An attempt to cut through several layers of bovine excrement

[bbbaldie]

There is a steaming pile of stinky stuff behind the world of fossils, the various ideas about their origin, and common belief. It causes division between folks who otherwise may not have a bit of problem with each other.

First off, I acknowledge that the average Jerry-Springer-watching human is not the sharpest crayon in the box. He/she may believe in fairies, ghosts, Santa Claus, voices in the head, backwards-masked song lyrics from Satan, etc. etc.

However, I respectfully submit that the intellectual scientific community has taken stuff for granted that is hard to swallow.

Example: the universe spontaneously arose. No less a great brain than that of Stephen Hawking believes firmly in this. It went from absolute nothingness to a Big Bang of creation in a moment of time too small to measure.

Example 2: Life spontaneously arose. One day, in a supposed soup of organic stuff, a cell wall magically formed, and the stuff inside began reproducing.

Stop me if I left anything out.

I'm hopeful that all concerned can see that there are unswallowable concepts on both sides of the fence.

Fact: we have lots of fossil evidence proving that life evolves. New species arise. Critters adapt.

Fact: science has never duplicated the spontaneous generation of life. Yes, we've fired electricity into a container filled with organic compounds, and have produced some of the amino acids necessary for DNA and its replication. What has NOT been done is the artificial generation of life from inanimate materials.

And even if it WAS done, okay, that would prove that under extremely careful laboratory conditions, it's possible. By chance? Not so much so.

My point is that there's a truth. Invariably, it lies between two extremes. I'm as sickened by people who insist all species were hand-created, and that it was all done in a few thousand years, as the most erudite intellectual.

However, I'm also offended by those who ridicule any theory other than spontaneous generation, whether we're talking universes, life, etc.

Let the flaming begin. I'm not getting drawn into any justification of what i believe. I'm just trying to respectfully offer the idea that everything in the universe isn't black and white. Your beliefs, no matter what they are, are highly, highly unlikely to be 100% right.

With that, perhaps we could all show more tolerance towards the beliefs of others?

One last one, and this will likely set off some: I have no problem with evolution being taught to schoolkids. However, I insist on facts only. If you teach my grandchildren that life began on its own accord in organic soup, you're speculating. Do so all you want, but make certain that the word THEORY is attached to what's being taught. Until the results are duplicated under controlled conditions, what you have is merely a theory.

Have a nice day, all. :-)

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[naturegirl]

THIS.. is a highly intelligent post. because I agree whole-heartedly

just my cent and a half-
lisa

 

[Harry Pristis]

"It must be true because it has not been proven false." This is called the argument from ignorance or sometimes the argument from personal incredulity ("because I cannot imagine a natural explanation, there cannot be one"). Such fallacious reasoning comes up so often in encounters with believers that it appears to be a product of a brain unsatisfied with doubt; as nature abhors a vacuum, so, too, does the brain abhor no explanation. It therefore fills in an explanation, no matter how unlikely.

Thus do normal anomalies become paranormal, natural phenomena become supernatural, unidentified flying objects become extraterrestrial spacecraft, and chance events become conspiracies. Houdini's principle states that just because something is unexplained does not mean that it is paranormal, supernatural, extraterrestrial or conspiratorial. Before you say something is out of this world first make sure that it is not in this world, for science is grounded in naturalism, not supernaturalism, paranormalism or any other unnecessarily complicated explanations.
------Adapted from HOUDINI'S SKEPTICAL ADVICE, by Michael Shermer in Scientific American, Feb. 2011.

 

[bbbaldie]

[size=14pt]"It must be true because it has not been proven false." (snip snip) It therefore fills in an explanation, no matter how unlikely.

Well, we haven't proven that the universe DIDN'T come into existence on its own accord, ergo it must have?

So far, eons of time HAVE proven that life doesn't spontaneously generate. Apparently, according to scientific belief, it did ONCE. Not since then.

Sorry, no proof there, just references to UFO's and such. I acknowledged that the average Joe may well have some space-cadet beliefs. But as far as I'm concerned, stating categorically that things arose on their own with no proof other than the convenience of an intelligence-free explanation holds about the same amount of water.

In the meantime, I am filled with wonder at what we can learn (and whet I've personally learned) from the fossil record. But don't, as the expression goes, pee on my foot and tell me it's raining in regard to explanations of ultimate origins of stuff like life and the universe itself, UNLESS you qualify it with stating that it's a whale of a theory, but not a proven fact.

