Posted on 02/12/2006 10:32:27 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Google "forbidden archeology Michael Cremo"
Spoiler:
Krishna Creationism with talking apes (non-human) every 300 million years.
Cites! Cites!
"Forbidden archaeology" is not forbidden, it is laughable.
If there was any good evidence for these claims, they would be mainstream. Instead, they are way out past the fringe.
Our creations maybe "unatural appearing" but our bodies are still more complex and efficient than a car. The incredible dna code uses information to manufacure all kinds of cells in our bodies. It's ordered and very purposeful. The function of our eyes are more complicated than the most advanced camera we have manufactured; something had to design it. We all have negative thoughts that make us doubt the designer of natural creation.
Not if you include everyone who has bought a video collection for $69.95 from Kent Hovind under the heading "scientist".
*snickering* That's the press anyway..
I'm not saying that at all, though I would offer that if it were an actual Christian foundation, it couldn't but help in some fashion. The nature of Christians, whether they accomplish it or not, is to attempt to be perfect in their morality. When you can rely on that being the case, you can generally rely upon results. But I would underscore Christian, not an "ism". Ism's are philosophical groups using Christianity by and large. As such, I can't speak for them.
The argument I've made is simple, read your history. Christians founded the branches and are responsible for their existance and much of the major discoveries. So trying to say Christians would destroy science is about the most moronic thing you could proffer.
As for the methodology, I would almost agree. Methodology is only as good as the morality putting it to use. If you have someone affecting methodology that has no moral compunction about say, oh, lying or deception... obviously, precision really becomes a moot point. So, there is something to be said for highly moral, upstanding and trustworthy people being in any position, scientific fields are no exception. But you're off on a tangent I never went to.
I merely rebutted the assanine notion that Christianity is out to destroy science. It just doesn't pass the sniff test or the bs-ometer and sounds like stark-raving lunacy no different than the liberal lunacy going on amongst dim circles right now. "The religious right will get you.."
Boo.
If you google "forbidden Archeology" there is a book by that title that goes into much of it.
No, good evidence is immaterial. If it doesn't fit the controlling regime, it doesn't get anywhere. IE, if it rebuts evolution, overturns popular assumptions, etc. Look at the way ID is being treated simply because it goes against evolution. There is nothing rational in the way it's being shot down without any real review. The controlling regime doesnt' like it, therefore they'll do everything in their power to stop it. Doesn't matter how valid it is.
*snort* Someone has been telling you pork-pies. ID doesn't go against evolution. The scientists accepting ID (Behe, Denton, Dembski, Meyer) are all on public record accepting the following:
Do you support ID? If so presumably you endorse those beliefs of the scientists who propose ID. *snickering*
There is nothing rational in the way it's being shot down without any real review.
*guffaw*. ID is the oldest origins idea under the sun. Its proponents have had thousands of years to get their act together and come up with some evidence for their proposition. So far they are batting zero. It isn't being shot down irrationally. It is being shot down because it is horse-puckey. Darwin anticipated and answered most of the ID arguments that Behe et al try to use 150 years ago.
Moonies and Hare Krishnas, joined together fightin' the good fight against Eeeeviloooshun. Brings a tear to my eye.
Good evidence is immaterial???? Not in science! Good evidence is critical.
That is why this "forbidden archaeology" gets nowhere--there is no good evidence. Same for ID.
You got to bring the evidence if you want to play the science game.
Or, as Heinlein wrote:
What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what 'the stars foretell,' avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable 'verdict of history' - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your only clue. Get the facts!Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
You are so far from the line. As someone who pushes it repeatedly, I can say that with authority. You're one of the most polite and respectful posters around here.
(Not that the mods are entirely rational. Neither ModernMan nor SeaLion were given to posting abusive posts)
In fact I never saw a post from either of them that I wouldn't have been proud to post myself. Their style was uniformly mild and thoughtful, whatever the provocation. I hads been lurking for a few months and Sealion's incomprehensible banning, hot on the heels of Modernman's brought me back to active posting. Keep posting in your great style, AAMM, we need calm rational people like you round here.
Why should we be concerned with showing an exception to the observation that complex life such as a fly can not spontaneously arise from dead flesh when evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life and abiogenesis does not state that complex life such as a fly spontaneously formed? You are attempting to broaden Pasteur's conclusions to include inferences that can not be logically be taken from his experiments
It's an interesting diversion watching you relentlessly push your biased and misinformed opinion despite the corrections many have provided you. An observer might expect you fear your belief system collapsing if science is admitted to be correct.
Oops! Sounds like it's time for FR'ing for Mates!
Is a self replicating RNA strand alive or dead? Is a prion alive or dead? Is a virus alive or dead? How/where do you draw the line?
I suspect the 'list' you are referring to is PH's evo ping list. I'm on that list. When have I ever called you or a lying so and so?
It depends on what scale that you examine the artifacts at. At the microscopic level, there are lots of imperfections in the materials used in a car. At the atomic scale, there are no differences between artificial and natural systems.
If you take a good look at DNA you will find that it does not have unnatural symmetry or near perfection but is instead full of errors, duplications, abandoned 'code', inefficiencies and unnecessary redundancies.
Examine people engineered software code, it frequently contains abandoned (never executed) code, inefficiencies, and unnecessary redundancies. Particularly if it has been used for some time, and maintained and extended for a while.
However the likelihood that a planet somewhere in the universe having those particular conditions is far greater than zero.
That makes sense.
I does. But does the assignation of 'The Special Place' to a specific planet follow?
"Life is only possible from preceding life.
True only if you consider fairly complex life with no simpler non-life or proto-life precursors. If you consider the gradual development of cellular life from smaller non-DNA pre-life it has no meaning. If the studies into this bear fruit, as it were, then we can start talking about any 'evolutionary mechanisms' in abiogenesis.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.