****Official Bill Nye The Science Guy Thread******* (1 Viewer)

[MasterofOrion]

Wrong.

Plant speciation: Polyploidy (gene duplication) happens mostly with plants, specifically grasses. This is called secondary speciation because the plant can not breed with its predecessors. But it is not the kind of speciation that evolution needs. Evolution needs new information to create something new. Duplication information is not new information. For the most part polypoidy is a harmful mutation because the species has to support more DNA it can even be lethal

Fossil record doesn't support either.

As far as gibberish goes, it shows you don't follow the literature. DNA = information.

Evolution doesn't *need* a *type* of speciation. If it can't breed with its predecessors it is an entirely new organism - which is the point of me bringing it up.

Evolution doesn't need new information - so your whole point about duplication is irrelevant.

"support more DNA" is another one of your jibberish terms.

The only thing you got right is that often times mutations are harmful.

It is pretty obvious that you either are completely clueless, trolling, or just willfully ignorant.

Wrong wrong and more wrong.DNA = information

How do you get something new without changing the DNA code? That is what I mean by new information. Evolution absolutely needs new information. That is why we talk about mutation when we discuss evolution- because mutation has the chance to create something new, or change the DNA code (Information).

""support more DNA" is another one of your jibberish terms. " you don't know much. This is very very basic evolutionary theory.

 

[MasterofOrion]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

Aboigenisis is not evolution.

There is no bright line when abiogenesis begins and evolution starts. But please explain abiogenesis without God. We have no idea how life came from non-life.

 

[Marvin]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

 

[matuski]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

I'm going to try again. Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?

The words yes or no can still solve all of this.

 

[jomar]

We have no idea how life came from non-life.

from God, of course!! now how did God come from non-life? he didn't, because he's always been there! he had to, either him or the Universe did and its obviously not the universe! DNA = INFORMATION!!

 

[Cliff Clavin]

We have no idea how life came from non-life.

Now you're starting to get it!

 

[matuski]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

I'm going to try again. Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?

The words yes or no can still solve all of this.

OK OK, I'll let you off the hook and answer for you.No. You would not, because that would be ridiculous.

You aren't incapable of answering the question, you just refuse to for obvious reasons.

 

[matuski]

We have no idea how life came from non-life.

Now you're starting to get it!

I think golddigger just had a breakthrough moment. An epiphany.

 

[shader]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

I'm going to try again. Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?

The words yes or no can still solve all of this.

Right now? No.

 

[Mario Kart]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Sad that people believe this. The Big Bang created our observable universe. We know there is much more behind it.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

I'm going to try again. Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?

The words yes or no can still solve all of this.

I would believe my wife if she told me she saw this.

 

[shader]

I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.

I'm going to keep trying. Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?

I'm not aware of any other accounts.

I'm going to try again. Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?

The words yes or no can still solve all of this.

I would believe my wife if she told me she saw this.

Good point. There are certain people I trust implicitly. They aren't prone to exaggeration, hyperbole, and are very factual. If they told me that someone was resurrected, I'd have a hard time not believing their story.

 

[JZilla]

There are certain people I trust implicitly. They aren't prone to exaggeration, hyperbole, and are very factual. If they told me that someone was resurrected, I'd have a hard time not believing their story.

Which is exactly how millions of people come to believe in ghosts, UFOs, and Big Foot.

 

[The Football Freak]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

Thank you, Maurile. It's an intersting intellectual exercise and discussion, but still leaves the problem of an infinite expanse of time to get to now. Being able to figure an infinite number of events while working backward against a hard and fast line is something I get, but an infinite amount of time with this being the finish line seems to go against the concept of infinity to my limited understanding. I may have to drink some beer. Anyway, thanks for linking the discussion.

 

[The Flying Elvis]

I know, I know...anyone who believes in a Creator is an idiot. Trust me, I've seen this schtick before. Sell it somewhere else.

That's the sad thing. If it was just little kids and backwardsass country folk that believed in this hoopla I really wouldn't care. It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Maybe they think you have disregarded logic too?Get off your high horse and respect peoples views and understand that while you have beliefs and are entitled to them, others have different beliefs. You are one of those atheists that is just as dogmatic and blinded as the biggest fundies out there.

