I just don't know....

[Evandr]

Well, we're pretty close to 100% sure that the Earth revolves around the Sun, wouldn't you say?
Or did you forget that that's science too?

That is a quantifiable observation that cannot be duplicated by the current methods of science, it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

What is it that you are really trying to say here?
That science is worthless?
Is that your opinion?

No, science is not worthless, it gives us something to do but it has its place, disproving intellegent design is not something it is adaquite to do.

Good for you I guess.
So, do you have any evidence for this "god" of which you speak?

Oh get off of it!! The tired old "prove it" challenge does not apply here. The reality that "it" must be sought after and aquired by each individual is by intellegent design. I know something that you do not, that is the only real science here.

 

[Evandr]

So... do you have any evidence to back that up?

There is that silly demand again, seeking for a sign when they are all around you. Tell me something, with all your faith in science, why is it that science cannot engineer an ugly flower?, why is there always a tendency toward symmetry and beauty in nature?, why does beauty evolve?. I understand that there are ugly mutations in nature but they never propagate, why? Seeking to be beautiful is not a physical property it is a design of choice, there is no logical explanation outside of intelligent design that the theory of evolution has for it, it is illogical but it is never the less, beauty trumps the theory of evolution.

 

[jmvizanko]

The problem with science is that it takes what is and then tries to define the path to its present equation all the while evolving with new information that impacts and/or invalidated past conclutions all the while discounting the thought of intellegent design, a discounting that has no basis other than pure beligerence to the thought of it. That places pure science on pretty shaky ground seeing that science itself has to admit that, by its own devices and methods, its conclutions are far more unlikely to carry water than that of intellegent design.

Please present even one simple case, where a scientific theory is less likely to carry water than one from intelligent design. Because you haven't yet. And that's because there aren't any. Evolution is just as sound as general relativity and quantum mehanics at this point. Do you doubt the validity of those as well? If so, why do you use a computer or anything requiring satellites? Shouldn't there be more highly advanced technology coming from your creation "science" theories?

Oh that's right though. Computers are made using satanic fairy dust, not using the laws of quantum mechanics.....

 

[Evandr]

Please present even one simple case, where a scientific theory is less likely to carry water than one from intelligent design. Because you haven't yet. And that's because there aren't any. Evolution is just as sound as general relativity and quantum mehanics at this point. Do you doubt the validity of those as well? If so, why do you use a computer or anything requiring satellites? Shouldn't there be more highly advanced technology coming from your creation "science" theories?

Oh that's right though. Computers are made using satanic fairy dust, not using the laws of quantum mechanics.....

Scientific theories that hold water today are often found to be filled with holes tomorrow, just off the top of my head carbon dating comes to mind, that whole concept is rapidly falling apart as being unreliable wherein 30 years ago it was a hard and fast "rule" upon which much of the physical history of mankind is based. Science will tell you that the age of the universe is not nearly sufficient to bring about the type of evolution that would be necessary to bring creation to its present state saying nothing of keeping it there, in fact science feeds upon itself by trying to reconcile contradictory laws such as those that say our presence and the current state of all creation are the result of evolution from chaos when some of the greatest scientific minds of our time have admitted that it is extremely improbable not to mention mathematically impossible. When it comes to the weighty question of creation science is choking on its own vomit, but hey, at least it is good enough to create computers, televisions, and toasters so it has its place but it should really stop trying to over reach itself by formulating opinions on subjects wherein the available data is miniscule at best and the human capacity to comprehend the truth even if it had it is nonexistent.

 

[idav]

Scientific theories that hold water today are often found to be filled with holes tomorrow, just off the top of my head carbon dating comes to mind, that whole concept is rapidly falling apart as being unreliable wherein 30 years ago it was a hard and fast "rule" upon which much of the physical history of mankind is based.

Not a very good example and a distorted version of history. Sure it might have it's limits but so does every tool. You don't use a hammer when you need a screwdriver.

Science will tell you that the age of the universe is not nearly sufficient to bring about the type of evolution that would be necessary to bring creation to its present state saying nothing of keeping it there, in fact science feeds upon itself by trying to reconcile contradictory laws such as those that say our presence and the current state of all creation are the result of evolution from chaos when some of the greatest scientific minds of our time have admitted that it is extremely improbable not to mention mathematically impossible.

Given the time span of the universe few things are "impossible" if they are at least plausible.

