Worshiping anything as if it were a God is ridiculous, especially gods. Nobody worships science. Science's strength is scepticism, but that too can be taken to extremes.
The French Revolution was against a monarchy and centralized despotic power, decidedly the opposite of capitalism. Further we don't have "rampant capitalism" whatever that means. We have more government regulations than ever before. Wait a second... this is quite off topic.
Au Contraire Today Science is Worshiped unquestioningly. Because, Faith Be Told, if they have it wrong today, they will get it right tomorrow. Cholesterol Theory that tried to kill a generation with carbs and more carbs is a great example. All the parrots. squawk cholesterol, squawk cholesterol How about that cholesterol free margarine. Ooops, mucho saturated fat. BTW it has never, ever been demonstrated that the cholesterol molecule you put in your mouth becomes the same cholesterol molecule in your blood stream. It just ain't true. Yes look at what Science has YOU believing. Have faith. They will get it right. There are too few real scientist out there. Seeking truths without a conclusion needing to be satisfied. Moi No They still needed an American to isolate Insulin
Your understanding of scientific principle is quite obviously very limited. Your assumptions about those who follow the sciences or study it are extremely flawed....and your comprehension of the term "Worship" makes no sense whatsoever. Your little Cholesterol example is a good example. I agree that scientific study most certainly changes the understanding of that what is under scrutiny....that is actually what is intended, and hoped for. It may be you are trying to place science into a category similar to religious study, which does the opposite and tries to avoid change inherently.
I have often remarked that 'science is like some religion'. It's a metaphor. It doesn't mean that people gather together in buildings on any particular day of the week and recite the 2nd law of thermodynamics in unison.. It means that a huge number of people who don't even understand most of what they profess to 'have total faith in', tend to regard science as some sort of idol or possibly a surrogate for a deity they either have lost faith in or simply don't accept. Like it or not, even science suggests that it's in our DNA to 'believe in things'. (unless someone is mentally unbalanced in some way) That skepticism you refer to is the strength of most everything. Religion, politics and science. Without skepticism there is fanatic belief. I think that many have lost the element of skepticism in all three of the aforementioned.
You might couch your observations in religious terminology, but that doesn't apply to everyone, and doesn't mean they are valid.
very little applies to everyone. Even highly-specialized scientists will often pursue a certain line of thought, and explore the implications of certain theory while rejecting others, based on nothing more than intuitive preferences, and their sense of what is elegant and right. Most people who reject the religion they once accepted will claim to have done so in favor of the reasonable, clear-cut answers provided by logic and science. When asked to explain the existence of the universe, they’ll mention the Big Bang and M Theories; when asked to explain the existence of humans, they’ll mention evolution. When pressed to explain any of the above, however, they soon realize that they actually understand very little. They were exhibiting blind faith – accepting the theories without comprehending them. If you don’t understand something, yet accept it as the truth, then you’re simply a Believer – and like much of science, you’ll find yourself well within the territory of religion.
"Blind Faith" does not imply having limited understanding, it designates the belief with no data to base it upon. It may be you simply do not know the realities of what happens when one decides to abandon religion....allow me to explain my own reasoning: Having been raised Catholic, in a Catholic family going to Catholic school....I began to question aspects of the Bible we studied every day. In about the fifth grade I asked my teacher (A Nun) how they could get so many animals on a boat ( I had begun to study mathematics on my own) as this seemed physically impossible. Rather than even attempt to address my question she put me in a corner for three days of class. It became clear to me that I was not allowed to question this material, which made me want to even more, so I began to research the answers myself. As I grew up I gained an appreciation for science and verifiable truth, which forced me to abandon those things clearly shown to be inaccurate. Eventually, I had discussions with my family over dinner and elsewhere which has pretty much done much the same for them....only my father is still slightly religious. Once the mind decides to pursue reality based thought....it cannot accept religion.
