"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.
Mark, I know you're not a YEC, but you're sounding as illogical and stubborn as one now. First, for reasons we've explained more times than we should have had to, the evidence that humans and other life evolved is not "lacking," if you mean insufficient to have strong confidence in it. It's abundant, multifaceted and compelling. Plus,there's no other plausible natural explanation that has even been proposed, let alone supported with evidence. Have you even taken the time to read some of the resources we directed you which confirm these things, or does your own bias --maybe some need to hang onto doubts, get in the way? If you're using the word "lacking" to mean "not totally complete," and that justifies your doubts, then as also discussed before, you could say the same about virtually anything, including your own existence. Oh, right, you've already done that.
You also seem to have trouble recognizing, let alone explaining, the apparent inconsistencies in your views. On the one hand you repeatedly question human evolution; on the other acknowledge that all life is related, which implies that all life evolved. So which is it? Seems like you have a lot of cognitive dissonance. If I've misunderstood you, please explain how all life can be physically related, and yet not related by evolution.
When I said that it seemed odd that Mark questioned human evolution but lent credence t Dr. Ockels far out ideas, he wrote:
"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.
Thanks for the clarification, but based on it, I think our comments were entirely justified. If you find well established things hard to accept, but think we should spend time thinking about things that are demonstrably illogical and totally lacking in evolution, then we have entirely different ways of approaching the world. Frankly, it doesn't look like your "postmodernist" views are serving you well when it comes to judging the relative merits of various ideas. But at risk of beating a dead horse, or getting more semantic quibbles, may I ask just what exactly you find so interesting or time-worthy about Dr. Orkel's ideas? Do you think any are well supported, and if so, which ones and how? If not, are you generally interested in, or spend much time on, ideas that are devoid of evidence, consistency, and logic, while casting doubts on well established ones?
To me, the only interesting thing about Dr. O's ideas are the psychological issues I discussed last time. And in terms of time, not only do I think his views unworthy of more time (unless he submits them to testing and per review) but like Randy, I rue the time I lost and will never get back, listening to his lame speech.
"And one other point, it was you who continually brought God
into the conversation. I never associated God or religion with
All I did initially is ask how you think humans got here if they did not evolve, noting that the only other alternative would seem to be God planting evidence or screwing with our heads. That's when you suggested that well, maybe he was. After you did that, don't blame me for further questioning you about it. I am more perplexed than ever about your views now. If you don't believe in God, or want to talk about that, then why would you agree he might be screwing with our heads, and why do you question the only natural explanation of our origin, which happens to also have lots of evidence behind it?