How the chickens learned the need to sit on it's eggs ?

[sunni56]

I disagree with the use of the word belief. I don't support the TOE because I believe in it, I support it because the evidence presented by its proponents is solid.



I think I understand your position, that was a good analogy

I understand. But the "belief" is neutral, so I just use it, even for myself. It's interesting that you object to the word though, because it shows that you regard TOE as undisputed knowledge. Do you not think that there is any element of uncertainty, even if it's just due to the timescale involved? After all, it is surely difficult to recollect anything has happened millions of years ago with 100% accuracy? It is one thing to say that all the evidence points to such-and-such, and it quite another to be a dogmatic proponent of it (like my dogma of Islam).

 

[sunni56]

Well technically the whole Earth originated from somewhere/something else.

wa:do

Lol I meant it has been described that way in the context of other materials being formed on earth. Iron has been specifically singled out for coming outside of earth for some reason.

 

[sunni56]

Metallic Iron is from meteors, its pretty amazing.

Iron can also form in sedimentary rocks. We call the rocks that often hold it "Ironstone" in my industry

Cheers for those details

 

[darkendless]

I understand. But the "belief" is neutral, so I just use it, even for myself. It's interesting that you object to the word though, because it shows that you regard TOE as undisputed knowledge. Do you not think that there is any element of uncertainty, even if it's just due to the timescale involved? After all, it is surely difficult to recollect anything has happened millions of years ago with 100% accuracy? It is one thing to say that all the evidence points to such-and-such, and it quite another to be a dogmatic proponent of it (like my dogma of Islam).

The word accept could be more appropriate. Belief assumes I take the TOE as infallible and complete which is not the case.

The TOE is the best we have but there are still gaps and inconsistencies to iron out and probably always will be. The TOE is a work in progress.

There is always uncertainty as new things are discovered.

I think the timescale is well established. It may be out by as much as 10% but people who expect the world to be less than a few millions years old well..... beyond help.

 

[sunni56]

The word accept could be more appropriate. Belief assumes I take the TOE as infallible and complete which is not the case.

The TOE is the best we have but there are still gaps and inconsistencies to iron out and probably always will be. The TOE is a work in progress.

There is always uncertainty as new things are discovered.

I think the timescale is well established. It may be out by as much as 10% but people who expect the world to be less than a few millions years old well..... beyond help.

Lol I didn't express myself well. I meant the timescale is a very long time ago, so there is plenty of room for error in the TOE front perhaps. In any case, you've responded very well thanks, I understand your position.

PS was that a deliberate pun? "Iron out" lol

 

[painted wolf]

Lol I meant it has been described that way in the context of other materials being formed on earth. Iron has been specifically singled out for coming outside of earth for some reason.

Linking Iron and meteorites is pretty common. Even the Inuit knew of it.

In many cultures the iron from a meteorite was considered exceptionally significant.

wa:do

 

[apophenia]

It is funny! I completely understand and agree with you. I also respect your keen ability to find a position that neither side of the boring, bog standard argument can agree with. Well played!

Alceste, you are thus far the first, the only, person who has understood ( and openly acknowledged) what I am saying about this. Or at least, the only atheist who understands evolution who has not pretended to misunderstand my position because it may be interpreted as mystical or anti-science.

The line drawn in the sand seems to have mesmerised everyone. Everything said is assessed according to its presumed position in relation to that line.

Pro-science-ists - what the hell do we call this group ? They are not usually scientists, and may have little or no training in scientific method, so I can't call them scientists. Science is their sword and shield in public debate, yet the fact is that many (or most) have no more actual knowledge of science than christians have of angels. So their position is actually faith-based !

What really kinda disturbs me is this denial of our pervasive sense of presence.

There is not a way of saying that without inflaming the pro-science-ists who invariably start accusing me of irrational belief in the soul.

We've gone from the simplicity of Descarte's observation to a position of militant fundamentalist materialism, which is fought for so zealously that otherwise intelligent people are pretending to not be aware that they are aware !

