Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Peking Man

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet
I could care less what your opinion is

Yet you will start threads about "entertaining all opinions and information on a subject" here and then could care less what someone else's opinion is? Well that certain speaks volumes.


Also you would claim "not discussion, but preaching" and yet preach yourself? My, aren't you just the armchair psychatrist? I suppose you feel you are certainly "above" everyone here, as you allude to yourself in the thread I linked above.

You also allude that anyone's opinion contrary to yours is "dogma".

Well have at it then. Insult me, insult Mods, insult members (like in your thread where you refer to 90% of the members here as "grain" and not "brain") with your grandious statements of "intellegence" and "dogma". If by putting others down you feel it raises your intellegence level...have at it. I'm done on the subject. Oh, but I know your last word is coming... Enjoy!

As for the topic, I suppose I would comment on Darwinism and Social Darwinism...but either way, you would translate that as more "dogma", "preaching" or "opinion" which as you stated above, you could care less about.

Carry on then with your open door, closed mind policy.


Anymore insults to me can certainly be u2u'd for a more direct approach.




posted on May, 27 2004 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Well, everyone, sorry people here have to be like that, since it seems to have taken over this thread a bit. Obviously its near impossible to have a discussion with some people these days, but I hope some other reply to this and keep this thread going, as I find it to be an interesting discussion, sans our resident "I want to be a politician" mod. Again, sorry my comments sparked an conflagration of ignorance, and I hope this thread can continue without further interference.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Not to add more fuel to the fire or anything but here is a discussion about another famous mistake the piltdown man

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Blackjackal-
good parallel, and much along the lines of what i was thinking! If you have one hoax to atempt to prove something, there's likely to be more. (see ufo, bigfoot, nessie, etc) It just seems to me that those with an interest in the peking man had way to much to gain to have possibly lost/misplaced this "evidence." Here they had "it," the grand proof, that great piece.....and they lost it??? Seems more plausible that here they had it, this grand hoax, and someone thought "oh #, they'll figure it out!" and lost it. Also, you'd kind of figure that if one was found, more would be. Not many people live in complete isolation there days, think its unlikely they would have back then, either....



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by saturnine_sweet it is not constructive to a conversation such as this to interject dogma.
And it's similarly contrary to constructive discussion of science to assume Zedd's comments were dogma of any type.

You basically just said that because the theory of evolution states it, its true.
In reality, for those trained in science... when the science of evolution makes a statement, it is generally accepted because it has been subject to peer review. And the evidence is always part of the peer review.

We were talking one beast to another, like a fish to a lizard, not instantly, but over time, things of that sort.
Correct, that was not lost here. Just because you (or others) cannot fathom the eons required for evolution to enable the sequential adaption of species branching, does not mean it cannot happen. Time is on our side here... there has been a great deal of it.

please don't preach your faith. Thanks.
What fath was that? Logic? Reason? Rationality? Please, don't categorize like that.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:00 PM
link   
Maybe lucy smell like fish but I will wait for more research on her findings, I was very interested on her discovery and on tv she even had a full documentary. Well we will see.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 05:12 PM
link   

I see good Zedd is not the only close-minded one here. First, to reply to your statements, SO. Let's begin with a definition of dogma: "An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true." If you read the posts of ZZZ, he put forth his opinions as absolutely true, AS YOU JUST HAVE AS WELL. So dogma applies to you, too.
Secondly, the theory of evolution is NOT universally accept by those trained in science by any means. It has been and continues to be one of the most debated models ever proposed. It has been accepted by media, and by the education system. But that's another matter entirely. Rather than regurgitate the dogma of others, educate yourself in a broad range of sciences. I would recommend biology, genetics, physics, and astronomy as good places to start. Learn the hard facts first, then use critical thinking to examine popular theories and come to your own conclusions. Had you backed up your statement about evolution with your own knowledge and points, I would have respected your reply. However, to say "they told me so, so it must be true" isnt likely to garner much respect from anyone on this board.
As for the time over which things may have adapted/evolved...firstly, its quite juvenile to begin your arguement for that with an insult, and it shows that your first attack against what I said to be personal, rather than debating any statements I have made. Secondly, I understand the theory of evolution completely, and the amount of time purported for evolution. But YOU seemed to have missed what I put forth, or ignored it because you do not have an answer; namely, that there is NO PROOF of any one creature becoming a completely different creature. Sure, all the whales in the sea probably came from one whale. Thats not too hard to believe, or see, or give solid circumstancial proof for. However, to say that all land creatures came from a fish? Well, where's the links? Where is even one link? I judge things on evidences, and evolution is just another religion, and I'm not one for religion. It's a bloated theory based on more theory and faith, and on manipulating evidence to support a theory, rather than taking the evidence and creating a theory that is based solely on fact. I am not putting forth a different model, I am just rejecting the model put forth as immutable on the basis of lack of evidence for and increasing evidence to the contrary. In other words, thinking for myself. Novel concept, that.

