bobcollum
Rookie
- Thread starter
- #61
I'll humor you...
PoliticalChic said:....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: The universe, he concluded, looks like a put-up job. An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.
So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?
Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?
PoliticalChic said:"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book Supernatural - subtitled Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind - Cricks hypothesis was oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth ...
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law
Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.
Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.
He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.
PoliticalChic said:1. "Why should I have to answer for an idea...blah blah blah..."
That proves my point. There are tons of absurd ideas once known as science.
But basic ideas are correct.
The same can be said of the Judeo-Christian ideas that serve as the guidance for Western Civilization.
And again, both are based on faith.
In science ideas are just ideas until proven other wise, how can the same be said for Judeo-Christian ideas? What can you specifically prove correct about the Bible besides geographic locations? Of which some have never been located, by the way...but that never stopped anyone from spreading the gospel.
PoliticalChic said:So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Berlinski
2. "Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist."
I can understand why you'd like to pretend that the subject of the quote wasn't Francis Crick...
...or, do you believe he was "a charlatan, not a scientist."?
Actually it seemed that the idea itself was the subject of the post, and as I said, it's as much a science as UFO-hunting or hunting for bigfoot.
Can you show me the mathematical models that present that idea as scientifically sound? Higgs had one, as would any other legitimate theoretical scientist.
Do you know that Higgs came up with the idea for the Higgs Boson back in the 60's? Amazing how a "faith"-based theory backed by sound mathematical models could actually lead to it's discovery once the technology was capable of physically confirming it, though it actually hasn't been seen yet technically, it's footprint has. It's coming...