Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Observations and Collectables -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (286)	9/17/2006 4:30:15 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17114

Thanks for bringing to my attention the fact that I am behind the times. Last time I took a course in Biology was in the late 60's - I didn't know that these pictures were faked: upload.wikimedia.org However, the same article in Wiki also contains the following remark: The intentional "fraud" now evident in Haeckel's drawings is used by some creationists as evidence against common descent and evolution. However, biologists point out that vertebrate embryos do in fact share many fundamental similarities in the phylotypic stage; the evidence is real but it exists in the embryos, not in Haeckel's drawings. I took a course in Embryology (long ago) which used original drawings and photographs, not Haeckel's, and I remember that studying the development of the fetus was like watching a three-dimesional movie... actually, more like a multi-dimesional, because the text followed not only the exterior of the process, but also the development of organs and other events inside. Don't know... maybe the authors of that text were influenced by the "onthogenesis / phylogenesis" mentality, but throughout the process one could clearly perceive certain commonalities - among the species - up to a certain point, after which different species would part ways in their development. ............ I mentioned the scientific method not in order to impress you with its value, but rather to point out its limitations. Life is full of things where the use of this method is limited. When it comes to religious issues, I think it is laughable to think that it can possibly help resolve the BIG questions - one way or the other... ;) Being an Atheist requires an act of faith, even if it is a "negative" form of faith. Atheism could probably be seen as a sort of a religion... and, like in any religion, among atheists there will be a certain percentage of passionate zealots. Most Agnostics are probably in essence religious people. The moment a person begins to wonder about the Mystery behind the Universe, he is already allowing the possibility of a Creator, and is already immersed in a religious realm. I suspect that many of those who call themselves Agnostics are in fact religious people - but their religiosity does not fit the usual molds which readily available in our society. Genuine Agnosticism - and I mean, serious, struggling Agnosticism - as opposed to intellectual and spiritual inertia - if it exists, must be very difficult to live with.

To: Brumar89 who wrote (286)	9/18/2006 6:14:39 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17114

and are actively using evolutionary arguments to promote atheism. Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Jerry Coyne, Francis Crick, Carl Sagan, Lynn Margulis, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Edmund Wilson are a few names. No one ever disputes what they are doing as over-reaching. They are never told that both God and evolution is possible. If they don't believe in God they are hardly likely to (and are not required to) say "God and evolution could both be right". If they actually say "God does not exist", then they are not making a scientific statement, and they should be considered to have no more weight or authority than anyone else stating an opinion on the same issue. "God does not exist" is about as scientific as "spaghetti and meatballs is the best dish ever". Its their opinion. In fact its probably even less scientific. Any statement they make about liking some food is probably at least based on some empirical observation.