 

[zerojinx]

bbbaldie, what exactly are your beliefs? Just for clarification. Kinda hard to argue with you if I don't know your exact position, or is that your aim. Your posts seem to indicate that you are not in favor of the big bang, which is to say life spontaneously coming into existance. What is not clear is if you believe in creationism, which is pretty much the same arguement in a different way, i.e. god made everything in a blink. Your post seems to suggest that you believe in an alternative that lies somewhere in the middle.

What is your opinion on how we came to this point of an internet arguement?

 

[bbbaldie]

I'm not seeking an argument. My beliefs are irrelevant. My point is that there's a difference between a fact and a theory. Teach theories all you want, don't call them facts.

I have a theory that the Big Bang (the Big Bang itself is a no-brainer, the evidence is overwhelming) was NOT an act of chance. It carries just as much validity as Mr. Hawking's theory that it was. However, proving either one is problematic. Ergo, BOTH are theories. One is politically correct among the scientific and intellectual communities, the other is not.

I have a similar theory regarding the origin of life. My own theory is that it was not an act of chance, that an already existing life form caused it. Again, unprovable. Just like the theory that the ingredients for life came about on their own and were enclosed by a cell wall, and then started reproducing.

Theories all, folks. If any of us jump up and state that theirs is a fact, and should be taught in schools as such, then that makes the speaker a horse's posterior.

And I'm certainly not suggesting creation should be taught in public schools as a theory. What a stinking quagmire that would cause. But dammit, DON'T TEACH TRENDY SCIENTIFIC THEORIES AS FACT EITHER. Make it clear to impressionable young minds that these are theories, albeit ones supported by the scientific community.

Blow me off as a god-believing crackpot if you like, but please don't blow off the points I raised for the same reason.

 

[Kentucky Kache]

Personally, I have something more sure than theory and guessing. God proves Himself, but only to those who were in Him before the world's creation. That's not a theory, it's a revelation.

 

[zerojinx]

bbbaldie, i was just curious as too your opinions.

I agree that the origins of life should be taught as theory and not fact, as at our present stage in life we can not accurately prove or disprove any of the current theories. I personally don't bother with any of the theories just for that reason. I can't prove or disprove any one of them, so I don't bother. I just accept that i'm here and go from there. This philosophy has a tendency to rub folks the wrong way. They just can't seem to grasp that I truely don't care. However, I am curious to hear all the competing theories, as at this point I am willing to give them all equal attention. For all I know Elvis went back in time and created us all.

 

[Harry Pristis]

Do you suppose that the word “theory” actually means: “a random stab in the dark”?

A theory is "an explanation of certain phenomena that is well-supported by a large body of facts and often unifies similarly well-supported hypotheses" i.e. atomic theory, gravitational theory, germ theory, etc.

Darwinian evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Superstring Theory (commonly proposed as an explanation for the Big Bang) is based on facts -- mathmatics and physics. Theories (the explanation of facts) are always open to refinement or revision -- that is what science is all about -- just the opposite of religious dogma or metaphysical tradition.

Got any scientific facts for your creation theory, 'bbbaldie'?

 

[bbbaldie]

Darwinian evolution is both a fact and a theory.

String Theory (commonly proposed as an explanation for the Big Bang) is based on facts -- mathmatics and physics. Theories (the explanation of facts) are always open to refinement or revision -- that is what science is all about -- just the opposite of religious dogma or metaphysical tradition.

Got any scientific facts for your creation theory, 'bbbaldie'?

Oooh, I've been humbled by a great scientific mind

Have you examined the mathematical odds against the components of a living, reproducing cell conveniently coming together all by itself to form the first living organism? I suggest you do so, with an open mind, and find out how mathematicians define "impossibility."

"Darwinian evolution is both a fact and a theory."

Hmm...whiskey tango foxtrot is that supposed to mean? A fact is cold and hard, a theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory""

Fact: I have a cup of coffee in front of me. Theory: that coffee came from south America. One is true, the other has a probability of being true, but can not be stated as a fact until factual proof, e.g. researching the beans' origin beyond a shadow of a doubt, takes place.

I love how you throw the term "Darwinian evolution" out there like someone else would do so with "Buddhism," "Christianity," etc. It really is a religion of sorts, isn't it? I also love how the scientific community pooh-poohs an appeal made as to the mathematical impossibility of their claims as yet another creationist tactic. Is that where you were heading next?

