Nifty, Paul - misrepresenting the opposition again with the stupid "oozers" title? Does your intellectual honesty know no bounds? Is your moral code as vacuous as your argumentation?

Truly, you are a unique specimen. Here's hoping evolution really is true and that the next model of Paul is a step-up.

Have a great day!

Great post, and how lucky you were to have had such a wise science teacher.

One of my favorite subjects is how little we know about seemingly mundane phenomena that we take for granted, or by how complex those phenomena turn out to be when subjected to scrutiny.

I've blogged about this before, concerning the Higgs Boson, the darkness of the night sky, the electrodynamics behind lightning, and the rate of rotation of the Earth.

See here: http://www.purplefury.com/archives/000055.html

and here:
http://www.purplefury.com/archives/000065.html

OH I get it Andy-- you can insult me but you whine like a stuck pig if I call you you an oozer.

Here's a link for you.

The Belfast homeopathy results are almost certainly due to a screwup in the lab. Homeopathy has been slammed down so hard so many times it's not even a decent joke any more. Every time they try this "scientific" procedure in a lab with randomized double-blind procedures, it suddenly stops working.

I'd bet that either Dr. Ennis has a bad procedure in the loop, or a lab assistant who's bollixing the results on purpose. Note that in 2002, the BBC program Horizon ran the Ennis-style experiments live on camera, with James Randi in the room, and got negative results...

cirby don't just read my excerpt... follow the link. (I excerpted it)

No, Paul, I "whine" when someone makes a blatant misrepresentation. Of course, you're fond of making up definitions to suit whatever the cause du jour might be, so for me to expect otherwise would be silly I suppose.

Well I have to agree with you.

When it comes to science there is still far more we don't know than we do know, some of what we don't know may bolster or fill in gaps in the things we think we know, and other things we don't know, may eventually lead to having to change our ideas of what we think we know as we learn them.

Hey, guys? Do y'all think maybe we could have a nice, friendly science-related post where y'all DON'T end up acting like truculent six-year-olds? I'm looking at both Andy and Paul here.

Obviously I agree with Paul on the questions of fact, but both of y'all have a tendency to be dickheads sometimes.

Let's review Andy-- you called me names.

The term "oozer" is a term I coined for people who believe life started from inorganic ooze and evolved into every flavor of life we have today. It's descriptive.

In the strictest sense, "oozer" is not a pejorative. (though admittedly I use it like that)

So you think it is OK for you to call me names but then you complain when I use a descriptive term.

You need to read one more link.

But Jeffrey, he hit me first! lol

Well, "scientists" swore that the Earth was flat and really, really got upset when it was suggested not to be. And just consider what Copernicus experienced among and about his fellows.

So, yes, Paul, I agree with your overview comments and that the oozers will never be able to perceive the mess they both create and leave lying around in their trails. Those "GOOFBALLS" are great substantiation of that.

And just consider what Copernicus experienced among and about his fellows

Not to be an jerk but did you know that Copernicus being stoned is a myth?

His (controversial) work actually came out just before his death and did not cause a stink until after he was dead. FYI

I don't know why this story affected me so deeply, but it did. The story of the doctor who tried to get other docs in poor wards to wash their hands between childbirths because sometihing very, very tiny was being transmitted between patients (we now call them bacteria). Women were dropping like flies but the docs wouldn't even *try* washing to see what would happen. They said he was a danger to the profession. He was shunned and disgraced.
On a lighter note, when I was a child in school, dinosaurs were stupid, cold-blooded, slow creatures that would step on offspring as often as not. Now they're fast, warm-blooded, and good parents. So, although I enjoy science and learning about it, I don't get too excited when people rant and rave about "we know for a FACT that..."
I will say, that as a fairly clumsy person who trips a lot, the gravity thing seems to work every time.

Eppur si muove, Paul. I think the analogy is to Galileo, not Copernicus.

