No Robots

Right on! :applause:

judge

Those two groups do , which is strange, or not so strange.

Godless Raven

Thank you!

bacht

I think they might be insulted by your description. They were both trying to move away from traditional models of human origins. Galileo championed the theory of a round Earth orbiting the sun. Darwin spent his life developing a scientific explanation of life on Earth and its evolution over time.

A flat earth with water above and below is a nice poetic image, but no longer has explanatory power. Creation by divine fiat is simple but useless scientifically.

Conformity was probably useful to our species in prehistory, it's a group survival mechanism.

Chili

That's great and good for him that has been know for thousands of years and one only has to stop and wonder why the sun keeps coming up on the same place each day, and that should answer that question without confusing the concept heaven and earth as opposites to each other so that we as humans can find our ultimate destiny in life . . . because they speak about us and who we really are. It is not about insult or feeling offended but about a direct assault on the very mythology that created them and they are trying to destroy.That may have been his grade one material that he got stuck on but the church is much more sophisticated than that and that is maybe what left him biting the dust to take such a contrary position.

I think moreso now in that short time since Darwin wrote his scientific thesis with his eyes half shut from behind the eightball and maybe it is not to late to ask him why it is that fertility clinics are needed for evolution to do its thing!

show_no_mercy

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us...ewanted=1&_r=1

I don't think that sounds like any of the posters here...

bacht

You seem quite interested in the mythological significance of ancient cosmology. I agree that after evolving under a yellow sun and a large moon these images may be deeply imprinted in our minds. But science is helping us to understand ourselves better than the ancients could, they had to rely mostly on intuition and guesswork.

I don't quite get the fertility reference, are you talking about the decline of birth rates in the industrialized world? There may be environmental reasons for this (eg pollution) but it seems to be mostly a social or economic phenomenon.

Chili

Yes I am a firm believer of the mythology being responsible for the well being and prosperity of the tribe and of course we are 'it' in motion and that would automatically do away with 'freedom of religion' in our constitution but that is not part of the argument here.

Yes science is nice but it is and remains the ambition of mentally handicappen people in that the major premise of all our inquires is always originative from our intuition where it is prior to us by nature and that will never change.

Now I called them 'mentally handicapped' only to say that science is a left brain activity and the [inspired] major [premiss] is derrived from our right brain but never 'at will' because that is our 'human handicap' (fallen nature on account of original sin). Now of course in science it is rewarding to prove by the experiment what we presumed to be true before we started and is therefore exilleration to see this come true as we expected.

It would be nice if Darwin's efffort had a similar result but it appears that just the opposite is true in that our fertility itself is declining which likely is at least in part on his account simply because in the soft sciences the meta-physics must add up before they can be said to hold water.

I then suggested that the Intelligent Desing is contained inside the species and that is where Darwin is lost all together for that would put [ex nihilo] creation as the efficient cause of evolution . . . which has to be ex nihilo in that the essence of the formal cause precedes existence in the final cause that is made manifest in the material cause by the efficient cause = "survival of the fittests" with intuit origination instead of [third party] "natural selection."

mopc

But the opposite is not usually true - not all pepple who are underappreciated are geniuses and productive freethinkers. Most are just stupid. Which is the case of the Loughner butthead as well as (to a much lesser degree) Zeitgeist-morons.