We have an extremely similar background. My 'fall from grace' occurred when I questioned a priest in my catechism class regarding where god came from. I don't accept religion and I do harbor a certain blind faith that what science has postulated, hypothesized and theorized is very much closer to truth than what religion offers up. That said, I simply don't equate religion to science. They are separate and distinct. Science provides answers to 'how things happen'. Religion is more 'food for the spirit'. I don't refer to the 'Abrahamic' religions as I find them virtually impossible to agree with in any way, shape or form. But many Eastern religions, in particular Taoism, does address certain 'spiritual needs' I have. Taoism doesn't require 'blind faith'. ( have you read ' The Tao of Physics'?). I don't discuss religion with my family. My brother-in-law being a 'born again ne'er-do-well preacher at war with catholics. My wife, a believer who can't explain why she's a believer. (mommy and daddy made me do it) My daughter-in-law raised catholic, doesn't attend mass and never opened a bible to see what was in it...but claims to be catholic anyway (she has her grandmothers rosary to prove it).
Yes...I have read and understand the Tao of Physics, as well as the Dancing Wu-Li masters amongst a very many others. Though I have incorporated many aspects of Eastern spiritual thought(primarily Buddhism), I do not wish to follow any of them because they all have their flaws in my mind. At least they do not tell everyone else they are wrong and going to hell.
What doesn't have flaws? (other than our own 'perfect' selves). I think that the key word is 'spiritual'. Transcending 'physical and material' without the need for some 3rd party tour guides. Some say that 'spiritual' aspects of 'reality' don't exist. I contend that they may be correct, but only as it applies to them. And then there's biocentrism.
A scientist Rupert Sheldrake wrote a new book about this dogma in science, called The Science Delusion. He just wants the scientific method applied to the dogma in science is all. The dogma of materialism is holding science back. And yes, it is dogma.
I'm gonna type slowly for YOU and me too. 1) I bet my Science credentials are uber yours. And experience. 2) Cholesterol a good example. Thank you. Somehow that is incongruent with #1. 3) Science today has too many "parrots", worshipers. Those who do not question. As opposed to "real scientist". I hope we agree EIR studies and new drug studies are as flawed as can be. They are bought. "Cholesterol Theory" was probably likewise "bought" and went malignant because it chimed with potent nutritional fuhrers. And then there is "unpopular" but not disproven views as wyly and I experienced in our decades of belief that the Neanderthal genome survives in us, some what - - against the accepted dogma that there was complete genome replacement from the last out of Africa migration. We suffered, didn't we wyly ? I always pitied the guy who discovered RNA viruses making DNA to make more RNA viruses. DNA from RNA - The Horror ! The Heresy. He suffered too. Imagine if those who "like" Science were less prone to parroting = worshiping. Science is about questioning, not accepting. Science today has too many worshipers. Science has become its' own religion. QED Did ! ? And the faithful believe their religion, even if wrong today, will get it right tomorrow. That makes it better than any other religion. And of course the faithful do not question, y'see ? Moi Dyslexics believe in Dog r > g No
I wouldn't say I suffered, I was disappointed when early dna results found no neanderthal link and appeared to definitively shut the door on the interbreeding hypothesis...as my daughter me tells its very hard for anthropologists let go of their cherished ideas...it seemed at the time interbreeding was a good bet but I wasn't going dispute hard science of dna of that time...improvements in dna research reversed those early results ... I guess the lesson here is even if current scientific thinking disagrees with your ideas, dont be too quick to let go of them...