I don't think placebos are all that amazing. No one (that I know of) has ever claimed that the human brain is an open book, so when it behaves oddly no one's falling out of their lecterns, either. And just because we don't know jack doesn't mean that we're not on the right track with some (ahem) things. And I can't believe I actually got linked to on Wizbang and all I got was a lousy L! (Kidding, much appreciated.)

Oh, and "Scientists" didn't claim the earth was flat, religious scholars and other quacks did. And at the time science wasn't science as we know it. The scientific process wasn't even "invented" yet. The Islamic world was just getting over the novelty of the decimal point. And for the record, Columbus knew the earth was round, he was just a lousy mathematician.

oh - she typed Copernicus and I took her at face value... I've always been a literalist.

Paul, my fellow gentleman, in your highly amusing spelling-out of GOOFBALLS, you portray some of your fellow bloggers as followers of an apparent gospel truth that says we all popped up out of ooze from a lightning strike. As has been pointed out by your kind fellow bloggers, and more than once, this statement is not an accurate representation of evolutionary theory nor of the position of those whom you deem "goofballs." Therefore, erring on the side of safety, allow me to say that perhaps your continued insistence on the veracity of this falsehood is a continuous miskeying of words on your part, rather than incomprehensibly willful ignorance or sheer intellectual dishonesty.

Your friend in science,

Andy

P.S. Was this polite enough for everyone?

Everything is science is a theory, just the best explaination we have for thing things we observe today.

There is NOTHING carved in stone.

For example Newtons Universal law of gravitation is a good theory. Scientists and Space engineers use it daily. But it is inadequate to account for observed phenomina in all circumstances.

Einstein modified it with his Theory of General Relativity and the observed anomalies were accounted for.

But I would not be surprised if at some time in the future both these theories will seem hopelessly naive.

Mister Andy:

When you stated in your most respectful way, "As has been pointed out by your kind fellow bloggers, and more than once, this statement is not an accurate representation of evolutionary theory," I found myself confused.

Perhaps I am laboring under the misconception that it WAS an "an accurate representation of evolutionary theory."

Please, at your convenience, do take the time to disabuse me. Perhaps you could distill the essence of evolutionary theory then put in in as few words as possible so that I might be able to deliberate as to the origins of life on the planet.

Kindest Regards

Paul

Old List: Now only 12, cross number 9 off the list

http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/press_releases/darkenergy_3-16-05.html

Hey- Cool link crowscape -- Well until the next study contradicts this one. ;-)

"Not to be an jerk but did you know that Copernicus being stoned is a myth?"

Oh. They meant with rocks?

Kind sirs, speaking respectfully as the first L in the afore-mentioned "Goofballs," I am sure we can all agree that no one is goofy simply because we ascribe to a particular theory stating, in part, that we all are descended from goo. Nor, sirs, are others worthy of that particular classification because they prefer to see our race as originating in a garden. We are, all of us, children of god and of nature, and are all highly deserving of the utmost deference and praise for continuing this most noble of discussions, even, dare I venture, the Flat-Earthers.

I think andy may be alluding to the other theory that life was seeded here by heavenly vehicles like comets. Of course, andy would have to say that. It's just the feeling I got. If true, then who's to say that comets only had one "type" of organism? Maybe there were several that evolved into different things.

What would we call these believers? Certainly not Oozers. Hmm. Lemme think.

Paul, how many books (or any other materials) have you read about evolutionary theory and the evidence for it? Note that I don't mean books or materials that say "this is what happened, take our word for it." I mean books that show you the raw data, the fossils and biochemistry and genetics, and say "this is what we know, this is how we explain it, and these are all the things we've done in order to try to prove ourselves wrong." Remember your science teacher talking about "experiments," and how if the data you get from experimenting doesn't support your idea, then your idea must be wrong? Biologists and palaeontologists have done lots of experiments in attempts to disprove evolutionary theory. Nobody's managed to do it yet.

