Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Songs of Summer Fire TV Stick Happy Belly Coffee Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer showtimemulti showtimemulti showtimemulti  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Water Sports
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Abiogenesis be Manned- There is no evidence for life having started naturally on Earth.


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2626-2650 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 6:50:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2012 6:51:53 AM PDT
Done...done-done, done...Thanks!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 6:58:37 AM PDT
Probably not, but at least they've been pointed in the right direction if they're really looking for answers to the questions they pose.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 7:03:14 AM PDT
All this stuff you're asking about has already been done, decades ago. It's called the "modern synthesis" of evolutionary theory. Yes, it involves empiricism, and actual testing of hypotheses, etc. There's a nice introduction to it at the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

So yes, people have actually measured different gene pools, and tested their change over time, etc. etc. If you want to look at the actual science including the empirical data, you can go to the textbooks I cite, or start at the link provided above.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 7:15:10 AM PDT
Arthur Dent says:
werranth--"Did you have an alternative(s) [to my speculation about intelligent design], I forget.. "

>>JGC: No, I didn't. And I don't think alternative speculations are needed. Yours is more than adequately speculative.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 8:01:14 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Chuckle.

With Richard, I have this mental picture of some little puddle of OCD sitting for days on end in front of his laptop reading and re-reading his own posts, reading those who answer him and then correcting editing and re-writing until he feels all righteous and glowing with pride in his devastating wit and erudition.

It's why I stopped discussing anything with him.

Bat in belfry.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 7, 2012 12:53:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 7, 2012 1:59:23 PM PDT
I wrote: "This could be the result of new mutations, but until the actual genes involved are sequenced in both native and introduced populations, this remains unknown. This is probably the result of selection on standing genetic variation, which is usually the result of mutation."

I think it should be pretty clear from what I wrote that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no evidence supporting either standing genetic variation or novel mutation in this case. I even suggested what data would be needed to test these hypotheses. So I am not sure why you are demanding evidence.

My point (i.e This is probably the result of selection on standing genetic variation) was obviously conjectural, however it was based on theory about the probabilities of allele fixation from de novo mutations vs. polymorphisms. Considering we are discussing science here, not doing science, I hardly thought it would be controversial to conjecture based on currently accepted theory. If you thought I was presenting my point as fact, then I am sorry.

If you want to know more about the theory I was referring to you can start here: http://webpages.icav.up.pt/SAPINTO2/8.pdf

BTW I hardly think the idea that most (if not all) genetic variation is (ultimately) the result of mutations is a controversial statement; however I will try to come up with some evidence of this if you really need it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 4:23:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 7:55:15 PM PDT
af:"All this stuff you're asking about has already been done, decades ago."

Thank you for confirming empirical science ended in evolution studies decades ago. Does this mean you've forgotten it all and cannot relate to it here in any detail? That is, have you only remembered your own general conclusions/readings based on what you once read and not their empirical base as well? And the modern synthesis hasn't stayed the same for decades. Is that why you've apparently presented us with theoretical speculation instead of empirical fact - you're not keeping up with it?

Go ahead, pass your own impressions of theory along to us then. Just don't be so naive and blind-sided as to call it science. To approach science, you have to actually address specific concerns at presentation time: PRESENT YOUR EVIDENCE for your assertions here, and demonstrate that you know (methodologically speaking) how such applies to this case in particular!!

Can I take what you say here as indicating that you think empirical inquiry into these matters ended generations ago with evolution? You've personally given up personally on making inquiry into those aspect of science that you comment on? If so, WHAT IS YOUR OWN RESEARCH ON BY THE WAY? MY THESIS WAS ON EVOLUTION, by the way, and I still read in scientific areas I comment on.

af:"Yes, it involves empiricism, and actual testing of hypotheses, etc."

Prove it along with your own assertions here. We need hypothesis tests, not cheerleading and gleeclub songs here.

This all is very typical of theoreticians. They need other scientists to defend their nonempirical statements. This is because they can only offer second-hand personal assurances esoterically in the place of data and findings. In some cases, they can't do methodology either...

