Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Origin of Specious Nonsense. Twelve years on. Still going. Answer soon.

1…959698100101

Comments

  • #2912
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pone2012 wrote: »
    A poster commented that science basically disproves creationists... I stated that I'd like to see where the science is that disproves the concept that we were created...and stated I don't see how the concepts are in conflict...in fact two other posters noted how the ideas are not specifically at odds?
    Oldrnwisr did a very detailed post detailing exactly how creationist claims are very provably false.

    I think the problem is that you are not distinguishing between creationists and people who believe in deistic evolution.
    When people here are referring to creationists they mean full on 6000 year old earth, flood, Adam and Eve types.
    These types are very much proven to be wrong in every single way.

    Unless you'd like to suggest that the idea of the Earth being 6000 years old, there was only 2 original humans and that a flood wipped out all but 2 of every animal some how has equal weight to the science...


  • #2913
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,968 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    42!

    Yikes! My bad :)


  • #2914
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    pone2012 wrote: »
    Perhaps show me what claim I made? I said that there's no way to prove or disprove...at present we have no way to know..is that not a valid viewpoint?

    A poster commented that science basically disproves creationists... I stated that I'd like to see where the science is that disproves the concept that we were created...and stated I don't see how the concepts are in conflict...in fact two other posters noted how the ideas are not specifically at odds?

    So what evidence do you suggest I provide for that statement? I don't see how I can, but by all means do suggest?

    OK, let's recap for a second because it seems like you and the rest of us are talking across each other.

    You originally said in response to Professor Moriarty:
    Professor Moriarty wrote: »
    But all credible scientific evidence shows that Galileo was right and creationists are wrong.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Sorry now, but what science shows that creationists are wrong?? That's news to me

    Evolution and design are not necessarily at odds... There are occult/esoteric writings before Darwin ever touched on the topic of evolution suggesting life came from the ocean onto the land..

    Now it's important to separate the idea of design as a causal argument for the origins of life and the claims made by creationists in defence of their mythology.

    As I and others have said, there's no inherent conflict between design and evolution. You could have a compromise idea like theistic evolution where evolution takes place but is guided by a deity according to some cosmic plan.

    However, there are two important points here, one of which has already been dealt with by smacl. The first point is that you shouldn't invoke design as an argument unless it's suggested by the evidence. And it isn't. There's no deficiency or gap in the data either in the theory of evolution or abiogenesis that requires a designer to balance the equation or fill the gap. If you want to believe in a designer fine, but if you want to claim that there is a designer and we were created then you'll need evidence indicative of creation in order to convince people of that.

    The second and more important point, is that design and naturalistic evolution as ideas unto themselves aren't necessarily at odds. However, the evidence that we have rules out design as a useful argument.

    For example, as humans we rely on Vitamin C for good health. Without it we get scurvy and suffer horrible consequences. So why then do humans, unlike most other mammals, not produce vitamin C in their bodies. If we, according to creationists and other design proponents are specially created then why are we missing a feature that a) we need and b) other "lower" animals have been given. Well, here's the thing. We've identified the gene responsible for vitamin C production in mammals, the gulono-γ-lactone oxidase gene which converts glucose to ascorbic acid using an enzyme driven multi-stage process. So why don't we have this gene. Well we do, but in humans and other primates, this gene has been rendered functionless and is now just a pseudogene.
    If we really were designed then why is a non-functional gene in our genome at all. Why design it like that? And why design it to be broken or breakable at all if we need it to be healthy.

    Cloning and chromosomal mapping of the human nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the enzyme for L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis missing in man.

    Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for l-gulono-γ-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in l-ascorbic acid biosynthesis

    Immunologic evidence that the gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase is not expressed in animals subject to scurvy


    Another example of this is in my last post, the MYH16 gene. The fact that that gene is non-functional is one of the reasons why our brains are so much bigger than chimpanzees or gorillas. So why do we have a copy of that gene at all if we were designed?

    I can document even more examples if you like but I think you get my point. Humans were definitely not specially created or designed and we can show this through multiple concordant lines of evidence. Now you could push this question back a step or several steps but no matter how far back the tree of life you go we can show how each organism is obviously related to each other organism through common descent. Design is a bad argument because there's tons of evidence that it cannot explain, it lacks explanatory power and it is an unnecessary assumption.


  • #2915
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    For example, as humans we rely on Vitamin C for good health. Without it we get scurvy and suffer horrible consequences. So why then do humans, unlike most other mammals, not produce vitamin C in their bodies. If we, according to creationists and other design proponents are specially created then why are we missing a feature that a) we need and b) other "lower" animals have been given. Well, here's the thing. We've identified the gene responsible for vitamin C production in mammals, the gulono-γ-lactone oxidase gene which converts glucose to ascorbic acid using an enzyme driven multi-stage process. So why don't we have this gene. Well we do, but in humans and other primates, this gene has been rendered functionless and is now just a pseudogene.
    If we really were designed then why is a non-functional gene in our genome at all. Why design it like that? And why design it to be broken or breakable at all if we need it to be healthy.
    There is indeed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes - but this is indicative of common design with a subsequent degrading of the genetic information.
    Quote:-"Modern genomics provides the ability to screen the DNA of a wide variety of organisms to scrutinize broken metabolic pathways. This wealth of data has revealed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes. Loss of the vitamin C pathway due to deletions in the GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase) gene has been detected in humans, apes, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, and passerine birds. Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution."
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-gulo-pseudogene-evidence-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/


  • #2916
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    Hang on...that source makes a bit of a wild jump by comparing a limited amount of genetic data from a single gene and then uses it to claim that humans are closer to gorillas than chimps based purely on this one section "negating the inferred order of phylogeny" - so the author is both indicating that humans are related to other primates while also claiming that the relation is incorrect based on a single section of a single gene. I don't know how he reconciles that with Genesis, but that's his problem.