When it comes to the weighty question of creation science is choking on its own vomit, but hey, at least it is good enough to create computers, televisions, and toasters so it has its place but it should really stop trying to over reach itself by formulating opinions on subjects wherein the available data is miniscule at best and the human capacity to comprehend the truth even if it had it is nonexistent.

What is the weighty question of creation that hasn't been answered exactly? The interest is to find the truth and creationists have yet to use such a great tool as science to answer what they come up with in their imaginations. That isn't a problem of science it is a problem for creationists. We have a great capacity to comprehend truth otherwise why even try. The amount of data we have is endless and would take lifetimes to get through. Is it minuscule in comparison to what is still out there possibly.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well an apple is quite a miracle for me, evolution is such a vague word for something so complex as an apple,scientists cannot explain why there is food that match humans need and magically animals need aswell.

Errr... Yes, they can.
Would you like to learn more about Biological Evolution?

Evolution is pretty smart then. But that's just humans ego who think they made those apples too and refuse to believe that there is someone smarter then them who architectures everything to what humans need. Very well, I hope God may guide you!

First off, I never said humans made apples.
I said cultivated.
Secondly, and here I think is where your problem starts, you seem to think that this world was made for us.
Which is, of course, a much more powerful demonstration of an inflated ego than anything I've said.

Not to mention wrong.

 

[jarofthoughts]

That is a quantifiable observation that cannot be duplicated by the current methods of science, it has no bearing on the subject at hand.

Wait, what? Are you actually claiming that we have no evidence that the Earth revolves around the Sun instead of the other way around? :areyoucra

No, science is not worthless, it gives us something to do but it has its place, disproving intellegent design is not something it is adaquite to do.

Even if that was true, that's not how this works.
First off, you can never logically prove a negative, which means that we can never fully rule out the non-existence of anything 100%.
Therefore it is pure madness to go around believing in things just because they cannot be proven wrong.
I'll give you an example: faeries.
Go ahead. Prove to me that faeries don't exist.

Thus, we should only believe in those things for which we have positive evidence.
And god (your intelligent designer) ain't one of them.

Oh get off of it!! The tired old "prove it" challenge does not apply here. The reality that "it" must be sought after and aquired by each individual is by intellegent design. I know something that you do not, that is the only real science here.

Again, proof is something we only use in mathematics and not in the other scientific disciplines. They use evidence instead.
And of course it applies.
It applies to any claim about reality.
Now, I'm sure you know quite a few things I don't know, like your favourite colour for instance, but I wouldn't exactly consider you an authority when it comes to science because of that...

 

[jmvizanko]

Scientific theories that hold water today are often found to be filled with holes tomorrow, just off the top of my head carbon dating comes to mind, that whole concept is rapidly falling apart as being unreliable wherein 30 years ago it was a hard and fast "rule" upon which much of the physical history of mankind is based.

Yes, science has the beautiful ability to be improved, because everything is questionable, and its all about what theories, not matter how new, best explain our universe. How is this a problem with science? Its probably its best feature. Its the reason we live longer now, have more advanced technology, and

Creation science on the other hand starts with a unquestionable "theory," and anything after that assumption has to be contorted or fabricated to meet that idea.

And please explain the inherent problems with carbon dating. And we have many more useful radiometric dating methods anyway.

Science will tell you that the age of the universe is not nearly sufficient to bring about the type of evolution that would be necessary to bring creation to its present state saying nothing of keeping it there, in fact science feeds upon itself by trying to reconcile contradictory laws such as those that say our presence and the current state of all creation are the result of evolution from chaos when some of the greatest scientific minds of our time have admitted that it is extremely improbable not to mention mathematically impossible.

List some scientists and quotes to back that up. And our universe is plenty old enough to make that claim absurd. Either god created the universe in some state that evolved into this one, or the universe has always existed or came into existence naturally, and evolved into this one. But our observations suggest an extremely old universe, not one that was created some short time ago.

And the improbability of life arising loses to the anthropic principle. Even if it is extremely unlikely, it still happened, and maybe we are in one of the few or even only place that it did. And there are innumerable star systems, so once again, you make an absurd claim.

When it comes to the weighty question of creation science is choking on its own vomit, but hey, at least it is good enough to create computers, televisions, and toasters so it has its place but it should really stop trying to over reach itself by formulating opinions on subjects wherein the available data is miniscule at best and the human capacity to comprehend the truth even if it had it is nonexistent.

