@EternalWraith: Go
Yeah, Instead solving puzzles, we just all should sit back and listen to those who say that somebody is speaking to them from the "other side"....
@SolidSC: Go
Primates didnt transitioned into us, transition is a bad word to describe evolution, "primates" are still there.... and as most species we are just 1 sub species, which first individuals was in the right environment to use out there mutation.
Also once anti evolutions say primates to dumb to be humans ancestors and you say they are too intelligent.
@b0ne123: Go I do not believe that we humans evolved from primates.
We did not evolve from the currently living apes, we just had a common ancestor. We survived because we got smart enough, current apes are not that smart but pretty strong in addition. The ancestor was most likely less strong and less smart. Humans are Apes are Monkeys are Primates clarification
@Gradius12: Go
Herp derp?. Nah that never happened. No proof, no evidence, defies logic and reason too.
Proof for what? What never happened?
Something is scientifically "true" if there is so much evidence it would be perverse to deny it.
I think evolution is pretty logic, genes mutate from generation to generation and some are able to survive, other die. Who can survive, stays.
Something darkens the sun causing the big naked dinosaurs to die on the colder earth. Small furry mammals survive.
You can even try evolution yourself and observe it with a microscope. Just get a bacterium (pond, your mouth etc) and put it onto a glass. Add some sugar and let it split/clone itself a few billion times. Cloning adds very little genetic variation, but after enough generations, you could add some antibiotic like Penicillin. 99.99% of the bacteria will die. The other surviving 0.01%, very few, will have some genetic mutation from poison, radiation, unclean splitting rendering them immune although they are clones of the first bacterium like all the dying. Let a survivor clone again a few billion times, add another antibiotic and again 99.99% of them will die. The remaining bacteria are now already evolved to be immune to two known antibacterial substances due to changing environment. The ancestor cell wouldn't have survived neither of the two.
Mating instead of cloning would have added a much greater genetic variation and clearer result. But I don't know if there are any mating organisms with a very short reproduction cycle like simple bacteria.
Sadly this is nothing I made up, this is a very serious and often times deadly problem in hospitals. They grow super immune bacteria and viruses there. You can't kill them with any known antibacterial medicine only something like heat or alcohol to destroy the proteins of the cells. But burning ill people doesn't heal them.
Most likely everything living evolved from some simple cells like this but there is still the question where this first live came from. Didn't find anything convincing about that yet. Might have been Gods infusion and planned evolution, alien (meteorite) contamination or lightning striking the boiling ocean full of atoms. I don't know for sure but I would really like to know. Another unanswered thing is why/who/how the fuck caused the big bang.
@Hookah604: Go
Thats all fake. I also found a bone in my backyard yesterday, Time to find others and combine and create obscure puzzles made to fit.
My addition to the science videos. Enjoy;p
But your bone is most likely not very old. You can test it tho, go to a university next to you and get some Carbon/Uranium Dating.
The video is barley science, it is an advertisement. It is inaccurate and childish simplified. Even considering, you think it is a joke, it shows the core.
Take 10 minutes of your precious time and watch the video I've linked on the last page, it explains everything way better and more reasonable than I ever could.
Please don't escalate this into religion, we are not trying to disprove a God here and I just wanted to clarify a few complex things. There are some nice science links here already. I would love to discuss this/answer questions via pm tho.
How about we draw a line from present to past instead of past to present, and nail down that enormous block of history from 1000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond that's by and large a total mystery, before we attribute the unprecedented physiological differences of the human mammal to the "of course"-ness of hum-drum scientism.
If Occam's Razor was the miracle knife everyone thinks it is then the planets would be perfect spheres as the Greeks supposed.
How about we draw a line from present to past instead of past to present, and nail down that enormous block of history from 1000 BC to *4,000 BC* and beyond that's by and large a total mystery
"Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old."
"It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago."
What you're saying is let's forget about anything before 4,000 BC because written language is our only chance of ever knowing the course of human events.
So explain how this doesn't give us all the more reason to withhold our presumptions, and why we should even give a modicum of serious thought to where we were a million years ago. We go but a fraction of the way and already there's a huge disconnect. The prevailing theory then is totally baseless outside that "it would explain a whole lot." I can come up with theories that "explain a whole lot" too. It's not hard.
What you're saying is let's forget about anything before 4,000 BC because written language is our only chance of ever knowing the course of human events.
I never said that and I would have never said something like that.
