Full disclosure: I am not an atheist although I was definitely one all through my teen years into my early 20's (and of course during my early teens I was the "ward project," and I've got the therapy bills to prove it). I'm actually a pretty lousy agnostic as well.

Background: Tal Bachman and I crossed swords a few years ago--after being pretty good friends in our very few encounters--on the subject of AA and 12-Step Programs. I go ballistic when people refer to them as a "cult"; they're dead-ass wrong even though there are superficial similarities. I don't have any problem with identifying them as "folk medicine," or acknowledging there are quite a few f***ed up individuals who lurk around meetings and prey on newbies and such. Nor are these programs for everyone. What I do know about AA, as a long time recovering sort, is it has helped far more individuals than modern psychiatry, etc, whatever the reasons. Too, a lot of the polarization is being fed by people as seriously deranged as any dipsomaniac a few days off the sauce. Alcoholism is a serious, usually fatal condition, and I'm living proof it's possible to live with it in remission for over thirty years. There are others here as well with similar stories. And trust me; we all mostly know how sick we once were. It's what gives us the ability to empathize with the issues involving LDS brainwashing.

Anyway, my apologies; I had a bunch of leftover road rage from the weekend, and I needed to fart badly.

I read Tal's post on "A Place for Faith," and I'll offer my congratulations on the insights it offers. And honest, the atheists out there are going to find more in this than any of us theists (reading it keeps me on my toes, and also helps keep any "psychotic tendencies" in check, BTW).

And yes, there's a passive-agressive element; in that thread Tal wrote, "The first opening is that science has no idea of how life could have originated from non-life."

/former schoolteacher voice on

Here's what they have, Talmage... Honest, it's good stuff and not tabloid crapola, and "no idea" amounts to a bit of hyperbole:

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/researchers-may-have-solved-missing-link-mystery-origin-life-n371891

>How did life on Earth begin? It's been one of modern biology's greatest mysteries: How did the chemical soup that existed on the early Earth lead to the complex molecules needed to create living, breathing organisms? Now, researchers say they've found the missing link.

>All that existed were simple chemicals. But about 3.8 billion years ago, the bombardment stopped, and life arose. Most scientists think the "last universal common ancestor" — the creature from which everything on the planet descends — appeared about 3.6 billion years ago.

>But exactly how that creature arose has long puzzled scientists. For instance, how did the chemistry of simple carbon-based molecules lead to the information storage of ribonucleic acid, or RNA?

>The new research — which involves two studies, one led by Charles Carter and one led by Richard Wolfenden, both of the University of North Carolina — suggests a way for RNA to control the production of proteins by working with simple amino acids that does not require the more complex enzymes that exist today.

>This link would bridge this gap in knowledge between the primordial chemical soup and the complex molecules needed to build life.

>The question: How did the nucleotides come together within the soupy chemicals to make RNA? John Sutherland, a chemist at the University of Cambridge in England, published a study in May in the journal Nature Chemistry that showed that a c**nide-based chemistry could make two of the four nucleotides in RNA and many amino acids.

(I don't know why the word in question is in what Simon Southerton calls the "dirty word" catcher, but having just spent ten minutes doing a genuine science experiment to identify it, I'll go for a quick-and-dirty substitution. ADMIN hates it when I do this, but...)

Okay, 'nuff said. I see the Higgs-Boson already laid claim to the "God Particle" designation; perhaps this one might be named "The Genesis Molecule."

Cabbie's Science Class Dismissed...

SLC
Headed back to work, but putting you all in the white light of my heart chakra

The problem is not belief in a deity. Most people simply do not care what others believe.

The problem is religion, which is the idea that a god tells a person what to do. This is exponentially compounded when someone convinces another they have some type of authority from god.

This creates a situation under which vulnerable people become profoundly exploitable, from making LDS missions a voluntary mandate to others stealing airplanes and ramming them into buildings.

It is certainly germane to this conversation as the vast majority people starting in the AA religion are forced to participate and convert to the AA religion under very real threats of incarceration, employment termination, termination of parental rights, and the withholding of human organs for transplant. AA could rightfully be considered the state religion of the United States as the recovery industry has such a powerful lobby in political circles.