Here's what it boils down to, Mr. Pristis. It takes faith to operate. You appear to have a faith that Darwinian evolution explains the existence of life. I'm guessing that your faith is mighty, a lifetime has been required to build it to the point that nothing could ever derail it. No slight is implied, your faith is no different from that of another religious person who has their beliefs deeply, deeply ingrained with faith backed by what they conceive as to be adequate proof.

I say that Darwinian evolution beautifully explains the plethora of species whose evolutionary trails can be traced. Example: the connection between reptiles and bird is unquestionable. However, the connection between an alga and a blue whale? Not so much so. Yes, the same DNA. So what? DNA is the perfect base for life on earth. The fact that the simplest plants and the most complicated mammals share it proves they arose from the same rudimentary cell?

What Darwinian evolution fails to do, IMHO, is explain the sudden appearance of completely diverse species in the fossil record. Mutations are usually used to explain how a brand new critter, unlike any other, could suddenly spring into being. How convenient. Now, you have your theory/fact/theory/fact thing. Might as well call it a fact, and teach it as such?

Another quote of yours: "Theories (the explanation of facts) are always open to refinement or revision -- that is what science is all about -- just the opposite of religious dogma or metaphysical tradition."

OK, granted. However, if my grandchildren have been taught that the spontaneous generation of life is a fact, then someone has dropped the ball. And if they have been taught that the unintelligent spontaneous generation of the universe is a fact, then once again someone has stepped over the line. And if they are taught that a single-celled alga eventually evolved into a rhinoceros, once again, someone is doing something naughty, calling a theory a fact.

"Got any scientific facts for your creation theory, 'bbbaldie'?"

No, I don't, "Harry." I could point out research which atheists find heinous, blasphemous, and laughable, that of Michael Behe, showing that the process of blood successfully clotting hinges on a daisy chain of happy circumstances in order to take place without killing the bleeding organism, and that evolutionists have no explanation for how all of these processes could have evolved independently. but I'm not teaching that as a fact in schools. I don't WANT that taught as a fact in schools. That's the whole point of my rant. I think ANYONE who would purport to put their own ideas as to unprovable theories out there as facts is an ass. I'd just as soon not have creation even mentioned in the classroom. However, I take issue with kids being taught that Darwinian evolution explains all, and string theory also explains all, when neither is the case.

It takes humility to admit you don't have all the answers. I suspect that quality is sadly lacking among believers in your particular faith.

 

[naturegirl]

I've spent the better part of my life struggling with who's right, who's wrong. Happily I don't do that anymore. I don't think the answer will be proven in my lifetime, I'm fine with that. What I wonder about is how the "hard-wiring" of our individual brains affects our beliefs. a more 'scientfic' mind simply funtions different than a 'religious' (for lack of a better word). And being human, we seem to have the ability to change our hard-wiring?

I love the cold hard facts, and I love the blind faith! It's the combination of the two that will provide the answer. We just may not be walking this earth when it happens. What do we teach our kids? ALL of it. We can't close their minds just because we don't know it all. They may be the ones to find the answer, if it is to be found. I don't think we should hamstring them with a personal belief.

Umm... just to keep this on fossils, I found a big ol' handful of crinoids!!! Wanna see a picture?

 

[bbbaldie]

Yes! Crinoids!

 

[Bum Luck]

Faith

Friedrich Nietzsche: "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

An inability or unwillingness to adapt one's 'belief system' to facts or scientific evidence is an unflattering characteristic at best, and an evolutionary handicap at worst.

You can pick all you want at current scientific thinking about the origin of the universe and life, but here are three observations about it:

1: Yes, they are theories. A casual stroll through the internet labels them as such. The hallmark of a great mind is that it isn't afraid of ideas.

2: We should be willing to 'exercise' our brains just as we exercise our bodies to stay healthy. I love surfing through landscapes like quantum theory. It keeps out the mental lesions.

3: When you recall where mankind was a few centuries ago, it's clear we've made progress toward answering these questions.

Happy thinking!

 

[naturegirl]

But don't you think exporing faith, things unseen, is an incredible stetching exercise for the brain?

It occured to me as I thought about this conversation, I'm expressing 'emotion'. That second-class, step-child, red-head, under- appreciated quality of the human existance. Both sides, science and religion, consider emotion to be a weakness in the human conditon. But, here I am, alive and well

 

[bbbaldie]

Friedrich Nietzsche: "God is dead."
God: "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead."

 

[Bum Luck]

But don't you think exporing faith, things unseen, is an incredible stetching exercise for the brain?

Nope, no more than a trip through the asylum. Not my cup of koolaid.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "God is dead."
God: "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead."

