Why do theists reject evolution?

[Hipparchia]

p.s. you do have an idiosyncratic way of spelling "idiosyncracies". If you are going to use big words, learn to spell them correctly. Looks kinda silly otherwise......

Really? I am critiquing your presentation style because it undermines your argument, makes you lookl like a teenage would-be wunderkind. And your response? The frustrated grammar nazi. Could your posts really stand up to a forensic examination of your vocabulary, usage, grammar, spelling, etc.? And whether it could or not, in what way would that be relevant to the facts?

Idiosyncratic but "interesting" and "superficially plausible", I am making progress! Thank you...

No progress at all. That has been my position from the outset. What you stubbornly refuse to see, or to acknowledge, is that at this point in the science that is all his ideas are. They are at the edge of scientific development and, over the next few years, will either become part of the canon, or they will discarded. You, with either arrogance or ignorance, have elevated those ideas to wholly accepted science. Frankly, that's just dumb.

Because, unlike Tegmark, Hazen is engaged in current mainstream science! Watch the lecture!

Tegmark? Why the Strawman? I've said nothing about Tegmark. Nor have I denied that Hazen is engaged in current mainstream science, but great jumping hornbills, what leads oyu to conflate "current mainstream science", with "currently accepted mainstream science". A significant proportion of hypotheses presented in papers today will have been dismissed within a decade, or much less.

And, you keep going on about watching the lecture. Not once have you cited any of his papers. I prefer to get my science that way, not via youtube.

Before you start believing unfounded rumors, why don't you watch the Hazen lecture to know what he is talking about, so that you can compare his actual authoritative knowledge with my understanding of the science.

What frigging rumours do you think I am believing? Let me try yet again to make things clearer - Anything you, or anyone else posts, presenting it as accepted science, when nothing is offered to justify such an assessment needs to be called out. You just do not seem to be aware of how science works. It doesn't matter how well you understand his hypothesis. What is in question is whether or not that hypothesis is currently accepted by the majority of authorities in his field. We are not discussing whether or not it will be accepted, or whether it ought to be accepted, but is it. And you have offered diddly-dee to show that it has been.
If I can locate his relevant papers online I'll study them. I might well be convinced that he is correct. That will not alter things one little bit. My view doesn't matter a damn. Your view doesn't matter a damn. What matters is whether these views, his hypothesis, is currently the accepted view in this field, because you claim that it is and then - absurdly - offer as evidence the fact that Hazen is well regarded. Unbelievable!

 

[paddoboy]

They are at the edge of scientific development and, over the next few years, will either become part of the canon, or they will discarded. A significant proportion of hypotheses presented in papers today will have been dismissed within a decade, or much less.

What is in question is whether or not that hypothesis is currently accepted by the majority of authorities in his field. My view doesn't matter a damn. Your view doesn't matter a damn. What matters is whether these views, his hypothesis, is currently the accepted view in this field,

All true and factual. Hundreds of scientific papers exist, that are at the edge of scientific development and/or may offer aspects of improvements to GR or even surpassing it. Most simply gather dust and fade into oblivion.
As an amateur I mostly post established science and that which is currently accepted by mainstream, noting of course that mainstream science most probably was also at one time, just speculative and at the edge of scientific development.
As I have often put, all scientific theories need to run the gauntlet.
Any new idea/theory supposedly claiming to surpass GR, will take years before succeeding, if at all it does succeed, or more importantly, is worthy of succeeding.
Currently I like Lawrence Krauss' idea of the quantum foam being actually "nothing" or the nothing as proposed in his book, "A Universe from Nothing" ...but I have no delusions that at this time it is still highly speculative.

 

[exchemist]

Really? I am critiquing your presentation style because it undermines your argument, makes you lookl like a teenage would-be wunderkind. And your response? The frustrated grammar nazi. Could your posts really stand up to a forensic examination of your vocabulary, usage, grammar, spelling, etc.? And whether it could or not, in what way would that be relevant to the facts?

No progress at all. That has been my position from the outset. What you stubbornly refuse to see, or to acknowledge, is that at this point in the science that is all his ideas are. They are at the edge of scientific development and, over the next few years, will either become part of the canon, or they will discarded. You, with either arrogance or ignorance, have elevated those ideas to wholly accepted science. Frankly, that's just dumb.

Tegmark? Why the Strawman? I've said nothing about Tegmark. Nor have I denied that Hazen is engaged in current mainstream science, but great jumping hornbills, what leads oyu to conflate "current mainstream science", with "currently accepted mainstream science". A significant proportion of hypotheses presented in papers today will have been dismissed within a decade, or much less.

And, you keep going on about watching the lecture. Not once have you cited any of his papers. I prefer to get my science that way, not via youtube.

What frigging rumours do you think I am believing? Let me try yet again to make things clearer - Anything you, or anyone else posts, presenting it as accepted science, when nothing is offered to justify such an assessment needs to be called out. You just do not seem to be aware of how science works. It doesn't matter how well you understand his hypothesis. What is in question is whether or not that hypothesis is currently accepted by the majority of authorities in his field. We are not discussing whether or not it will be accepted, or whether it ought to be accepted, but is it. And you have offered diddly-dee to show that it has been.
If I can locate his relevant papers online I'll study them. I might well be convinced that he is correct. That will not alter things one little bit. My view doesn't matter a damn. Your view doesn't matter a damn. What matters is whether these views, his hypothesis, is currently the accepted view in this field, because you claim that it is and then - absurdly - offer as evidence the fact that Hazen is well regarded. Unbelievable!

I'd be quite interested to read more of Hazen's papers if you do find some and can post links. I have found the abstract of a 2008 paper in American Mineralogist that he co-authored, on evolution of minerals. Basically, it seems to be about the production of more complex and varied mineralogies as planets formed and passed through regimes in which the necessary chemical reactions between the elements and simple chemical compounds became possible.

(Like you perhaps, I find watching peoples' lectures incredibly frustrating, slow and uninformative compared to reading a paper.)

 

[Hipparchia]

Currently I like Lawrence Krauss' idea of the quantum foam being actually "nothing" or the nothing as proposed in his book, "A Universe from Nothing" ...but I have no delusions that at this time it is still highly speculative.

Just so. In line with Hazen's focus on mineralogy and its relation to abiogenesis I was intrigued by the ideas of Cairns-Smith who believed the first life actually arose in clay and then transferred to an organic form. From what I have read many biologists thought it was a neat idea, but one that sadly lacked any telling evidence in its favour (but, equally, no telling evidence against it). The frontier science is the thrilling stuff - I just object when some one acts like a lead writer for a tabloid newspaper and misrepresents the status and meaning of such research.

I'd be quite interested to read more of Hazen's papers if you do find some and can post links.

His publications are listed on his site. The first couple I've looked at are behind paywalls. I'll link to any I manage to access that seem interesting.

 

[Write4U]

Really? I am critiquing your presentation style because it undermines your argument, makes you lookl like a teenage would-be wunderkind. And your response? The frustrated grammar nazi. Could your posts really stand up to a forensic examination of your vocabulary, usage, grammar, spelling, etc.? And whether it could or not, in what way would that be relevant to the facts?

It doesn't need to. English is my second language. Was born and raised in Netherlands. In spite of that handicap my command of English was enough to have a successful few years as proposal writer for several Indian tribes.
And , indeed where are my facts flawed or irrelevant? Can you point out one single posit of mine that is contrary to mainstream science? If not what is all the fuss about?

No progress at all. That has been my position from the outset. What you stubbornly refuse to see, or to acknowledge, is that at this point in the science that is all his ideas are. They are at the edge of scientific development and, over the next few years, will either become part of the canon, or they will discarded. You, with either arrogance or ignorance, have elevated those ideas to wholly accepted science. Frankly, that's just dumb.

I don't present anything which cannot be demonstrated or is illogical. It is not a matter of "differences" between theories. It is a matter of "common denominators" between various theories that ultimately determines the Logical nature of the spacetime.

Tegmark? Why the Strawman? I've said nothing about Tegmark. Nor have I denied that Hazen is engaged in current mainstream science, but great jumping hornbills, what leads oyu to conflate "current mainstream science", with "currently accepted mainstream science". A significant proportion of hypotheses presented in papers today will have been dismissed within a decade, or much less.

The reference to Tegmark was in response to exchemist . You can ask him why. It was touched on during this discussion, but only as an philosophical alternative to Intelligent Design instead of Darwinian Evolution.
Yes, science itself is an evolutionary process of observation and understanding of natural relational values and (symbolic) mathematical refinement of knowledge in processing relational values.

And, you keep going on about watching the lecture. Not once have you cited any of his papers. I prefer to get my science that way, not via youtube.

To me that means you are just evading opportunity to "inform".

What frigging rumours do you think I am believing? Let me try yet again to make things clearer - Anything you, or anyone else posts, presenting it as accepted science, when nothing is offered to justify such an assessment needs to be called out.

Your automatic acceptance of exchemist's little "aside" about Write4U's religious clinging to certain fringe ideas (which is simply not true).

You just do not seem to be aware of how science works. It doesn't matter how well you understand his hypothesis.

I understand the science on which the hypothesis is based....

What is in question is whether or not that hypothesis is currently accepted by the majority of authorities in his field. We are not discussing whether or not it will be accepted, or whether it ought to be accepted, but is it. And you have offered diddly-dee to show that it has been.

Hey, I have offered access, but you refuse to take it! That is not my fault.
A paper? OK,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.916.7746&rep=rep1&type=pdf

If I can locate his relevant papers online I'll study them. I might well be convinced that he is correct. That will not alter things one little bit.

Of course it will!

My view doesn't matter a damn. Your view doesn't matter a damn. What matters is whether these views, his hypothesis, is currently the accepted view in this field, because you claim that it is and then - absurdly - offer as evidence the fact that Hazen is well regarded. Unbelievable!

Is there a contradiction in being a well regarded and accepted authority at the same time?
He is well regarded because his papers are authoritative.
What are you on about?

p.s. Darwinian Evolution by natural selection starts at the mineral level. Hearing Hazen explain this suggests your post # 586 is "old" science.

 

[Hipparchia]

It doesn't need to. English is my second language. Was born and raised in Netherlands. In spite of that handicap my command of English was enough to have a successful few years as proposal writer for several Indian tribes.
And , indeed where are my facts flawed or irrelevant? Can you point out one single posit of mine that is contrary to mainstream science? If not what is all the fuss about?
I don't present anything which cannot be demonstrated or is illogical. It is not a matter of "differences" between theories. It is a matter of "common denominators" between various theories that ultimately determines the Logical nature of the spacetime.
The reference to Tegmark was in response to exchemist . You can ask him why. It was touched on during this discussion, but only as an philosophical alternative to Intelligent Design instead of Darwinian Evolution.
Yes, science itself is an evolutionary process of observation and understanding of natural relational values and (symbolic) mathematical refinement of knowledge in processing relational values.
To me that means you are just evading opportunity to "inform".
Your automatic acceptance of exchemist's little "aside" about Write4U's religious clinging to certain fringe ideas (which is simply not true). I understand the science on which the hypothesis is based....
Hey, I have offered access, but you refuse to take it! That is not my fault.
A paper? OK,
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.916.7746&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Of course it will! Is there a contradiction in being a well regarded and accepted authority at the same time?
He is well regarded because his papers are authoritative.
What are you on about?

There are two possible explanations for that tranche of nonsense. (If you prefer you can pretend that I spelled trench incorrectly.)
1. My writing is ambiguous and confusing.
2. You are so wedded to your favourite thinking that you you can see nothing else.

I'll pretend it's the first and have one final try. Please pay attention.

Hazen's ideas, as portrayed by you, have not been broadly accepted in the relevant section of the scientific community.
Despite multiple opportunities you have offered nothing to contradict this.
Hazen's undoubted qualities as a scientist make him well suited to investigate new explanations for phenomena within or adjacent to his fields of expertise. Any findings made by him at the "cutting edge" of research do not automatically get taken into the realm of "established scientific fact".
Despite this you continue to claim his findings are "established scientific fact".

Now if you still don't get it I revert to option 2 above. (I really don't want to go to option 3 as it.)

And, just by way of reinforcement, you say "Hey, I have offered access, but you refuse to take it! That is not my fault. "

I say it's not bloody relevant! All the video can demonstrate is that a respected, experienced, effective scientist has a neat idea. It does not demonstrate that this idea is broadly accepted by the scientific community. Why are you unable to grasp this very simple concept? I still entertain the possibility that the idea is accepted by the scientific community, but you have failed - as noted above - to provide any evidence that this is the case. So it looks like you can't.

In other words, this whole discussion is not about the validity or otherwise of Hazen's ideas, but rather your apparent misrepresentation of how they are assessed by the relevant sub-set of scientists. Has that sunk in yet?

 

[Michael 345]

oyu

You have a idiosyncratic way of spelling you

 

[Michael 345]

The reason is that the constituent parts, while the same as before, are no longer arranged in functional patterns.

Another thread

Another out

 

[Hipparchia]

You have a idiosyncratic way of spelling you

Strictly speaking it's not the way I spell it, but the way I mistype it.

 

[paddoboy]

Strictly speaking it's not the way I spell it, but the way I mistype it.

I also have fat fingers.

 

[Write4U]

Despite this you continue to claim his findings are "established scientific fact".

Where?

 

[Michael 345]

I also have fat fingers.

What is your cholesterol level like?

 

[Write4U]

I say it's not bloody relevant! All the video can demonstrate is that a respected, experienced, effective scientist has a neat idea. It does not demonstrate that this idea is broadly accepted by the scientific community.

20 participating schools and research facilites. 35 research associates is not a lone voice in the wilderness. This is research with direct application to the planned Mars explorations. It better be reliable.

Why are you unable to grasp this very simple concept? I still entertain the possibility that the idea is accepted by the scientific community, but you have failed - as noted above - to provide any evidence that this is the case. So it looks like you can't.

What idea would you like to see a published paper for peer review? What evidence would you like to see?

How can you comment on an idea or any recently acquired investigative methods and knowledge when you refuse to inform yourself about the ideas and evidence being researched? Just for starters.....

Are you familiar with Mineral Evolution, Mineral Ecology, Co-Evolution of Life and Rocks? You want statistics? These are the ideas being investigated by Robert Hazen and explained in basic but informative narrative on the video links to his lectures at Carnegie Institute and the Simons Foundation.

The OP subject is about "Evolution". And all my posts are at least tangently related to the OP

In this case, existing evidence suggests that Evolutionary Abiogenesis is not a rare event at all, but may well be a common phenomenon, given a dynamic, chemically rich environment over large spatial areas, over long periods of time as can be found on Earth-like planets.

The evolution of bio-chemical systems and its potential gradual evolutionary transformation into living biological systems has left many recoverable traces on earth.

Which is the subject of Mineral Ecology on Earth and hopefully on Mars. That's why NASA has a vested interest in Hazen's work. They'll use the acquired practical knowledge to test the Martian environment for traces of bio-chemicals and possible rudimentary life-forms.

 

[Write4U]

Really? I am critiquing your presentation style because it undermines your argument, makes you look like a teenage would-be wunderkind. And your response? The frustrated grammar nazi

Only when the grammar is directed at me ad hominem. If you are going to insult me, you'll have to do it with the correct grammar... or you leave yourself grammatically unprotected.....

Instead of critiquing my writing style, why not try to understand the content of what I am trying to convey.
I always accompany my posts with "relevant" links that more formally clarify the "gist" of my intended message.

 

[Michael 345]

I always accompany my posts with "relevant" links that more formally clarify the "gist" of my intended message.

Most of your post are along the lines of

Write4U see, Write4U like, YOU read (view) what Write4U like, YOU will like because Write4U like

If we don't like it it becomes But but but look at this other bauble Write4U like it explains so much

I would contend most of the posters would prefer Write4U express more of what Write4U THINKS about Write4U ideas in a short Write4U post WITHOUT reams and reams of blah blah blah

There is more but I think what I have posted I hope comes over as you seem to be the type of TEACHER who tells you to just read this book because you will learn from it

Boring

 

[paddoboy]

What is your cholesterol level like?

Pretty good for an old fart actually..it appears to all go to my fingers!!

 

[Write4U]

Most of your post are along the lines of;
Write4U see, Write4U like, YOU read (view) what Write4U like, YOU will like because Write4U like

Doesn't everybody....

I have no objections to being challenged. It makes me do research and I learn from that very exercise.

I just like to be treated with common courtesy instead of loud derision and instant dismissal for some obscure or trivial reason. Instead of calling me names, show me where I am wrong, which does occasionally happens because I always stipulate to my limited formal education. But I am seldom wrong in my understanding of the current science, but merely approach the issue from a little different perspective, which often makes for lively discussion.

Roger Antonsen; "examining a thing from several different perspectives, makes for deeper understanding"

My main expectation of this forum is to be treated with respect and common courtesy as I treat all posters with respect and common courtesy. I don't think anyone can cite a single instance where I leveled ad hominem attack or gave offense. It is not too much to ask for the same reciprocity.

OTOH, attack my intelligence at your own risk. I can give as good as I get, but I never start any hostility and I believe you can attest to this yourself. So let no one complain about my attitude. Examine your own.

This is not personally directed at you, Michael. I think that on the whole we have very productive if not outright entertaining exchanges. Even as we do not agree on everything, we do agree on most things and there is always a sense of "good will". Have I ever given offense to any of your posts or labeled you in some demeaning way?

Boring.....

Be that as it may, that in itself presents no intellectual reason for derision and ad hominem.

 

[Michael 345]

Doesn't everybody....

No. You see you do not understand the significance of how I TREATED the text

Me like, you read. You will like also. Look me find new like. You read this you will like to. Look new shiney bauble me like

Contrast with

I read this other day. Has some good ideas, but I don't agree with some of them. What do you think?

Try the second approach for a while

 

[Write4U]

No. You see you do not understand the significance of how I TREATED the text

I understand you very clearly, Michael, make no mistake about that....

Me like, you read. You will like also. Look me find new like. You read this you will like to. Look new shiney bauble me like.

Right, I only post what I find interesting. I would not presume to critique something I am not interested in to begin with.

Contrast with; "I read this other day. Has some good ideas, but I don't agree with some of them. What do you think? Try the second approach for a while

Why? If I don't agree with any part of what I read, I refrain from posting it altogether. It is only when it appears to be a gem of an idea that offers anew deeper perspective to me that I post and am prepared to defend when challenged.

My posts may sometimes appear to be declarative, but they are most always probative in essence. I reserve the right to assume that I am right until proven wrong. And I am quite capable of objective analysis.

What I don't expect is instant kneejerk dismissal without any due consideration, as if I am some village idiot talking nonsense. All because I may present a new perspective on an old and persistent scientific debate.

I am accused of displaying religious fervor by those who are so entrenched in their own belief systems that they cannot accept new perspectives, lest it poses a threat to their comfort zone.....

 

[Write4U]

There are two possible explanations for that tranche of nonsense. (If you prefer you can pretend that I spelled trench incorrectly.)
1. My writing is ambiguous and confusing.
2. You are so wedded to your favourite thinking that you you can see nothing else.

Your writing is indeed ambiguous and confusing.
I'd have preferred that you used a completely different phrase altogether. Neither tranche nor trench even remotely describe what you are trying to convey.

Try "entrenched",

(of an attitude, habit, or belief) firmly established and difficult or unlikely to change; ingrained.
"an entrenched resistance to change"

I'll pretend it's the first and have one final try. Please pay attention.

Perhaps you need to pay more attention to your own writings. I have an excuse, you don't....