Of course all of this happens when the corporate leadership of the AA religion has even admitted a less than 5% success rate.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 02:40PM by deco.

Something in your musings has inexplicably stimulated my clown chakra.

Thanks my good man, I needed that!

SLC,

Your "farts" are more interesting (and smell better!) than many others' considered dialogues. Fart away :)

And while the effectiveness for *everyone* of AA is debatable ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effectiveness_of_Alcoholics_Anonymous and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2746426/ ), if it works for YOU, that's great for YOU. In all sincerity.

I pointed out in Tal's post that "have no idea" wasn't anywhere near the facts. Thanks for confirming that -- but anyone who spends 5 minutes searching the scientific literature on-line could have confirmed that for themselves. Was Tal too lazy to do that? Did he not care if his premise was a pile of doo-doo? I don't know. I do know that premises like that have lately been his stock in trade, which is a real shame. First, because he should know better. Second, because when 5 minutes of reading papers on-line completely refutes a premise, the premise *looks* dishonest -- even if it was simply ignorance.

And, point being made...I didn't take Tal's claim that scientists have "no idea" on "faith." I went after (actually I already had, but went and re-confirmed) facts, evidence, and knowledge. Like you did :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 03:04PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Cabbie, a few things:

1.) Allow me to clarify: when I said "science has no idea", I meant it has no idea which is well-evidenced or plausible. (Obviously, neither do religious believers).

As for the specific link you posted, there have been dozens of such triumphal announcements since the Urey-Miller experiments. Eventually, like the Urey-Miller announcements, they all turn out to be specious - just another premature victory yelp which fizzles into whimpers of frustration and bewilderment. Even the article you posted admits at the end, "this work still doesn't answer the ultimate question of how life began". Well, yeah. That's the point.

2.) I am friendly with several people who tell me their lives have been saved by Alcoholics Anonymous. I am happy for them, and am perfectly willing to believe they are correct in their beliefs. I also know several people who tell me their lives have been saved by finding "the restored gospel of Jesus Christ" - the LDS church. But then...I also know *of* one person in particular who says the same about the Unification Church (the Moonies), and video footage of Jim Jones's followers demonstrate that they all said the same thing. And maybe - prior to a certain point - they were by and large correct.

So, a few thoughts:

1.) That an organization might provide a net benefit to someone does not mean it's *not* a cult (or possess certain cult-like traits);

2.) Cults, or at least certain kinds of them, might actually serve an important purpose in the human family. Maybe overall, we would be much worse off without them, because maybe there will always be people who cannot remain functional without a strong external source of discipline and direction, and *certain* cults provide that role. All must concede that *is* possible.

Now, I might say that the hyper-lashing out you did earlier when I raised a few (I think legitimate) questions about cult-like aspects of AA could itself be taken as an expression of the sort of obsessive "buy-in" often demonstrated by cult adherents. It is in the "protests way, way too much" category. Maybe, that is. I think a response from you which would have indicated less of a cult-like vibe would have been something like this:

"Call it a cult if you want - all I know is I owe my life and everything good in it to my sobriety, and AA has been crucial to that. But here is why I don't think AA should be considered a cult...".

Instead, you lashed out insultingly and angrily just like an obsessive cultist.

BUT, all that aside - my ultimate point, as I say above, is *even if AA is a cult, maybe it is necessary to keep certain people from destroying themselves, and by extension, others around them; and if that is true, maybe AA and other cults should be considered "good".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 06:18PM by Tal Bachman.

Honest, that's more diagnostic of your own narcissism than anything else.

And seriously, you shouldn't have eaten that cheeseburger...

My advice to you is go read up the subject of victimization. A lot of Mormons learn that one in Sunday School, and you're no exception.

As they say in meetings, "Get off the cross; we need the wood."

And a bit more from my remedial classroom playbook: That's a really lame "false equivalency" comparing Jim Jones with AA... Didn't they teach about those in Logan?

'Nuff... you've still got growing up to do and learning to see the world the way it is and not try to re-order it to your specifications.

SL Cabbie Wrote:

> 'Nuff... you've still got growing up to do and
> learning to see the world the way it is and not
> try to re-order it to your specifications.