Finally, a short definition of faith for you: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. The body of dogma of a religion. So, tell me how the statements of ZZZ, and those of yourself, as well, are not defined as faith?

I am not here to stir up trouble, or to argue anything. I am here to share thoughts and ideas in OPEN MINDEDNESS, entertaining idea based on their merit as determined by the logic, reason, science or evidence behind them. If I reject something, but someone else supports it, I expect them to tell me, IN A CIVIL AND INTELLIGENT MANNER, "Here's why I think you're wrong." Then it comes back to me to debate their points with them, etc. We all wil never agree, but open-minded debate fosters intelligence, learning, and innovating thinking. The very concepts this board purports to support.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:24 PM
link   
dogma \Dog"ma\, n.; pl. E. Dogmas, L. Dogmata. [L. dogma, Gr. ?, pl. ?, fr. ? to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet it is becoming. Cf. Decent.] 1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine. The obscure and loose dogmas of early antiquity. -- Whewell. 2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a definite, established, and authoritative tenet. 3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or truth; an arbitrary dictum. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

I am not here to stir up trouble
But that is what you are doing. You'll find that ATS is among the Internet's most open minded discussion communities. A diversity of opinion is not only embraced, it is encouraged. However, (and there always is a however isn't there?) we're also more aware, educated, skeptical and rational than any other board of our ilk (conspiracy, politics, aliens, science, etc.). If you present an opinion, and solicit discussion, you should be prepared for contrary analysis because that is how truths are discovered. No truth was ever discovered through head-nodding mindless agreement, it was discovered through intense, informed, skeptical analysis of what is known and speculated to be likely. As such, thousands of scientists have devoted lifetimes of effort on the science of evolution which is generally accepted as the means from which life became diverse. As all things do, the science evolves and learns from its mistakes and refines its knowledge base. Just as all science does. I'm aware of a small branch of christianity-inspired folk who would have focus remain on disconnected pieces of evolution science that contain possibilities for error or are otherwise incomplete... choosing to ignore vast collections of knowledge which are complete, tested, and stood the test of intense peer review. However, we discuss these things here. Your attempt to categorize members who believe different than you as something beneath you will not end well. We value members who are able to engage in informed discussion to further all our understandings of a variety of topics. It would be shame if you could not find a way to temper your reaction to alternative opinions, and were unable to collaborate in such discussions.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I think I openned pandora's box by my last statement. Zedd monkeys have adapted by losing hair and utilizing larger brains- they are called chimps. My problem with evolution- if we are supposed to come from monkeys why havent the rest of the intelligent monkey species adapted to match our performance and intelligence on this planet. Darwinism has too many suppositions and holes.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by gvret My problem with evolution- if we are supposed to come from monkeys ...
You're quoting a popularized misconception spread by creationists such as Kent Hovind (Dr. Dino) who attempt to sensationalize misunderstandings of evolution science. No one in science ever claimed that man evolved from monkeys. Instead, apes, monkeys, and man all evolved from a primate ancestor.

