2009-04-18, 04:40 AM
=( This thread makes me sad.
"Religion vs Science" debates are not exactly conversations of intellectual content, usually they result in flaming and "NO U" logic. It's circular. You can't convince a religions (wo)man that (s)he has been wrong all along, and you can't take a science-oriented (wo)man and do the same. It doesn't work that way... No amount of logic or "proof" will convince either side.
The fact remains that neither theory is easy to fundamentally test. While non-creation evolution (the stuff that says species adapt, change, etc over time) is apparent, it's very hard to do a research project on how a nonorganic material could spontaneously produce life. Similarily, you can't test Creationism (partially why it's rejected as a "Science" I guess).
These topics are so controversial because they simply have no end.
"Religion vs Science" debates are not exactly conversations of intellectual content, usually they result in flaming and "NO U" logic. It's circular. You can't convince a religions (wo)man that (s)he has been wrong all along, and you can't take a science-oriented (wo)man and do the same. It doesn't work that way... No amount of logic or "proof" will convince either side.
The fact remains that neither theory is easy to fundamentally test. While non-creation evolution (the stuff that says species adapt, change, etc over time) is apparent, it's very hard to do a research project on how a nonorganic material could spontaneously produce life. Similarily, you can't test Creationism (partially why it's rejected as a "Science" I guess).
These topics are so controversial because they simply have no end.