I don't really see an issue with anyone believing in - and promoting - God. Plenty of scientists believe in God or some other higher power. Believing and pushing Creationism? Horrifying levels of stupidity. I'm not sure when the religious lunatics started making this such a big deal but it needs to be stopped and openly ridiculed. Anyone who values education and intelligence should be absolutely disgusted and alarmed by the Creationism movement. I don't know why fighting against creationism became one in the same with attacking religion in the eyes of the nutjobs but they're not the same thing. Sure, they often go hand in hand but they are definitely two different issues.

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Sad that people believe this. The Big Bang created our observable universe. We know there is much more behind it.

 

[matuski]

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>

<BR>I believe the bible's account of resurrection. It's that simple.<BR>

<BR><BR>I'm going to keep trying. <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://forumimages.footballguys.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/crybaby.gif"> <BR><BR>Is there any other account of resurrection outside the bible you believe?<BR>

<BR><BR>I'm not aware of any other accounts. <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://forumimages.footballguys.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/shrug2.gif"><BR>

<BR><BR>I'm going to try <I>again</I>. <IMG class=bbc_emoticon alt= src="http://forumimages.footballguys.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wallbash.gif"> <BR><BR>Is there anyone, anywhere, at any time, outside of the bible you would believe if they told you an angel moved the stone covering a grave and a dead guy/ghost/zombie walked out?<BR><BR>The words yes or no can still solve all of this.<BR>

<BR><BR>I would believe my wife if she told me she saw this.<BR>

<BR><BR>Good point. There are certain people I trust implicitly. They aren't prone to exaggeration, hyperbole, and are very factual. If they told me that someone was resurrected, I'd have a hard time not believing their story.<BR>

<BR><BR>Exactly, you suspend your usual benchmarks for reason and evidence for certain sources. In this case your wife. For many, religion.<BR><BR>99.9% of the time you would laugh someone out of the room, yet somehow you can throw all of that common sense right out the window for your wife, your god. <BR>

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Exactly, you suspend your usual benchmarks for reason and evidence for certain sources. In this case your wife. For many, religion.99.9% of the time you would laugh someone out of the room, yet somehow you can throw all of that common sense right out the window for your wife, your god.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

Probably the best one of this thread. Is there any chance we can stop the slap fight and talk about this?

 

[matuski]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

Probably the best one of this thread. Is there any chance we can stop the slap fight and talk about this?

Maurile's link responding to this was great.My horrible attempt at a Summary - regardless of infite past or infinite future, there is still a past and a future. You started reading this post 5 seconds ago, and will close it 5 seconds from now. Nothing about an infinite past changes this. It makes it harder to find the beginning or the end... but it does not change the measure of time.

 

[Bonzai]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

Thank you, Maurile. It's an intersting intellectual exercise and discussion, but still leaves the problem of an infinite expanse of time to get to now. Being able to figure an infinite number of events while working backward against a hard and fast line is something I get, but an infinite amount of time with this being the finish line seems to go against the concept of infinity to my limited understanding. I may have to drink some beer. Anyway, thanks for linking the discussion.

It could be that time is a human construct: something that we impose on our experiences. Kant and Nagarjuna have takes on this worth reading.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

Probably the best one of this thread. Is there any chance we can stop the slap fight and talk about this?

Maurile's link responding to this was great.My horrible attempt at a Summary - regardless of infite past or infinite future, there is still a past and a future. You started reading this post 5 seconds ago, and will close it 5 seconds from now. Nothing about an infinite past changes this. It makes it harder to find the beginning or the end... but it does not change the measure of time.

Aren't "past" and "future" terms we use to describe time though. Perhaps we just don't know enough to be accurate? Is there really still a past and future?

 

[Mario Kart]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

Thank you, Maurile. It's an intersting intellectual exercise and discussion, but still leaves the problem of an infinite expanse of time to get to now. Being able to figure an infinite number of events while working backward against a hard and fast line is something I get, but an infinite amount of time with this being the finish line seems to go against the concept of infinity to my limited understanding. I may have to drink some beer. Anyway, thanks for linking the discussion.

It could be that time is a human construct: something that we impose on our experiences. Kant and Nagarjuna have takes on this worth reading.

I would like to read more on this. Time, as we know it, is man made. The universe does not abide by our time constraints. We try to fit the universe into our time constraints. I think this is the crux of the position. People want to know that everything has a beginning and an end. A star blows up, a star is born. Plants die, plants grow. What if the universe, as a construct, always was? People either don't want to challenge that notion because of their own beliefs or can't even fathom that notion.

 

[matuski]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

for commish

 

[JZilla]

Strange hijack. I hope this infinite past mumbo-jumbo isn't supposed to prove to anyone that science has it all figured out.

 

[matuski]

Strange hijack. I hope this infinite past mumbo-jumbo isn't supposed to prove to anyone that science has it all figured out.

If you read the link it claims just the opposite.

 

[The Commish]

I don't see how difficult it is to understand that the Universe has always been. It did not begin and it will not end, it is, and has always been here. We, Earth, and especially people, are nothing but a small part of it all that have come and will go, eventually.

That's a nice theory you have.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that the universe has always been here, but I don't know that it qualifies as a theory. What observation would falsify it?

I've often wondered how the universe could have always been here since we are actually in the now. If there was an infinite amount of time behind us, how could we have reached this point in time?

There's some discussion of that issue in an earlier thread.

for commish

thanks

 

[JZilla]

Strange hijack. I hope this infinite past mumbo-jumbo isn't supposed to prove to anyone that science has it all figured out.

If you read the link it claims just the opposite.

Yeah I read the link, I remember that thread from before, I still don't like it. Just seems like an odd turn for this thread.

 

[mad sweeney]

I do agree that there should be no teaching of creation in schools. That being said, how much evolution should really be taught in schools either? How important is evolution really? Certain aspects of evolution are important, but how important is it to modern science that a bunch of cells floating in primordial goo evolved to humans? To me that is more important to people on a personal level.

Aboigenisis is not evolution.

There is no bright line when abiogenesis begins and evolution starts.

But please explain abiogenesis without God. We have no idea how life came from non-life.

Then how is it that you believe God was involved?

 

[mad sweeney]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

It's relative among the regular Christian apologists and defenders.

 

[matuski]

Exactly, you suspend your usual benchmarks for reason and evidence for certain sources. In this case your wife. For many, religion.99.9% of the time you would laugh someone out of the room, yet somehow you can throw all of that common sense right out the window for your wife, your god.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

It's relative among the regular Christian apologists and defenders.

Because
.

 

[matuski]

Nice delete golddigger, that was definitely a step backwards for you after the progress we made earlier.

 

[matuski]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

It's relative among the regular Christian apologists and defenders.

Because

that dudes title is Philosopher of Biology at Biola. Thank you golddigger, you are priceless.

 

[mad sweeney]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

It's relative among the regular Christian apologists and defenders.

Because

What's that go to do with me thinking Shader isn't as deluded as you? You're just reinforcing it, really. Would you like a banana?

 

[Bonzai]

It baffles me how educated adults can disregard all logic and reasoning. Not to mention trying to foist it on everyone else.

Hard to believe there are still people out there who try to position science and religion as polar opposites, where accepting even part of one requires a complete rejection of the other.

It's all religion for people of faith, isn't it? Science is simply describing how god works, right?

 

[Mario Kart]

Because

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Behold.. the atheist's nightmare.

 

[mad sweeney]

Behold.. the atheist's nightmare.

He should've said the athiest's delicious nightmare. I just had one in celebration of trying to conquer my fear of them.

 

[MasterofOrion]

Because

 

[Mario Kart]

Because

Yeah, I don't need some guy to tell me what to believe... or know... or logically think through. TIA

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Because

Edit job.

 

[matuski]

there has never been a better worst poster on this board than golddigger.

 

[Ursa M]

I just said believing in a 6,000 year earth doesn't necessarily imply some sort of blinded, unintelligent worldview.

Sure it does. It's total nonsense unsupported by anything other than a literalist interpretation of a very old novel.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Most people believe in creation event. Scientist call it Big Bang. An event where all energy and mass was created out of well... nothing. So why is God being a creator any more stupid than believing the universe came from nothing?

Because God encompasses quite a bit more than the Big Bang. The two are no where close to equivalent.

What? Creating everything from nothing is creation. Call it big bang or call it a God event, the results are the same - all scientific laws where broken when it happened.

(Unless I'm being fooled by one of the head conspirators.)

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The reason that people get believe in fairies and goblins is the innate terror at the thought of non-existence. Since we're all made from the same stuff that the cosmos is made from, and since everything in the universe is recycled, it could be argued that living on for all eternity is scientifically accurate. Beyond that, it's all iron age mythology.