Phenacolemur jepseni was a Plesiadapiforme that lived about 60 MYA, and some researchers consider the Plesiadapiformes to be the common ancestor of all the primates. It's difficult to know for certain which (if indeed any) of the Plesiadapiforme species was "the" ancestor, but I personally feel confidently that if it was not P. jepseni, it was a close relative. The reason for the difficulty in identifying the species is that the only trait that all primates share, but that is not shared with other mammals, is the "petrosal bulla," part of the skull that surrounds the inner ear. In some non-primates, the bullae fuse to the petrosal in adulthood, so in order to tell if a questionable species was a primate, juveniles have to be found. Juveniles don't fossilise as easily as adults, and they are much less frequently recovered, because of their size (c.f. Behrensmeyer 1978, Butler and Chatters 1994, e.g.). Still, P. jepseni juveniles did posess the fused petrosal bulla, suggesting that they were, or were closely related to, the ancestor of all living primates. www.talkorigins.org...
By continuing to spread this misconception, you're not really helping to focus on the issue.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I am not spreading anything, I do not adhere to any particular theory. I just dont see the evolutionary connection between a monkey ancestor and a human ancestor. Why cant we accept that the two species are different and never, ever had any close association. I mean just because chimps have close DNA association with humans does not indicate that they are human. If you can point to a connection in the evolutionary process from the primate to human with all the required steps then I would consider it. Till then we agree to disagree.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:32 PM
link   
SO-
So why the definition of dogma? The way in which you present your opinion is still just that. You say "If you present an opinion, and solicit discussion, you should be prepared for contrary analysis because that is how truths are discovered. No truth was ever discovered through head-nodding mindless agreement, it was discovered through intense, informed, skeptical analysis of what is known and speculated to be likely." Then you follow this with mindless head nodding. I have no problem with contrary analysis; however, I havent seen any yet. All I have seen is you and Zed preaching your doctrine. You ignore any comments I make that are relevant to the discussion, and instead persist in attacking me personally, as well as accusing me of treating others in ways I have not. If you want to discuss, lets discuss! But you don't. You feel that your truth is the only truth, and no one else's views are valid. That's YOU, not I.

Secondly, your comment about "christianity-inspired folk." Apparently you are not very aware. Firstly, I am not christian, and neither are many of those on this board who question your dogmas, nor are many of the scientist who believe evolution to be wrong. But I think maybe you hit on the head just what your problem is, and the why you feel the lines are drawn between religion and evolution; because evolution is so important to those who do not want to believe, or cannot comprehend, an intelligent design behind the universe. So anything that questions your faith in your dogma, in your own "god," gets the type of response I would expect from a hard-core christian defending his faith.

Frankly, I'm really tired of this ignorance. You say one thing, but then do another. You accuse me of things I have not done, then do them yourself. Sadly, while the topic of ancient and lost civilizations and related subjects is my main interest, it looks as through it's not an open topic on this board, but rather is plagued by blind, close-minded hypocrites.

gvret -
Much as I think. If humans are so unremarkable, why havent other species, or other apes, come to rival us? A scientific thesis concerning things that cannot be directly proved is considered proven when it can be proven to within a certain range of probability. Except for evolution, of course. How many species have inhabited this planet during it's existence? I have no idea, but in the millions....and only one is self-aware? Only one has possesed the intelligence to build a civilization? You see, supporters of the theory of evolution use the billions of years as a crutch, saying almost anything is possible in that amount of time. But the question I just posed, using their own rules, is stunningly improbable. And predictably ignored. Almost every aspect of evolutionary theory is full of high improbabilities. Yet it is still accepted for one big reason: what's the alternative?



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Is it possible then that there was a conflict between humans and other intelligent (as we perceive it) species and humans prevailed?



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by gvret If you can point to a connection in the evolutionary process from the primate to human
Did you read the link? saturnine_sweet... grow up. You're arguing simply to argue. In this world, that's called Trolling, and in this site, it's handled quickly. If you read my post, it was thin on the topic, and long on advice. I strongly suggest you take the advice to heart and discover how to engage people who disagree with you. Otherwise...



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Yeah just did sceptic. Can you agree though that evolution as a theory has many problems and flaws (i have outlined some to earlier posts).