I like to call this pulling a Freud, but I don't know that the average person knows enough about Freud's foibles to really understand it. Either way, feel free to use it! ;)

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cabbie, a few things:
>
> 1.) Allow me to clarify: when I said "science has
> no idea", I meant it has no idea which is
> well-evidenced or plausible. (Obviously, neither
> do religious believers).

Still false. Keep working on it.

In all sincerity, Tal -- you DO realize that YOU not having any idea (well-evidenced or plausible, or not) doesn't mean "scientists" have no idea, right? And when, as I mentioned, the smallest bit of effort would have shown you at least 3 well-evidenced, plausible ideas, these kind of statements look either lazy or outright dishonest. I don't think you're outright dishonest. Which only leaves...

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Still false. Keep working on it.
>
> In all sincerity, Tal -- you DO realize that YOU
> not having any idea (well-evidenced or plausible,
> or not) doesn't mean "scientists" have no idea,
> right? And when, as I mentioned, the smallest bit
> of effort would have shown you at least 3
> well-evidenced, plausible ideas, these kind of
> statements look either lazy or outright dishonest.
> I don't think you're outright dishonest. Which
> only leaves...


Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe origin of life theories as philosophy rather than actual science? If we agree that science is limited to the natural, observable world, that eliminates any theories which claim to explain something that has never been observed, repeated, or tested.

For example, wouldn't you agree that when Stephen Hawking states that gravity is a force that existed prior to matter and is the original source of creation, he's functioning as a philosopher, not a scientist? This claim cannot be submitted to scientific rigors and is clearly in the realm of philosophy.

Philosophers and religionists have long offered explanations for the origin of life. And when scientists step outside the realm of observable, measurable data to make such claims, they are scientists expressing a philosophy, not actual science. At best, they are expressing a theory that may relate to one minute part of the puzzle leading to life springing from inert matter. There has never been a truly comprehensive, _scientific_ theory on the origin of life.

Cabbie's article posted above is a good example of this. They float a possible scenario where a single element required for living matter may have come to exist. But this is not a theory on the origin of life. It's a bit like saying the man who discovered that petroleum is flammable invented the automobile. He certainly discovered a key element in the working of a car, but is nowhere near actually assembling the entire car.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 11:55PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

However, Stephen Hawkings concepts are based on sound scientific and mathematic reasoning.

Far different than religious concoctions, from the creation of the universe to the newer religious findings such as more than two earrings indication being under the control of satan.

deco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> However, Stephen Hawkings concepts are based on
> sound scientific and mathematic reasoning.
>
> Far different than religious concoctions, from the
> creation of the universe to the newer religious
> findings such as more than two earrings indication
> being under the control of satan.


Can you expound on the scientific and mathematical reasoning that offers proof or just some evidence of what existed prior to matter being formed?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deco Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > However, Stephen Hawkings concepts are based on
> > sound scientific and mathematic reasoning.
> >
> > Far different than religious concoctions, from
> the
> > creation of the universe to the newer religious
> > findings such as more than two earrings
> indication
> > being under the control of satan.
>
>
> Can you expound on the scientific and mathematical
> reasoning that offers proof or just some evidence
> of what existed prior to matter being formed?

Hawking formed the concept due to curvatures in matter movements continuing from the Big Bang. There is more to his ideas than revelation via prayer.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2015 12:36AM by deco.

deco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > deco Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > However, Stephen Hawkings concepts are based
> on
> > > sound scientific and mathematic reasoning.
> > >
> > > Far different than religious concoctions,
> from
> > the
> > > creation of the universe to the newer
> religious
> > > findings such as more than two earrings
> > indication
> > > being under the control of satan.
> >
> >
> > Can you expound on the scientific and
> mathematical
> > reasoning that offers proof or just some
> evidence
> > of what existed prior to matter being formed?
>
> Hawking formed the concept due to curvatures in
> matter movements continuing from the Big Bang.
> There is more to his ideas than revelation via
> prayer.
>
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.ht
> ml

I believe Hawking would be the first to admit that this talk and similar others he's given cannot and should not be viewed as theory. They are propositions and conjecture. There is no observation prior to the existence of matter, and if you cannot supply observation and testing, you do not have a theory. Hawking admits that in his scenario all laws of physics are out the window prior to the creation event.