    That's what I'm getting from that excerpt anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #2917
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,968 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Samaris wrote: »
    Hang on...that source makes a bit of a wild jump...

    That source being Answers in Genesis. From the same Wikipedia page
    Creation science, which is promoted by AiG, is a pseudoscience that "lacks the central defining characteristic of all modern scientific theories".[26][27] Scientific and scholarly organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences, Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism.[28] The National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group, criticize AiG's promotion of non-science.

    Not sure that anyone other than a creationist would consider AiG references credible in a scientific discussion tbh.


  • #2918
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Samaris wrote: »
    Hang on...that source makes a bit of a wild jump by comparing a limited amount of genetic data from a single gene and then uses it to claim that humans are closer to gorillas than chimps based purely on this one section "negating the inferred order of phylogeny" - so the author is both indicating that humans are related to other primates while also claiming that the relation is incorrect based on a single section of a single gene. I don't know how he reconciles that with Genesis, but that's his problem.

    That's what I'm getting from that excerpt anyway.
    The fact that the 'deletions' are more different in Chimanzee than the Gorilla negates the idea that the deletions occurred in a common ancestor ... thereby negating the inferred order of phylogeny and it is consistent with a common design that has had both different and commmon sequences deleted, resulting in sequence deletions via unequal recombination with transposable element repeats.


  • #2919
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    J C wrote: »
    There is indeed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes - but this is indicative of common design with a subsequent degrading of the genetic information.
    Quote:-"Modern genomics provides the ability to screen the DNA of a wide variety of organisms to scrutinize broken metabolic pathways. This wealth of data has revealed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes. Loss of the vitamin C pathway due to deletions in the GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase) gene has been detected in humans, apes, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, and passerine birds. Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution."
    https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/human-gulo-pseudogene-evidence-evolutionary-discontinuity-and-genetic-entropy/


    I'm not sure why you posted this JC since it's not a response to my argument. My argument is that the fact that GULO is a pseudogene without any function is completely detrimental to the idea of common design. Tomkins article is a failed rebuttal against the idea that GULO represents yet another strong argument for common descent. I'll get back to my original argument later on in this post but first I'll explain why Tomkins is wrong.

    The central premise of Tomkins article is that his analysis of a 28,800 bp sequence of the human GULO gene matched against chimps and gorillas shows that the chimp and gorilla sequences match only 84% and 87% of the human sequence. Tomkins concludes two things from this. Firstly, it counters the argument that the mutation of GULO is another concordant line of evidence for common descent. Secondly, since the gorilla sequence shows a higher match than the chimp sequence, this contradicts and thus (in Tomkins eyes) refutes the established phylogenetic sequence of primates. The only problem with Tomkins' argument is that he's dead wrong.

    Tomkins claim rests on his analysis of a 28,800 bp sequence of GULO against comparable chimp and gorilla sequences.

    OK, first the chimp sequence. The comparable chimp sequence is 29,014 bp long. The matched complete positions (i.e. no. of comparable nucleotides) is 28,067. Within this region there are 519 snips (single nucleotide polymorphisms, i.e. where a single nucleotide is different). There are also 61 total indels (extra added nucleotides or deleted nucleotides), 41 in the human sequence and 20 in the chimp sequence. That gives a total of 580 differences between the human and chimp sequences. Now, we could be as dishonest as Tomkins and express these differences as a ratio against the total bp in either the human or chimp sequence. But let's give Tomkins' analysis as much of a chance as possible. Taking the number of differences as a percentage of the number of matched positions (28,067) we find that the human and chimp sequences are 97.93% identical. So not only is Tomkins wrong, the actual results are concordant with the established phylogenetic order and confirm what we already suspected.
    Basic maths should have warned that Tomkins was wrong. If his 84% figure was correct then there should have been almost 4500 mutations in this one sequence of 28,800 bp. That's 4500 mutations in a sequence that represents 0.00096% of our genome. Not only is it approximately 7 times the number of mutations that we do observe in the sequence but it's also 67 times the human mutation rate.
    When we look at the gorilla genome we see a similar story. This time the gorilla genome is approximately 96.6% identical. Even other primates follow the same trend (orangutan 94%, bonobo 98%).

    You see, Tomkins real problem is that anyone can download the source data for GULO (or any sequence in the genome for that matter) themselves. You can download the sequences here:

    Genome Browser

    Anyone who doesn't want to waste time can download the already aligned sequences here.

    You'll need a phylogeny browser or viewer to open the file above. You can download SeaView here or any alternative browser you like

    If you want you can also download the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) here. BLAST is a rough tool which will allow you to match your downloaded sequences using basic alignment protocols so you can quickly get a %identical figure out the other end. IMHO it's not as illuminating as the full sequence but it proves the point nonetheless.

    Anyway, getting back to my original point. The GULO gene needn't have been an argument for common descent. It's perfectly possible for the same gene to be broken in different ways without indicating common descent. For example, the broken GULO gene in guinea pigs originated as a point mutation whereas in humans and other primates it originated as a frameshift mutation. It just turns out that we can show common descent using GULO. However, that's not really the point. The fact that GULO exists in humans at all in its current state is a powerful argument against design.
    Firstly, vitamin C is necessary for good health in humans. Untreated scurvy is/was fatal within a few months and it's a pretty horrible way to die. So, given you've already acknowledged that there are gene correction mechanisms, why don't they exist for GULO. If your God designed humans and he intended/anticipated the existence of mutations and vitamin C is necessary for our health, why did he design GULO without repair mechanisms.
    Secondly, if your overall claim about mutational degradation of the genome since "the Fall" is to be believed, then there should be human fossils with copies of GULO before it became non-functional. So let's see them. Since GULO actually broke as far back as Haplorhini (about 40 million years ago) before there even were humans, you can't but I'd like to see you try.
    Finally, the human version of GULO isn't just broken, it's decimated. When it's compared to a functional GULO gene such as in rats or cows, we can see that exons 1-6 as well as exon 11 is completely missing. Additionally in exon 10 there has been a single nucleotide insertion, two single nucleotide deletions and a triple nucleotide deletion in addition to the insertion of extra stop codons. If you're going to suggest that this mutation occurred in one little gene out of tens of thousands in just 6000 years, then we're going to need some hard evidence because nothing we've discovered in palaeontology, genetics or molecular phylogeny supports your contention and everything we've found contradicts it.

    The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon.

    Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis.


  • #2920
    Professor Moriarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,392 ✭✭✭✭Professor Moriarty


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    I'm not sure why you posted this JC since it's not a response to my argument. My argument is that the fact that GULO is a pseudogene without any function is completely detrimental to the idea of common design. Tomkins article is a failed rebuttal against the idea that GULO represents yet another strong argument for common descent. I'll get back to my original argument later on in this post but first I'll explain why Tomkins is wrong.

    The central premise of Tomkins article is that his analysis of a 28,800 bp sequence of the human GULO gene matched against chimps and gorillas shows that the chimp and gorilla sequences match only 84% and 87% of the human sequence. Tomkins concludes two things from this. Firstly, it counters the argument that the mutation of GULO is another concordant line of evidence for common descent. Secondly, since the gorilla sequence shows a higher match than the chimp sequence, this contradicts and thus (in Tomkins eyes) refutes the established phylogenetic sequence of primates. The only problem with Tomkins' argument is that he's dead wrong.

    Tomkins claim rests on his analysis of a 28,800 bp sequence of GULO against comparable chimp and gorilla sequences.

    OK, first the chimp sequence. The comparable chimp sequence is 29,014 bp long. The matched complete positions (i.e. no. of comparable nucleotides) is 28,067. Within this region there are 519 snips (single nucleotide polymorphisms, i.e. where a single nucleotide is different). There are also 61 total indels (extra added nucleotides or deleted nucleotides), 41 in the human sequence and 20 in the chimp sequence. That gives a total of 580 differences between the human and chimp sequences. Now, we could be as dishonest as Tomkins and express these differences as a ratio against the total bp in either the human or chimp sequence. But let's give Tomkins' analysis as much of a chance as possible. Taking the number of differences as a percentage of the number of matched positions (28,067) we find that the human and chimp sequences are 97.93% identical. So not only is Tomkins wrong, the actual results are concordant with the established phylogenetic order and confirm what we already suspected.
    Basic maths should have warned that Tomkins was wrong. If his 84% figure was correct then there should have been almost 4500 mutations in this one sequence of 28,800 bp. That's 4500 mutations in a sequence that represents 0.00096% of our genome. Not only is it approximately 7 times the number of mutations that we do observe in the sequence but it's also 67 times the human mutation rate.
    When we look at the gorilla genome we see a similar story. This time the gorilla genome is approximately 96.6% identical. Even other primates follow the same trend (orangutan 94%, bonobo 98%).

    You see, Tomkins real problem is that anyone can download the source data for GULO (or any sequence in the genome for that matter) themselves. You can download the sequences here:

    Genome Browser

    Anyone who doesn't want to waste time can download the already aligned sequences here.

    You'll need a phylogeny browser or viewer to open the file above. You can download SeaView here or any alternative browser you like

    If you want you can also download the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) here. BLAST is a rough tool which will allow you to match your downloaded sequences using basic alignment protocols so you can quickly get a %identical figure out the other end. IMHO it's not as illuminating as the full sequence but it proves the point nonetheless.

    Anyway, getting back to my original point. The GULO gene needn't have been an argument for common descent. It's perfectly possible for the same gene to be broken in different ways without indicating common descent. For example, the broken GULO gene in guinea pigs originated as a point mutation whereas in humans and other primates it originated as a frameshift mutation. It just turns out that we can show common descent using GULO. However, that's not really the point. The fact that GULO exists in humans at all in its current state is a powerful argument against design.
    Firstly, vitamin C is necessary for good health in humans. Untreated scurvy is/was fatal within a few months and it's a pretty horrible way to die. So, given you've already acknowledged that there are gene correction mechanisms, why don't they exist for GULO. If your God designed humans and he intended/anticipated the existence of mutations and vitamin C is necessary for our health, why did he design GULO without repair mechanisms.
    Secondly, if your overall claim about mutational degradation of the genome since "the Fall" is to be believed, then there should be human fossils with copies of GULO before it became non-functional. So let's see them. Since GULO actually broke as far back as Haplorhini (about 40 million years ago) before there even were humans, you can't but I'd like to see you try.
    Finally, the human version of GULO isn't just broken, it's decimated. When it's compared to a functional GULO gene such as in rats or cows, we can see that exons 1-6 as well as exon 11 is completely missing. Additionally in exon 10 there has been a single nucleotide insertion, two single nucleotide deletions and a triple nucleotide deletion in addition to the insertion of extra stop codons. If you're going to suggest that this mutation occurred in one little gene out of tens of thousands in just 6000 years, then we're going to need some hard evidence because nothing we've discovered in palaeontology, genetics or molecular phylogeny supports your contention and everything we've found contradicts it.

    The whole structure of the human nonfunctional L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase gene--the gene responsible for scurvy--and the evolution of repetitive sequences thereon.

    Random nucleotide substitutions in primate nonfunctional gene for L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase, the missing enzyme in L-ascorbic acid biosynthesis.

    I don't think even God could argue with that.


  • #2921
    looksee
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 29,974 ✭✭✭✭looksee


    In fairness, god isn't arguing with anything, its all those dratted humans who are arguing on his behalf.


  • Advertisement
  • #2922
    jigglypuffstuff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭jigglypuffstuff


    planck_cosmic_pie

    It is in some way laughable really that the arguments involved in this discussion revolve around the smallest portion of the above shown chart.

    At what point does one believe, that the larger part of the chart could be explored. After all if the universe consists of approx 95% currently unobservable material...why are so many fixated on the minute observable part?

    This is what intrigues me about the argument that if it is not observable, it is not real..im not saying anyone in particular here is posing it.. but some passers by do...it doesn't seem to hold up...even in science the unobservable is a reality


  • #2923
    jigglypuffstuff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭jigglypuffstuff


    smacl wrote: »
    We similarly cannot prove the earth wasn't created by mice who are trying to get a better answer to the meaning of the universe than 32. Yet because we can't prove it false doesn't give us any reason to believe that it is true. There are an infinite number of things we can imagine but not prove, to suggest any one of them might be true we need some observation based evidence.

    As the above post identifies smacl, I am not saying you should hold it true that we were created, I'm saying the concept is not observable, therefore not really up for forming an opinion on.

    Ive advocated before that I think current methods of observation are not going to explain our origins....the above post shows that our current methods only allow us to try to form an understanding of 5% of the universe

    The way some would talk, it is as if the other 95% is not important (Note Im not claiming anyone specifically said that, just that some people in general believe not observable = not real)


  • #2924
    jigglypuffstuff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭jigglypuffstuff


    King Mob wrote: »
    Oldrnwisr did a very detailed post detailing exactly how creationist claims are very provably false.

    I think the problem is that you are not distinguishing between creationists and people who believe in deistic evolution.
    When people here are referring to creationists they mean full on 6000 year old earth, flood, Adam and Eve types.
    These types are very much proven to be wrong in every single way.

    Unless you'd like to suggest that the idea of the Earth being 6000 years old, there was only 2 original humans and that a flood wipped out all but 2 of every animal some how has equal weight to the science...

    Perhaps you are right, in any event you seem to have identified where I am coming from?

    I dont keep up to date with this creationist literature you're speaking of, but who exactly claimed the earth was 6000 years old? Ive never seen this before


  • #2925
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,853 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    pone2012 wrote: »
    It is in some way laughable really that the arguments involved in this discussion revolve around the smallest portion of the above shown chart.

    At what point does one believe, that the larger part of the chart could be explored. After all if the universe consists of approx 95% currently unobservable material...why are so many fixated on the minute observable part?

    This is what intrigues me about the argument that if it is not observable, it is not real..im not saying anyone in particular here is posing it.. but some passers by do...it doesn't seem to hold up...even in science the unobservable is a reality

    Think about your argument for a second.

    If 95% of the universe was unobservable, how would we know that it makes up 95% of the universe?

    How do we know (or, probably more accurately, why do we have reason to hypothesise) that dark matter and energy exist? Could it be that we can... observe... the effect that they have on the matter and energy we can directly observe?


  • #2926
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pone2012 wrote: »

    Perhaps you are right, in any event you seem to have identified where I am coming from?

    I dont keep up to date with this creationist literature you're speaking of, but who exactly claimed the earth was 6000 years old? Ive never seen this before
    it's what Jc claims on this thread and else where. Look back and you'll find plenty of examples. It is also the position of many of the larger well funded creationist think tanks like answers in Genesis and the Discovery institute.

    So so you believe in the notion that these people believe? That the earth is 6000 years old and the Adam and Eve story is a historical account and there was a world wide flood that killed almost all life 4000 years ago?
    If not why not?


  • #2927
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    pone2012 wrote: »
    As the above post identifies smacl, I am not saying you should hold it true that we were created, I'm saying the concept is not observable, therefore not really up for forming an opinion on.

    Or in other words the concept is entirely unsubstantiated at this time and should be put on the shelf with all the other unsubstantiated nonsense that has popped into peoples heads until such time as substantiation is found.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Ive advocated before that I think current methods of observation are not going to explain our origins....

    Yeah you have moaned about the deficiencies of the scientific method before and then run away when asked how to improve them. When asked to propose a better or improved method, the best you could offer was "I cannot".

    But I corrected you then on an error that you then insist on making again..........
    pone2012 wrote: »
    the above post shows that our current methods only allow us to try to form an understanding of 5% of the universe

    ....... in this post. There is a massive difference, as I explained to you before, between a method only HAVING given us a certain understanding and only allowing us to. Just because our methodologies have not explained everything yet does not mean, as you have pretended on the other thread, that they never will.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    The way some would talk, it is as if the other 95% is not important (Note Im not claiming anyone specifically said that, just that some people in general believe not observable = not real)

    So people in general believe what you can not cite one person on here actually espousing. Nice. Seems not only is there a divide between the real and the observable, there is also a divide between the reality and what goes on in your head.

    But the idea that there is some kind of intelligent and intentional agent behind the explanation for our universe is worse than not observed, it is entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way at all. And quite literally the only defense you can muster for the concept is A) Moan about proving the negative and B) moan about the scientific method in general for no apparent reason other than it has not offered you the results you personally WANT of it.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    I dont keep up to date with this creationist literature you're speaking of, but who exactly claimed the earth was 6000 years old? Ive never seen this before

    You have never come across people claiming the earth is 6000 years old before? Then there is a LOT of literature you have not been keeping up on, not just scientific and creationist literature. But to give you the basics to start you on your education, it is known as "Young Earth Creationism" and the primary proponents of it are Christian Biblical Literalists.

    There are many groups adhering to this concept but wiki lists some of them as Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church,
    Protestant Reformed Churches in America, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

    Gallup polls in the US for example show a consistent 40% or greater quantity of Americans affirming YECism as their position of choice. Similar polls showing over 50% of people believing Adam and Eve to have been real people.

    If you were looking to have specific individuals named rather than groups then the list is too long to include here. But Tax Evader Ken Ham, convicted criminal Kent "Hi I'm" Hovind and Ray "Banana Man" comfort tend to be the names that jump readily to peoples minds around here. There is also the YECist who recently sued the Grand Canyon for access. And so on and so on.

    And that is before you mention the one who has kept this particular thread going for 10-12 years now. There is also a wonderful guy over on the City Data forum who makes the one on this thread look relatively normal. He, wonderfully, explains how the animals on the Ark were fed by postulating that Noah invented Freeze Drying methods of food preservation and storage LONG before anyone actually credited with it achieved same. He has to be seen to be believed really, and makes the main proponent of YECism on this thread look like an scientifically credible and literate source.


  • #2928
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,076 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of Biology—It Was Physics
    The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of “entropy” or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things. The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    The paper strips away the nitty-gritty details of cells and biology and describes a simpler, simulated system of chemicals in which it is nonetheless possible for exceptional structure to spontaneously arise—the phenomenon that England sees as the driving force behind the origin of life. “That doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to acquire that structure,” England explained. The dynamics of the system are too complicated and nonlinear to predict what will happen.

    The simulation involved a soup of 25 chemicals that react with one another in myriad ways. Energy sources in the soup’s environment facilitate or “force” some of these chemical reactions, just as sunlight triggers the production of ozone in the atmosphere and the chemical fuel ATP drives processes in the cell. Starting with random initial chemical concentrations, reaction rates and “forcing landscapes”—rules that dictate which reactions get a boost from outside forces and by how much—the simulated chemical reaction network evolves until it reaches its final, steady state, or “fixed point.”

    Saw this ealier this morning and figure it'd be of interest to readers of the thread.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2929
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Delirium wrote: »
    Controversial New Theory Suggests Life Wasn't a Fluke of Biology—It Was Physics

    Quote:
    The biophysicist Jeremy England made waves in 2013 with a new theory that cast the origin of life as an inevitable outcome of thermodynamics. His equations suggested that under certain conditions, groups of atoms will naturally restructure themselves so as to burn more and more energy, facilitating the incessant dispersal of energy and the rise of “entropy” or disorder in the universe. England said this restructuring effect, which he calls dissipation-driven adaptation, fosters the growth of complex structures, including living things. The existence of life is no mystery or lucky break, he told Quanta in 2014, but rather follows from general physical principles and “should be as unsurprising as rocks rolling downhill.”

    The paper strips away the nitty-gritty details of cells and biology and describes a simpler, simulated system of chemicals in which it is nonetheless possible for exceptional structure to spontaneously arise—the phenomenon that England sees as the driving force behind the origin of life. “That doesn’t mean you’re guaranteed to acquire that structure,” England explained. The dynamics of the system are too complicated and nonlinear to predict what will happen.

    The simulation involved a soup of 25 chemicals that react with one another in myriad ways. Energy sources in the soup’s environment facilitate or “force” some of these chemical reactions, just as sunlight triggers the production of ozone in the atmosphere and the chemical fuel ATP drives processes in the cell. Starting with random initial chemical concentrations, reaction rates and “forcing landscapes”—rules that dictate which reactions get a boost from outside forces and by how much—the simulated chemical reaction network evolves until it reaches its final, steady state, or “fixed point.”

    Saw this ealier this morning and figure it'd be of interest to readers of the thread.
    So ... it was physics !!!???
    ... despite the fact that living processes are observed to be largely chemically driven processes!!

    Sounds more like what happens within a pot cooking Irish Stew ... than anything likely to lead to life !!!

    The desperation to replace God as the obvious creator of life knows no speculative bounds !!!:)


  • #2930
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,263 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    J C wrote: »
    So ... it was physics !!!???
    ... despite the fact that living processes are observed to be largely chemically driven processes!!
    you know chemistry is in a sense, an expression of physics? your comment seems to assume they're mutually exclusive domains.