Thank you for the wonderful distillation of your position.

 

[Harry Pristis]

This is getting us nowhere because, for one thing, 'bbbaldie' does not distinguish between "scientific theory" and "personal conjecture." Scientific theory, by definition, is based on observable facts. Any speculation about the origin of the universe that is not supported by facts is scientifically irrelevant (though such speculation may have mystical significance to someone).

I don't have to research every fact underlying a well-accepted theory - germ theory, for example. When I read an article in a serious publication about human gut flora, I can accept or doubt the results of research knowing that science is operating here, accumulating knowledge, correcting mistakes of the past. This is not like religious belief where I would be expected or commanded to accept the information without evidence. Belief in "evolution" and belief in "special creation" are not at all comparable.

Michael Behe's arguments were played out prominently a few years ago when "Intelligent Design" was the wedge issue to get creationism into the public schools in Kansas and elsewhere. 'bbbaldie' apparently is someone who believes in ID.

Here's one response to those arguments:

The Times May 21, 2005
Richard Dawkins
"Creationism: God's gift to the Igno rant
As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic. Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: 'Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.' Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do. ....

"Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous 'gaps'. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a 'gap', the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

"The creationists’ fondness for 'gaps' in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas."

 

[bbbaldie]

But don't you think exporing faith, things unseen, is an incredible stetching exercise for the brain?

Nope, no more than a trip through the asylum. Not my cup of koolaid.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "God is dead."
God: "Friedrich Nietzsche is dead."

Thank you for the wonderful distillation of your position.

Geez, just injecting a little levity. Hear the term "Lighten up!" much?

Your points, as profound as they are, seem to have nothing to do with my original position. My problem, to state it yet again, is with teaching spontaneous in generation of life in school as an established fact. It is, in fact, far from that. It's a theory, one which involves odds that are staggering in their impossibility. Ergo, teach away, but make sure the word theory is used in suggesting this beginning of all things living. The origin of the universe from a chance physical anomaly is in the same ball park, although the last time I checked, science books were way behind cutting-edge thought in teaching kids the "facts" behind universal origin.

Any problem with using the "t" word in schoolbooks in your world, Mr. Luck? Or do you prefer the "f" word?

 

[bbbaldie]

So I mention Behe, and now I'm a creationist. No, I'm someone who doesn't swallow loads of doo-doo because I'm told to because a Highly Respected Person tells me I should.

Behe raises a valid point about the factors involved with the clotting of blood. A point which can in no way be explained away with evolutionary hyperbole. But mention his name, and oh my, the world comes tumbling down.

Here's a favorite quote of mine from Dawkins: "Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence."

Kewl. Let's see the hard evidence of amino acids + a cell wall gelling out of ooze, then reproducing. Wha, it just happened? Wow, THAT takes some serious faith! Makes the brilliant originator of that statement sound like a naive, hypocritical doofus.

If, by "getting nowhere," you mean I'm not convinced by any of the roadblocks you've thrown up, you're right. But let's home in on original contention here, Mr. Pristis. I vehemently oppose the teaching of life's spontaneous origin in public schools as a FACT. I strongly affirm that it be taught with the understanding that it's a THEORY. And the same goes with the origin of the universe, although, in all fairness, it seems that the universal origin has always carried the term theory, but I suspect with Hawking's (a man I admire very greatly, BTW) latest statements saying that he sees no problems with the Big Bang's springing from an anomaly free of outside intelligence, that school situation may change.

Can we agree on my contentions, Mr. Pristis? Or do you insist that these two theories of origin be called facts, as far as teaching them to our public school students is concerned? And please, no more quotes from Dawkins, who is to the scientific community what Rush Limbaugh is to modest conservatives. I promise no more quotes from Behe. ;-)

 

[Bum Luck]

Interesting attempt to dance around the ID label, but unconvincing.

I vehemently oppose the teaching of life's spontaneous origin in public schools as a FACT.

Vehemently? That's a curious reaction. Maybe you're getting your 'facts' about what's taught in schools from 'outre space' emails. Please submit evidence that schools are teaching Abiogenesis as fact. While you're at it, please submit your own theory of the origin of life, if it differs from Abiogenesis. Inquiring minds want to know.

My problem, to state it yet again, is with teaching spontaneous in generation of life in school as an established fact. It is, in fact, far from that. It's a theory, one which involves odds that are staggering in their impossibility.

You might as well throw in some real mathematics a little more precisely quantifying 'staggering in their impossibility'.

Thanks in advance for the effort.