Could the 'eye' and other complex organs have evolved from random mutation?

[eits]

yes and no...

i believe that they formed by mutations, but i don't think they were random.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Certainly, they can try, no doubt about it. But if the ID proponents get their wish -- meaning, the actually get a district to teach ID as science -- then there is legal precedent to guide future decisions. I mean just look at the recent smack down of the Dover Area School Board by a U.S. District Judge who sayed the concept (ID) is "creationism in disguise" ... "violates the constitutional separation of church and state" ... here's a snippet from MSNBC:

So what? What does this have to do with anything? Do you enjoy just creating diversion after diversion after diversion? Try actually discussing the issue for a change - you might find it refreshing.

What's left to discuss? ID is hardly a scientific theory and doesn't warrant being taught in any science curriculum. End of story. What's left to discuss I ask? Whether we individually believe in some generic higher power that created us? That's all these threads ever come down to. Am I missing something? What's left to say but "Yes, I believe." or "No, I don't believe."

If we can't discuss the (IMHO) relevant side-issues that surround ID, then it's destined to be a short thread.

 

[CQuinn]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
I never did. I just stated that its most outspoken backers are irrelevant when gauging the validity of the theory. Of course, you alreay knew that, since I've stated it very clearly dozens of times now in this thread. You just thought you'd stop by to spew some anti-religious hate in my direction. Good for you. :thumbsup:

The problem though, is IDs most outspoken backers are typically also the ones using it as a direct attack on the validity of evolution.
They appear to be using the tack that if evolution can be undermined as a scientific theory, then there will be room for ID to take its
place. That makes it very relevant to at least point out some of the absurdities of their position, if not directly address their arguements;
because to not do so just encourages their followers to make decisions based on incomplete information.

You'll also note that nowhere have I supported ID in any thread on this forum.

You do keep referring to ID as a "Theory", which is on of the core disseminations that ID proponents attempt to use to get intelligent design
placed on the same curriculum as teaching the theories and science of Evolution. In that, your position appear to be one of support.

The problem is ID is not valid as a Theory. With a theory you can at least attempt to prove or disprove your idea based on gathering
evidence and performing experiements that either reinforce your earlier hypotheses, or cause you to re-examine your findings
and methodology in an attempt to explain newer information.

For ID to come up to the same level of scientific discourse (to gauge the validity of the theory) then it is going to have to come up
with its own set of empirical, definable, and provable answers for the mountains of evidence gathered by the sciences that currently
stand in support of evolution. Then it is either going to have to show where its explanation makes more empirical sense than
the current theories of evolution, or it is going to have to accept the validity of the current model.

I will leave off any religous connotations entirely; ID does not (within the framework of the Scientific Method as it is currently practiced
for all fields of science) come up to the level of a universally acceptable hypothesis, much less that of a valid scientific theory.

 

[homercles337]

Im not going to read all the posts here, but will offer up this:

Talk Origins

 

[cwgannon]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg
Everything comes from something. The trees, the water which makes up most of this earth, the algae (early life forms) and other things came from somewhere. Somehow, they magically formed here on earth. Something intelligent must have interfered or "planned" this earth. He or she must have put the starts where they belonged (in the sky), the land where it belonged, the waters and so on. If everything was random, would things would be as orderly as they are today, especially when it comes to nature?

There is absolutely no evidence supporting this, never has been. What exactly makes you believe this? Christianity? Do you truely believe in the story of Adam and Eve, or do you take it as a metaphor?

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz
Everything is evolved from random mutation.

Study the bio first. I won't say i'm absolutely in depth, but I have a realllly hard time seeing how things just "happened"...especially when we talk about how the heck the first protein evolved to replicate DNA (Which codes for proteins....to make proteins).

I think its best to study science through evolution because we learn more and more, but I'm not so sure everything evolved from it.