That is not scientific rigor, that is not a noble opposition to superstition, that is outright barking mad !

Anyway, I can actually breathe a little easier knowing that someone gets what I am saying about this. Seriously, being a human animal I am emotionally affected by my perceptions of the human race, I have no embarrassment about admitting to that, and this hysterical denial of self/presence/being (whatever) by the group standing against irrational superstition (which makes my skin crawl) ... makes my skin crawl.

So, we have a few sub-topics there - what is an acceptable word for the invisible witness which makes 'events' experiences, and what do we call all those pseudo-scientists who hang onto the coat-tails of science for the sake of their own credibility and need for a certainty which can defeat religion ?

 

[Sir Doom]

Scientologians?

 

[apophenia]

Scientologians?

A little too close to Scientologists perhaps. But I'm glad you're onto it.

Latter Day Scientismics ?

... a bit derivative.

It needs the clear insinuation of homies, or some sort of parasitic infection.

Cling-ons ?

 

[Sir Doom]

Scientagonists?

 

[apophenia]

Scientagonists?

Getting closer ...

btw, I like your new sig.

 

[darkendless]

Lol I didn't express myself well. I meant the timescale is a very long time ago, so there is plenty of room for error in the TOE front perhaps. In any case, you've responded very well thanks, I understand your position.

PS was that a deliberate pun? "Iron out" lol

It wasn't but now that you've pointed it out i'm going to claim it

 

[apophenia]

It wasn't but now that you've pointed it out i'm going to claim it

I'm guessing you work in the mining industry ?

Helping to 'iron out' Australia's economy ?

 

[Alceste]

Alceste, you are thus far the first, the only, person who has understood ( and openly acknowledged) what I am saying about this. Or at least, the only atheist who understands evolution who has not pretended to misunderstand my position because it may be interpreted as mystical or anti-science.

The line drawn in the sand seems to have mesmerised everyone. Everything said is assessed according to its presumed position in relation to that line.

Pro-science-ists - what the hell do we call this group ? They are not usually scientists, and may have little or no training in scientific method, so I can't call them scientists. Science is their sword and shield in public debate, yet the fact is that many (or most) have no more actual knowledge of science than christians have of angels. So their position is actually faith-based !

What really kinda disturbs me is this denial of our pervasive sense of presence.

There is not a way of saying that without inflaming the pro-science-ists who invariably start accusing me of irrational belief in the soul.

We've gone from the simplicity of Descarte's observation to a position of militant fundamentalist materialism, which is fought for so zealously that otherwise intelligent people are pretending to not be aware that they are aware !

That is not scientific rigor, that is not a noble opposition to superstition, that is outright barking mad !

Anyway, I can actually breathe a little easier knowing that someone gets what I am saying about this. Seriously, being a human animal I am emotionally affected by my perceptions of the human race, I have no embarrassment about admitting to that, and this hysterical denial of self/presence/being (whatever) by the group standing against irrational superstition (which makes my skin crawl) ... makes my skin crawl.

So, we have a few sub-topics there - what is an acceptable word for the invisible witness which makes 'events' experiences, and what do we call all those pseudo-scientists who hang onto the coat-tails of science for the sake of their own credibility and need for a certainty which can defeat religion ?

I have a pet peeve with this issue myself. I had a boyfriend once who maintained a rigid form of scientism. It went far beyond a reasonable conviction that the scientific method is our best shot at understanding the world around us and into the realm of a dogmatic faith that science had ALREADY explained everything.

The relationship fell apart because I have had many direct experiences that I couldn't talk about with him. Just weird experiences. They don't mean anything, but they are inexplicable in the context of our current knowledge. I never even presumed to be able to explain them, but he was absolutely convinced that the experiences themselves were impossible. That would make me a liar or a lunatic in his eyes, as far as I could see, so I broke up with him.

Before I did, though, I delved very deeply into his reasons for rejecting the entire concept of mystery. He had many peculiar personality traits. For example, he could not personally deal with the concept of infinite time and space, and believed NOBODY could, or if they said they could, they must be lying or mistaken. He also turned out to be desperately afraid of the unknown. I gleaned that by asking him to close his eyes and describe a room - the first room that popped into his head. I won't bore you with the details, but it was pretty cozy and everything outside it terrified him.

Needless to say, he wasn't a scientist. Scientists ******* love mysteries. Mysteries are their bread and butter. It was the IDEA of science that he clung to, while knowing very little about it. It was his security blanket, and his protection from the unknown.

Basically, although he was an atheist, I couldn't tell the difference between his thought processes and those of a religious person. He feared all the same things religious people fear, and thoughtlessly reacted to his fears exactly the same way religious people do - by pretending to have all the answers.

Me, I'm a skeptic. Mystery and the unknown are practically all I believe in.

 

[apophenia]

Basically, although he was an atheist, I couldn't tell the difference between his thought processes and those of a religious person. He feared all the same things religious people fear, and thoughtlessly reacted to his fears exactly the same way religious people do - by pretending to have all the answers.

I see this day after day here on RF.

Both camps look the same to me.

 

[darkendless]

I'm guessing you work in the mining industry ?

Helping to 'iron out' Australia's economy ?

No i'm a consultant engineer so I do a bit of everything

 

[Ouroboros]

I don't know the details Although I know for a fact that iron for example, did not originate on earth. It must have come from a meteor or something because the Qur'an says that iron was sent down to Earth from somewhere.

Nothing on Earth originated from Earth. Iron is formed in massive stars. Our solar system, and several other systems around us, came from one or several earlier stars.

 

[atanu]

Maybe it does exist. I simply don't know what you mean by "sense of being", and therefore won't casually say that it does exist.

What? You do not have a sense of existence?

I have strong suspicion that people's sense of existence, if it is at all universal, varies a lot among people. ??

This is the most inexplicable part of the whole thread. You are not sure of sense of existence. But have doubts (about other peoples sense of existence)?

 

[atanu]

I said we have a viable natural explanation. Abiogenesis can explain the origin of life. You, again, are putting words in my mouth.

Yes. This is where I object. Do not use word play to extend TOE and include abiogenesis to make origin of life/intelligence look like evolved commodities.

You do realize that a hypothesis is an explanation, right? It may not be a demonstrated explanation, but our current hypotheses remain viable.

Are you just playing word games, or are you intentionally misunderstanding just about everything I've said?

I think you are. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation and not a perfectly viable explanation. And, especially, in the present context, you are using this word play to make abiogenesis look as viable as TOE, which no doubt has empirical evidence. But TOE is about evolution of life forms and not about origin of life.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes. This is where I object. Do not use word play to extend TOE and include abiogenesis to make origin of life/intelligence look like evolved commodities.

I didn't and I never have. I've never once tried to indicate that abiogenesis has anything to do with evolution. FearGod mentioned "the origin of life" as something for which only a God could be an explanation - that is the only reason I brought abiogenesis up, and I never NOT EVEN ONCE said it had any relation to evolution whatsoever.

Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth.

I think you are. Hypothesis is a proposed explanation and not a perfectly viable explanation.

"Viable" essentially means "capable of working". As of yet, science has come across no reason whatsoever why life cannot form naturally, therefore the concept of abiogenesis is still viable. It is incomplete as a theory, since it as yet cannot fully explain the "how", but life coming about through natural processes is still possible.

And, especially, in the present context, you are using this word play to make abiogenesis look as viable as TOE, which no doubt has empirical evidence. But TOE is about evolution of life forms and not about origin of life.

Now you're just making stuff up. I have done no such thing. I've not used any "word play", I've not compared abiogenesis with evolution, I've never said that abiogenesis is as viable as evolution.

Do not just make stuff up when people have clearly explained to you that your assumptions were wrong. Just admit that you made a mistake about my position and move one.