Where’s Mutual Assured Destruction when we need it?
Ooh, it’s like a brawl just broke out between the Yankees and the Pistons.
I vote for egging on both sides and hoping for casualties.
See, these are the wide psychic structures of archetypes that I’m talking about. People just see the same root archetypes through ego, language, and experience and you get all of this confusion and conflict. I’m guilty of it, you’re guilty of it (even the hyperrational, skeptical, atheists are guilty of it.). It’s a shame all of the war and death and misery and acrimony caused by the war over symbol and the nature of reality. I tend to find the daniken take pretty whimsical and harmless…Christians, on the other hand scare me and I look at their track record and tend to be more skeptical. They suffer no archetype other than that book that tells them what to do.
should read “They suffer no perspective of archetype other than those in that book that tells them what to do.”
Oh man oh man oh man. Maybe they’ll finish each other off! If only we could throw John Edward, Sylvia Browne, and a couple of homeopaths and astrologers into the mix. 
[MPSIM]Kind of a funny thing, look in your phone book’s yellow pages between the listing for Psychiatric Social Workers and Psychologists… [/MPSIM]
You, my friend, obviously haven’t seen the new and improved BG on the SciFi channel. No kidding-- the pilot last year was very good, and it should be starting up as a weekly series soon. If you like like SciFi at all, I bet you’ll enjoy it.
As to the OP, this is a tough one. Von Daniken at least has put forth a hypothesis that is falsifiable. I’d go with him and then when he’s sent the creationists into exile, we’ll take him on.
Come now Mr. Mace. You know perfectly well I’m a fan of … ahem… Speculative Fiction. Or maybe you don’t know. (Note to self: Post more. Nobody still knows who you are.)
Anyway, I have not seen the mini-series for the new version of BG, but I do have a tape of it that a friend of mine made for me. I haven’t watched it yet. Since the baby I am way behind on many of these things. (Further note to self: Find babysitter.)
I shall take your council and move the show closer to the top of my list. If it sucks, you shall have much to answer for.
The twitching, I can’t help with. However, the answer is Von Daniken. At least he’s amusing. And he writes about something that has at least a vague possibility of being true.
Check out this thread in CS for more info. I don’t have a link to the thread critiquing the pilot, but I just posted in the thread I linked to and asked if anyone does.
Lest it come as too much of a shock, let me inform you in advance that Starubuk is now a woman. Sounds like a dumb idea, but it works out OK.
To modify a paraphrased quote from Dawkin, “There are few ways to be smart, but many more ways to be dumb.”
We could e-mail Von Danken a link to the article. Perhaps he’d sue?
Von Daniken, if he is prepared.
sorry
This is rich:
Because the creationists are all about good science. :dubious:
All about science fiction, anyway.
One for the comic book folks!
No no no, science fiction deals with things that are plausible and grounded in real science, or at least uses well defined and self consistent fake science (e.g. faster than light travel). Creationism therefore falls under the category of fantasy. Von Daniken’s writings, with their aliens and such, would be science fiction. Not that these are exactly sterling examples of either genre, mind.
Von Daniken, it might just be me but at least his ideas seem slightly plausible (not that they are correct)…
An Omnipotent god indeed bleh
Say, is that James Randi giggling I hear?
Samuel Johnson: “Sir, there is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.”