Cowman
Cows Have Liberal Minds
- Nov 6, 2011
- 5,037
- 576
- 155
- Banned
- #81
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.
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.
Yeah and if we had the same fucking belief system in our science as you do your religions, we would still be fucking believing those things. It would be the "book of stupid idea 32" and we would revere it... maybe think it was a little bit kooky and not applicable to modern times, but still view it as the word of god.
Instead, we completely abandon scientific theories that are demonstrated to be bunk, again and again in history. We move towards perfection. We don't get hung up on things unless they work, but at which point they are proven to be incorrect, we move on to the next thing.
There is nothing comparable at all in the religious world. The only thing comparable would be religious nomads who wander from religion to religion after determining that the next one is even more plausible than the last. And no, Christianity is NOT that plausible religion.