I am not sure what you are saying here for several reasons. Are you saying creation science is behind our technology? Because that would be insane. And if you meant just actual science, what opinions specifically do you think it is over reaching? And what do you mean by "human capacity to comprehend the truth even if it had it is nonexistent?"

 

[jarofthoughts]

There is that silly demand again, seeking for a sign when they are all around you.

Writing it off as 'silly' does nothing to dispel the fact that you don't have any evidence.
Look, if I claimed that I have an invisible goblin living under my kitchen sink and that he is the one who made the world, would you take my word for it or would you, as I have done, demand evidence first?

Tell me something, with all your faith in science, why is it that science cannot engineer an ugly flower?

Because genetic engineering is in its infancy and we're still at the point of figuring out how all the parts of the genome works.
We're making rapid progress though.

why is there always a tendency toward symmetry and beauty in nature? , why does beauty evolve?.

Symmetry is easy. In animals who move in a set primary direction it is evolutionary advantageous to have both sides of the body function more or less the same (very few animals are truly anatomically symmetric, but you get the point). In plants it comes down to the fact that it is easier to replicate an existing part than it is to evolve a completely new one. Therefore, when a variation of a plant has more petals than another they are usually copies of each other rather than completely new types of petals.
Beauty though, is in the eye of the beholder and what is considered beautiful comes down to a number of different reasons.

Would you like to learn more about the evolution of beauty?
I'm asking this because if I'm going to do a write up of it I want to make sure you listen.

I understand that there are ugly mutations in nature but they never propagate, why? Seeking to be beautiful is not a physical property it is a design of choice, there is no logical explanation outside of intelligent design that the theory of evolution has for it, it is illogical but it is never the less, beauty trumps the theory of evolution.

Err.. No.
See my question above.

 

[Copernicus]

No, science is not worthless, it gives us something to do but it has its place, disproving intellegent design is not something it is adaquite to do.

This is actually historically incorrect. At the time that Darwin proposed his theory, a great many of his fellow scientists believed in intelligent design. What he did was show why it was an unnecessary hypothesis about how life forms came to have their intricate "designs".

Most of us understand what human breeders do. They "design" plants and animals by manipulating the offspring they produce. You could call human selection criteria "intelligent", because breeders plan for certain traits to emerge at the end of the process. All evolution theory says is that the environment acted as a "breeding program" in which we emerged as one of the "results" at this time. Lots of religious people are perfectly comfortable with that idea, because they can choose to believe that their deity of choice manipulated the environment itself to bring us about at the end of the process.

Now, you might think that that is a pretty "stupid" way for God to make us happen, as Neil deGrasse Tyson did in Jarofthoughts' video, but that is a different argument. To believe in God, you have to believe that he has some motive for not making his existence obvious to everyone. If you buy into that, you do not need to waste your time trying to argue against evolution on religious grounds. Just say that God designed the universe to produce us, and voila! You can study biology without losing religion.

 

[idea]

So, as i look at the world, as i allow what i know and think i know to ruminate in my head, i've come to the conclusion, somewhat, that i've no clue whether there is a god or not. Nothing makes sense! Every answer presented has flaws that i find quite readily, and even the answers where i don't find flaws quickly, i eventually find them later. When i talk about my beliefs in the afterlife, and the answers presented by science as possible explanations, i simply have come to the conclusion, that i don't really believe in much of anything at this point.

Evolution? Makes sense for the most part, but the dilemma i see is say one cell "evolves". Now, isn't this a fairly random process? So, why would another "evolve" the same way? What makes them compatible, to mate, if you will? That's one issue i have with evolution. The big bang theory, well, that's easy, there's no proof whatsoever, so why would i believe it?

Basically, i'm an atheist who doesn't even profess, nay, even feel belief for the answers most atheists cling to happily. And yet, when i look upon the whole god issue, i feel no belief there either. I don't see it one way or the other.

I can see why deists choose to believe in something larger than us, because it hardly makes sense that everything would come about randomly, and yet, why not?

Lol, at this point i'm rambling. What i'm looking for here is maybe how you guys feel about it. Am i the only one who just doesn't believe in any of it? What the heck is going on? And why? Of course, asking why presupposes that there is a design, and i don't believe that.

