The New Geology?

[noguru]

In the culture of our times this would be fatal to one's career.

And besides it is not necessary. It is sufficient that a scientist simply keep in mind that some things are beyond science. There is plenty to do in biology finding out how cells and organisms work without getting into the realm of religious belief such as the creation of the cosmos and first life.

What criteria do you use to determine which things are beyond science? Are you using a specific interpretation of Genesis to do this?

Besides, it is "crazy" with all we now know to believe that the cosmos created itself and that life was not designed by a supernatural agent.

Again, I think this is a misrepresentation of how science is designed. Science itself does not tell us that it is "crazy" to believe in the supernatural. Some people think this. Science simply cannot investigate any claim about a "supernatural" agent or event. This is inherint in the definition of "supernatural".

Are you claiming that we should establish certain events as "supernatural" based on your interpretation of scripture and resist any investigation into the possibility that they might have had natural explanations?

 

[Stripe]

Oh...sorry...that was me. I was high most of the time which always made me angry for some reason...

I forgive you for beating me up

Will you forgive me for being a snot-nosed little brat? :noid:

 

[bob b]

Are you claiming that we should establish certain events as "supernatural" based on your interpretation of scripture and resist any investigation into the possibility that they might have had natural explanations?

Nope.

It is obvious that the universe did not create itself. An agent external to the universe is required.

And it is becoming increasingly obvious that life as we know it did not create itself either.

I recognized this 25 years ago while reading about the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system.

Some biologists are only now coming around to this same conclusion, but instead of concluding that there must be a God, they are proposing fantasies like multiple parallel universes.

 

[Mr Jack]

It is obvious that the universe did not create itself. An agent external to the universe is required.

Obvious how?

And it is becoming increasingly obvious that life as we know it did not create itself either.

Once you've assumed your conclusions, everything is obvious.

Some biologists are only now coming around to this same conclusion, but instead of concluding that there must be a God, they are proposing fantasies like multiple parallel universes.

The notion that there are multiple parallel universes comes from Physics, not Biology.

 

[bob b]

The notion that there are multiple parallel universes comes from Physics, not Biology.

Eugene Koonin is a biologist.

Science frequently crosses arbitrary department lines.

 

[Mr Jack]

Eugene Koonin is a biologist.

That's nice for him

Science frequently crosses arbitrary department lines.

Yes, it does. But your assertion that biologists invented parallel universe to support evolution is plain false.

 

[bob b]

Yes, it does. But your assertion that biologists invented parallel universe to support evolution is plain false.

Koonin, a noted biologist, proposed the concept of multiple parallel universes in a paper in Biology Direct as a solution to the long standing dilemma of how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex could have arisen.

 

[Mr Jack]

Koonin, a noted biologist, proposed the concept of multiple parallel universes in a paper in Biology Direct as a solution to the long standing dilemma of how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex could have arisen.

I know. You linked to it. It's not his idea. It comes from Physics not Biology.

Any Science Lover would now that.

 

[Johnny]

Koonin, a noted biologist, proposed the concept of multiple parallel universes in a paper in Biology Direct as a solution to the long standing dilemma of how the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated complex could have arisen.

Actually, he used the already proposed concept. That's an important distinction.

 

[bob b]

I know. You linked to it. It's not his idea. It comes from Physics not Biology.

Any Science Lover would now that.

Yes, Koonin borrowed the idea from speculative cosmology (not Physics).

The speculative cosmologists in turn used the idea to explain why the constants of physics were so finely tuned to permit life to exist on Earth.

"We just happen to be living in a universe where the constants are finely tuned to permit life to exist". (any other array of constants would not permit life to exist so we wouldn't be there to note that the constants were finely tuned to allow us to exist)

At this point we note that BOTH evolutionists and cosmologists must be in quite a dither to propose such a fairytale as multiple parallel universes. And atheists must be totally blind to accept such premises and not see that they "are being deceived".

But Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, did say that "the bigger the lie the easier it is to sell to the general public".

 

[Johnny]

Did you read the peer-reviews and author comments, Bob?

 

[bob b]

Did you read the peer-reviews and author comments, Bob?

Yes. I was amazed that the reviewers didn't just write Koonin off as a nutcase.

 

[Mr Jack]

Yes, Koonin borrowed the idea from speculative cosmology (not Physics).

The speculative cosmologists in turn used the idea to explain why the constants of physics were so finely tuned to permit life to exist on Earth.

"We just happen to be living in a universe where the constants are finely tuned to permit life to exist". (any other array of constants would not permit life to exist so we wouldn't be there to note that the constants were finely tuned to allow us to exist)

Wrong again, bob. It comes from Quantum Mechanics.

 

[bob b]

Wrong again, bob. It comes from Quantum Mechanics.

Since Koonin said specifically that he borrowed the idea from cosmology, I tend to believe him.

 

[noguru]

It is obvious that the universe did not create itself. An agent external to the universe is required.

And it is becoming increasingly obvious that life as we know it did not create itself either.

I recognized this 25 years ago while reading about the DNA/RNA/protein interrelated system.

Bob you are not being realistic. Things don't create themselves. They are the result of natural processes that produce them.

 

[bob b]

Bob you are not being realistic. Things don't create themselves. They are the result of natural processes that produces them.

Produce, not create in the first place. See the difference?

 

[noguru]

Since Koonin said specifically that he borrowed the idea from cosmology, I tend to believe him.

And Darwin borrowed the idea of survival of the fittest from an earlier English economist that supported Laissez Faire Capitalism. What is your point? If Darwin's idea of evolution is inaccurate does that mean that Laissez Faire capitalism does not work?

 

[noguru]

Produce, not create in the first place. See the difference?

Yes, I see the difference. Do you?

 

[aharvey]

Since Koonin said specifically that he borrowed the idea from cosmology, I tend to believe him.

So how do you decide whether or not to believe an author? I seem to recall your insisting a certain JBS Haldane was mystified by his own results despite his own uniform statements to the contrary.

 

[Mr Jack]

Since Koonin said specifically that he borrowed the idea from cosmology, I tend to believe him.

He may have borrowed the idea from Cosmology. It comes, originally, from Quantum Mechanics.

I'm honestly surprised that someone describing themselves as "Science Lover" hasn't come across the Many World Interpretation before.