Beretta writes:
quote:
If your religious belief is just a myth or a legend apart from reality -why bother?
Because there are things that cannot be objectively answered. Science can tell you an awful lot about an acoustic wave form: Its frequency, wavelength, energy, how far it will travel in various media, etc.
What it cannot tell you, and doesn't even try to tell you, is whether or not it is music.
quote:
You see science should be answering questions about things that are repeatable and experimentally verifiable but they have ventured far from their turf by answering historical and religious questions and making their own religion which is then foisted on the world as fact.
We're still waiting for you to give an example of such. It's all well and good to assert that such has happened, but you need to actually show it if you wish to have anybody believe it.
quote:
We came from chemicals that somehow (we really don't know how) got together
Since when did we have a theory of abiogenesis? That'd be Nobel Prize-winning news. We don't have any idea how life started and evolution doesn't tell us how nor can it ever. Evolution is consistent with every method of biogenesis you care to name: Chemically through abiogenesis, supernaturally through god zap-poofing it into existence, extraterrestrially from alien seeding or panspermia, interdimensionally through a rift in space-time, or any other method you care to imagine. Since evolution only tells us about what happened to life after it came into existence, one wonders why you seem to want to hang the question of biogenesis on evolution.
Certainly the fact of evolution gives us interesting questions to ask regarding biogenesis since however life started, it needs to be consistent with the evolutionary record that we see. But that's all it can provide for us: Interesting questions. Evolution isn't going to answer them for us because evolution isn't about how life begins.
quote:
and made proteins somehow
What do you mean "somehow"? Protein synthesis isn't exactly a mystery. We already can create self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochrial proteins from non-biotic reagents. Why would you have us deny this?
quote:
and learned how to reproduce all at once (because NS and mutation can't come into play until we have a reproducing cell remember).
And what's the problem? Those self-replicating, auto-catalysing, homochrial proteins we can already create from non-biotic reagents?
They evolve. They mutate and selection works upon them.
So since we know that it can happen, why would you have us deny it?
quote:
Then somehow new information came about through random mutations and where there was no information for a functioning leg or wing, genes self-organized to make those sorts of things turning a primitive ancestor into more and more complicated forms of biological life
What do you mean "somehow"? Mutation is the exact thing that makes it happen. We can watch it happen right in front of our eyes. Of course genes self-organize. That's part of the very chemistry of genetics. What else is going on inside of the cell other than chemistry?
quote:
here we are with a brain (which is definately not a random piece of equipment)
Why is this surprising? Evolution is not random. Evolution includes selection and selection is not random.
quote:
and some very complex hardware which are our bodies and we know that it all happened by chance and natural law because
No, not "by chance." Evolution is not "chance." Evolution includes selection and selection is not "chance."
And with regard to "natural law," are you saying that there is something else going on inside of a cell other than chemistry? Do you have evidence of such? When we can see the evolution organisms happening right in front of our eyes, why would you have us deny it? Do you have evidence of external action?
quote:
Of course this is definately not provable because all that mutations do (that we can actually demonstrate) is create disorder
Incorrect. The overwhelming majority of all mutations are neutral.
Plus, you are ignoring selection, again. Any deleterious mutations are selected against. Neutral and advantageous mutations are selected for.
So since we can prove it actually happens because we can do the genetic tests, why would you have us deny it?
quote:
mutations (disorder) is accumulating in the human race
Indeed. You have, on average, 3-6 mutations when compared to your parents. So why is it that humans aren't quivering piles of gelatin on the floor?
Oh...that's right: Mutations are rarely deleterious and those that are get selected against so they don't become prominent. The people that you see are all mutants whose mutations are either neutral or advantageous.
That's what selection does.
quote:
luckily we have a philosophy that says we are still evolving by natural means
"Philosophy"? Well, at one point science was called "natural philosophy," but the word "philosophy" didn't mean the same thing then as it does today. We don't have a "philosophy" that says we are evolving. Instead, we have a "theory."
That theory that we are still evolving is based upon the fact that we are. We can see it happen right in front of our eyes.
Why would you have us deny that?
quote:
What they actually mean is science and reality say this and religion says that and you have your happy little religion although it is certainly not true
As you say, "a religious belief that is not consonant with reality is not worth having."
Have you considered the possibility that god does exist, but not in the way you think? And since science cannot tell us everything about everything, why would religion be unable to look at those things?
quote:
only science can say what is really true
Incorrect. Science can only tell you what has been observed. Since it is impossible to ever observe everything, all science can tell you is that certain things have been consistently observed under certain circumstances. It may be that such results are "the truth," but science will never know. All it takes is one observation to change our understanding and we will never be able to observe everything.
quote:
You realize of course that the truth exists quite apart from what anyone believes
Indeed. That's the beauty of science: It doesn't require you to believe in it in order for it to work. In fact, modern science depends upon that. The review process requires that you submit your work to others, others who will do everything they can to show that you made a mistake, and see if they can reproduce your results. Science works specifically and because of skepticism, specifically and because of people who don't believe you.
quote:
either we were created or natural law managed to throw us together into a state of order via NS and mutation or whatever other mechanism we can come up with to explain it.
And that's why we examine the world around us to determine. So far, we haven't found any evidence of anything other than evolution being the source of the diversification of life on this planet.
You're not about to confuse evolution with biogenesis again, are you?
quote:
Science offers us their natural philosophy of life
Incorrect. Science cannot tell you how to think and feel. It has no way to tell you what is right or wrong because such concepts have no meaning in science. Science can tell you that if you take a piece of metal of a certain alloy, grind it at certain angles, and then apply a certain amount of pressure against human skin while moving it in a certain way, it will cut the skin.
It can't tell you if you're engaged in surgery or murder by doing so.
quote:
Before any evidence is put together, only natural law is permissable
You are confusing methodological naturalism with a philosophical statement. The reason science requires methodological naturalism is because that is the only thing it can examine. Science not only refused to consider the handiwork of god, it also refuses to deny the handiwork of you.
If I mix two moles of hydrogen gas with a mole of oxygen gas, put it into a container at STP, and then leave it under the hood while I go to lunch for an hour, I don't get to say that this process makes water appear in the container when I come back and find there's water in it. It's quite possible that my assistant did something to the container while I was away. We need to remove him from the equation so that we can examine what happens to the gas when it acts on its own. This hardly means that my assistant doesn't exist. It simply means that his actions are to be ignored.
quote:
Well if it isn't, why bother about it all all?
Because not everything is amenable to scientific inquiry.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2