  • #2931
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,252 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    So ... it was physics !!!???
    ... despite the fact that living processes are observed to be largely chemically driven processes!!

    Sounds more like what happens within a pot cooking Irish Stew ... than anything likely to lead to life !!!

    The desperation to replace God as the obvious creator of life knows no speculative bounds !!!:)

    Haven't you heard of the hierarchy of the sciences:

    Sociology is applied biology
    Biology is applied chemistry
    Chemistry is applied physics
    Physics is applied mathematics


  • Advertisement
  • #2932
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You have never come across people claiming the earth is 6000 years old before? Then there is a LOT of literature you have not been keeping up on, not just scientific and creationist literature. But to give you the basics to start you on your education, it is known as "Young Earth Creationism" and the primary proponents of it are Christian Biblical Literalists.

    There are many groups adhering to this concept but wiki lists some of them as Evangelical Lutheran Synod, Evangelical Reformed Presbyterian Church,
    Protestant Reformed Churches in America, Seventh-day Adventist Church, Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod.

    Gallup polls in the US for example show a consistent 40% or greater quantity of Americans affirming YECism as their position of choice. Similar polls showing over 50% of people believing Adam and Eve to have been real people.
    All quite true.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    If you were looking to have specific individuals named rather than groups then the list is too long to include here. But Tax Evader Ken Ham,
    Ken Ham is most definitely not a tax evader ... you really should check your facts and temper your language to comply with the truth.
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2017/07/25/ark-encounter-local-tax-scandal-not-very-scandalous/#4ea319b45e64
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    convicted criminal Kent "Hi I'm" Hovind
    ... perhaps you would be good enough to explain why Kent was convicted and jailed.

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    and Ray "Banana Man" comfort tend to be the names that jump readily to peoples minds around here.
    Ray is a very good communicator allright.
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    There is also the YECist who recently sued the Grand Canyon for access. And so on and so on.
    You forgot to mention that Dr Snelling is an eminent conventionally qualified geologist ... and he has now been given access to the Grand Canyon to conduct his research.
    http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/update-creationist-geologist-wins-permit-collect-rocks-grand-canyon-after-lawsuit
    Quote:-
    "In a statement, Snelling said he was "gratified that the Grand Canyon research staff have recognized the quality and integrity of my proposed research project and issued the desired research permits so that I can collect rock samples in the park, perform the planned testing of them, and openly report the results for the benefit of all."

    The signing of the Religious Liberty Executive Order signed by President Trump on 4th May 2017 may also have been helpful to his case.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-religious-liberty-executive-order-allowing-broad-exemptions-n754786


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    And that is before you mention the one who has kept this particular thread going for 10-12 years now. There is also a wonderful guy over on the City Data forum who makes the one on this thread look relatively normal. He, wonderfully, explains how the animals on the Ark were fed by postulating that Noah invented Freeze Drying methods of food preservation and storage LONG before anyone actually credited with it achieved same. He has to be seen to be believed really, and makes the main proponent of YECism on this thread look like an scientifically credible and literate source.
    I am a scientifically qualified and literate person !!


  • #2933
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 53,263 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Haven't you heard of the hierarchy of the sciences:

    Sociology is applied biology
    Biology is applied chemistry
    Chemistry is applied physics
    Physics is applied mathematics
    i heard it slightly differently:
    biologists defer to chemists
    chemists defer to physicists
    physicists defer to mathematicians
    and mathematicians defer only to god
    (though you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician humble enough to admit that)


  • #2934
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Haven't you heard of the hierarchy of the sciences:

    Sociology is applied biology
    Biology is applied chemistry
    Chemistry is applied physics
    Physics is applied mathematics
    If this is true, then Sociology is ultimately applied mathematics!!!

    Another speculation that knows no bounds ... and has little credibility.


  • #2935
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    And creation science is applied bollocks
    Do you think that this juvenile contribution (with apologies to all juveniles) reflects well on you or any point that you might want to make?


  • #2936
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    i heard it slightly differently:
    biologists defer to chemists
    chemists defer to physicists
    physicists defer to mathematicians
    and mathematicians defer only to god
    (though you'd be hard pressed to find a mathematician humble enough to admit that)
    ... so there are no atheist mathematicians then ... it's a pity that the 'lesser' scientists beneath them, in the supposed hierarchy of scientists, don't defer to them on this as well !!!:):pac::eek:


  • #2937
    Samaris
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,544 ✭✭✭Samaris


    I think the joke rather sped over you there, JC.

    Have you come out with anything, anything at all, to back up that God "obviously" created the universe 6,000 years ago and produced all the animals at the same time (and presumably killed off the dinosaurs on Day 4, right after they were made), or is it just all "obvious"? You talk a ..well, you talk a talk against evolution anyway, but your alternative seems oddly lacking in any sort of coherent back-up.

    Btw, other people are interested in the explanations of deeper points in evolutionary biology, so even if the guys that need the lecture don't appreciate it, I for one appreciate the longer explanations :D How things work is interesting stuff.


  • #2938
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,252 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    J C wrote: »
    I am a scientifically qualified and literate person !!

    When you make statements like the above you kinda sound like Trump: "I have all the best words."

    Yeah, like unpresidented, and yuge.