My point is that you must expect that before recorded history (before invention of writing) you will find little information about human civilization (like you said its a mystery), any discoveries on humans from that time will lack of written confirmation by the same humans. Also written language is a huge improvement in a civilization, so you must expect that civilizations without lack of written language will be less advanced, than civilizations with written language. If you cant see this 2 simple thing, than you are wasting my time actually.
For example just look at the lack of our knowledge on the civilization that built Stonehenge and compare that to how much we know about the Egyptian civilization. The main reason behind the difference is written language.
What a shitty cheap shot. Actually I'm well within your 2 simple thing. Less hubris if you would, perhaps enough to consider that an advanced civilization isn't going to use rock and chisel in the first place, but degradable paper. So the lack of writings in a 9,000 year old city can go both ways.
EDIT: It's totally what you were saying, or else tell me the point in changing my 10,000 BC to your 4,000 BC
@TheZizz: Go
I am the hubris, when you cant accept, that there was time when your ancestors didnt yet invented writing?
Also Stonehenge were built around 2-3k BC, when Egypt and Mesopotamia already had writing. So what are you suggesting, that the people who built Stonehenge wasnt humans? I am happy to hear your alternative theories.
Writing is like computers, you dont know how much of a game changing invention until its not broadly used.
No, writing was invented multiple times by different peoples, as your own bit on Stonehenge demonstrates. This means things aren't as linear as you suppose. It's the same principle as with America being discovered long before Christopher Columbus (Vikings and talk of Egyptians even), or how about the ancient Greeks knowing that the world was round! I could go on.
It's understandable that you misinterpret my position; this whole argument was tangential from the start because I had to decipher your position with nothing but a cryptic one-liner nitpick about writing and 4000 BC like I'm freaking Sherlock Holmes. And you accuse me of wasting your time! Though admittedly, I had it coming by telling you to clap your trap flap.
My original point stands, and that is it's stupid to go back a million years before we figure out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond.
@TheZizz: Go
I dont see where did I suggested that it is linear like.
So what needs to be figured out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond?
So I guess we shouldnt research genetics too and how genes evolved since its stupid to look back further than 10kBC?
We need some kind of breakthrough, be it the discovery of ancient records from that time (if they exist) or a way to manipulate or traverse space-time to see for ourselves. Until such a thing occurs, it behooves us to withhold our presumptions of our origins, and to not owe our (comparatively) staggeringly mind-blowing level of intelligence and proclivity towards artistic pursuits to "chance" just because it sounds good on paper.
As it stands, no it isn't stupid to investigate millions of years ago, it's only stupid to draw conclusions.
Mind you, my numbers of 10,000 BC are ballpark. I'm just making a point.
There is always the possibility that our dating system is wrong....
dunno know who your arguing against, but there is a HIGH possibility that we are not dating this shit correctly... and that could go either way though things could be much much older or Much much younger.
If radioactive decay works differently than we know of, than we would have to rewrite most of our physics laws (if not all of them...). Also thousands of different experiments confirmed that radioactive decay works as it is. And decay of C-14 confirmed by the decay of many ancient writings... Its something that you will learn first if you are interested physics....
I've put innumerable theories through their paces over the years from human beings being Satan's fallen angels spoken of in Revelation, to the human body being an unrecognizably advanced biotechnology, to the universe itself existing inside someone's imagination. I don't hold any singular theory as a definitive stance; I am undecided. Actually, I'm finding that the more time passes, the less importance I place on the topic. For me, the acquisition of knowledge for my own cognitive satisfaction is finally taking a backseat to virtue and personal worth. Real, tangible results; the bearing of fruit, if you will.
I gotta stop focusing on petty arguments that mean nothing.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
Of course this is all well outside the bounds of the thread, but you definitely forced my hand with this one.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Custom Campaign Initiative
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@EternalWraith: Go Yeah, Instead solving puzzles, we just all should sit back and listen to those who say that somebody is speaking to them from the "other side"....
@SolidSC: Go Primates didnt transitioned into us, transition is a bad word to describe evolution, "primates" are still there.... and as most species we are just 1 sub species, which first individuals was in the right environment to use out there mutation.
Also once anti evolutions say primates to dumb to be humans ancestors and you say they are too intelligent.
The European Southern Observatory released a great shot of a tiny bit of space a month ago:
1% of the sky, 84 million stars and counting
ESO Link: http://www.eso.org/public/news/eso1242/
9GP / 24GB Image: http://www.eso.org/public/images/eso1242a/
Zoomable online image: http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/117375
I love the space.
Some OT:
We did not evolve from the currently living apes, we just had a common ancestor. We survived because we got smart enough, current apes are not that smart but pretty strong in addition. The ancestor was most likely less strong and less smart.
Humans are Apes are Monkeys are Primates clarification
Proof for what? What never happened?
Something is scientifically "true" if there is so much evidence it would be perverse to deny it.
I think evolution is pretty logic, genes mutate from generation to generation and some are able to survive, other die. Who can survive, stays.
Something darkens the sun causing the big naked dinosaurs to die on the colder earth. Small furry mammals survive.
You can even try evolution yourself and observe it with a microscope. Just get a bacterium (pond, your mouth etc) and put it onto a glass. Add some sugar and let it split/clone itself a few billion times. Cloning adds very little genetic variation, but after enough generations, you could add some antibiotic like Penicillin. 99.99% of the bacteria will die. The other surviving 0.01%, very few, will have some genetic mutation from poison, radiation, unclean splitting rendering them immune although they are clones of the first bacterium like all the dying. Let a survivor clone again a few billion times, add another antibiotic and again 99.99% of them will die. The remaining bacteria are now already evolved to be immune to two known antibacterial substances due to changing environment. The ancestor cell wouldn't have survived neither of the two.
Mating instead of cloning would have added a much greater genetic variation and clearer result. But I don't know if there are any mating organisms with a very short reproduction cycle like simple bacteria.
Sadly this is nothing I made up, this is a very serious and often times deadly problem in hospitals. They grow super immune bacteria and viruses there. You can't kill them with any known antibacterial medicine only something like heat or alcohol to destroy the proteins of the cells. But burning ill people doesn't heal them.
Most likely everything living evolved from some simple cells like this but there is still the question where this first live came from. Didn't find anything convincing about that yet. Might have been Gods infusion and planned evolution, alien (meteorite) contamination or lightning striking the boiling ocean full of atoms. I don't know for sure but I would really like to know. Another unanswered thing is why/who/how the fuck caused the big bang.
But your bone is most likely not very old. You can test it tho, go to a university next to you and get some Carbon/Uranium Dating.
The video is barley science, it is an advertisement. It is inaccurate and childish simplified. Even considering, you think it is a joke, it shows the core.
Take 10 minutes of your precious time and watch the video I've linked on the last page, it explains everything way better and more reasonable than I ever could.
Please don't escalate this into religion, we are not trying to disprove a God here and I just wanted to clarify a few complex things. There are some nice science links here already. I would love to discuss this/answer questions via pm tho.
@b0ne123: Go
We did not evolve from the currently living apes, we just had a common ancestor.
http://www.damnlol.com/human-evolution-27946.html
Son of a biotch! Turns out it's nothing important, just a "misunderstanding": http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/27/nasa_mars_discovery_misunderstanding_mission_leader_excited_about_entire.html
Way to get everyone's hopes up. :(
How about we draw a line from present to past instead of past to present, and nail down that enormous block of history from 1000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond that's by and large a total mystery, before we attribute the unprecedented physiological differences of the human mammal to the "of course"-ness of hum-drum scientism.
If Occam's Razor was the miracle knife everyone thinks it is then the planets would be perfect spheres as the Greeks supposed.
EDIT:
Keep flapping your clap trap you hatin lovin Benedict Arnold, you wouldn't be laughing if you knew who the woman was and her credentials.
Yes, invention of writing is a great thing....
@Hookah604: Go
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm
"Debris recovered from the site - including construction material, pottery, sections of walls, beads, sculpture and human bones and teeth has been carbon dated and found to be nearly 9,500 years old."
"It is believed that the area was submerged as ice caps melted at the end of the last ice age 9-10,000 years ago."
@TheZizz: Go No written language found there. Written language is pretty key stuff in the evolution of human civilizations...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/334517.stm
What you're saying is let's forget about anything before 4,000 BC because written language is our only chance of ever knowing the course of human events.
So explain how this doesn't give us all the more reason to withhold our presumptions, and why we should even give a modicum of serious thought to where we were a million years ago. We go but a fraction of the way and already there's a huge disconnect. The prevailing theory then is totally baseless outside that "it would explain a whole lot." I can come up with theories that "explain a whole lot" too. It's not hard.
I never said that and I would have never said something like that.
My point is that you must expect that before recorded history (before invention of writing) you will find little information about human civilization (like you said its a mystery), any discoveries on humans from that time will lack of written confirmation by the same humans. Also written language is a huge improvement in a civilization, so you must expect that civilizations without lack of written language will be less advanced, than civilizations with written language. If you cant see this 2 simple thing, than you are wasting my time actually.
For example just look at the lack of our knowledge on the civilization that built Stonehenge and compare that to how much we know about the Egyptian civilization. The main reason behind the difference is written language.
@Hookah604: Go
What a shitty cheap shot. Actually I'm well within your 2 simple thing. Less hubris if you would, perhaps enough to consider that an advanced civilization isn't going to use rock and chisel in the first place, but degradable paper. So the lack of writings in a 9,000 year old city can go both ways.
EDIT: It's totally what you were saying, or else tell me the point in changing my 10,000 BC to your 4,000 BC
@TheZizz: Go I am the hubris, when you cant accept, that there was time when your ancestors didnt yet invented writing?
Also Stonehenge were built around 2-3k BC, when Egypt and Mesopotamia already had writing. So what are you suggesting, that the people who built Stonehenge wasnt humans? I am happy to hear your alternative theories.
Writing is like computers, you dont know how much of a game changing invention until its not broadly used.
@Hookah604: Go
No, writing was invented multiple times by different peoples, as your own bit on Stonehenge demonstrates. This means things aren't as linear as you suppose. It's the same principle as with America being discovered long before Christopher Columbus (Vikings and talk of Egyptians even), or how about the ancient Greeks knowing that the world was round! I could go on.
It's understandable that you misinterpret my position; this whole argument was tangential from the start because I had to decipher your position with nothing but a cryptic one-liner nitpick about writing and 4000 BC like I'm freaking Sherlock Holmes. And you accuse me of wasting your time! Though admittedly, I had it coming by telling you to clap your trap flap.
My original point stands, and that is it's stupid to go back a million years before we figure out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond.
@TheZizz: Go I dont see where did I suggested that it is linear like.
So what needs to be figured out 1,000 BC to 10,000 BC and beyond?
So I guess we shouldnt research genetics too and how genes evolved since its stupid to look back further than 10kBC?
@Hookah604: Go
We need some kind of breakthrough, be it the discovery of ancient records from that time (if they exist) or a way to manipulate or traverse space-time to see for ourselves. Until such a thing occurs, it behooves us to withhold our presumptions of our origins, and to not owe our (comparatively) staggeringly mind-blowing level of intelligence and proclivity towards artistic pursuits to "chance" just because it sounds good on paper.
As it stands, no it isn't stupid to investigate millions of years ago, it's only stupid to draw conclusions.
Mind you, my numbers of 10,000 BC are ballpark. I'm just making a point.
@TheZizz: Go Ancient records of what?
It sounds good on paper, because its logical conclusion of evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory
I am still waiting for your alternative theory. So human remains before 10kBC arent human or what?
@Hookah604: Go
There is always the possibility that our dating system is wrong....
dunno know who your arguing against, but there is a HIGH possibility that we are not dating this shit correctly... and that could go either way though things could be much much older or Much much younger.
@Taintedwisp: Go
If radioactive decay works differently than we know of, than we would have to rewrite most of our physics laws (if not all of them...). Also thousands of different experiments confirmed that radioactive decay works as it is. And decay of C-14 confirmed by the decay of many ancient writings... Its something that you will learn first if you are interested physics....
@Hookah604: Go
I've put innumerable theories through their paces over the years from human beings being Satan's fallen angels spoken of in Revelation, to the human body being an unrecognizably advanced biotechnology, to the universe itself existing inside someone's imagination. I don't hold any singular theory as a definitive stance; I am undecided. Actually, I'm finding that the more time passes, the less importance I place on the topic. For me, the acquisition of knowledge for my own cognitive satisfaction is finally taking a backseat to virtue and personal worth. Real, tangible results; the bearing of fruit, if you will.
I gotta stop focusing on petty arguments that mean nothing.
All I know conclusively is that there is a devil-worshipping oligarchy that aspires to control the world, who call themselves the "Enlightened Ones" and are hoarding the world's knowledge.
Of course this is all well outside the bounds of the thread, but you definitely forced my hand with this one.