Propositions and conjecture in the absence of any supporting observation and scientific proof are firmly in the realm of philosophy. Evolution is a theory. It can be observed and tested. Claiming that gravity existed prior to matter and is a creative force is philosophy.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> deco Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > deco Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > However, Stephen Hawkings concepts are
> based
> > on
> > > > sound scientific and mathematic reasoning.
> > > >
> > > > Far different than religious concoctions,
> > from
> > > the
> > > > creation of the universe to the newer
> > religious
> > > > findings such as more than two earrings
> > > indication
> > > > being under the control of satan.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you expound on the scientific and
> > mathematical
> > > reasoning that offers proof or just some
> > evidence
> > > of what existed prior to matter being formed?
> >
> > Hawking formed the concept due to curvatures in
> > matter movements continuing from the Big Bang.
> > There is more to his ideas than revelation via
> > prayer.
> >
> >
> http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.ht
>
> > ml
>
> I believe Hawking would be the first to admit that
> this talk and similar others he's given cannot and
> should not be viewed as theory. They are
> propositions and conjecture. There is no
> observation prior to the existence of matter, and
> if you cannot supply observation and testing, you
> do not have a theory. Hawking admits that in his
> scenario all laws of physics are out the window
> prior to the creation event.
>
> Propositions and conjecture in the absence of any
> supporting observation and scientific proof are
> firmly in the realm of philosophy. Evolution is a
> theory. It can be observed and tested. Claiming
> that gravity existed prior to matter and is a
> creative force is philosophy.

Actually it is a hypothesis, and possibly a good one. Far different than the concoction of religion.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> Wouldn't it be more accurate to describe origin of
> life theories as philosophy rather than actual
> science?

No, it wouldn't. Philosophy only proposes; science proposes, tests, verifies or falsifies, then proposes anew based on the testing, and repeats.

> If we agree that science is limited to
> the natural, observable world, that eliminates any
> theories which claim to explain something that has
> never been observed, repeated, or tested.

But we don't agree on that limitation -- and it's not a limitation that science claims for itself.
Gravity is not observable -- only its effects are. With your limitation, science could say nothing about gravity, an absurd position. With your limitation, science could say nothing about anything that ever occurred in the past that wasn't observed by a human being, even more absurd.

For example, it was proposed that a comet or meteorite struck the Yucatan peninsula about 65 million years ago, an incident that precipitated the massive KT boundary mass extinction. Nobody observed it. By your limitation, science could say nothing about it.
That's not how science works, though. With that proposal (hypothesis), we could (and did) work out what we should find *today* IF that event had occurred. If it had, we should find the eroded remnants of an impact crater -- and it was found. If it had, we should find a layer of material worldwide, datable to the proposed time, that contained remnants of the object that impacted -- and it's been found. Dozens of other "if it occurred, we should observe this" evidences of the impact were proposed and found. So while, not being directly observed, we can't state absolutely that the impact occurred, there's more than enough evidence to be highly confident that it did. And the evidence points to where it occurred, when it occurred, etc.

Even if today a group of scientists managed to set up a lab environment estimating the conditions of the early earth, and in that environment life spontaneously arose from non-life, we couldn't say with absolute certainty "this is how life began on earth." But that would allow us to say, "life can arise from non-life in this way." Something that happened so far in the past can never be declared to be a certain way with absolute certainty. But like a detective at a crime scene who didn't observe the crime, we can trace the evidence around today, and come up with plausible hypotheses, and test those for validity, and say "it's very likely this is what happened."

There are already several plausible hypotheses for how life came from non-life on the early earth. There is evidence showing parts of the proposed processes do occur. Research and experimentation are giving us more likely estimates of the conditions on the early earth, showing us how complex molecules can and do self-assemble, etc. The statement that science has no idea (or no plausible idea) is flat-out false.
And while we can't ever say with absolute certainty "this is what happened," we can come up with enough evidence to be reasonable confident that it did, and how it likely did, and when it likely did. And we won't have observed any of it.