If you're genuinely interested in understanding why evolution-supporters dislike being casually dismissed as "oozers" who "don't know jack," then I would suggest you find and read either or both of these books:

THE BEAK OF THE FINCH, by Jonathan Weiner

AT THE WATER'S EDGE, by Carl Zimmer

Perhaps then you'll understand that evolutionary theory is a lot better founded than you once thought, and shouldn't be dismissed as just another flat-earth theory advocated by a bunch of zealots who can't stand the idea that anyone disagrees with them.

speaking respectfully as the first L in the afore-mentioned "Goofballs," I am sure we can all agree that no one is goofy simply because we ascribe to a particular theory stating, in part, that we all are descended from goo.

Quite right sir. The said goofballedness stems not from your beliefs but from your zealous disregard of the potential that you might be mistaken, coexisting with an insistence to claim the moniker of "scientist."

Perhaps then you'll understand that evolutionary theory is a lot better founded than you once thought, and shouldn't be dismissed as just another flat-earth theory advocated by a bunch of zealots who can't stand the idea that anyone disagrees with them.

If my point were the size of the Empire State building you would still miss it.

Sure we think we know it all today. Every generation has. You're trying to convince me that THIS time you are right.

As far as "the zealots who can't stand the idea that anyone disagrees with them" you sir have obviously not followed my trackbacks. lol

but having said that, wolfwalker, I'll read them both

You have been scanned for my blog, and also at BlogCritics.

On a crystal clear fall night, a few friends and I were walking from Mitchel Gardens to Flushing, two neighborhoods in Queens, NYC. I didn't ask him at the time, but I'm sure it was the field of stars before our eyes that prompted one of the guys, Billy Schnieder, to ask if I thought God exists. We were in our early teens and were most often described as punks or teenage hoods. That was an accurate description. I answered, yes there has to be God, becuase it is impossible for matter to exist.

He luaghed and said that made no sense. You know, the Cartesian cop out, we are therefore we is. I said it's not possible for even the smallest grain of sand or a speck of dust to exist. I'm not sure what the smallest particle we were aware of in the early sixties, neutrinos, quarks, photons, whatever it was, I said that it was impossible for even one of them to exist. The only thing possible is nothing.

I was as certain of that then as I am now. The problem for me was that I was describing the God of the atom. I had lost my faith in the God I believed in when I was younger. That has changed, turns out I wasn't paying attention. Anyhow it's cool impossibly existing.

You're right -- since we don't know everything about everything, evolution must be wrong.

The word "theory" is misused here and in the other posts. In scientific terms, a theory has already been supported by evidence and peer-tested. The more speculative word you're looking for is "hypothesis". For example, evolution was a hypothesis in Darwin's day, but the voluminous research and evidence collected since then makes it a theory.

Interesting how you were going to get to 13 point when #2 is missing from your list. But anyway.

My view:

Global Warming has been debunked as bad science. The theory doesn't fit the facts. When they can predict the existing weather, I'll believe their bad model.

As for Evolution, well, I'm not current on it, but I think it is the best theory we have right now? When something better comes along, I'll embrace that.

Paul, now are you saying that anyone who believes that evolution and naturalistic abiogenesis are the best current explanations of the development of life on Earth is automatically a zealous goofball?
I really don't understand why you are so zealous in your own way against evolutionary theory. Is it perfect? No. Is it 100% complete (or even 75% complete?) No. Does it explain everything there is to possibly know about biology? Absolutely not. There are questions about biology that we can't even ask yet because we don't know enough to ask them.
However, the answer isn't to shrug and say "Aw, screw it. Ogg, God of Fire and Easy Women did it."
You take the existing theories and adjust them to fit new discoveries. This has been done and will continue to be done with Evolution and other theories regarding the origins and development of life.
You are correct in pointing out how unscientific some people get in just accepting things 100% at face value, however, that is still not a valid criticism of science itself. That's like saying just because some gay bashers support Bush, all Bush supporters must be gay bashers -- and Bush himself must be one, too.
Part of every school's science curriculum should be along the lines of what you learned, however, what our best guess happens to be at the moment is what should be taught. And it should be taught not as dogma but as just the best naturalistic understanding of the moment.
Dogma is for religions. (insert karma joke here)
In the meantime, I'll be looking for a good Church of Ogg to celebrate the sacramental Easy Women.