Typical Channel 7 sensationalism, old news and debunked.
Link to Youtube Video - FACT CHECK: Did A Commercial Pilot Take a UFO Over Medellin? Pilot's Comment Exposed Here
Of course not. Dogs are a prime example of co-evolution. Domestic cats, who (we now know) have 13 enzymes that are unique from their wild ancestors, are undergoing co-evolution with humans as well. And there are many cat hybrids (and at least one dog hybrid I know about) so right there the course of natural history has been forever altered.
I do not see a logical way to view natural history without including the impact of humans. As a species our impact on the planet is unmistakable and undeniable. We are not the first species, nor the last, to have a significant and lasting impact on natural history.
I view religion from a cultural and anthropological perspective. I obviously don't put any credence in religious dogma but I am fascinated by the fact that so many do. There's reasons they do and that's what I'm interested in.
Most of us feel hunger/thirst the same way, stands to reason to have same behavior regarding religion. It's biologically driven, from my point of view. It is just a need that some of us have to satisfy to feel normal.
I am not discarding the possibility of there being a god. Just that most likely it isn't something anyone managed to explain. Aliens/alien tech/god might be the same thing.
I am not discarding the possibility of there being a god. Just that most likely it isn't something anyone managed to explain. Aliens/alien tech/god might be the same thing.
Because there hasn't been enough time to see what the consequences are. It's also possible that it's advantageous to survival. We don't know yet.
Also it's not strictly human. Great apes have been filmed regularly doing rituals at large waterfalls (being in awe of something grand we are unable to understand - sound familiar?). Ritualistic behavior is at the root of religion.
How could you determine with any certainty that it was the fastest way here? Looking back sure you can cherry pick certain events/group behavior and explain how it helped us get here. But how do we know it was the fastest way? It may very well be the case that it might have helped for a while in the very beginning but that cost us a lot by slowing down progress.
I am really curious if this can be objectively determined somehow.
I am really curious if this can be objectively determined somehow.
Yes, Western religion has taken a decidedly anti-science turn in the last couple decades; unironically in the perspective of rapidly increasing scientific knowledge.
Here in the USA we're coming up on the next Inquisition. There is a small but very determined and vocal minority that is hell bent on expunging science from the classroom. They are quite bloodthirsty.
This is what fascinates me the most about religion. It is used as a bludgeon against all reason, morality, and progress. It is a malevolent manifestation of our innate tribalism. It certainly represents the darker side of our evolution.
Yes the US has some weird stances on certain things, lately, but this would slip into politics very fast so maybe let's not go there.
Last edited:
The forum rules do not allow discussions of politics, ethnicity, religion, medical or other divisive issues of any sort.
There is a danger that the thread may be closed!
Absolute moral panic rubbish.
If scientists and academics were truly concerned about societal de-enlightenment you would see them leading the charge for state-subsidized college or similar such measures to get the intellectually curious the education they seek and fighting against the barriers of exclusion to higher education.
But you don’t see that.
If you want to see how truthful someone is being with you, ask them to put their money where their mouth is.
...not make waves, focus on their passion and strengths, avoid personally costly and risk laden diversion into politics with questionable upside, fear for their positions and tenures and do anything to avoid sanction by their professional associations.
Look up the "Discovery Institute for Science and Culture" and tell me that religious apologists aren't setting up a theocracy in the US.
And I actually live here. We do in fact have subsidized college and universities. I would never have gone to college without it.
Funny then that when someone in the field sticks their neck out, it’s usually to the tune of:
why yes, my job making weapons for a defense contractor getting billions in taxpayer money has me morally compromised, regardless, let me write this article where I blame society’s ills on the moral failings of others
Honest question: if scientists are self-censoring due to professional pressures doesn’t that actually increase the moral imperative of those of us who are not under that pressure to point it out?
Last edited:
