Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question?

[McBell]

You confuse your perception of reality with actual reality. Someone who believes in the OT believes these things are real. That you and I don't is a matter of our perception, and the believer thinks we are out of touch with reality just as much as you think they are. As a result, both sides talk at each other rather than to each other.

So truth is nothing more than perception?

 

[outhouse]

That piece of nonsense that I just responded to continues to get my goat

less emotion and shouting you might learn something.

a theory and a scientific theory are not the same. end of story.

he was right this is a wording problem on your part, you might want to google hypothesis

 

[McBell]

What are they if they aren't theories; are you seriously contending that they aren't? That is unbelievable in anyone who knows anything about the history of science. Pardon me, but I cannot suppress my astonishment at your demonstration of bald ignorance.

Tell me, Do you know the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothesis?

 

[Frank Merton]

that is only your opinion.

fact, there were Dinosaurs and they went extinct.

The life of almost all wild creatures is filled with fear and pain and frustration; it is short and it ends violently. Is this a world designed by a kind God?

The reason it is what it is comes from the natural process called natural selection, which in the end comes down to pure survival, and it ain't pretty.

 

[McBell]

Is the origin of life a scientific or theological question?

To me it is a scientific question.
Theology seems a bit to self serving for my peace of mind.

 

[Frank Merton]

sir, it is you that needs the education here from what I see.

The ignorance is that people don't know that every item ("hypothesis") I listed was strongly held as the truth in textbooks and the general scientific community. There were generally a few dissenters, dismissed as crackpots (e.g., Wegener on continental drift), but only with the discovery of new information (and sometimes the passing of an old generation of ossified scientists) was the then scientific belief abandoned and the new theory adopted.

The rewriting of history that some of you guys seem to be trying to pull off, in order to make science seem an insurmountable tower of pure wisdom, is absurd. It is only possible with people ignorant of real history. I think you do genuine science no good.

 

[Frank Merton]

So truth is nothing more than perception?

We each believe what we believe. If we thought we were wrong, our belief would change.

That doesn't mean we are guaranteed anything. Our beliefs come from a complex mix of our personality, how we were raised, the influences on us, even the time of day and our state of health and whether or not it is raining.

The ideal is to stick as closely as possible to the evidence, but even here our judgment about the quality and believability of evidence is subject to the same varying influences.

I conclude that it is best to believe what one believes, but to always respect what others believe -- they too might have an element of truth on their side that one has overlooked or not properly appreciated.

As a result, when I get rude with people, it is generally because I see beliefs being disrespected and ridiculed and dismissed out of hand. I think such behavior is more foolish than some mistaken belief.

 

[McBell]

The ignorance is that people don't know that every item ("hypothesis") I listed was strongly held as the truth in textbooks and the general scientific community. There were generally a few dissenters, dismissed as crackpots (e.g., Wegener on continental drift), but only with the discovery of new information (and sometimes the passing of an old generation of ossified scientists) was the then scientific belief abandoned and the new theory adopted.

The rewriting of history that some of you guys seem to be trying to pull off, in order to make science seem an insurmountable tower of pure wisdom, is absurd. It is only possible with people ignorant of real history. I think you do genuine science no good.

Sounds more like you are now trying to save face by hoping for the ignorance of others.
You were flat out asked for theories.
You did not present theories, you presented hypothesis.

So, are you going to present any theories to support your claim or are you going to keep trying to divert the attention away from the fact that you have thus far completely failed to support your claim?

 

[McBell]

We each believe what we believe. If we thought we were wrong, our belief would change.

That doesn't mean we are guaranteed anything. Our beliefs come from a complex mix of our personality, how we were raised, the influences on us, even the time of day and our state of health and whether or not it is raining.

The ideal is to stick as closely as possible to the evidence, but even here our judgment about the quality and believability of evidence is subject to the same varying influences.

I conclude that it is best to believe what one believes, but to always respect what others believe -- they too might have an element of truth on their side that one has overlooked or not properly appreciated.

As a result, when I get rude with people, it is generally because I see beliefs being disrespected and ridiculed and dismissed out of hand. I think such behavior is more foolish than some mistaken belief.

That is a nice fancy speech you got going there.
However, I fail to see how it answers the question.

 

[outhouse]

The ignorance is that people don't know that every item ("hypothesis") I listed was strongly held as the truth in textbooks and the general scientific community. There were generally a few dissenters, dismissed as crackpots (e.g., Wegener on continental drift), but only with the discovery of new information (and sometimes the passing of an old generation of ossified scientists) was the then scientific belief abandoned and the new theory adopted.

The rewriting of history that some of you guys seem to be trying to pull off, in order to make science seem an insurmountable tower of pure wisdom, is absurd. It is only possible with people ignorant of real history. I think you do genuine science no good.

frank im sorry bud but you are wrong. please get a education before you argue ignorantly.

Moon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The prevailing hypothesis today is that the Earth–Moon system formed as a result of a giant impact: a Mars-sized body hit the nearly formed proto-Earth, blasting material into orbit around the proto-Earth, which accreted to form the Moon


Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

by nucleosynthesis during the supernova explosion for elements heavier than iron.[95] Supernovae are the most likely, although not undisputed

scientific theorys are not most likely



look you have your wording wrong and its obvious you dont understand

The rewriting of history that some of you guys seem to be trying to pull off, in order to make science seem an insurmountable tower of pure wisdom, is absurd.

im sorry you dont understand a scientific theory is both fact and theory.

get real

 

[Frank Merton]

frank im sorry bud but you are wrong. please get a education before you argue ignorantly.

