An Askew Veiw

I understand the quoting sources such as wikipedia or comments would not be acceptable in "formal" debate. But I am common and un-properly educated in the schools of personal observation, research , observation and gleaning tidbits of understanding from the understandings i surround myself with.

And this blog is my place to shadow box where it is fine to debate and discuss the wiki's which are a fair representation of the collections of mind's titbit's. IE. I argue with what is "common Knowledge" As the typical debates tend to baffle the casual observer with knowledge they are years and many dollars removed from.

I have been reading " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis "

When you get to the early life section of this article the begins presenting "evidence" in terms of "Suggest" "some research" and what i vaguely relate to guess work. Let's look at it.

""" Evidence of the early appearance of life comes from the Isua super crustal belt in Western Greenland and from similar formations in the nearby Akilia Islands. Carbon entering into rock formations has a concentration of elemental δ13C of about −5.5, where because of a preferential biotic uptake of 12C, biomass has a δ13C of between −20 and −30. These isotopic fingerprints are preserved in the sediments, and Mojzis has used this technique to suggest that life existed on the planet already by 3.85 billion years ago.[27] Lazcano and Miller (1994) suggest that the rapidity of the evolution of life is dictated by the rate of recirculating water through mid-ocean submarine vents. Complete recirculation takes 10 million years, thus any organic compounds produced by then would be altered or destroyed by temperatures exceeding 300 °C (572 °F). """"


I am cirten my point of view is not clear yet to the reader. But it seems to me when the author points to the evidence, he is pointing to a rock. In this rock it shows "time".

ok yes that information is in the rock but since you have not observed 10 million years you arrived at this evidence though math, counting the layers etc.

Please bear with me. I understand that science does grow and evolve so forth and so on.
But sometimes i see people giving all these evidences but when you look at the evidences they are admittedly guess work.

They say the theory of gravity is not comprehended completely. We cannot be authoritative that we have understood the workings of a cell. For one idea there is another.. and each idea does have evidence that suggests thus and such.

AM i off base here?

intelligent guess work.

My other question is ' is there a science that collaborates all the various sciences in to congruity?

and When someone says in rebuttal to the creationist "They think that the laws they observe here have to be true for everywhere" ...does he not eat crow? As science is baffled when the laws of physics break down at the singularity. Oh i bet the person was thinking about the bible.


Here is a tidbit from to and from the comments section of this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13615-evolution-myths-everything-is-an-adaptation.html


The Person's interpretation of the scientist says: " The scientist says 'this is as good as good as i can get, this theory. Everyone else, whack at it like a pinata and lets see if we can make it better, or disprove my theory and come up with a better one based on evidence.' "

The Agnostic answers "Sounds good and fair. I take issue that your evidence is very like when we look at the sun and watch it move, and then base the science of navigation on it.
And you will only change your mind if i can come up with a study that suggests a flaw in your theory. Or a study that suggests something of my own theory.

But i read in to this remark a little more since to my observation much of what we "know" is arrived at by abstract means, and the Stephen-Urey experiment has yet to create intelligent life, that what you really need is evidence yourselves, you have theories that contradict and sciences that clash. One side of science creating ways to preserve life and another that seeks better ways to exterminate it.

So basically you are asking your would be debater to prove your theory then dis-prove it; or to fail to prove your theory and suggest it is flawed. But science has not proven any of its theories... the theory of relativity is not yet the LAW of relativity. '

Anyway....

The person's interpretation of the intelligent designer says: " The intelligent designer says 'This is how things are made by men on earth. Therefore the universe must be subject to the same laws, so someone intelligent -by man's definition of that word.- must have made the universe.' "

The Agnostic groans and rolls her eyes. "How correct they are."

" alright dude.... great over use of the word "man" to make the ID'er sound all brain washy. And Doesn't physics expect that their laws would be true in the universe? I am sure they might have a theoretical science out there working with "imaginary digits" (please read Stephen Hawkins history of time)

Anyway......

The person to respond to his interpretation of the ID'er says: " There's not really any arguing with that or analyzing it to see if it holds water, because it's based on a closely held philosophical belief, as well as to some extent a desire for that to be true."

The Agnostic sympathises. That must really suck. How many mitosis's have you observed? in order for you to do anything but accept with blind faith your science information you would never be finished with college. And you would , if you look hard enough always find questions.

I understand, being finite humans the mind cannot take in all that knowledge. And the testing procedures would be impossible. i sure wouldn't want to live always proving stuff before i can enjoy it in simplicity. And most humans at some point decide their understanding complete enough to merit FAITH in the seeming general direction of the EVIDENCE.

What spark is it in ourselves that seeks to intelligently design our worlds? And Intelligently reverse engineer the materials at his disposal to see if he can make it for himself?

Is that self reflective and outwardly expressive spark something of divinity? Something of the origin's making?