I have a really hard time believing some supernatural creature created us when there is no evidence supporting this, not to mention it doesn't make any sense or answer any questions. Evolution is the best theory we have. How do you explain that we have something like 99% of the same DNA as Apes? Is that by design of the "designer" too?

No, I don't believe in creationism. I do believe in a higher authority. There is no proof yet according to people who believe in no higher authority, although people who do believe in one will tell you otherwise. Science will one day evolve where they look at things from a spiritual and maybe religious point of view, where they work with spirituality and religion to better mankind. Science will open its mind and treat religion and spirituality as a tool to explain certain things. One day this will happen. Noone is denying the connection between apes and DNA. I also don't dismiss dinosaurs. I also don't dismiss the fact that all the continents used to be connected. Evolution is not the absolute truth and the same goes for creationism. We need some entity to look at things from a new, objective point of view.

How do you also explain that things in nature are cyclical? To our knowledge, they have been this way since the earliest days.

More and more scientists are looking at the spiritual (not religious) world to find answers. Whether this is for scientific purposes, medical purposes or anything else. Keep an open mind about everything and usually you will find accurate information.

You're right. Nobody who believes that there is no God will ever be able to prove as such; and I would certainly hope that's the case. So that I can demonstrate what I mean, imagine I were to take you to court and use an argument as follows: This man here stole my car, and though I can't produce any evidence, I leave it to him to prove that he did not; I will not accept any alibis, as I see them only as his theories as to what may have happened; and even if he can explain these theories well and as what must be considered quite convincingly, I demand absolute, incontrovertible proof that he did not, in fact, steal my car. We both know what would happen: the case would be thrown out, the judge would laugh at me, and you would have a few choice words to share with me afterward in the parking lot.

What's my point?

It's that this argument and anything similar to it would never pass--be it in a courtroom, be it in a classroom, or be it in your living room--and we know why: it's the way we reason as human beings.

And it's because of that rational capability that arguments like yours are rightly ridiculed. The burden of proof is yours and that's exactly how it should be and how it will remain.

So until God is discovered, there is no God. It's not that there 'might be a God,' just as it's not the case that there 'might be a Santa Claus.' To say otherwise is demanding rigidity that's not demanded otherwise of informal language; and it's just this--that is, that you're demanding such things and resorting to citing such frivolous technicalities--which is most telling of all in your argument.


Right, things in nature are cyclical; in fact, the laws of conservation have cyclicality as their fundamental, underlying premise. And we 'know' why as best we can and ever will: because that's how the rules of nature cause it to be. There's absolutely no reason to believe that a God or some higher authority or whatever you so choose to call it had to have taken a part in doing so. If we lived in a world where we did not observe nature as being cyclical, you could just as easily present the argument that God must have made it as such. Your argument, put simply, is invalid.


And you're exactly right. We do need to keep an open mind; were it not the case that some brilliant minds hadn't done so, the Earth might just still be the center of the universe. But we came to 'know' that that is not the case. And with such a revelation must have come a blow to those who took comfort in their planet being at the center of all things; the vast majority of people, who clearly kept the open minds that we both value, saw the convincing support for the case and grudgingly accepted its conclusion, no matter how disheartening it may have been. The small group of others that held on to what they so deeply valued eventually died out with the passing generations, taking with them their 'long-expired' belief.

Evolution is, relatively speaking, a very young theory, and we have no reason to believe that, as its already vast collection of evidence continues to grow, so too will its support among the people. Mark Twain once said something to the effect that history doesn't repeat itself, but that it does indeed rhyme. It seems, then, with no pun intended, that beliefs like yours are--as the others that have also fallen to science once did--writing their final verse.

 

[Strk]

Cyclone, why don't you use the entire quote in your signature?

About the weak points I agree. The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder, but when I think of the fine known gradations, my reason tells me I ought to conquer the cold shudder.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Nothing personal Frackal, but this is a dumb thread.

Do you think any reasonable person is going to be able to argue that the eye and other complex organs could or could not have evolved from random mutation? The use of the word could means that only the most polarized of people are invited to answer your questions.

