Altair, hello there!
To be clear, I never said anything about justice or meaning in regard to you. I think those may be items you yourself may have discussed with others elsewhere on the thread.
Instead, I asked you whether you engage in rigid thinking, slavish adherence to paradigms, strawman constructs, and deprecating of others (equating their positions to idiocy and delusion i..e., Santa Claus).
I observed that objectively it might seem like one might be engaging in these things for reasons noted, but I did not state that conclusively. Those were just observations for you to consider, since you know yourself and I do not.
And TBH, I have only read a few bits on the thread, being reasonably well-versed on the topic and on the science, all caveats included, and WITHOUT being slavishly bound to any one position.
Let me make that clear.
I have no horses in this race. I would agree, but not aggressively or slavishly, that whilst evolution and natural selection are generally useful interpretations of what is known of our historical record...
...nonetheless, there are likewise many well-known caveats and shortcomings to the mainstream paradigm which have been noted, thoroughly researched, and supported through oppositional challenge -- by many, many mainstream biologists and chemists over the last few decades. This does not make the mainstream paradigm wholly "wrong", nor the challengers wholly "right", necessarily. It does mean our knowledge is vastly incomplete and and our mainstream paradigm, contradictory &/or unsupported on some of the foundational propositions or assumptions that it makes or rests on.
Thus, your stating that all is satisfactorily explained goes against the cogent, well-researched, oppositionally-validated (replicated) work of many mainstream researchers over the last few decades. Increasingly, there is little to no argument in the mainstream earth science disciplines that these foundational caveats and contradictions exist (contrary to your statements). The argument is really more just about what to make of their existence. I.e., the discussion is more around what does it all mean for the interpretation, the storyline? What does it mean for the paradigm? And no one knows yet...because we must first expand the paradigm to acknowledge the reality of these things (which is occurring now) and then allow for further research in these areas. If it is not possible to "resolve" things at our current level of development, then as with most scientific disciplines, clearly
we will have to learn to live with far more uncertainty and with a much broader and less rigidly defined conceptual paradigm.
I have observed that you seem very set on pronouncing your particular view of truth as the right one whilst the others' views are wrong if they do not exactly align in what you deign is or is not acceptable. If this is the case, then your challenge and that of others slavishly tied to any particular paradigm, interpretation, or mindset/perspective is to realise the solid, grounded, evidential reality of these foundational limitations. And that yes, many of the contradictions and challenges are mind-bending and potentially far-reaching in their implications.
But this is what is so invigorating and fascinating for me...
the intellectual honest and rigour regarding research and support (including oppositional challenge) that has been slowly introduced over the last few decades into the mainstream paradigm of earth sciences. And the associated expansion and liberation of conceptual thought and research into these newer areas of real challenge and real scientific query.
I find these challenges put forth by committed scientists in the field to be particularly compelling and thoroughly researched and vetted, and whilst I don't want to get into a tedious discussion...as I said, at every stage in the process, from the origins of life to the origins of complex cells, to the origins of multiple interlocking chemical systems, to the origins of complex life, etc...the odds as derived from repeated experiments by rigorous scientific experiment are astronomical and cannot be supported by available time frames on earth or even in the universe at large. The odds are that astronomical and even when experiments have been set up favourably cannot be obtained (through random chance &/or by the observed laws governing natural selection).
Meantime, the subject scientists themselves increasingly can no longer rigourously deny the foundational caveats and contradictions...even though some may privately wish to continue to discount these challenges. What these earth sciences are coming to realise is that rigid mental attitudes and slavish adherence to a paradigm -- regardless of real scientific challenges presented -- has simply served to hamper further research into those areas requiring more attention. And that does not serve them or their disciplines well. So they are learning on the ground what the true spirit of science really is, and what it really looks like.
The spirit of science is bold and courageous, it is a contentious forum of challenges and thought, and it is free-thinking and unbound as it rigourously pursues the truth.
I can PM you loads of links spanning the last 10-15 years up to the present. But point being, it is not the topic of the thread per se which held any real interest to me, as I am well-versed on the state of these sciences and the challenges at hand -- and
should these disciplines fully embrace the true spirit of science in researching these challenges,
then the sky is the limit. For myself, I have a voracious mind and I seek only to know what is. I do not have to have reality fit any particular box, so long as I am free to explore and others are equally free to explore -- without censure or deprecation
What IS of interest to me in this thread is how any one of us could be so tied to our imperfect and still hugely evolving knowledge base that they would aggressively cling to any particularly rigid or narrow scientific perspective. And worse, that they would label others in so many words as idiots or as delusional for taking a broader view completely within the realm of both science and reason (even if what is increasingly mainstream acceptance of the reality of these challenges is still seen as cutting edge by the old guard
). There is something personal, something personally triggering, in aggressively staking out this sort of a position. And that IMO calls for some self-reflection by you, if for no other reason than the rather aggressive behaviour seems like a serious commitment and the name-calling beneath that of a mature and reasoned individual
I know many scientists in the past have reflexively fallen for this trap and have behaved as such until more solid evidence of the challenges was repeatedly quantified...but to continue to do so at the present is rather intellectually lazy and denies the reality of the solid and substantial challenges. So this aggressively defensive approach is becoming more passé by the moment within the disciplines themselves, and more accepted as simply areas of further research that need to be addressed.
Peace & blessings
7L