To me, science doesn't trump religion, if science can't PROVE anything. Though, of course, i just don't believe in religion. You?

It's impossible to prove anything... science and religion are both based on axioms:
Axiom | Define Axiom at Dictionary.com
"a proposition that is assumed without proof"


it is a personal choice, like asking "what is your favorite color?"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
here is a good read for you:
The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development

The Perry Model of Intellectual and Ethical Development​

Stages of Cognitive Development Transitions in Cognitive Development

#1: Dualistic Thinking

• 
  [*]Students generally believe knowledge is certain and unambiguous: black/white, right/wrong

• Questions have immutable, objective answers

• 
  [*]Students generally believe authorities possess valuable wisdom that contains eternal truths

• Certainty yields to uncertainty and ambiguity

#2: Multiplicity

• 
  [*]Students come to believe that where uncertainty exists, knowledge and truth are essentially subjective and personal

Students come to recognize that mere opinion is insufficient because specific critieria help evaluate the usefulness and validity of knowledge claims:
• methodology • empirical evidence
• explanatory power • predictive power
• logical consistency
• positive vs. normative conclusions

#3: Contextual-Relativism

• 
  [*]Students come to believe that even where uncertainty exists, people must make choices about premises, frameworks, hypotheses, and theories to apply; policy conclusions are not self-evident

• 
  [*]Students may come to recognize that even in a world of uncertainty, they must make choices (whether about ideas, hypotheses, theories, or policies). These choices require methods of critical thinking.

#4: Context-Appropriate
Decisions

• 
  [*]Students may come to acknowledge that choices require analysis and values. Knowledge, theories, and methods are imperfect and uncertain, thus personal choices require acknowledging personal responsibility that follows from personal values.

notice that last little bit:
"Knowledge, theories, and methods are imperfect and uncertain, thus personal choices require acknowledging personal responsibility that follows from personal values"

what it all comes down to, are your personal values - listening to your conscience.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

LOL - looks like there are a lot of "dualists" here -
to pry everyone away from thinking they know any "facts"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
observer effect, etc. etc.

here is a good lecture - it is a physics intro lecture, but really it is a science-intro lecture that takes you through what you as an observer can see, to recognize the limitations of our instincts, and then recognize how small of a picture we can approximately see...
[FONT=&quot]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6Gw08pwhws&feature=relmfu[/FONT]

science cannot "prove" anything...

 

[Landerage]

Errr... Yes, they can.
Would you like to learn more about Biological Evolution?



First off, I never said humans made apples.
I said cultivated.
Secondly, and here I think is where your problem starts, you seem to think that this world was made for us.
Which is, of course, a much more powerful demonstration of an inflated ego than anything I've said.

Not to mention wrong.

I did study evolution and I know most of the important things about it, evolution is a big title for the adaptation of the creatures towards the environment, however science fails to tell why cells choose to express certain genes in the dan and ignore other genes so basically the architecture of the human body is written within each cell, but nobody explains the behavior of cell types in using certain genes and not others. As for the food we eat it,s a bunch of mutations oriented in a mysterious way that the slightest change in an apple tree's cell would make it's taste go from tasty to biter still consumable but taste bad, or change in form or color. Now that my friend is a miracle itself evolution can't and will never be able to explain.. I won't be replying anymore but I hope u take in consideration what I told u and may God enlighten ur path

 

[Quagmire]

So, as i look at the world, as i allow what i know and think i know to ruminate in my head, i've come to the conclusion, somewhat, that i've no clue whether there is a god or not. Nothing makes sense! Every answer presented has flaws that i find quite readily, and even the answers where i don't find flaws quickly, i eventually find them later. When i talk about my beliefs in the afterlife, and the answers presented by science as possible explanations, i simply have come to the conclusion, that i don't really believe in much of anything at this point.

Evolution? Makes sense for the most part, but the dilemma i see is say one cell "evolves". Now, isn't this a fairly random process? So, why would another "evolve" the same way? What makes them compatible, to mate, if you will? That's one issue i have with evolution. The big bang theory, well, that's easy, there's no proof whatsoever, so why would i believe it?

Basically, i'm an atheist who doesn't even profess, nay, even feel belief for the answers most atheists cling to happily. And yet, when i look upon the whole god issue, i feel no belief there either. I don't see it one way or the other.

I can see why deists choose to believe in something larger than us, because it hardly makes sense that everything would come about randomly, and yet, why not?