While I believe in both God and evolution, I'm pretty confident evolution played a role in bringing our species to where it is today.

-Reader

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Originally posted by: slash196
I haven't read the debate thus far, I would just like to interject that anyone who claims evolution is a random process deserves to be smacked smartly across the face.

:thumbsup:

 

[kage69]

Cyclone, why don't you use the entire quote in your signature?

Someone cherry-picking info relating to evolution, what are the odds?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: cwgannon

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: raildogg
Everything comes from something. The trees, the water which makes up most of this earth, the algae (early life forms) and other things came from somewhere. Somehow, they magically formed here on earth. Something intelligent must have interfered or "planned" this earth. He or she must have put the starts where they belonged (in the sky), the land where it belonged, the waters and so on. If everything was random, would things would be as orderly as they are today, especially when it comes to nature?

There is absolutely no evidence supporting this, never has been. What exactly makes you believe this? Christianity? Do you truely believe in the story of Adam and Eve, or do you take it as a metaphor?

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: ntdz
Everything is evolved from random mutation.

Study the bio first. I won't say i'm absolutely in depth, but I have a realllly hard time seeing how things just "happened"...especially when we talk about how the heck the first protein evolved to replicate DNA (Which codes for proteins....to make proteins).

I think its best to study science through evolution because we learn more and more, but I'm not so sure everything evolved from it.

I have a really hard time believing some supernatural creature created us when there is no evidence supporting this, not to mention it doesn't make any sense or answer any questions. Evolution is the best theory we have. How do you explain that we have something like 99% of the same DNA as Apes? Is that by design of the "designer" too?

No, I don't believe in creationism. I do believe in a higher authority. There is no proof yet according to people who believe in no higher authority, although people who do believe in one will tell you otherwise. Science will one day evolve where they look at things from a spiritual and maybe religious point of view, where they work with spirituality and religion to better mankind. Science will open its mind and treat religion and spirituality as a tool to explain certain things. One day this will happen. Noone is denying the connection between apes and DNA. I also don't dismiss dinosaurs. I also don't dismiss the fact that all the continents used to be connected. Evolution is not the absolute truth and the same goes for creationism. We need some entity to look at things from a new, objective point of view.

How do you also explain that things in nature are cyclical? To our knowledge, they have been this way since the earliest days.

More and more scientists are looking at the spiritual (not religious) world to find answers. Whether this is for scientific purposes, medical purposes or anything else. Keep an open mind about everything and usually you will find accurate information.

You're right. Nobody who believes that there is no God will ever be able to prove as such; and I would certainly hope that's the case. So that I can demonstrate what I mean, imagine I were to take you to court and use an argument as follows: This man here stole my car, and though I can't produce any evidence, I leave it to him to prove that he did not; I will not accept any alibis, as I see them only as his theories as to what may have happened; and even if he can explain these theories well and as what must be considered quite convincingly, I demand absolute, incontrovertible proof that he did not, in fact, steal my car. We both know what would happen: the case would be thrown out, the judge would laugh at me, and you would have a few choice words to share with me afterward in the parking lot.

What's my point?

It's that this argument and anything similar to it would never pass--be it in a courtroom, be it in a classroom, or be it in your living room--and we know why: it's the way we reason as human beings.

And it's because of that rational capability that arguments like yours are rightly ridiculed. The burden of proof is yours and that's exactly how it should be and how it will remain.

So until God is discovered, there is no God. It's not that there 'might be a God,' just as it's not the case that there 'might be a Santa Claus.' To say otherwise is demanding rigidity that's not demanded otherwise of informal language; and it's just this--that is, that you're demanding such things and resorting to citing such frivolous technicalities--which is most telling of all in your argument.


