species' chances for survival in an ever changing world.

There is no other goal to it, there is no "final destiny of perfection" that all creatures (including human) "evolve into".
Because what might be perfect in one environment, is suicidal in another.
Imagine a shark in the open ocean. How perfectly structured its body is, how agile, how lethal that top predator exists.
Unsurpassed by anything else that swims - and now take that very same shark an put it on dry land and even my dog could get the better of it.

The same goes for human societies who forego basic public health principles in favour of a sedentary lifestyle.
Obama's wonderful new world of Government Health Care might make the lefties happy, but it won't cure the obesity ravaging the bodies of Michael Moore and company.

In the end all of it don't matter. Once the number of sick and diseased crosses a certain threshold of "supportability", all public health services simply collapse under the weight of unaffordabillity.

In the end those civilizations unfit to adapt their rigid and cherished believe systems to a changed reality, perish like the Romans did.
The world keeps on turning and new, healthier cultures take their place.
Its cultural Evolution at its best !
 herminius
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 152
Is Legitimate Science in Conflict with Religion?
Posted: 3/27/2010 1:33:00 PM

Why" is at the very heart of any inquisitive endeavour.

Then you are not a scientist, but a philosopher.
For a true scientist "Why" has not place in his/her vocabulary.
Only the "How" must matter.
"How does it work", not "Why does it work this way?"
Because the later one must inevitably lead to the "Who made it work that way" question.


On the contrary dinosaurs lived in a variety of environments and are thought by many to have, in fact, been warm blooded. The fact that several dinosaur species were found in areas that would have had arctic conditions in their time, for instance.

You are very much mistaken with that. Despite a few exceptions, the age of the Dinosaurs was by en large a much more warmer world than our times are - including the Ant-Arctic, which at the time actually had a sub-tropical climate.

Those are scientific facts, not in dispute. Your assertion that they were warm blooded on the other hand is purely speculative and has never, ever been proven in any way.
I think you may have seen to make Crichton movies.
They were not smarter than dolphins and they most surely could not have outsmarted an electronic, high voltage security grid.

I have seen the brain cavity of Dinosaurs myself, heck I even attended some dig sites on my own.
They couldn't even compete with a cat brain, much less with that of a dolphin.
So in today's world, you could unleash a whole pack of T-Rexes out into the wild, and our alpha predators would have them all for lunch before the month is over.
I once saw a documentary about a lion pack bringing down a fully grown elephant, just by working together.

Just take a larger lion pack and they'll chew you up a T-Rex for breakfast any time of the day.
But take that same lion pack and force them to exist in T-Rex's world, and the tables would be turned most definitely.
The environment determines who's Alpha and who is Omega on the food chain - its that simple.


he Lensky experiment with e. coli is a prime example.

Then you should be aware that microbes who had adapted a genetic trait making them immune to certain antibiotics, lost that trait again once they were no longer exposed to that lethal threat.

In an environment devoid of antibiotics, carrying a gene around with you to protect against such a threat is just unneccesary baggage.
This proves that not genetic mutations, but the environmental changes, that exclude certain members of a species from the gene pool, drive evolution.
Because otherwise the trait to antibiotic immunity, once acquired, should be eternally passed on.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >