Printable View
Bien, when genuine evidence disproves a theory, it is thrown out. Thousands of scientists are attempting to disprove theories at any given time. That's part of scientific method. Asking over and over and over, "Can this be disproven?" Word of mouth bible stories don't disprove anything physical. I think this stubbornness on your part is an attempt for you to feel validated in your choice of beliefs. No scientist or atheist is going to validate an old fairy tale.
Meh. I don't argue with people who don't believe in evolution anymore. It's an exhaustive, pointless exercise.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I agree concerning those who believe that it's a fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
Even the Vatican acknowledges the reality of evolution. Is that why you don't like Catholics?
I've tried, it's pointless, I can't even convince him that the Earth is more than 8000 years old.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
The Vatican is not prepared to acknowledge the reality of evolution. They know didley about it. They are prepared for involution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
I'm still waiting for explanations for the evidence that contradicts their theories. Too many holes in the theory. Funny, I still can't convince you that there is an intelligent design, and that requires an intelligent Designer. Oh...you still think that it all happened TOTALLY by accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I'm sure you're right, caf. I was just referring to statements Vatican priests gave on the matter. One priest went so far as to say the bible stories are just stories that are helpful for raising moral, happy people. He said yes, evolution has been proven. I am in no way condoning or advocating Catholicism by saying this. I'm merely pointing out that even very religious people can see that evolution is a part of life and change. It doesn't make sense to deny it. It's like a person saying that because they are religious, they can just choose to believe that the sky is made of marshmallows, and then saying their marshmallow sky theory is just as valid as the blue sky "theory".Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
I don't have any respect for the religion of the Vatican, or their opinions. However, considering the evidences. I was taught in school that it takes millions of years for coal to form, but the truth of the matter is that it takes mere decades for wood to coalify. So why are the schools still teaching that it takes millions of years? There's also evidence that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. Pictographs and pottery has been found showing that man had seen dinosaurs long ago, but it seems that conflicts with the current teachings of many evolutionists. Why do we not see these things in the schools? It's because this evidence has been rejected. Since when do honest scientists reject evidence? I'd like to know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Varenne Rodin
At the best these can be termed as ''variations' of a belief system...not beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
I think belief and faith are two different domains?
:lol: Wow. I can't believe what I just read there. Man and dinosaurs living together! Sorry, Bien, but your credibility is completely gone.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
The trouble with Intelligent Design Theory is it doesn't consider the big picture. Where did God come from? Was God intelligently designed by another God? And that God by another God before? Where did that God come from? Perhaps just spring into existence TOTALLY by accident?Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Perhaps God created himself intelligently from the void?
If you don't have the answer then what makes you feel you can dump on an alternative theory to how life began? Life is physical and can be studied, and it's easier to see that it happened by chance - which doesn't make it any less amazing - in fact if anything it would surely make it more so?
Mystyry, you are so smart!
I agree with, Mutatis. I'm sorry, Bien. That approach just doesn't hold water. I don't think I can participate much more for this one.
you cannot grow tree even if you water it with a million gallons of water a day!!
Teaching is always done slowly---metered--to be assimilated by the brain. Changes take time to complete....Rome was not built in a day!
Where does love come from?? This Universe and all in it is not totally physical-there is a spiritual side to it as well which is still beyond 'science's' reach!Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
Ah well, where Love comes from is a separate issue, and a far greater and more important thing than all the 'ologies and 'osophies combined (though shelter, sleep, food and drink and good music are also up there).
God as a metaphor for Love I have no problem with, but God as a metaphor for Absolutely Everything Else... that's pretty unsteady ground to me, especially as we're given free will but The Almighty knows what's going to happen anyway - that's more of a Gordian Knot than an answer. But we have Love so why worry about it at all?
Please cite your references for coal. Pictures and pottery is not evidence that people saw dinosaurs. If you would like to know, find out by consulting scientists.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
At least we all can agree that the earth is round.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
I guess the late member Musicology was before your time. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
What about the credibility of sound evidence? I'm not saying that these things bring forth 100% proof by themselves, but this is indeed evidence that many in the scientific world totally rejects.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtDbXN0RILE
Wrong. Time cube. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_CubeQuote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
I know, right?!? I've had conversations with these people in real life, they insist that wood that's been charred to the point that the composite material no longer resembles wood is a fossil, even though real fossils are made of hard solid stone and not flaky coal-like blackened wood. They also don't take into account the stratafied layers of earth. Apparently, fossils were buried under mountains of stratified layers of widely differing types of hard, solid rock during a world-wide flood (even though there's not enough water on earth to cover the every landmass and mountain). Faster animals are in the top layers of course because they ran away from the rising water, except that raptors are embedded thousands of feet deeper than sloths and slugs. Apparently, dinosaurs were just really slow runners.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
http://www.weakstream.us/wordpress/w...esussauris.png
Sorry, but drawings, engravings, and sculptures of what vaguely looks like dinosaurs hardly seems credible, sound evidence. I honestly thought there would be more than that . . . but there wasn't, aside from the even more vague fossil "evidence." So, according to what this presenter posits, I guess we should also consider the possibility that there was a creature that was part man and part lion in Egypt. After all, they made a sculpture of it, so maybe it actually existed? People who lived thousands of years ago surely didn't possess any creativity.Quote:
Originally Posted by BienvenuJDC
Even if you wanted to say these things were based in reality, humans co-existed along megafauna, like the Megalania, which was a very large lizard.
Also, the fact that most European and African dragon myths revolve around water suggests that they were probably inspired by crocodiles. You can trace the development of later models of dragons, like the flying fire breathing more dinosaur like kind as a later development and clearly invention.
Asian dragon myths are clearly based on snakes anatomically.
Yeah, the earliest giant animal myth that I can remember reading is Mars' giant snake that was killed by Europa's brother whatsisname in order to sow it's teeth and make a new civilization. Besides, it isn't difficult to see how stories about giant animals would have been imagined by our ancestors, we're all fascinated by giant animals (imagine how the ancient sailor who stumbled across a blue whale would have had his imagination sparked). I've read about giant snakes, giant dogs, giant bulls, why are stories about giant reptiles with wings indicative of dinosaurs romping around with humans? The others didn't exist.
Disagree. All things are materials. Even our thoughts. That doesn't make them any less valid. It just makes them less fictional.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
In what way are thoughts material?Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
I think a lot of the evolutionary mis-information is due to the perspective of human/homo sapien (us) as being perfect.
These big brains, and long legs and flat feet, and vocal cords/language, and hairless differently coloured hides - they're not intentional adaptations like tool/weapons, but a series of mutations that allowed us to rule over the landscape - but not as agile in trees as certain primates.
We're amazing really, and it's sort of reassuring to know that some of our simian ancestors were around at the time of the dinosaurs, but when did we 'develop' into actual recognisable human form?
There's Lucy's bones - but they're merely the oldest we've found (I haven't been keeping up with it - are there any older?), we may well have become human on a dinosaur-less, sabre-tooth lion-less, island off of Gondwana (for all it matters - though unlikely), but if Lucy was 1.8 million years ago then what shape were we in 1.8 million years before - swinging from the branches, or had the evolution already occurred 18 million (or180 million) years previous?
Thing is about the specific date we don't know, and we probably did cohabit the Earth with Gigantosaurus and her ilk. But back then survival instinct would have been pretty high along with infant mortality rates and a probable life expectency of 15-20 years due to unbelievable stress levels.
Who would have had the time to stop and paint on a cavewall a wanted dead or alive poster of T-Rex public enemy no 1?
Come to that who would have had time to construct burial ceremonies either? Even if a shovel had been invented. Bones left in the sand break down fairly quickly compared to those protected by a layer of dirt, and so are lost.
I remember reading a book by Brian Sykes called The Seven Daughters of Eve which used mitochondrial DNA to trace back the age of the human species to about 150,000 years. I don't know if that is still considered a good estimate. He also mentioned that our species and the Neanderthal's did not cross although I recall reading something recently hinting that they might have. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Seven_Daughters_of_EveQuote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
If humans existed during the time of dinosaurs like T-Rex, I suspect we would have seen a lot more cave paintings of those guys than we do today, but we probably wouldn't have survived--at least based on how they behaved in Jurassic Park.