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   
SO -
Find an debate you can't win, so accuse me of trolling. I have done nothing more than attempt to discuss and resolve these issues. I have not flamed or made any false accusations, but rather had them aimed at me. It is not I who has been unable to discuss, but you. I have to say, it doesnt surprise me that, in the end, you fell back on your admin status to protect you. I'm open for debate any time you like. But I havent seen a word of debate from you yet.

gvret -
oh, I suppose there is a margin of possibility. I would say not likely, because there isnt much record of anything of the sort, yet at the same time, there are a few anomolies that might point to such an interpretation, if you take it a little further than I would. Many ancient myths tell of intelligent beings other than humans. I would also recommended checking out a couple of other topics as well if you are interested in those possibilities: the star child project ( www.starchildproject.com... ) and the figurines from Jarmo. Good place to get started.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 10:02 PM
link   
thanks satsweet, much appreciated. I just find prehuman evolution a most interesting topic, unfortunately though due to the lack of "undisputed" scientific evidence we can only make most probable assumptions.



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

But the question I just posed, using their own rules, is stunningly improbable.

Only if you do as you did and just make up probabilities. Right now it is impossible to work out the probability of intelligent life evolving, as we only have one sample to work with.

gvret, the trick with science is it is always adapting to new discoveries and absorbing new information. Evolution as it stands now is a rather different concept to old Darwins original. The problem is that creationists (and other pseudoscientists) like to simply pick away at Darwins theories, not realising that science has moved on. It would be like me 'disproving' astronomy because astronomers once thought the world was the at the center of the solar system. If I could make one observation that showed the earth isn't at the center of the solar system, does that disprove astronomy? No of course it doesn't, science takes on board the new knowledge and adapts its theory.

Now, getting back to saturine_sweet and her little drama attempts. I point you to:

Anyone who truly believe it either needs to educate themselves outside of the dogma, or need to learn to think in the first place.

ZZZ was not spouting 'Dogma' he was trying to help others gain a better understanding of the topic at hand. Why does it scare you to even have people understanding evolution? How does that fit in with your 'open mind' theory?

As a side note, why is it always the ones who like to yell and scream 'open mind' that only ever mean it in relation to their own opinions?



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   
No problem.


Another pretty popular topic that's rather more fringe is ancient giants, also called nephilim or "the watchers." Native americans had legends of giants, and there have been some skeletal remains found, as well as a lot more unverifyable material. The sumerians had legends of "the watchers," and the old testament of the bilbe is rife with references. Just some more fun things to check out
If you want some links, I can supply a few to get you started. Anything prehistory is a very interesting and, as this thread has shown, touchy subject, but the more you learn of the most ancient records we have and the tales they tell, the more interesting it gets. If you come across anything you'd like to discuss, bring it up! I could talk about it all day!



posted on May, 27 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Kano-
First off, a probability is attainable. Granted, its beyond my mathematical skills, but in any case, it was meant as an example. I also disagree with your comment about science having "moved on." If we all took that POV, the earth WOULD still be considered the center of the universe. It's like saying that einstiens theory of relativity is granite and science has moved on. No. Its a basis to work with, but as science progresses, it is becoming increasingly clear that while einstien was on the right track, there are aspects of the quantum sciences which it cannot explain, and a few which are expected to prove some aspects wrong as research progresses. Evolution is viable as that sort of tool, but the problem is that no other model is even entertained. Instead, evidence is made to fit the model, rather than the model to the evidence. At its heart, its more psuedoscience than most of what creationists come up with.

Secondly, rather than just looking at the content of ZZZ's post, look at the way in which it was framed. It was framed as dogma, just as much of what SO said was. ZZZ used the tactic of trying to mold his reply so as to negate the previous posters inquiry, rather than answer it, while SO just went on a god-trip, but its still much the same. I'm all for everyone learning about the theory of evolution; however, in an objective manner. And it was not presented as such. To put it short, I was merely trying to direct the discussion to an open format, and get away from the dogma wars that plague this board. But rather than getting cooperation from the PTB here, I have been flamed, attacked, and insulted, both in this thread and through U2U's. I have to say, back when I joined this board, it was a much, much different environment.









 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join