> For example, wouldn't you agree that when Stephen
> Hawking states that gravity is a force that
> existed prior to matter and is the original source
> of creation, he's functioning as a philosopher,
> not a scientist? This claim cannot be submitted
> to scientific rigors and is clearly in the realm
> of philosophy.

No. It's an hypothesis he's presenting, and it's an hypothesis based on things we do know and observe. Can that hypothesis be directly tested? Nope. Can we come up with ways to say, "If that's the case, here's what we should observe now?," and thus be reasonably confident the hypothesis is correct? Got me, but people are working on just that -- and that's the way we can say it's likely to be correct or likely to be incorrect. That's the scientific method, it's not philosophy.

> Philosophers and religionists have long offered
> explanations for the origin of life.

Yes, proposals. That aren't tested, verified, reworked, and repeated. And many of their proposals have been shown improbable to completely unlikely based on facts and evidence from science we *can* observe.

There has never been a truly comprehensive,
> _scientific_ theory on the origin of life.

Because unlike philosophy and religion, science doesn't just make up an explanation, and declare it "done."
Until less than 100 years ago, there had never been a truly comprehensive _scientific_ theory on the origin of sunlight. Did that make philosophical or religious "explanations" of it valid? No. Now there IS a truly comprehensive _scientific_ theory on the origin of sunlight. Backed by testing, verification, etc. All you're doing is using a "god of the gaps" argument again -- if science can't explain this, then other explanations are valid (philosophical or religious ones). That's not the case, and is an argument from ignorance. The explanations that are valid and have merit are the ones that have been tested and verified by evidence. Until then, we don't know. Making up explanations doesn't give us knowledge.

I don't *know* that we'll ever be able to formulate a comprehensive scientific theory of the origin of life. Neither does anyone else. I do know that the only way we'll find out if we can is to continue to work on the question using the scientific method. There isn't a point where we should throw up our hands, declare failure, and instead accept a made-up magical explanation instead of trying to find out.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2015 11:19AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Cabbie - Absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I didn't claim you "victimized" me (?). I claimed your reaction a few years ago to legitimate questions about the possibly cult-like characteristics of AA was indicative of the kind of obsessive cult allegiance all of us here are familiar with after our time in Mormonism. That is, you were undermining your own position by reacting not with reason, but with personal abuse, much like you have done here again.

As for your Jim Jones comment, my point was that *before* The People's Temple wound up as a suicide cult, it was a robust church (or cult) committed to social justice in the Bay area. At that time, it might still have been considered a cult; but it is not necessarily the case that at that time, it was a malignant, or thorougly malignant, cult. It *could* have been a cult which overall produced a lot of positive outcomes for its adherents and society. That might be the case with AA (which I presume will never metasticize into anything as malignant as The People's Temple did).

Lastly, nothing at all in my post implied I would like to "re-order the world to my specifications". In fact, if you can actually read my post with a clear mind, you'll see that in it I sketch out a possible argument for supporting AA *even if it IS a cult* - something I should have thought you would favour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 05:08PM by Tal Bachman.

Scientists have no idea?

How many times has that been said only to have naysayers steamrolled by science?

World wide Internet, 100's of millions of new minds coming online in five years, AI more powerful and smaller than ever imagined, hand held access to the worlds knowledge with speed of access and computing power now going exponentially faster, it's only a matter of time, and I mean in our time.

How life began will be taught to our grandkids in elementary.

this is quite a ride

Seriously...This One's for both of us. I feel like throwing my hands in the air like I just don't care. Wheeeee!

And in all FAIRness, it doesn't matter whether or weather on this roller coaster.

You need to hang around here a lot more.

There are two very distinct issues here.

Whether science dismisses God is less important than the concept of science being undecided, and actually asks for theory to be discredited by means of reason.

This in itself is the opposite of religion, which purports to be all knowledgable,unquestionable, and met with nasty personal remarks if any dare question its authority.

Regarding the separate issue of whether AA is a cult or not is less important that it is a religion, with very specific worship rituals. The AA God is to be prayed to in a very specific manner (step 7)

The AA religions makes outrageous claims, stating the steps are merely suggestions to the outside world while making statements of "do the steps or die" to its congregation and the judicial system enforcing participation and conversion.