Right, things in nature are cyclical; in fact, the laws of conservation have cyclicality as their fundamental, underlying premise. And we 'know' why as best we can and ever will: because that's how the rules of nature cause it to be. There's absolutely no reason to believe that a God or some higher authority or whatever you so choose to call it had to have taken a part in doing so. If we lived in a world where we did not observe nature as being cyclical, you could just as easily present the argument that God must have made it as such. Your argument, put simply, is invalid.


And you're exactly right. We do need to keep an open mind; were it not the case that some brilliant minds hadn't done so, the Earth might just still be the center of the universe. But we came to 'know' that that is not the case. And with such a revelation must have come a blow to those who took comfort in their planet being at the center of all things; the vast majority of people, who clearly kept the open minds that we both value, saw the convincing support for the case and grudgingly accepted its conclusion, no matter how disheartening it may have been. The small group of others that held on to what they so deeply valued eventually died out with the passing generations, taking with them their 'long-expired' belief.

Evolution is, relatively speaking, a very young theory, and we have no reason to believe that, as its already vast collection of evidence continues to grow, so too will its support among the people. Mark Twain once said something to the effect that history doesn't repeat itself, but that it does indeed rhyme. It seems, then, with no pun intended, that beliefs like yours are--as the others that have also fallen to science once did--writing their final verse.

I take it, then, that you do not agree with Voltaire who said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

People are funny creatures. They tend to believe what they know to be true via their own experience. Some would call that the scientific method. I do a and b and I get the result c. I therefore believe that a plus b equals c are real things. Science of course only works in those cases where there is a real person to do the test and some tests are quite complicated and expensive or require massively complicated equipment to do. The rest of us therefore often just take the scientists on their word.

It is the same with the scientific explorer who takes on a spiritual guide. The guide who has already done the experiment takes the apprentice on a journey that leads him to God. These scientific methodologies are many and varied but they have one thing in common. People not versed in the intricacies have not the faintest idea what is going on. Even the greatest of physicists, in this regards, then, can actually be a complete dummy. And it is out of such really secret traditions that we get sayings like, "He who tastes knows." The traditions are secret, of course, because the larger world in their ignorance, has dismissed them as jokes. They are open, then, only to the meek who having almost nothing have the additional modesty to know they know nothing. It is only the empty that can be filled.

 

[judasmachine]

I take it, then, that you do not agree with Voltaire who said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

The only reason it would be necessary to invent it is that people need an excuse for the myriad of immoral things they have to do in order to survive in this world. This god thing is just another scapegoat for your hypocritical actions.

 

[piasabird]

You do not evolve from mutations, you die from cancer.

The best way to describe what you are stating is the survival of the fittest. If your genetic makeup is the best for survival then you go on to share your genetics with others and create offspring. On a good day the better genetics (for survival) may shape the genetic pool and create offspring that are better suited for survival. If hunting is important or spotting enemy in plains or far off on the horizon, then that trait survives. However, being short and thin might be better survival in a famine. So survival of the fittest does not mean a genetic improvement necessarily.

In the human race, physical attributes are not quite as important as they use to be and populations are a lot more mobile. The mobility of people to travel accross the globe can escew the effects of survival of the fittest. When you look at two cultures or races of people and one is shorter and one is taller and fatter, it is hard to say which culture or race is better off. It is all subjective.

 

[piasabird]

Stating that ID can not be scientific if it comes from Chrisians is just racist. Does that mean that if you are christian, you can not be a scientist???

Just sounds like discrimination to me.

I dont see the scientific evidence of Evolution of Mankind, so I dont think either are that valid or proveable. If you find the bones of an animal that is no longer on the earth it does not prove evolution it only proves extinction. It is not grounds for proving evolution in any realm of science. I learned in statistics that just because a pattern exists, it does mean that is the basis for a rule. Often outlying reasons that we dont know about are affecting outcomes of events. It might be somewhat logical to say before this time Animal X did not exist, and then question where it came from. It would appear that something or some process caused it to burst out on the scene at some point, but we dont have all the evidence to make any kind of imperical assumptions that are in the slightest way proveable.