We all eventually decay to nothing? Well, except that "nothing" means something different to a physicist then merely "nothing".ETA: And just because the authors of the books of the bibles had infantile and childish interpretations of God and the world around them, doesn't mean they weren't inspired by God to write those books. We are just doing a disservice to God when we tag him with that nonsensical grasp and try to push that ignorance as having equal footing to even a bad 21st century understanding of the universe.

How can you be inspired by something that doesn't exist?

Are you suggesting that no one was ever inspired by a fictional character? That is just plain stupid!And whether God exists depends entirely on the relevant definition of God and/or exists.

 

[Mario Kart]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

I would think, and correct me if I am in error, that the whole theory of evolution has itself evolved into the umbrella of science. Different sciences test and retest themselves versus the theory of evolution everyday to try to break that umbrella and fail every time. I have come to a personal conclusion that the theory of evolution is the parent to all science. People like to ask where is this or where is that. People were piecing together parts of science before the theory was widely known but when it became widely known and scrutinized over and over, the theory itself evolved into the parent of all other sciences combined. Everything fits underneath it in some way or another.With that said, is there anything above the umbrella? Does anything day in and day out stack up or come close to defeating the theory?

 

[Marvin]

Now I remember what Shader and MoO remind me of.

Despite having a pretty big black hole at the far end of his thinking, Shader is pretty reasonable and open minded. I don't think it's quite fair to lump the two together.

I beg to differ.

It's relative among the regular Christian apologists and defenders.

Because

Well, I'm convinced.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

I would think, and correct me if I am in error, that the whole theory of evolution has itself evolved into the umbrella of science. Different sciences test and retest themselves versus the theory of evolution everyday to try to break that umbrella and fail every time. I have come to a personal conclusion that the theory of evolution is the parent to all science. People like to ask where is this or where is that. People were piecing together parts of science before the theory was widely known but when it became widely known and scrutinized over and over, the theory itself evolved into the parent of all other sciences combined. Everything fits underneath it in some way or another.With that said, is there anything above the umbrella? Does anything day in and day out stack up or come close to defeating the theory?

Well I was trying to get the answer from someone that said "I believe in evolution, just not the 'whole theory'". But thanks. But I'm not sure about of your "parent of all science" part. Because of evolution versus creationism is the common argument around here we never get to the fact that most other branches of science also make a 6000 year old universe very problematic. And this is because the real issue is "special creation". Precisely the importance to the ego of many of being created in God's image versus "evolving from a monkey".

 

[Mario Kart]

... It doesn't prove anything in regards to the entire "theory of evolution" as a whole. You're using it to try and prove the whole theory and that is disingenuous.

What exactly is the "whole theory"? Which pieces can be removed from the "whole theory" and leave the "truth" of evolution in place? "Special Creation"? "Intelligent Design"?

I would think, and correct me if I am in error, that the whole theory of evolution has itself evolved into the umbrella of science. Different sciences test and retest themselves versus the theory of evolution everyday to try to break that umbrella and fail every time. I have come to a personal conclusion that the theory of evolution is the parent to all science. People like to ask where is this or where is that. People were piecing together parts of science before the theory was widely known but when it became widely known and scrutinized over and over, the theory itself evolved into the parent of all other sciences combined. Everything fits underneath it in some way or another.With that said, is there anything above the umbrella? Does anything day in and day out stack up or come close to defeating the theory?

Well I was trying to get the answer from someone that said "I believe in evolution, just not the 'whole theory'". But thanks. But I'm not sure about of your "parent of all science" part. Because of evolution versus creationism is the common argument around here we never get to the fact that most other branches of science also make a 6000 year old universe very problematic. And this is because the real issue is "special creation". Precisely the importance to the ego of many of being created in God's image versus "evolving from a monkey".

I know you weren't looking for an answer from me per your post. I read yours and chimed in because the thought occurred due to your post. On the thought that it is the parent or the umbrella, to use the theories own terminology, it was kind of the missing link to connect each science to another. That may be a stretch as other sciences were loosely connected before and such... we knew there were relationships between biology and chemistry and so forth. I just think that each science found a dry spot in the whole debate once the umbrella was introduced and tested and tested and tested.