All af is saying here is that this was done by someone else and supported adequately a long time ago. Not for this case!!! HE OFFERS ARGUMENTS TO US INSTEAD OF EVIDENCE. THEORETICAL EVOLUTIONISTS WON'T SUPPORT THEIR ASSERTIONS WITH HARD DATA.They don't want to have to deal with empirical issues, and in some cases, are not even capable of doing so. (They love the 'beauty' of the presentation mode and elaborating their theory so much based on the simple, superficial appearance of cases and a cursory review of the physical world.)

I guess we will never know if af can present empirical evidence for what he says. He doesn't want to have to talk about any empirical research or details himself; or can't. Too bad evolutionists don't accept his approach from any oppositional viewpoints!!! And plenty of IDers/creationists try.

Why should ID and creationism present more evidence or the same over and over then? We'll just put theory out there without supporting it with findings. OK, af! Thanks for showing us the esoteric, religious, dogma way.

Never mind that evolutionists claim the evidence we (ID/creationism) present only qualifies as evidence only for and in their use, i.e., as their own evidence (not ID and creation's) because it is 'their' (undemonstrated) work. THUS THEY DENY WE HAVE ANY BY FEINT AND SLIGHT OF HAND. SETTING DOWN EVER NEW PRESENTATIONS AS THEIR ONLY OSTENSIBLE METHOD OF DISPROOF, EVIDENTIARY MATTERS ARE A SHAM WITH THEM! They can't even define evidence objectively. Oh my!

Let's follow af's lead here: It's already done. ID already has provided a mountain of evidence! In Signature in the Cell! They just deny it categorically for convenience sake, but can't present their own when called on to do so as shown by af here. Af, in true-blue evolutionist terms, that's GIVING US NOTHING!

DO THE HOVERIAN VACUOUS DENY DUST EXISTS WHEN THEY CAN'T SEE IT?! Their theoreticians don't as demonstrated here. Only their empiricists, which just so happens to be all of them when they turn to look at any opposition's statements! They don't see vacuumous evidence, or at least so they say, unless it is actually presented in print. And then when it is, it is lied about, being called nonexistent. THE MATTER OF PRESENTING EVIDENCE IS A DOUBLE-DEALING, DOUBLE-STANDARD SCAM WITH MOST EVOLUTIONISTS HERE.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 4:32:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 7:32:46 PM PDT
IL: "With Richard, I have this mental picture of some little puddle of OCD sitting for days on end in front of his laptop reading and re-reading his own posts, reading those who answer him and then correcting editing and re-writing until he feels all righteous and glowing with pride in his devastating wit and erudition...It's why I stopped discussing anything with him...Bat in belfry."

A lie to cover up the real reason for your flustered, ignoble exit from active participation here, eh, Irish? No, historically speaking, you quit making routine posts here when the onus was put on you for my not providing further evidence for my domestication theorem. (Irish's posting pattern is still in evidence here for anyone interested who can perform a statistical analysis to determine the cause of the variance in her posts.) As I said at the time, Irish, you crossed the crucial line I had outlined prior along with very specific consequences. You did it by taunting for more evidence after I already said I would provide more. I stopped then as I had promised I would in such a case.

I have presented no more in this column as a result ever since. You then abruptly stopped critiquing my posts frequently as well as in general. The real cause of change was your own misguided meddling. The blip and switch in your posting here is related to very different circumstances than you let on; like most of the emotion things you say here are. You project your mistakes on others to cover up your own airheaded mistakes at times!

And the raminications in this case have been profound! It resulted in Christine passing judgment on an incomplete presentation of the domestication theorem, though the outcome with evolution proponents is always the same. Since EVOLUTIONISTS NEVER ALLOW FOR ID OR CREATIONIST EVIDENCE OF ANY LEVEL, TYPE, OR DEGREE TO EXIST, Christine determined by fiat that the theorem had been falsified; it's as she would have done anyway. So it's fine with me; evolutionists aren't being sincere or honest in this connection. They're just playing with fire. It's not as if they're going to do anything professional or scientific in terms of their evaluations. The impulsiveness in their inability to stop and wait when notified what all the evidence had not yet been presented in this case shows it. She lost me I think with that note/stroke of vacuity.

So, Irish, you've accomplished a lot scientifically speaking with your exclusive use of ridicule and nonsubstantive emotional responses here. You've destroyed for science a lot, that is. But no worry, since EVOLUTION PROPONENTS DON'T CARE ABOUT OBJECTIVITY IN SCIENCE OR BEING OBJECTIVE HERE. They're only playing games.

CMJ's evaluation of my domestication theorem was done in evolutionists' traditionally bigoted, uncritical fashion. The same unmethodological assessment and pronouncement happens no matter what the type of evidence or the circumstances and terms of the evaluation are.

NONETHELESS, functionally speaking, YOU STILL DERAILED AN INVESTIGATION INTO AN ID THEORY AND MADE IT INCOMPLETE, getting some evidence set off to the side. STILL EVOLUTIONISTS RULE ON IT CONCLUSIVELY. They don't even know what scientific evidence or sufficiency is and how that differs from legal or other kinds of evidence. Just look at their pitiful attempts at making objective, empirical definitions here. The fact that they can't is on display and in evidence moreso here than any of their definitions!

As a result of all of this, I'd have to say that there are bats in your own belfry! But don't worry! Bats aren't that bad. The truth about other matters will (come) out on the most humid (of sweating/posting) nights! What do I mean by this?

It's like you said of me in your quote I've provided above in this post. All I see consequently of you now in this column, Irish, is this: You and a little puddle bimonthly.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 4:37:13 PM PDT
D. Thomas says:
Nuts!

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 4:38:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 7:37:06 PM PDT
Really? An argument taken from the Battle of the Bilge (sic), huh? The confusion over it's translation postponed a battle's commencement for only one day, as I remember. Good luck getting that much economy mileage out of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 6:06:41 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 6:32:06 PM PDT
af: "Probably not, but at least they've been pointed in the right direction if they're really looking for answers to the questions they pose."

It's as if I were being told to check the book Goldilocks and the Three Bears out of the library when what we actually paid for was a photo of Blondie in a cheerleading outfit supporting the Chicago Bears. Anyone should be outraged when not being given what's been advertised. At the minimum, a date-stamped mailer containing an untouched, undoctored photo would serve as evidence for proof of a mail out. At least it would in any court room, I think. And that would do fine. We could open up a facsimile and see for ourselves!!

What we are talking about is applicable scientific evidence for assertions being made here. Still, we have been given nothing like it at all by af. We have been met only by a stone wall full of theoretically attractive artistry. Clearly, AF HAS NO REAL-WORLD EVIDENCE TO PROVIDE that could be seen as being applicable as support for his assertions here! HIS STATEMENTS AS SUCH STAND NOT ON ANY SCIENTIFIC, EVIDENTIARY BASIS! His only ostensible evidentiary basis is a finger pointed in the general direction of the library's reference book section.

Well, look again af. Even Galileo, Kepler, and Newton managed to do much better than that! And if they hadn't, people wouldn't have even believed them either.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 7:37:28 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"IL: "With Richard, I have this mental picture of some little puddle of OCD sitting for days on end in front of his laptop reading and re-reading his own posts, reading those who answer him and then correcting editing and re-writing until he feels all righteous and glowing with pride in his devastating wit and erudition...It's why I stopped discussing anything with him...Bat in belfry.""

Richard: "A lie ... 433 words .... It's like you said of me in your quote I've provided above in this post. All I see consequently of you now in this column, Irish, is this: You and a little puddle bimonthly."

Some things are completely predictable. Thanks for confirming my prediction, Richard. You even edited it! "In reply to your post on Apr 8, 2012 4:32:30 PM PDT. Last edited by the author 1 minute ago "

Posted on Apr 8, 2012 7:44:24 PM PDT
af,

You so much as admit that what you presented here was not actual science, as taken from your close of a recent post of yours. Or, so I take the following statement to imply that in effect. Please correct me if I see things wrong:

af: "If you want to look at the actual science including the empirical data, you can go to the textbooks I cite, or start at the link provided above."

So, af, does that mean we'll have to look elsewhere for actual science in place of your theoretical, unsupported (at least, as shown by you) dogma? AND ALL THE WHILE, WE'RE EXPECTED TO NOT DO ANYTHING NONEVIDENTIARY OURSELVES EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE DOING SO HERE!!! Why not? Because that wouldn't be scientific we are constantly being told.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 8:01:15 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 8:21:31 PM PDT
Actually what af wrote about is supported by decades of empirical and theoretical research. There is simply too much research in these areas to post it here. That is why he pointed you to several text books, which summarize and provide citations for the original work.

If you have equivalent material to back your ideas then you can do the same. Please feel free to point us to your preferred text book.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 8:04:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 8:05:17 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 8:06:50 PM PDT
Papawaron says:
KEPLER: Really? An argument taken from the Battle of the Bilge (sic), huh? The confusion over it's translation postponed a battle's commencement for only one day, as I remember. Good luck getting that much economy mileage out of it.

PAPAW: Like so much of what you recall and publish, you are wrong again.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 8:25:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 8:38:17 PM PDT
EMO: "There is simply too much research in these areas to post it here. That is why he pointed you to several text books, which summarize and provide citations for the original work."

You say that is his reason. Prove it is his reasoning and not yours alone. Your speculation of another scientist's rationale in a case of empirical neglect are no excuse for his failure to say so himself, to cite a few applicable cases, to refer to the researchers and textbooks by name himself, or to demonstrate a command of the methodologies involved.

Eric, you have only provided him with excuses, which he can now offer blankly. And now, because of you, he can employ them demonstrating no expert skills or ability whatsoever - after the fact. The post in question was very clearly not addressed to you to present your own universally ascribed rationale or thinking to justify others on the matter.

You have thus biased this inquiry. I asked him for his basis. It was to find out his empirical basis and reasoning for what he said. Clearly, you have now muddled that matter. We cannot know individual's true rationales now. We only have a general BUT THAT IS WHAT EVOLUTIONISTS ARE REALLY HERE FOR, ISN'T IT? IT'S TO MUDDLE INQUIRY AND HIDE THE NEGLECT OF INDIVIDUAL PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY WHEN AND WHERE IT SUITS THEM!!!

EMO: "Actually what af wrote about is supported by decades of empirical and theoretical research."

Define "theoretical research" as opposed to empirical research - seeing you have set them up in juxtaposition to distinguish them here. The secondary reviews show nothing of the like of what you call theoretical research as far as I see things. You and AF cannot even synopsize the empirical research that exists in these areas yourselves here; how can we even say it applies to in this case then? You can only point fingers to it, so I think you are completely cut off from empiricism and current research. You leave no gaps, though research does. So all we can actually depend on coming from you and AF is an impressionistic coloring in of all the dots for explanations of evolution, even those that have no empirical basis for our doing so scientifically yet. You close off all new research directions with your elegant correspondencies, theoretical filler, and speculative gloss-overs. STILL YOU'VE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE.

I point a different finger to the "theoretical research" term you used than you, by the way. Now pursuant to that group revelation closing off all inquiry, all that remains is for af and you to so is guess which one it is! JUST LIKE YOU'VE LEFT ISSUE OF THE EMPIRICAL BASES Of YOUR STATEMENTS A MATTER FOR US (the readers) TO DETERMINE, IN FACT.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 8:44:33 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 8:53:55 PM PDT
PAPAW: "Like so much of what you recall and publish, you are wrong again."

It's better than you: You're obviously incapable of discussing these scientific issues. In addition, you're wrong frequently, given over here to vacant ridicule, and resort only to counting coop on opponents. You're even incapable of identifying what's sic and clearly marked as opinions. SO YOU'VE GOT NOTHING intellectually to squawk about, peepsqueak!

Posted on Apr 8, 2012 8:52:32 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 8:55:43 PM PDT
theoretical research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_and_theoretical_biology

"STILL YOU'VE GIVEN NO EVIDENCE."

Actually I provided evidence in the form of a published paper showing adaptation in rabbit ears. I see you have completely avoided discussing this evidence. The person in this exchange who has provided no evidence is you.

Sorry, but the rest of your post is not worth my time.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 9:06:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 8, 2012 9:57:00 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 9:32:48 PM PDT
Papawaron says:
Richard Kepler says:
PAPAW: "Like so much of what you recall and publish, you are wrong again."

It's better than you: You're obviously incapable of discussing these scientific issues. In addition, you're wrong frequently, given over here to vacant ridicule, and resort only to counting coop on opponents. You're even incapable of identifying what's sic and clearly marked as opinions. SO YOU'VE GOT NOTHING intellectually to squawk about, peepsqueak!

PAPAW; You'll find, Kepler, that I am perfectly capable of discussing "scientific issues" with anyone here, even you, when you actually address a "scientific issue." But you appear to only pursue only arcane and puerile grammatical issues. So, until you actually deign to discuss science, i may continue to pick at your irresponsible and incorrect assays into fields I consider my strongpoints.

And i identified your "sic" and it was, indeed sick. As well as incorrect. And your opinion was not opinion at all......it was a recollection fronted as an argument. And again, it and you are wrong.

Suck on your bottle, Kepler, and when you approach a "scientific issue" with a scientific argument, then we can talk.

And one more thing, you really are terribly juvenile in your insults. Aside from being a simpleton, you merely exhibit little originality and no depth at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 9:41:55 PM PDT
Roeselare says:
So, there's no plausible speculation that fits the recent discoveries?

I can't leave it at that. To say, we don't know, or it's just the way things are, or we'll never figure out a good reasonable sequence, is what honest religionists say and 'believe'. And that's lead to the competing stories from fear and emotion.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 8, 2012 9:57:57 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Apr 9, 2012 1:04:49 AM PDT]

Posted on Apr 9, 2012 2:37:50 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 9, 2012 3:40:08 AM PDT
Papaw; "You'll find, Kepler, that I am perfectly capable of discussing "scientific issues" with anyone here, even you, when you actually address a "scientific issue."

I doubt *I'll find* anything like that in your posts - ever. If you think I will, prove it with evidence. For example, join in the discussion here supplying something new in the way of substantive argument. And put evidence where your mouth is. All I think we have to read from you in your last post are emotional squall, and a complete lack of concern at all for scientific evidence. The latter subject seen in whole or part is the major topic of discussion here now, and not the former.

Papaw: "So, until you actually deign to discuss science, i may continue to pick at your irresponsible and incorrect assays into fields I consider my strongpoints."

Deign? Condescend to that level, huh? Thanks for the inadvertant compliment through your inexpert choice of logical terms, self-proclaimed Papaw! Sure, you may pick, but indiscriminate ridicule is your only strong sales point. It reminds me of Deckard's typically vacuously empty, egocentric primed and pumped up, superficially cheap pot shots. So pick away with nothing more than hot blasts of unintellectual, randomly chosen ridicule, as you very typically do! No matter and none the worse for wear! I like the heat. It's the cold that I can't stand. So care to try out that approach out, too? Be...my Ghast (sic)!

You'll do science through using i and strongpoints (sic)? Unless you mean i in the sense that Apple uses it, that's hilariously laughable!! I'LL BELIEVE IT WHEN I SEE IT! You don't even know how to use 'sic' to signal unfamiliar usage or your unconventional spelling (i.e., more likely juvenile mistakes). How can you even be considered to be qualified to discuss scientific matters at this level then? You can't even write at the level of a scientific report. And, oh yeah, I've been there and done that... So you're concerned about such issues relative to me, are you? I'LL SEE IT WHEN I BELIEVE IT!

My direct foray into S/O contrast and juxtapositioning in my last two 'all caps' sentences are enough of the use of originality for now. See if you can match me 'tit for tat' with at least a little s(l)ic(k) smidgen as you call things diminuatively, i.e., of wit at the same level. I think you can't do so, but I'm always delighted to be proven wrong.

Since when is the scientific call for evidence in and of itself a matter for *in-depth* quibbling or debate as you call things here? Only when it shakes up evolution proponents? I see then. That makes a sort of one-sided positional sense; if you consider that evolutionist proponents are subjective and illogically one-sided, typically speaking, that is. There's a pattern even to dogmatism and irrationality that can be seen readily in what you and they typically do here. So critique away. To evolutionists; it is all the same thing as insults. Why should we even care when faced with unscientific, randomly chosen childish criticisms, SINCE THAT IS CLEARLY THE BEST LOGIC THAT EVOLUTION CAN MANAGE?

Your consideration of "depth" was a ridiculous point in terms of the current topic and discussion, however (evidential concerns)!! It's way off of the level issues involved in any methodological discussion of evidence considerations in this matter. Simple citations and mere hypothesis tests suffice with evolutionists here. So your criticism is entirely out of sync and pace with the majority of evolution proponents here. Still, I would expect as much in inapplicable and indiscriminant criticism from you and Deckard. One sentence says it all and is as in-depth as things get/go with you and him; it's all an argument both of you even try to supply us with, generally speaking. That may be good enough for grade school, but it is not good enough for the level of scientific empiricism, definition, methodology, statistical inference, and theory I am advocating here. And you don't discuss the details of these matters. Show the exception to any of this!

It would support your claim above much better than your vacuous insults here. YOUR RIDICULE REGULARLY LOOKS LIKE THAT OF CON ARTISTS, all rolled up as it is very typically into the act of only counting coup on *other people's* discussions. When do you hold or maintain your own discussions? When are you ever a part of continuing discourse in science. NEVER? I thought so! YOUR INFREQUENT LASHING OUT AT OPPONENTS FROM APPARENT OUTRAGE IS ABOUT ALL WE SEE OF YOU.

ACTUALLY, I THINK IT IS THE BEST SIGNAL AROUND OF WHEN EVOLUTION LOSES POINTS. How so? You're so predictable in this area. It appears that at the peak of any discussion here, you jump in with indiscriminate timing only to lash back at creationists, and only at such times. As such, thanks for it actually - anytime!!! Why? Well, I THINK IT'S A GOOD DEMONSTRATION OF THE BEST EVOLUTION HAS TO OFFER TO THE SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE, at least in terms of their logic, definitions, methodology, objectivity, factual discourse, argument support, intellectual insight, and reliability. They are lacking all to a very significant degree in science, at least as shown here.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 9, 2012 6:27:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 14, 2012 6:15:41 AM PDT
werranth413: "So, there's no plausible speculation that fits the recent discoveries?...I can't leave it at that. To say, we don't know, or it's just the way things are, or we'll never figure out a good reasonable sequence, is what honest religionists say and 'believe'. And that's lead to the competing stories from fear and emotion."

Who are you talking to, werranth413? Lack of proper address in your and Christine's posts typically makes them appear like nothing more than undirected wandering comments, unattached rhetorical digressions, or scattered gut reactions at best. If you are directing this question to me, simply say so and I will reply to it. If not, please cut the impression and appearance of an indiscrimate spread of blasts/asides most closely resembling crossfire and say who it is for instead. Your failure in being clear and explicit in the subjects of your comments only confuses both sides of the discussion of these issues. You make me look like I must defend myself with you!

With you oftimes chiming in your two cents without using clear forms of address at such junctures, it looks like you often comment uncritically and unjustly mislabel people from both sides based on merely your own personal speculation. If not, where's your own evidence you're not doing that when you do so? And when you mention "religionists" here, who and what are you even talking about? And why are you intimidating us with your scarecrow-strawman made up of fear and emotion? Show with evidence to whom it applies. And why would you even bring such a thing up? Is it only a personal digression - You're clearly far more of a religious, kind person than I am! To answer your actual question about theoretical projections and extrapolations (as I take it) though, I think this type of practice of yours (as I see it) gives speculation a bad name!

When you choose a side, as I see things, you don't squat in the muddle of a pack any more than you pique your nose unannounced in full and plain sight of other people's conversations (sic). So don't just react as you have been doing in general terms here without addressing your comments in text; please read and learn how they appear in situ. Learn something besides astrology from others for a change.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  114
Total posts:  6990
Initial post:  Jan 30, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 25, 2016

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 6 customers

Search Customer Discussions