re albert sabin in article apr nntpd cxo dec com sharpe nmesis enet dec com system privileged account writes in article c ftjt sunfish usd edu rfox charlie usd edu rich fox univ of south dakota writes in article apr rambo atlanta dg com wpr atlanta dg com bill rawlins writes earlier dialogue deleted perhaps you should read it and stop advancing the bible as evidence relating to questions of science it did jesus exist by g a wells there is a great fallacy in your statement the question of origins is based on more than science alone nope no fallacy yep science is best in determining how religions handle why and who rich i am curious as to why you and others award custody of the baby to theists and religion i hope i didn t award custody rich i purposely used handle in order to avoid doing so i e that happens to be what religions do of course there are aberrations like scientific creationism i used best in part to indicate that science currently has a time of it with why and who so these domains are mostly ignored i also attempted to be brief which no doubt confused the matter as an aside for science i should have written how and when nobody seems to argue over what are they theists theologians any better equiped to investigate the who and why than magicians astrologers housewives not being sexists athiests or agnostics seems to me that the answer would vary from individual to individual i m not trying to be evasive on this but from a societal perspective religion works on the other hand sometimes it is abused and misused and many suffer which you know but the net result seems positive this from the anthropological perspective on human affairs you might call me a neo fruedian insofar as i think the masses can t get along without religion not that generally they are incapable they just don t and for myriad reasons but the main one seems to be the promise of immortality very seductive that immortality therefore it seems that theologians are better equipped than the others you mention for dispensing answers to who and why i suggest that this holds regardless of the truth in their answers to who and why simply because people believe in the end spiritual beliefs are just as real as scientific facts and explanation caution to some do not take this out of context do you suggest that the who and why will forever be closed to scientific investigation no in fact i don t think it is closed now at least for some individuals isn t there a group of theoretical physicists who argue that matter was created from nothing in a big bang singularity this approach might presuppose an absence of who and why except that it seems it could be argued that something had to be responsible for nothing maybe that something doesn t have to be supernatural maybe just mechanistic but that s a tough one for people today to grasp in any case theory without empirical data is not explanation but then your question does not require data in other words i agree that theorizing within scientific parameters is just as scientific as explaining so the answer is who and why are not closed to scientists but i sense that science in these realms is currently very inadequate data will be necessary for improvement and that seems a long way off if ever pretty convoluted here i hope i ve made sense it seems to me that or so years ago the question of the origin of life on earth was not considered open to scientific enquiry i agree generally but i prefer to put it this way the questions of how when who and why were not open to inquiry during the enlightenment reason was reponsible for questioning the theological answers to how and when and not for the most part who and why science was thus born out of the naturalists curiosity eventually carting away the how and when while largely leaving behind the who and why the ignorant the selfish the intolerant and the arrogant of course still claim authority in all four domains rich fox anthro usouthdakota did like your discussion around amhs and i did figure out what amh was from your original post much obliged funny how facts tend to muddle things isn t it well i am sure there are plenty of scientific creationist rebuttals out there somewhere even if they have to be created from nothing just for the record again amh anatomically modern humans best regards rich fox anthro usouthdakota