In that a CAT scan can observe them perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
How can a cat scan see thoughts?Quote:
Originally Posted by krymsonkyng
You're right, a CT scan can't. What is the scan that shows electrical impulses within the brain? Can anyone help me in naming the scan that shows brain activity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I know also that scientists have developed devices approaching the ability to read thoughts, for example the robotic arm that moves at a thought. So thoughts are at least physical in that they affect the physical world.
If there isn't an influx of sodium or potassium or a chain of electrons to complete a synapse, then that thought you were about to have does not occur. Did you think perception was magic? This is decades old information. Neurologists have more recently observed things like love and have been able to replicate the conditions. There is no magical land of abstractions, only the tiny hard copies of reality inside our brains and our ability to manipulate those copies. EVERYTHING is material. That doesn't mean those things aren't special. It just means we don't live in a world of make-believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
CAT scans are old hat, but you're on the right track.Quote:
Originally Posted by krymsonkyng
http://emotiv.com/Quote:
Originally Posted by krymsonkyng
What you're describing is already a household item. They are difficult to use, but they do in fact work.
The action of thinking is a material process, but it's a bit harder to claim that what we think, for example pondering the possibility that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, is material. Unless I'm mistaken, no machine can read our thoughts. They can see them take place and make basic observations, but they can't read our thoughts.Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
A lot could say that most animals are amazing in this sense, they are all, in the words of Darwin, perfect in their interconnectedness and adaptation to their surroundings. There's nothing special about humans biologically.Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
Absolutely not, we diverged from monkeys less than 20 million years ago, and the earliest placental mammal that we can trace the ape lineage to emerged around 60 million years ago, after the extinction of the dinosaur, and it likely resembled a sort of quadrupedal raccoon like animal with grasping hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
Lucy is not human either, she is a hominid (H. erectus to be specific), that is she is in the same lineage of upright apes we are in. Modern humans are only around 300,000 years old. It's a mistake to understand evolution as this progressive process where Lucy evolved into humans. Hominid ancestors are not unique either, the fossil record shows that multiple lineages of hominids have lived simultaneously around the same time. Humans and Neanderthals lived at the same time, and likely shared an ancestor, being from divergent clades.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...fa058ab671.png
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolution works, lineages radiate like the branches of trees from common sources, forming a web like pattern if you wanted to trace population histories along lines.
The picture above groups fossils anatomically and temporally. What you can see from reviewing that picture is that some of the lineages that gave way to humans also gave way to a number of other hominids that likely went extinct. Hominids were not a rare kind of animal over the evolutionary scale, humans are only special because we managed not to go extinct.
No, humans are roughly 300,000 years old as a species, and anything that can be reasonably described as human like could not have existed prior than 2.5 million years ago. Something ape like didn't even exist 20 million years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by MystyrMystyry
That would be the date of the last common matrilineal ancestor of all extent human beings. It's a different indicator than the age of the species. As the last matrilineal ancestor of most people from specific ethnic groups in isolated breeding populations might only be a few hundred years back.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
You are mistaken, but not completely. Marketing firms already use observations of brain functions to effectively determine product placements. Can scientific techniques "read your mind" verbatim? No, but we're probably much closer than you realize. Our thoughts aren't beyond ratio and measurement. It's a matter of time, not an impossibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi
But it's all beside the point anyhow. The point isn't that it can be done, the point is that those materials are verifiably the makeup of what we think and feel. That isn't even new science, it's old science. Form IS function. The separation between the two only exists in our understanding (or lack thereof).
BTW where will 'thoughts' go after death????
Into the air and ground and other organisms. I guess you could use it to support a belief in reincarnation, but not a supernatural world of spirits.
That's a shot in the dark!Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
Well, that's scientific. :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by deryk
I wish it were and there was no question of matter and non-matter.:biggrin5:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandi