In
Message 27 Sumer claims to present some evidence that scientists are presenting theory as a proven fact.
This is my response to those "tidbits" of evidence:
Apparently, the University of Wisconsin have already determined that their theory was the actual origin of life.
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/...ure02/ORIGIN_LIFE_ON_EARTH.htm"How did life arise on Earth?
the chemical-biological theory"
"The Chemical-Biological Theory:
Life on Earth originated from non-living chemicals; all life on Earth is related.
Evidence:
1. Urey-Miller experiment
2. Oparin’s experiment"
I went to the link and poked around. It has a list of
50 lectures with notes for the lectures for the course
Botany 100 -- Survey of Botany -- Biological literacy course for non-biology majors
What you have listed is one such set of notes for one such lecture.
What is missing from your listing is the manner in which the lines are nested, and of course the actual (text\transcript) of the actual physical lecture ... and you have condensed parts of it improperly implying connection that is not there.
Actual quotes from the site:
Why does life occur on Earth and not elsewhere in our solar system (as far as we know)?
water
How do we know anything about the origin of life on Earth?
the scientific method
How did life arise on Earth?
the chemical-biological theory
Music: Journey “Signs of Life”
Nowhere do I see the words "proven" or "true\truth" -- what do I see are the words "as far as we know" right there at the top THAT YOU OMITTED.
And that last line quoted is also omitted in your list -- that should be a clue that these are notes and not the complete package eh?
What I do see are notes for a discussion about the possibilities, the theories, the evidence we have for those theories, and I note that they list them as THEORIES not FACT. She is PRESENTING the theory in the lecture, NOT claiming it is true.
Now we'll skip down over the TWENTY MORE lines you ALSO omitted to THESE OMITTED LINES:
Application of the scientific method:
Define the question.
Propose a tentative, testable explanation”a hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis by experiment or observation.
Accept, reject, or modify hypothesis.
Roles of repeatability & skepticism
A body of well-tested ideas that explains many phenomena is called a scientific theory.
In science,
hypothesis
theory
"The role of skepticism"
"A body of well-tested ideas that explains many phenomena is called a scientific theory." But not called a
fact eh?
Then she discusses "The Chemical-Biological Theory:"including the evidence that supports the theory, showing how it is a scientific theory -- but still doesn't call it a
fact.
Of course you could contact the professor and ask her directly what she says in the lecture, but that might be too much like real information instead of innuendo based on surmise based on preconceptions and supported by gratuitous misrepresentations.
Spring Semester Botany 100
Instructor: Dr. Linda Graham (
http://www.botany.wisc.edu/cryptogams/graham.html)
Email: lkgraham (at) wisc (dot) edu (no spam)
El Paso Community College
Degree ProgramsDepartment Directory
Seems that's a major source for "indoctrinating" students alright ... it looks like a perfectly fine community college but not a major source of education in science.
There is no biology department, this course is in geology and I had to google search the site for {precambrian} to find it:
http://www.epcc.edu/ftp/Homes/krimkus/precambrian.html
And clicking on {LECTURE NOTES} takes me to your link, while clicking on {BACK TO TOPICS} takes me to "Course Topics" of which ONE is "Precambrian Geology" -- under "Geol 1302 Topics"
Quotes from the NOTES:
Atmosphere - early atmosphere probably completely different in composition
... and were probably lost to space early in Earth's history because ...
Once the core differentiated the heavier gases could be retained
Gases produced were probably similar to those created by modern volcanoes
As the Earth cooled, H2O produced by outgassing could exist as liquid in the Early Archean, allowing oceans to form.
What little was produced by cyanobacteria, was probably consumed by the weathering process.
Present levels of O2 were probably not achieved until ~400 Ma.
Since today's most primitive life forms are anaerobic, the first forms of cellular life probably had similar metabolisms.
Fossil Evidence - for the origin and evolution of early life is limited. But data suggest that life is at least as old as the oldest rocks now known.
Chemical Evidence - Can we find inorganic ways of synthesizing essential organic compounds needed to get life started? ... Synthesis of Amino Acids - Stanley Miller (1953)
An Alternative: Submarine Hydrothermal Vents ...
You are once again using {NOTES} in place of the {text\transcript} of a lecture, NOTES that are full of qualifications like "could" and "probably" and then gives this other alternative .... yeah, that's a claim that theory is fact.
Again you can contact the teacher of the course for verification:
Karl Rimkus, B.S. Geology, UTEP, M.Ed., UTEP
E-mail: rimkus (at) ix (dot) netcom (dot) com (no spam)
He's on the part time staff.
Here is another indoctrinating course (SFSU)
Origin of Life"These building blocks were used to generate the protiens, nucleic acids, and organic phosphates necessary for life."; "amino acids to proteins"
Again with the lecture NOTES ... and again what you omitted is more telling than what you quoted.
Key Points
Life probably originated around 3.8 billion years ago.
The conditions on the earth were suitable for building life.
The building blocks of life were generated either by aboitic synthesis or arrived from extraterrestrial sources.
These building blocks were used to generate the protiens, nucleic acids, and organic phosphates necessary for life.
Again the words used include qualifications -- "probably" and "generated either by abiotic sythesis or ..."
But the kicker is the opening line at the top of the notes:
Introduction
Continuing the discussion started on Wednesday, we examine some of probable steps in the origin of life on earth.
SOME PROBABLE STEPS
Have you no shame?
Again it is possible to contact the teacher to ask her directly:
Dr. Lisa White, Professor of Geology email: lwhite (at) sfsu (dot) edu (no spam)
And here is Dr. Stanley Miller himself explains how it ACTUALLY happened
Just a moment..."The trick is these things were done in lagoons and sea shores rather than in the open ocean...
This is a news article reporting on work by Miller and others. Other quotes from the NEWS article are:
Researchers at UCSD now report they have managed to recreate certain conditions thought to exist on primitive Earth about 4 billion years ago, conditions that would have led to reactions resulting in cytosine and uracil. The chemical route employed was the reaction of a cyanoacetaldehyde--a compound that would have been created by lightning on the primitive Earth--and a concentrated urea solution, such as might have been found in an evaporating lagoon or in pools on drying beaches. When the chemicals were heated, the reaction created high yields of cytosine, from which uracil could then be formed by a simple reaction with water called hydrolysis.
"With this experiment, you don't have to scurry around to look for alternatives to these bases in the first genetic material, if you use the right conditions, " said Stanley Miller, ...
"Thought to exist ... " "... as might have been found ..." " ... if you use the right conditions ... "
Still not claiming it as FACT even in a news article that is not a direct {comment\report\transcript\text} from Dr. Miller.
Now either you are intentionally misrepresenting this material or you haven't really read it and just copied and pasted it from some creatortionista website that culled another gullible mark. Without checking it.
All these examples show that the people involved portray the theory in question as something that actually occurred.
Actually just the opposite is presented when you look at the whole picture. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you copied it from some site you THOUGHT was trustworthy.
You argument is NOT supported by any of this "evidence" -- rather it is REFUTED by it when looked at directly.
For shame --- That's an impressive amount of misrepresentation there.
... I really noticed is the ability to bend the truth. Specifically:
I said "think"
Unfortunately, quite a few of them think that their theories are proven facts.
Ah now comes the equivocation eh? After listing those teachers that were "indoctrinating" students unmercifully with theory presented as fact, something that "actually occurred", it turns out they were only "thinking" it, they never mentioned it to anyone, least of all the poor students ...
Well, if they are only "thinking" it and not "indoctrinating" anyone with theory falsely portrayed as fact you argument amounts to a waste of bandwidth based on conjecture and your own bias.
But I think you are confusing {thinking that their theories are proven facts} with {not completely sure, but thinking their theory is probably correct} -- a different kettle of fish.
Enjoy.
Is it Science Forum
Thanks
Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
™ Version 4.2