If a scientist considers a theory, that is lacking in
evidence, like human evolution, which is lacking
some major finds, to be 99.99% certain, then this
person is now predisposed to associate any new
evidence to fit that theory. The scientist has a bias
to that theory, this makes for bad science. If you
expect a thing you will find it so.
"Speaking of which, I find it perplexing that you sometimes
question things that are supported by
lots of compelling evidence (like human evolution), and yet
appear to lend credence to some
highly dubious ideas (like Dr. Woo woo, I mean Dr. Wubbo's,
view that "time" is dependent on
life) which doesn't have a shred of credible evidence behind
It always amazes me how people add their own meaning
to what I write. How is saying that something is interesting
the same as lending credence to it. You, and Randy drew
an inference that does not exist. And I do, still find Dr. Ockels
concept interesting and something to think about.
And one other point, it was you who continually brought God
into the conversation. I never associated God or religion with
On[masked]:36, Glen wrote:
Mark said he had to ask whether I regard evolution as provisional.
I'm not sure why, since I think I've made my views on evolution crystal clear. And as we also discussed, it has a lot of aspects that are quite provisional, such as details of lineages and evolutionary mechanisms. Whether life evolved in general is also provisional by definition, since nothing in science can be known with 100% certainty. However, the evidence that life evolved is so well established from such extensive evidence that it can be known with _near_ certainty--over 99.99% certainty, as Tim already expressed, and as I think most scientists would agree. That's why I said you seem to regard human evolution as a lot more provisional than we do, the farthest you would go is to say it was "more than plausible." Technically even things like the shape of the earth are scientifically "provisional". I suppose God could be screwing with our heads on that as well as evolution. But to bring the point back back to your comments days ago, some things
have so much empirical support that despite being provisional in principle, they deserves to be called both a fact and a theory.
Speaking of which, I find it perplexing that you sometimes question things that are supported by lots of compelling evidence (like human evolution), and yet appear to lend credence to some highly dubious ideas (like Dr. Woo woo, I mean Dr. Wubbo's, view that "time" is dependent on life) which doesn't have a shred of credible evidence behind it.
By the way, if seems like Wubbo's views require him to either be a creationist, or have a self-contradictory thesis. If time does not exist without life, then how does he imagine life got here? Instantly and in it's present form? I doubt he believes that, but should make that clear. If he doesn't believe that, and accepts that life evolved, then he's painted himself into a corner. As I understand, he claims the perception of time (or its very existence) is tied to nervous systems of living things. But for many millions of years early life forms had no nervous systems. They only developed them over long periods of time (millions of years by all evidence) --hence the contradiction. Frankly, I find his whole thesis nonsensical and contrary to lots of scientific evidence. However, if he thinks he's onto something, he should do rigorous experiments and publishing the results in peer reviewed papers. As far as I know he's not done this.