Lol, at this point i'm rambling. What i'm looking for here is maybe how you guys feel about it. Am i the only one who just doesn't believe in any of it? What the heck is going on? And why? Of course, asking why presupposes that there is a design, and i don't believe that.

To me, science doesn't trump religion, if science can't PROVE anything. Though, of course, i just don't believe in religion. You?

To me, it just looks like you've come to the realization that we're never going to find any answers to the bigger questions via conventional thought: religion and science both being functions of conventional thought.

So what does that leave?

 

[Copernicus]

It's impossible to prove anything... science and religion are both based on axioms:
Axiom | Define Axiom at Dictionary.com
"a proposition that is assumed without proof"

Idea, if you are going to look at word definitions, then you should note that words like "axiom" have more than one word sense, and different dictionaries sometimes give quite different lists of word senses. Secondly, you should note that the word "proof" itself is ambiguous, as your own dictionary source shows.

It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that science is unable to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun. When we say that it proves that, we mean that science uses an empirical proof. It is trivial to say that that is not an "absolute proof", because nobody really cares whether it is. What people care about is whether it is a reasonable conclusion based on reasonable assumptions and observations about the nature of reality. That is, science relies on the second word sense of "axiom" that you neglected to quote from your dictionary source:

"a universally accepted principle or rule."

 

[jarofthoughts]

I did study evolution and I know most of the important things about it, evolution is a big title for the adaptation of the creatures towards the environment, however science fails to tell why cells choose to express certain genes in the dan and ignore other genes so basically the architecture of the human body is written within each cell, but nobody explains the behavior of cell types in using certain genes and not others.

Apparently your education into the field of Biological Evolution is somewhat lacking.
We have a very good understanding of how genetic "switches" are turned off an on and why. In the clump of cells (called a zygote) that eventually will become a foetus are cells that are what we call totipotent, meaning that they can become any type of cell. As the embryonic development progresses chemical signals turn the various genes on or off depending on the stage and position of the cells in question. This turns the cells from being totipotent to being various degrees of potency, from unipotent cells that can only replicate to become the same type of cell (skin cells are a good example) to pluripotent cells that can replicate to become many different types of cells.
This does not only happen during embryogenesis but also during our continued lifespan. Gene regulatory proteins and the specific DNA sequences that these proteins recognize act as genetic ‘switches’ that can turn a gene on and off, and does so during our formative years. What we’ve learned is that environmental factors; chemicals, stress and so on, can also influence these genetic switches.

And that's the short version.

Now, I wrote that off the top of my head and I'm not even a biologist.
Imagine the depth of knowledge available to the people actually working in this field and you will (hopefully) understand why your own understanding falls short.

As for the food we eat it,s a bunch of mutations oriented in a mysterious way that the slightest change in an apple tree's cell would make it's taste go from tasty to biter still consumable but taste bad, or change in form or color. Now that my friend is a miracle itself evolution can't and will never be able to explain.. I won't be replying anymore but I hope u take in consideration what I told u and may God enlighten ur path

Whether you reply or not, I hope I can leave you with a small conundrum that I like to ask my own pupils.
The answer they give tends to reveal whether they have grasped the basics of the Theory of Evolution or not.

Thinking in evolutionary terms, why does fruit taste sweet and why are flowers beautiful and fragrant?

Think about it.

 

[Starsoul]

What on Earth are you trying to say here?
Sorry, but I can't make neither heads nor tails of your comment.

cant blame you, science belivers tend to loose out on intelligence once too often, they're too focused on glorifying the reason behind their egocentrism

 

[jarofthoughts]

cant blame you, science belivers tend to loose out on intelligence once too often, they're too focused on glorifying the reason behind their egocentrism

How about the huge portion of the population who for some reason seems to think that the universe was made especially to have them in it?
Now THAT'S egocentrism? :sarcastic

 

[idea]

the word "proof" itself is ambiguous

yes, it's all ambiguous...