FIRSTLY, PLEASE SHARE ANY SCIENCE THAT REPRESENTS SUCH SCIENCE RECONSIDERED wyly's quote reply The first DNA was mitochondrial, passed through the female line. Follow up DNA was corporal DNA. Nuclear DNA. wyly, I'm sure you're aware, this is for the crowd. The question is - Why no archaic man Y Chromosome or Mitochondrial DNA. Such hybrids simply not viable due to the stretch, near species differences, between the two peoplekinds? I argued for over a decade with a bona fide archeologist and he got to eat crow. He can go to a nearby estuary and find all kinds of relics. Arrowheads of various kind depending if for birds or otherwise. A 3"- 4" one that looks like it was for ceremonial purposes. It is so beautiful and unworn and found amongst the others I mentioned. And as your daughter sez, he hangs dear to his old theories. Myself. I figured 100,000 years was not enough time for racial diversity to evolve. It must have involved hybridizing with archaic humanoids (Neanderthal & Erectus and their hybrids like Denisovans) and physical anthropology of Neanderthal and Euros. But, hey - that's just myself. I am waiting for the Erectus genome so I can serve wyly crow too. Continuity Through Continuous Hybridization. advocated by the Chinese anthropologist. Moi r > g No View attachment 30517
No...LOL!!! Obviously not! LOL!!! The Pyramids were built by men who used engineering, mathematics and ingenuity and a LOT of people. But here is where the possible Alien aspect exists. The Great Pyramid at Giza and the other two pretty much to a point line up with the 3 stars in Orions Belt 10 Thousand years ago as Orion was directly overhead. Even more....the Great Pyramid seems to be a RADIO TRANSMITTER. They found chambers in that Pyramid where long flat Copper Sheets were hung and using the Earth's own Magnitic Field and Orbital Vibration...those Copper Pannels generated a Radio Signal which was directed at a very specific star via long connective Radio Wave Directing Chambers. Why? AboveAlpha
don't know where you dug up that 100k figure, HSS out of africa was about 70k ago, and there's enormous diversity within africa of HSS that never left africa, there's more gentic diversity in africa than outside africa...which shoots down your racial diversity hypothesis, because there are no races, I'm sure your chinese anthropologist dont care to explain the black skinned orientals of the andaman islands or africans with epicanthal folds.... It'll be a long time before I eat crow moi..
I do not deny some Blacker Than Most, out of Africans clung to coasts and oceans contributing to the Australian, Malay, Thai, Polynesian, etc. genome. Okay ? And 70K years ago and not Moi's more generous 100K years ago. Without interbreeding with Arcahic Peoples, how do we arrive at 2 of 3 classical races - Caucasian and Asian. Besides the faces, there is considerable differences in variations of biochemical enzymes. Such as the ability to metabolize alcohol and TB medicines without killing ones liver. Please wyly Let's not let P.C. influence "science". For your other claims about ther 700K skull with the earliest Europoid features being Greek supremeism, I have My degreed anthropologist on it. AND YES the genetic diversity within Africa is greater than anywhere else. But, most of that diversity is small special pocket populations whose genome never left Africa. And do any look substantially different from Negroid Racial features? <No P.C. the horror> We know that diversity may be invested in, how they metabolize ethanol. Si? And it counts. The Classical Asiatic and the Classical Caucasian were the results of interbreeding with more earlier EurAsians Peoplekinds that settled there and could barely produced hybrids that "worked". But, some did and here we are today. With an active immune gene in any population that made it north of the Sahara. And an alcohol metabolism divide between the Caucasian and the Asian. All because of which archaic Eurasian our ancestors chose. Remember that high altitude tolerance gene in Himalayans too. From an archaic source. And what of that lineage that isn't Neanderthal found in the Denisovian genome. Eh ? Moi r > g No
All of Humanity originated out of Africa. Genetic Testing of a large number of peoples Genomes shows this to be a FACT. It is not up for debate. AboveAlpha
Well, it could be up for debate if evidence were found to make it so. But that's the thing - so far the evidence points overwhelming toward human origins in Africa. And they also indicate that Europeans and Asians interbred with Neanderthals I think that's really cool.
Yeah...they mapped out Ozzie Osborne's DNA and found Ozzie not only has Neanderthal DNA just like most Europeans...but Ozzie has some insane Immune System capability that keeps him alive no matter what crazy S#!# he does...or smokes...or snorts...or drinks...etc. They took Blood Samples...huge numbers of blood samples of people all over the world on every land mass and every Island on Earth and found out EVERYONE'S ANCESTORS...originated from Africa. AboveAlpha
