06-09-2012, 11:13 PM
Yes, yes, technology does produce marvelous toys, I believe I said as much in the "poem".
"But if you have a torch, and the batteries are new, you expect it to provide light when you turn it on."
And if you poor the water out of a jug the jug will be empty. Such predictive powers. The standard model predicts the Higgs boson, thus predicating the spending of billions of dollars to build that big circle in the ground. Definite proof was sure to be had by March according to the BBC "By early March, they will have enough data to know for sure whether the Higgs exists or not". The sound of the non-announcement is deafening!
But then again, as I have already said, I am railing against people treating science like a religion, not against science. Asserting in an absolute sense that science will be able to overcome its current problem with a unified field theory is a belief much more akin to religion than it is to science, to say it will move beyond its current state is purely a matter of faith.
"You think--it is just your narrative of course -- that we had a common ancestor. Now we are different. "
We are different and the common ancestor is no longer extant. This is standard evolutionary assertion, that there is a common ancestor between humans and apes, and that chimpanzees are our closet relative in the Great Ape family, which would make them our closets relative as all the homo lines have died out it seems, unless of course big foot really does exists.
BTW myth is much more sophisticated than old wives tales. As we see it today, it may not map out the physical world very well, but it does map out the area of the human psyche very well. According to Sumerian mythology (circa 4000BCE) it takes exactly 360,000 years for the constellations to make a full circuit, which is of course is absolutely correct. How did myth make such an astute prediction?
People who think little of myth, know little of myth. People who regard myth as nothing more than fairy tales are mything something
Dale
"But if you have a torch, and the batteries are new, you expect it to provide light when you turn it on."
And if you poor the water out of a jug the jug will be empty. Such predictive powers. The standard model predicts the Higgs boson, thus predicating the spending of billions of dollars to build that big circle in the ground. Definite proof was sure to be had by March according to the BBC "By early March, they will have enough data to know for sure whether the Higgs exists or not". The sound of the non-announcement is deafening!
But then again, as I have already said, I am railing against people treating science like a religion, not against science. Asserting in an absolute sense that science will be able to overcome its current problem with a unified field theory is a belief much more akin to religion than it is to science, to say it will move beyond its current state is purely a matter of faith.
"You think--it is just your narrative of course -- that we had a common ancestor. Now we are different. "
We are different and the common ancestor is no longer extant. This is standard evolutionary assertion, that there is a common ancestor between humans and apes, and that chimpanzees are our closet relative in the Great Ape family, which would make them our closets relative as all the homo lines have died out it seems, unless of course big foot really does exists.
BTW myth is much more sophisticated than old wives tales. As we see it today, it may not map out the physical world very well, but it does map out the area of the human psyche very well. According to Sumerian mythology (circa 4000BCE) it takes exactly 360,000 years for the constellations to make a full circuit, which is of course is absolutely correct. How did myth make such an astute prediction?
People who think little of myth, know little of myth. People who regard myth as nothing more than fairy tales are mything something
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.