I am open to ideas buy my mind is not so open that my brains are going to fall out.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I want religion and science to look at things from an objective viewpoint. Both sides have worked against each other rather than working with each other. This is possible. We are not at that stage yet, but we will get there. There are flaws in creationism and evolution.

One day there will be a new study done that combines the best of scientific, religious and spiritual elements.

By definition, science addresses that which is observable and measurable - the physical world. If a thing cannot be observed and meaured, no objective statement about the thing is possible.

God, spirit, religious belief - these do not involve things that can be measured, and therefore are not in the realm of "objective truth."

Thus, attempting to "combine" the two would be a disaster.

 

[piasabird]

Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured. Science can not really say why people dream, or why someone dreams of a specific dream or prove that some dreams are not Prophetical in nature. Yet science attempts to study the effects of dreaming and even has trained people to try to enteract in their dreams.

There have also been studies that claim to point to evidence that religion can have a good effect on people's lives and health. Many scientists have studied things like the effect of praying or faith being beneficial to patients. So dont say that religion can not be studied. Science may just not be able to determine what caused it to beneficial, or why some people seem to receive miraculous healing. However, many things just do not have a scientific reason.

Along another line of thought people often are trying to study things like the Paranormal and Psychics. How scientific is that?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

You're arguing with the strawman again. Generic intelligent design theory does not make any claims regarding the validity of evolution.

I think the underlying problem with all these discussions is that you guys get all in a huff about whether evolution occurs, when those who are arguing with you are looking at the origins of life rather than the evolution of life.

As usual, you are hopelessly misinformed. I don't know how it's possible for someone who claims to have a science background to be so clueless. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact, ID claims that it is an alternative to Evolution. Want a little evidence? How about a few works by ID fanatics:

Intelligent Design: The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

by William S. Harris, Ph.D.and John H. Calvert, J.D

Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What we Teach about Evolution is Wrong

. Jonathan Wells, Ph.D

The Triumph of Design and the Demise of Darwin

documentary produced by Jack Cashill, Ph.D

And where are these works (and many others) listed? How about the Intelligent Design Network website? Listing of ID publications

Now, go back to sleep.

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Along another line of thought people often are trying to study things like the Paranormal and Psychics. How scientific is that?

Zero and it's make believe, like much what religions produce. There is an outstanding $1 million reward for any proof, yet no one has ever won the cash. People like to believe in fantasy, somehow these things are more interesting to some than the real universe they live in.

http://www.randi.org/research/index.html

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.

You're on crack.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

I take it, then, that you do not agree with Voltaire who said, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."

The only reason it would be necessary to invent it is that people need an excuse for the myriad of immoral things they have to do in order to survive in this world. This god thing is just another scapegoat for your hypocritical actions.

I am sorry but the only thing you can think of is not an exhaustive analysis. Another reason that God is invented you failed to suggest is that men keep coming upon Him in their pursuit of the Science that leads to Being. He is a scientific fact verified over and over again by scientist that confirm the data.

Naturally these things can't be known by primitive modern scientists any more than that science is understood by people of mere faith.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: raildogg
I want religion and science to look at things from an objective viewpoint. Both sides have worked against each other rather than working with each other. This is possible. We are not at that stage yet, but we will get there. There are flaws in creationism and evolution.

One day there will be a new study done that combines the best of scientific, religious and spiritual elements.

By definition, science addresses that which is observable and measurable - the physical world. If a thing cannot be observed and meaured, no objective statement about the thing is possible.

God, spirit, religious belief - these do not involve things that can be measured, and therefore are not in the realm of "objective truth."

Thus, attempting to "combine" the two would be a disaster.

Where is the objective truth in the science of pain killing medicine? How do you know that an aspirin works? Where is the objectivity in 'hey I feel better.' Can you duplicate the brain-wave patterns of a Tibetan Monk in deep meditation? What do modern people know about what can be turned on in the brain? Most people are too busy even to wipe their asses clean.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.

You're on crack.

Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal? Please do share with us your real intellectual gifts and reply in some meaningful way just so we'll know you've actually got um.

 

[MAW1082]

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.

You're on crack.

I believe you meant the neurons in his brain are misfiring in a way that cannot be measured.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: BrownTown
If you admit that in small time frames small changes can occur in populations, and that bacteria can develop new species, then how can you not also believe that in large time frams large changes can occur, and that even large animals can develop new species?

Trust me, I am a very firm believer in a gray world where nothing is black and white, but some of the rhetoric from intelegent design/creationists seems to make little sense at all. IT is pretty much what has been happening for the last 1000 years, science proves that the real world works one way, and then religious people are forced to accept it and change their beliefs to account for it. First the religious people say that the world is created in 6 days like in Genesis. But then astronomy and geology come along and say the universe is muc holder. So the religious people say OK, its just a metephor, but God still created man and the animals exactly as they are now. They evolution comes along and they say OK we'll concede that populations can change a little, but new species cannot be formed. Then bacteria research comes along and it is clear that new species are created all the time, so religious people cede that point too, but then argue it all proceeds by Gods design, adn evolution is really what the bible is talking about in Genisis, which is of course only a metaphor. How much longer will it be before they are forced to admit that they are worng once again?

You're arguing with the strawman again. Generic intelligent design theory does not make any claims regarding the validity of evolution.

I think the underlying problem with all these discussions is that you guys get all in a huff about whether evolution occurs, when those who are arguing with you are looking at the origins of life rather than the evolution of life.

As usual, you are hopelessly misinformed. I don't know how it's possible for someone who claims to have a science background to be so clueless. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

In fact, ID claims that it is an alternative to Evolution.

Just like his Darwin quote taken out of context, Cyclo wants to examine in detail, the individual claims of the generic ID position. For example, this thread, which seeks to examine the complexity of the eye and whether it supports ID or not. The problem being is that every bullet point (like this one) in the ID agenda is a round-about way of poking holes in the theory of evolution. Instead of backing up ID with some sort of evidence (which can't be done), they seek to steer the conversation to the alleged "holes" in evolutionary theory.

It's a pretty obvious technique even though the argument "oh the eye is so complex it couldn't have possibly evolved on its own" is akin to saying "I'm flabbergasted by something complex, therefore I'm going to invent something to explain it."

The whole thing is preposterous, really.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: raildogg
I want religion and science to look at things from an objective viewpoint. Both sides have worked against each other rather than working with each other. This is possible. We are not at that stage yet, but we will get there. There are flaws in creationism and evolution.

One day there will be a new study done that combines the best of scientific, religious and spiritual elements.

By definition, science addresses that which is observable and measurable - the physical world. If a thing cannot be observed and meaured, no objective statement about the thing is possible.

God, spirit, religious belief - these do not involve things that can be measured, and therefore are not in the realm of "objective truth."

Thus, attempting to "combine" the two would be a disaster.

Where is the objective truth in the science of pain killing medicine? How do you know that an aspirin works? Where is the objectivity in 'hey I feel better.' Can you duplicate the brain-wave patterns of a Tibetan Monk in deep meditation? What do modern people know about what can be turned on in the brain? Most people are too busy even to wipe their asses clean.

Moonie,

Of course you are familiar with the concept of controlled, double-blinded experiments. While it's certainly true that the perceptions of pain (or pleasure, or other feelings) by individuals can be influenced by their beliefs, control groups and double-blinds can reduce this subjective effect enormously. So science really can make objective determinations about the value of medications that effect feelings or sensation.

This is not to say that all research outcomes lead to a consensus or that science is "better" than religion or spirituality. I was merely responding to posts that stated that a hybrid of science with religion/spirituality would be desirable.

 

[Meuge]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Meuge

Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.

You're on crack.

Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal?

Yes.