  • #2939
    jigglypuffstuff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭jigglypuffstuff


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Or in other words the concept is entirely unsubstantiated at this time and should be put on the shelf with all the other unsubstantiated nonsense that has popped into peoples heads until such time as substantiation is found.

    Absolutely not, These things have come through thousands of years. We may not be able to prove these claims true or false, but that does not make it nonsense. You have said yourself that things that are not observable may not always be. As such, some of the logic that permeates this discussion is bizarre at best...Can you lack belief? If you wish, but there's no point in labelling something as nonsense when there is subjective evidence that, while not substantial in some peoples eyes, carries some credence to not write something off. I do not think that is an immature nor unrealistic viewpoint

    The foundations of Science are rooted in philosophy...I can name innumerable philosophers who spoke to a great extent on deities and the like....Id like you to start labelling ones who spoke about mouses or flying spaghetti monsters or whatever other label people try to downplay metaphysical beliefs with. Remember these are the people who founded your precious science
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yeah you have moaned about the deficiencies of the scientific method before and then run away when asked how to improve them. When asked to propose a better or improved method, the best you could offer was "I cannot".

    But I corrected you then on an error that you then insist on making again..........

    That is not moaning, that is stating the obvious. Rather, here's a task, falsify what I've stated in that science has its limits, and until such a time it can/cannot transcend those, it should be recognised that it cannot give a full and thorough understanding of the universe (All 100%, not 5%)

    Also you seem to expect a lot of a postgraduate student, its a nice thought, but an unrealistic expectation
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    in this post. There is a massive difference, as I explained to you before, between a method only HAVING given us a certain understanding and only allowing us to. Just because our methodologies have not explained everything yet does not mean, as you have pretended on the other thread, that they never will.

    I never said they would not, actually it was me who said the methodology has its limits and people should begin to look at addressing those

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    So people in general believe what you can not cite one person on here actually espousing. Nice. Seems not only is there a divide between the real and the observable, there is also a divide between the reality and what goes on in your head.

    Not at all, it was a general comment not aimed at anyone, have you issues with that?
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    But the idea that there is some kind of intelligent and intentional agent behind the explanation for our universe is worse than not observed, it is entirely unsubstantiated in ANY way at all. And quite literally the only defense you can muster for the concept is A) Moan about proving the negative and B) moan about the scientific method in general for no apparent reason other than it has not offered you the results you personally WANT of it.

    Firstly let it be known I want no result, Accept that and move on

    As I wrote above, subjective evidence is not to be dismissed completely. All science is not conducted through an objective lens, if it was it would be even more limited that it already is. Surely you get that?

    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You have never come across people claiming the earth is 6000 years old before? Then there is a LOT of literature you have not been keeping up on, not just scientific and creationist literature. But to give you the basics to start you on your education, it is known as "Young Earth Creationism" and the primary proponents of it are Christian Biblical Literalists.


    Its a first for me honestly, I have never heard that claim before. But then, I don't spend my time digging into this topic extensively, I read other things primarily, I just involve myself in this thread as some of the discussion is interesting...That is all


  • #2940
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,367 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Pleasant to see you do not run away and ignore all my posts, just a select few. That is better than I had hoped at least.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Absolutely not, These things have come through thousands of years.

    Longevity of a concept does not substantiate a concept or even lend it credence. A concept that is unsubstantiated REMAINS unsubstantiated regardless of whether you and some cohort have believed it for a day or a millennia. If you get one unsubstantiated concept believed by a single person for 1 day, and another unsubstantiated concept believed by 95% of all people since consciousness arose..... then all you have is two unsubstantiated concepts. Nothing more.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    We may not be able to prove these claims true or false, but that does not make it nonsense.

    Not being able to prove it true or false is only half the issue. The people claiming the explanation for our universe, and life in our universe, is due to the machinations of an intentional and intelligent agent can not only not prove this claim they can not substantiated it in even the smallest way.

    It is not like I am complaining the substantiation is weak or unconvincing. It is ENTIRELY absent.

    And subjective anecdotal opinion is certainly not evidence of the claim. But subjective anecdotal opinion should not be dismissed either. It does not highlight the credibility of a claim, it highlights the value of further research. For example if 1000s of people start claiming to be abducted by UFOs I would not take that as credible evidence there actually is such UFOs. I WOULD however take it as evidence SOMETHING is going on, and I would elevate the value of study.

    NDE is a good example of that. I do not for one moment lend ANY credence to the narratives people attach to NDE. But that SOMETHING is going on there, and that we have learned much about the workings of the human brain from studying it, is abundantly clear.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    The foundations of Science are rooted in philosophy...

    Clearly you think this is a relevant point to make, but I am not seeing how. Other than, perhaps, to set yourself up for using some argumentum ad verecundiam. You can name all the philosophers who said whatever you want that you like......... I would still be interested in nothing OTHER than the substantiation for whatever their particular claim was.

    So no I do not care who they were, or what they said about deities. I care only about what they ever said which they also actually substantiated. That they sat around talking about them a lot tells me, quite literally, nothing.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    That is not moaning, that is stating the obvious. Rather, here's a task, falsify what I've stated in that science has its limits

    Ah the old "I wont substantiate my claims I will just declare them to be obvious" trick. We get that one on this forum a lot. It is nothing new to anyone here I warrant.

    But no, I do not need to refuse mere assertion. That which has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The ONLY support you have offered for the limitations of science is to point out answers it has not YET afford us.