You are getting seriously out of bounds. You are not even discussing what I posted.

I never said that what I posted was CURRENT belief, only that it was the prevailing belief AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST by the scientific community -- in fact, in each case, generally during the early twentieth century (I avoided earlier examples).

 

[outhouse]

You are getting seriously out of bounds. You are not even discussing what I posted.

I never said that what I posted was CURRENT belief, only that it was the prevailing belief AT SOME TIME IN THE PAST by the scientific community -- in fact, in each case, generally during the early twentieth century (I avoided earlier examples).

you had your chance to state that many post ago

a little late to back peddle

 

[Frank Merton]

Indeed, if I thought what I posted was current belief, it would defeat my point. My point, which seems to have gotten lost, is that science works by improving or replacing existing theory as new information comes to light.

I remember my surprise when an issue of Scientific American appeared (I forget exactly, but some time in the sixties) announcing that it appeared Wegener had been right after all and that continents do move around.

The rest of the article discussed measurements of deep sea trenches that seemed to provide a mechanism (and proof) for his view.

Until then the man had been ridiculed -- the idea that massive continents could move about seemed impossible. He lost his job and went into obscurity.

Of course the paleontologists were delighted with this. They had long been uneasy about the need for land bridges to explain, for example, the similarities in Cretaceous fossils in Africa and South America. The adamancy of the geological community, however, had, until mid-ocean rifts were discovered, been enough to keep them quiet.

 

[Frank Merton]

you had your chance to state that many post ago

a little late to back peddle

You haven't been reading very carefully.

 

[outhouse]

Indeed, if I thought what I posted was current belief, it would defeat my point. My point, which seems to have gotten lost, is that science works by improving or replacing existing theory as new information comes to light.

I remember my surprise when an issue of Scientific American appeared (I forget exactly, but some time in the sixties) announcing that it appeared Wegener had been right after all and that continents do move around.

The rest of the article discussed measurements of deep sea trenches that seemed to provide a mechanism (and proof) for his view.

Until then the man had been ridiculed -- the idea that massive continents could move about seemed impossible. He lost his job and went into obscurity.

Of course the paleontologists were delighted with this. They had long been uneasy about the need for land bridges to explain, for example, the similarities in Cretaceous fossils in Africa and South America. The adamancy of the geological community, however, had, until mid-ocean rifts were discovered, been enough to keep them quiet.

I agree.

 

[outhouse]

You haven't been reading very carefully.

yes i have you mistated a few things and were corrected regarding scientific theory

 

[Frank Merton]

yes i have you mistated a few things and were corrected regarding scientific theory

You were wrong here about my view: seriously wrong. You were also insulting in your misunderstanding. Now you are not willing to admit your mistake. This is a pity.

 

[outhouse]

You were wrong here about my view: seriously wrong. You were also insulting in your misunderstanding. Now you are not willing to admit your mistake. This is a pity.

how so? you flat stated a bunch of hypothesis under the assumption they were theorys

 

[Frank Merton]

how so? you flat stated a bunch of hypothesis under the assumption they were theorys

I repeat myself; what I stated was the prevailing scientific opinion -- in most cases during most or much of the first half of the twentieth century. This would make them scientific theories.

I remarked on Plate Tectonics in an earlier "lecture." Now let me remark on the "which came first, large brain or upright posture" business.

With benefit of hindsight, anthropologists have remarked that it was the prevailing theory of the day that made the Piltdown fraud work (induced its unquestioning acceptance). It was also that theory that caused whoever it was who worked the fraud to design the "fossils" the way they were designed. (You have a human brained knuckle-walking anthropoid).

Of course we now know, because of Lucy and others, that the opposite is what really happened, and in Africa, certainly not in England.

By the 1950s, as the story is usually told, the evidence was getting intolerably contrary to the story the Piltdown evidence indicated, so much so that finally it was decided that the precious Piltdown fossils had to be scrutinized more carefully (and by then certain chemical tests were available that had not been around earlier). It soon became clear that Piltdown was a salted mine.

Revealing this fraud gave the creationists a field day, although of course they conveniently ignored the real message -- that evolution had indeed happened, just in a different order than earlier thought.

My point is that new evidence (mainly African discoveries, but also the exposure of Piltdown) resulted in the previous theory being turned on its head.

This illustrates why these descriptive pictures are called "theories" and not "facts." The description of a fossil is a "fact," (assuming it is done right), but the explanation of how the fossil fits in with other fossils and what it tells us about what was happening, is theory.

Theories are not hypotheses. Theories reflect prevailing opinion, and are stories -- explanations -- to help with the human desire to have understanding as well as knowledge.

 

[Skeptisch]

Are you really such a pedant?

Actually, when it comes to the use of “scientific theory” I am pendant. Your examples are good and logical reflections on what might have happened, and, as you say “believed by the scientific community until new evidence appeared” but, in my opinion at least, that does not make them scientific theories.

Now, if you think they are, why not leave it at that and go on to greener pastures? You could tell us what role, if any, the supernatural and the after life play in a Semi-Buddhist, atheist’s life?