I made a joke, I apologize, I thought you didn't care about other people.
I forgive you.
I was wrong to Judge. I was more referring to his disregard for other people regarding their beliefs.
Well, look at the context:
quote:
Well, do you know how baby animals come to exist? They are offspring of their parent animals. Animals come from animals. If you follow then lines backwards, you're going to funnel up into the tree back to a common ancestors of whatever two animals you're looking at.
There's no other way for animals to get here except from other animals so it only makes sense that if you go back far enough then they're all related. How else could it be?
I guess that may be true. If Science tries to answer the origin questions, does that not challenge the beliefs held by people?
Yeah but.... fuck 'em.
Challenging the beliefs held by people should in no way whatsoever get in the way of science trying to answer any questions. To even stiffle scientific progress in the slightest bit because of trying to be sensitive towards people's beliefs is utterly ridiculous and should be avoided at all cost.
So yeah, fuck 'em. Stay out of the way and let science progress.
This could include anyone, even his superiors even a Catholic god.
Truth is true and nothing should stand in its way.
Technically he is disregarding anyone how has opposing beliefs.
Unless those beliefs have empirical evidence for them, then yes, from a scientific perspective I think they should be totally disregarded. Otherwise, while they may be interesting to hear or think about, they'll only get in the way and slow us down.
profanity is a simple substitute for a well thought out challenge/insult in my opinion.
There's nothing wrong with profanity and it can get a point across quite effectively.
I guess this is a separate topic, but in terms of evolution, who does man answer to?
Man answers to man. Scientifically, that's the only way we have any evidence for whatsoever.
A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like. Also, concepts, such as Abioigenises is a pivotal point in chemical history and yet it is seemingly impossible to assess without guessing variables to a large degree, even using inference upon inference is tricky. wouldn't you say?
Tricky? Sure. That's why it takes years and years of study to figure things out.
But you know what?
It works. I mean, here we are, like, 14,000 kilometers away from each other and we're directly communicating almost instantly. This wonderful technology we have is based on that tricky inference upon inference that you're berating. For Christ's sake, there's people orbiting the planet in a space station right now... and its based on that tricky inference upon inference.
There's no reason to think that, because it challenges your beliefs, that other aspect of scientific research might be totally wrong.
You
should have your beliefs challenged. And when they don't hold up to scrutiny, and when they have evidence against them, you
should change them.
The truth is true. Disregarding it because you believe something else is a terrible folly.