Author Topic: Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalism at the Smithsonian (Read 5893 times)

Nash · « **Reply #30 on:** August 19, 2005, 09:40:21 PM »

I was a band stoner geek.

Hangtime · « **Reply #31 on:** August 19, 2005, 09:56:55 PM »

I've heard that the crux is the number and comparative overlaps of the 'goldilocks zones' is pushing well beyond the credible level of coincidence.

Is this the case?

If so, what's the basis of criteria for a credible number of 'coincidences'?

Suave · « **Reply #32 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:08:59 PM »

Emotion displaces reason.

Nash · « **Reply #33 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:15:18 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Many scientists look at the many overlapping 'Goldilocks zones' in which we exist, ie the Earth is just the right distance from the Sun....

...They look at this and say there must be a Grand Designer because they do not like the equally logically based anthropormorphic principle, which says if it were not the way it is, we would not be here to witness.

Okay, I enter into this fully knowing that I'm about to get pummelled and buried under scientific tomfoolery, hyjinks, and gooblyguck that I can't even come close to understanding, much less matching... but...

You seem to be saying that the prevelant discourse in the scientific community is that they now believe in God because they can't reconsile themselves to the notion that this was all just random chance.

Have their views really swung so far in that direction - enough to even hint that it's a predominant sentiment?

Nash · « **Reply #34 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:18:41 PM »

Oops, nevermind. You said "many".

I took it as "prevelant."

Not sure why.

MrBill · « **Reply #35 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:26:14 PM »

Not aiming this at either side, but I thought I would put in my 2 bits worth and let both sides beat on me.

First I think that religion is simple a form of mind control, not at all unlike Fascism, you will believe or you will face x penalty.
This does not mean that I do not have a deep and abiding faith in God, I just do not buy into any of the religious dogma.
I believe that a "day" (for the 7 day creation WJC reference) to God is a really, really long time and evolution is his method of creating all life on earth ... and I do not think he is finished yet ... or to put it more simple we are living in the 7th day ... waiting for midnight.

Let the beating begin.

Hangtime · « **Reply #36 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:43:11 PM »

and I can postulate that God split himself into a myriad parts that he might have friends. This may not be true, but it sounds good, and is no sillier than any other theology.

but that's not what we're discussing. we're discussing what it is that's got the higher-highers in the scientific community running around with their hands in the air, wailing and gnashing their teeth while they shred documents and cast each other into the abyss..

figuratively speaking, of course.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #37 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:44:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash

You seem to be saying that the prevelant discourse in the scientific community is that they now believe in God because they can't reconsile themselves to the notion that this was all just random chance.

Have their views really swung so far in that direction - enough to even hint that it's a predominant sentiment?

Yes Nash. It's almost just like that. If you sit there and say y has to happen before z and x has to happen before y and the chances of a through c happening is 1million to the trillianth power with that number increasing the closer you get to Y. People that think in those terms say that it's just not a probabability. It's mathmatically unlikely all those sequence of events happening so perfect and precisely when the odds of them happening at all are astronomical.

At least that's how I've seen it.

Nash · « **Reply #38 on:** August 19, 2005, 10:51:39 PM »

Well Gunslinger - yer kinda preaching to the choir (even though that's not actually what yer doing - yer explaining something to me )....

Damn, what a messed up sentence....

I believe in god. I believe in science.

One day the two shall meet. Probably.

It will not be the result of an arbitrary made-up pile of garbage called "Intelligent Design," but through the vigorous doing of what science does.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #39 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:04:46 PM »

Personally I just think "ID" is a secularist way to say I don't believe Darwin was/is the only way.

Hangtime · « **Reply #40 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:05:10 PM »

"Interesting."

Nash · « **Reply #41 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:11:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Personally I just think "ID" is a secularist way to say I don't believe Darwin was/is the only way.

Yeah, and I don't "believe" that lesbians can't be converted.

Er.... heh, I'm just gettin' goofy.... but....

They can "think" that Darwin doesn't make any sense all they want.

Until they can tell anyone "why" in any intelligable manner they are.... .... borderline insane or just hypnotized.

Nash · « **Reply #42 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:17:43 PM »

Lets put it this way:

Is there any reason why God and Darwin can't both be right?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #43 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:21:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Nash
Lets put it this way:

Is there any reason why God and Darwin can't both be right?

yes Jesus loves me
Yes Jesus Loves me
Yes Jesus Loves me the bible tells me so

at least that's what I think is it. I haven't studied Genisis to know whether it should be taken as literally as it says. I'm not really a literalist persay when it "cometh to the word!"

EDIT:

And as it's been pointed out to ME many times. People KNEW the world was flat for many years. Until Colombus

Nash · « **Reply #44 on:** August 19, 2005, 11:25:03 PM »

Oh.... yuck... that bible thing.....

That aint god.

That's just a book.