Mother Nature vs. God?

[Anonymouse]

So you feel the professionals who've been conducting origins research for the last few decades are just as ignorant in the subject as you? The ideas you've posted on an internet message board are on the same level as their hypotheses?

And you don't understand how a guy who clearly knows next to nothing about the field saying "They're just as ignorant as I am" is insulting to scientists? Really?

You’re absolutely right. Before I confess any more half-baked admissions about “not knowing the origin of life” I should first secure a science degree.

 

[PolyHedral]

Just as sensical as saying the universe both has a beginning and always existed. Always existed by who or what standard of time?

There was never a time when the universe did not exist. It has therefore always existed.

 

[Yerda]

You’re absolutely right. Before I confess any more half-baked admissions about “not knowing the origin of life” I should first secure a science degree.

A degree in zoology or a phD in some field of molecular biology where the origin of life is a problem would certainly help. You'd know more than me, that is certain.

What exactly do you know, or believe you know, about the science of life's origins?

 

[Thief]

There was never a time when the universe did not exist. It has therefore always existed.

And in regression...there is no ultimate starting 'point'?

 

[PolyHedral]

And in regression...there is no ultimate starting 'point'?

There is a first moment in time, in which the universe existed. Asking when the universe started is nonsensical.

 

[tumbleweed41]

There is a first moment in time, in which the universe existed. Asking when the universe started is nonsensical.

Indeed, it is imposable to even consider "before" time physically since the Big Bang (expansion) was at the beginning of time itself, so any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I only believe what I see and have experienced myself and nature always seems to win out over any other system of belief. If you want to codify anything under any banner I would say it is due to your own ignorance resulting from your lack of real life experiences and the need to do so because of it.

 

[Anonymouse]

Jaiket-A degree in zoology or a phD in some field of molecular biology where the origin of life is a problem would certainly help.

I don’t think it will Jaiket. As I have tried to point out, scientists already have these degrees and do not know. It would be absurd for me (at my age) to spend time and money to secure a diploma to reach this same measure of ignorance. There is no better or higher educated claims to “I don’t know” there exists only possibilities. If scientists want to postulate on the origin of life, there are a few avenues that remain unexplored. Intelligent design is one avenue that I believe is not fully realized or understood. If the scientific community is not open to consider alternate theories and beliefs or if their standards about who postulates them is too discriminating, then they can take their fossils and go home.

 

[McBell]

I don’t think it will Jaiket. As I have tried to point out, scientists already have these degrees and do not know. It would be absurd for me (at my age) to spend time and money to secure a diploma to reach this same measure of ignorance. There is no better or higher educated claims to “I don’t know” there exists only possibilities. If scientists want to postulate on the origin of life, there are a few avenues that remain unexplored. Intelligent design is one avenue that I believe is not fully realized or understood. If scientists are not open to consider alternate theories and beliefs or if their standards about who postulates them is too discriminating, then they can take their fossils and go home.

Scientists are open to alternative SCIENTIFIC theories and other such notions which have something other than butt loads of unsubstantiated claims.

Now until such time as creationists start actually doing scientific research and start presenting stuff that has one, not already been thoroughly debunked, two, does not require the total dismissal of reality, three, is not a blatant logical fallacy, four, actually follows the scientific method...

But we never see these things from creationists.
Not even the ones who hide behind the weasel words.

 

[Anonymouse]

Scientists are open to alternative SCIENTIFIC theories and other such notions which have something other than butt loads of unsubstantiated claims.

Is Intelligent Design considered to be an alternative scientific theory?

 

[Jose Fly]

It's so funny how some people are stuck in black/white, all-or-none thinking. In this case, either origins researchers know exactly how life on earth started, or they are just as ignorant about it as some anonymous finger puppet on the internet.

 

[McBell]

Is Intelligent Design considered to be an alternative scientific theory?

Nope.
Why?
Because it is nothing more than creationism with references to "God" removed.
It does not follow the scientific method, does not engage in scientific research, does not present anything that has not already been thoroughly debunked, in some cases it DOES require the dismissal of reality, relies heavily on logical fallacies, relies heavily on the ignorance of those it preys on, does not follow the scientific method...

It is akin to teaching the "Stork Theory" as an 'alternative theory' to biological reproduction.

 

[Thief]

Indeed, it is imposable to even consider "before" time physically since the Big Bang (expansion) was at the beginning of time itself, so any discussion about what happened before the big bang, or what caused it-in the usual sense of physical causation-is simply meaningless.

You guys are missing an excellent science series....
Through the Wormhole...narrated by Morgan Freeman.

This discussion and several others are covered...
by experts who DO believe such discussions are worthwhile.

 

[tumbleweed41]

You guys are missing an excellent science series....
Through the Wormhole...narrated by Morgan Freeman.

This discussion and several others are covered...
by experts who DO believe such discussions are worthwhile.

Seen it.

Garett is basing his hypothesis on as of yet unproven and unverified speculation. His E8 (Theory of Everything) preprint paper has yet to be submitted for peer-review, although he has made it available to popular media since 2008.

This is not to say he is wrong, it is that he has yet to provide any quantification for his work.
The vast majority of physicist say his "theory", and related models, do not work.
Time will tell.

 

[Thief]

Seen it.

Garett is basing his hypothesis on as of yet unproven and unverified speculation. His E8 (Theory of Everything) preprint paper has yet to be submitted for peer-review, although he has made it available to popular media since 2008.

This is not to say he is wrong, it is that he has yet to provide any quantification for his work.
The vast majority of physicist say his "theory", and related models, do not work.
Time will tell.

The episode I saw gave several viewpoints.

Generally I see the potential to take any discussion too far.

Such as insisting on multiple dimensions to explain the one you're in.

Believe in this you can't see?....things you can't prove?

Got faith?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Believe in this you can't see?....things you can't prove?

Got faith?

I tend to believe what the evidence points toward.

 

[Thief]

I tend to believe what the evidence points toward.

So reality is what you are able to perceive?

 

[Anonymouse]

Nope.
Why?
Because it is nothing more than creationism with references to "God" removed.
It does not follow the scientific method, does not engage in scientific research, does not present anything that has not already been thoroughly debunked, in some cases it DOES require the dismissal of reality, relies heavily on logical fallacies, relies heavily on the ignorance of those it preys on, does not follow the scientific method...

It is akin to teaching the "Stork Theory" as an 'alternative theory' to biological reproduction.

Which of course is incompatible to the scientific reasoning that Mother Nature has a serious gambling problem.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I tend to believe what the evidence points toward.

So reality is what you are able to perceive?

That is not what I said.

 

[Thief]

I tend to believe what the evidence points toward.

Say again?