Viewing the AA steps as suggestions and guidelines is much like the LDS church claiming missions, tithing, and freedom to be left alone by them are all voluntary. The real world is quite different.

Therefore, the one place that the legal system and psychologists can refer people to is AA.

I don't care if it's a cult or a religion or a club or a meet-up hang-out. It works for some.

If your doctor said the only thing he could offer you for your cancer was chemotherapy which will give you a 50-50 chance of beating it, you would likely take the 50-50 chance.

Having lost a nephew to drug use 20 years ago and a brother 2 months ago to alcoholism and suicide, I wish he'd joined the AA Cult.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2015 08:16PM by Twinker.

Twinker Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Therefore, the one place that the legal system and
> psychologists can refer people to is AA.
>
> I don't care if it's a cult or a religion or a
> club or a meet-up hang-out. It works for some.
>
> If your doctor said the only thing he could offer
> you for your cancer was chemotherapy which will
> give you a 50-50 chance of beating it, you would
> likely take the 50-50 chance.
>
> Having lost a nephew to drug use 20 years ago and
> a brother 2 months ago to alcoholism and suicide,
> I wish he'd joined the AA Cult.

The problem with that logic is there are many, many other options that are far more effective, such as the Sinclair Method in conjunction with Naltrexone, which has a 78% verifiable success rate. This is in addition to other methods such as SMART recovery, or Rational Recovery.

All other methods are consistently shouted down by the recovery industry, because selling a religion, and concocting an "incurable" family "disease", that requires lifetime treatment for the whole family, is far more profitable than permanently fixing the problem.

Yeah?

Well your solution didn't help either, did it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2015 12:27AM by Twinker.

I have just skimmed this thread, so I mean no insult if I get names incorrect. I get the impression that someone is saying that science has no idea. I rather don't think this would be accurate, not that I am a scientist, but I am a science reader. In reading a very fine book "Charles Darwin: The Beagle Letters," editor Frederick Burkhardt, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2008, in the Introduction it gives a brief outline of Darwin's life and schooling up to the time when he sailed on the Beagle (this book is the complete collection of ALL letters from him and to him - which is really an incredibly fun read!). Everyone around him raised him in science and curiosity, that is, how to figure things out. It is fascinating to see how Darwin himself used evidence, analyzed, guessed, experimented, gave up some ideas that didn't have evidence, strengthened other ideas that demonstrated some evidence, etc. That is the essence of science. Looking, testing, changing its truths as new evidence shows up, etc. Darwin exemplified this perfectly. So, the question isn't does science know? Science is a method of learning. There is much we have yet to learn, and much we have yet to unlearn, but so far as our experience has given us as humankind in the last 4 centuries, science, by far, is the finest instrument to use in finding out reality. I just finished Jerry Coyne's "Fact Vs. Faith," and it demonstrates this in exquisite detail. Thanks for letting me play in the thread.

I'll have to read that book. I would like to see that process in action via Darwin.

"There is much we have yet to learn, and much we have yet to unlearn, but so far as our experience has given us as humankind in the last 4 centuries, science, by far, is the finest instrument to use in finding out reality."

So very true and having something like error checking seems the only way to go into the future.

There are icons of science that eventually become relics with the tug of time.

Worshippers of Big Bangism are likely doomed to the dustbin of Newtonism, Flat Earthism and Fundamentalist Josephism.

The arguments in this Artical are the same as all religious arguments. “I don't know how that happened so it must of been God!” Throughout history God has been used to explain everything such as diseases, how Joseph wrote the BofM, the weather, ect. We now know how all this really works and guess what, none of the explanations have anything to do with a diety.

Mother Nature rarely lifts her skirt so dramatically as she does when we look at the K-T boundary.

So long as we know what we are looking at that is:

http://blogs.agu.org/georneys/2012/04/24/monday-geology-picture-k-t-boundary-exposure-in-colorado/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2015 01:34PM by Shummy.

It's so good to have you here Shummy.... You blow all the bull shit away for us.

Not a big fan of the mental masturbation you and Tal are into here, but I am a fan of Budweiser.

So where do I go to collect it?

I saw your citation today in the news...good stuff...RNA is the way...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2015 03:22PM by bignevermo.