It would be utterly ridiculous to claim that science is unable to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun. When we say that it proves that, we mean that science uses an empirical proof. It is trivial to say that that is not an "absolute proof", because nobody really cares whether it is. What people care about is whether it is a reasonable conclusion based on reasonable assumptions and observations about the nature of reality. That is, science relies on the second word sense of "axiom" that you neglected to quote from your dictionary source:

"a universally accepted principle or rule."

it's all relative... put two rocks into a void - which is revolving around which?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
observations? there is more to life than what meets the eye... but you can experiment with more than just the traditional science stuff... you can experiment with religious stuff too - the experiment is to try it all out - experiment through readings / studying, then applying the teachings to your life, then observe the results - as with all things, you gain knowledge based on how much you study, and how carefully you do the experiment! study, experiment, and then dig into your conscience - you will find what you need.

 

[Landerage]

Apparently your education into the field of Biological Evolution is somewhat lacking.
We have a very good understanding of how genetic "switches" are turned off an on and why. In the clump of cells (called a zygote) that eventually will become a foetus are cells that are what we call totipotent, meaning that they can become any type of cell. As the embryonic development progresses chemical signals turn the various genes on or off depending on the stage and position of the cells in question. This turns the cells from being totipotent to being various degrees of potency, from unipotent cells that can only replicate to become the same type of cell (skin cells are a good example) to pluripotent cells that can replicate to become many different types of cells.
This does not only happen during embryogenesis but also during our continued lifespan. Gene regulatory proteins and the specific DNA sequences that these proteins recognize act as genetic ‘switches’ that can turn a gene on and off, and does so during our formative years. What we’ve learned is that environmental factors; chemicals, stress and so on, can also influence these genetic switches.

Thanks for the great informations, true I lacked that information and needed an update I think that's newly discovered but anyways.. the question of "why" is endless, and no matter what science prove it will never answer the "why" at the end of the loop, there is always a "scientifical" explanation for all the biological events, however the question of "why" cannot be answered but humans demonstrate the mechanics of it. The answer of "why" is found in religion and if you dont wish to beleive it then it's your own choice. No matter how much details humans get from experiments etc.. there is not an answer to why or a 100% knowledge of anything.

Whether you reply or not, I hope I can leave you with a small conundrum that I like to ask my own pupils.
The answer they give tends to reveal whether they have grasped the basics of the Theory of Evolution or not.

Thinking in evolutionary terms, why does fruit taste sweet and why are flowers beautiful and fragrant?

Think about it.

I was meaning by I wont be replying because I thought w're being in an endless loop that leads nowhere and that's not debating. As for this quote I didnt quite understand it but I do find it a miracle to find a beautiful nature (evolution) but also to find that when the sun rises, it doesn't rise in a split of a second and hurt the creatures eyes, but it rise slowly and that's due to a precise distance from the earth to the sun and the earth and sun rotation, now matching those coincidences together, which happen not just to be a coincidence going together, but also beautiful miracles. I mean the sun could have just rise and wake us up in our sleep in a very unbalanced way, nature can be ugly and trees can be black or endless other possibilities that would have made life miserable. or imagine if our eyes can only see in black and white.. linking all together not just on a biological side would make me sure that someone organised that, because evolution is not in relation with space science or the distance earth-sun or the stars or anything else that's something science can never explain but you can tell it's a huge coincidence however in religious book the explanation can be found and I found no reason personaly not to beleive, in fact not beleiving for me is considered a crime in my opinion.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Thanks for the great informations, true I lacked that information and needed an update I think that's newly discovered but anyways..

Well, the concept of genetic switches was proposed several decades ago so it's not -that- recent... I mean, it's new compared to the heliocentric planetary system, but science has progressed some since then.
Perhaps, before you make absolute statements about what science knows and does not know, maybe you should actually do some studying.

the question of "why" is endless, and no matter what science prove it will never answer the "why" at the end of the loop, there is always a "scientifical" explanation for all the biological events, however the question of "why" cannot be answered but humans demonstrate the mechanics of it. The answer of "why" is found in religion and if you dont wish to beleive it then it's your own choice. No matter how much details humans get from experiments etc.. there is not an answer to why or a 100% knowledge of anything.

And no-one is claiming 100% knowledge about anything, at least not science.
But you need to be more specific with your question.
Why what?

As for this quote I didnt quite understand it...

It's not a quote.
It's a question.
That I usually ask my pupils to check if they have understood the basics of the Theory of Evolution.
They are fifth graders by the way.
Which means that if you ever want to claim to know anything at all about Evolution, and be taken seriously, you should be able to answer that question easily.

So, what is your answer?

Thinking in evolutionary terms, why does fruit taste sweet and why are flowers beautiful and fragrant?