    And all I need to do to refute THAT is what I already did do, which is point out that it not answering something YET does not mean it never can. So you can not assert the limits of something based solely on it not YET having achieved something. That would be as silly as pointing at a 2 month old baby and saying "He has never said a word yet, therefore he can never speak".
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Also you seem to expect a lot of a postgraduate student

    I expect one thing and one thing of people on here only. When they make a claim, they should be expected to substantiate that claim. Whether you are a student, a post grad, a homeless person, or a multi doctorates professor across multiple disciplines..... that expectation remains identical.

    But thanks for the smile all the same. I have heard of argument from authority fallacies in the past, but argument from lack of it is a new one for me.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    I never said they would not, actually it was me who said the methodology has its limits and people should begin to look at addressing those Not at all, it was a general comment not aimed at anyone, have you issues with that?

    Nope. My issue is with claiming something is somehow common or general when you can not even show one person doing it at all. That certainly calls into question the basis of your claims. It might be a better approach, and more conducive to discourse in general, if you reply to what people here actually say, rather than deflect into what YOU believe people "in general" say or believe. Otherwise we end up just talking past each other about people who are A) not even here and B) maybe do not even exist outside your head.
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Firstly let it be known I want no result, Accept that and move on

    IF you say so. Your arguments suggest otherwise and I tend to judge people on what they do and say overall, not what they protest is true about themselves. Like that really awful guy who constantly insists on telling everyone "I am a nice guy! I am!".
    pone2012 wrote: »
    As I wrote above, subjective evidence is not to be dismissed completely.

    Nor do I. Anecdote and subjective evidence has it's place. Just not usually in lending credence to the specific claim. Anecdote and subjective claims however tend to be large waving red flags for "Science! Come over here! There is something of interest going on you might wanna look over!"

    Other than that however subjective evidence tends too often for my liking to be cherry picked to support conclusions people already hold. And religion is one area where that is rife. An area where the success OR failure of an experiment is often taken as validation of the claims. (Answered and unanswered prayers being one great example of this).
    pone2012 wrote: »
    Its a first for me honestly, I have never heard that claim before.

    There is a small part of me that envies you your ignorance and innocence then. But only small.


  • Advertisement
  • #2941
    Malayalam
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,188 ✭✭✭Malayalam


    A view from outside ...

    I'll be honest. I have given evolution very little thought...until recently. Like most people I guess who are not involved in the actual sciences or theology, my mind kind of glossed over the space between catechism classes long ago where ''God made the world'' and the part where we grew older and were blithely labelling cell contents in our early biology classes without much sense of the greater context, as I think is reasonably average in the population. There was no great scene made about Darwin in my education, as far as I remember, although it is some time ago.

    I suppose in the back of my mind I thought, yeah, okay, evolution, cool, sounds grand, and I read here and there over the years on new fossil finds, archaeological discoveries, interesting anomalies like creatures turning up that had disappeared from the fossil record, you know the kind of stuff that makes interesting colour pieces in the magazines of newspapers and so on. I will admit to a rampant curiosity that has taken me into areas labelled pseudo-scientific, and I quite enjoy wild crazy speculation and narratives (catastrophism, aliens dunnit, etc) simply because I love stories. I have also read with interest about new findings in epigenetics, not in a deep technical sense, because that jargin soon loses me, but in a general sense of how lifestyle can affect the genome, how these changes can be quickly heritable, and so on. The kind of stuff that makes Lamarck look more a bit respectable, I guess.

    I have read a good bit recently about evolution, though I still veer away from the incredibly technical stuff, and in delving into the area I find this great sense of polemics and fundamentalism. On all sides. It's a bit off putting. Yes, it certainly appears that genetic breakthrough studies support some of the original theory of Darwin, although the whole area has moved on so drastically from Darwin that it is hard to call the subject ''Darwinian'' anymore.

    I am a believer. It's very unfashionable nowadays it seems, maybe my type will not survive natural selection. Yes, I believe in God, though God in my sense of it has zero to do with the version espoused by Creationists or religious ideologues of any stripe. The root cause for my belief is awe and wonder, though I do not opt to say ''God did it'' when I don't understand something or when something has yet to be explained by science. When I read the in depth explanations given here about how evolution works at the micro levels, I get the same sense of gob-smacked awe as when I contemplate the cosmos. For me the two - evolution and divinity - simply do not contradict each other at all. They can easily co-exist.

    Discoveries about the seemingly directed nature of epigenetics, the intelligent response within cells and DNA to environmental factors (for example), seem to (somewhat at least) undermine the wholly ''random'' part of the Darwinian theory. The ''random'' part is what strips the theory of evolution of any teleological value and perhaps jars with the more metaphysically inclined persona. Following the span of the debate, I find nonetheless that the possibility still exists - and I think this is more than an emotional reach on my part - that there is meaning and goal-orientation within evolution, which should not be lightly or indeed completely dismissed. I don't really see the scientific argument against leaving that door open for that to be so. It is a possibility that the very breath-takingly complex nature of the subject leaves wide open.

    There is so much to be discovered that in 100 years, 1000 years, looking back we will seem to have been bumbling oafs. That is why I like to leave room for not knowing. For accepting the findings as they come with interest and enjoyment, but also holding a space for curiosity, for doubt in having reached any final conclusion, for questions. For not being absolutely definite, I mean.

    I won't be contributing anymore to the thread, as I am wholly unqualified, but I will follow with interest.
    Thanks to all who contribute for various points of view.


Advertisement