reply to post by ChemBreather
Originally posted by ChemBreather
If I see some proof that the animals build the pyramids, we can talk.
They did. The species was Homo Sapiens Sapiens
The reason for my dumb remark is that the pyramids were build before 'we' crawled out of monkey vagina,
Um...they're not over 200,000 years old....hell, they aren't even the oldest stone structures in the world, I've been to the
which were built nearly 7000 years ago.
so our smart not-so-evolved monkeys must have built it to show us how smart they were before we inherited all their brains..
Humans aren't evolved from monkeys, though we do share a common ancestor. We are apes.
I dont doubt that species change over time, but that general Freemason Darwin(Inbreeder)'s theory isnt worth discussing.. IMO ..
Wow, ad hominem on a dead guy?
Darwin was aware of the problems of inbreeding that plagued his family.
From the source:
The analysis supports Darwin's fears that inbreeding was damaging his health and that of his children, following his ground-breaking studies
demonstrating that cross-bred plants are far fitter and more vigorous than self-fertilised plants. "This caused him to reflect on his own
condition," says Tim Berra of Ohio State University in Mansfield.
And what do his affiliations with the Freemasons have to do with anything? Science is science, no matter whose club you belong to...
And to cap it all off, you ignored the OP to spout of nonsense.
reply to post by sykickvision
Originally posted by sykickvision
Richard Feynman said “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none
absolutely certain.” He is right, there is much that we don’t know. We’re not even sure how much we know is correct because all of our
knowledge is based upon what we can perceive.
Feynman was someone who, despite his scientific brilliance, was a bit of a lightweight in philosophy (which is more my comfort zone).
Now, we may not have even scratched the surface on science, but we know that a certain amount of it is correct as we can demonstrate it. Circuit
theory is either correct or so brilliant incorrect that they appear correct. Now, we have demonstrable proof of circuits, the computers we're working
Without our modern framework of physics being at least mostly correct a lot of the things that are going on for us to have this discussion wouldn't
We are but a speck of dust in an ocean of dust, our time here is measured in milliseconds on the cosmic scale. How can we in so short a time even
pretend to have beyond a vague understanding of what has happened billions of years before, trillions of miles away?
With evidence through the scientific method....sort of an obvious understanding. Hell, we're specks of dust compared to the size of the Earth.
Let's say the average human is about 168 cm tall. The average speck of dust is about 0.5 micrometer wide.
168 cm is 1,680,000 micrometers.
So we are 3,360,000 times bigger than a speck of dust.
The Earth has a diameter of 1,275,620,000 centimeters
So it is 7,592,976.19 times bigger than us. Yet we understand a great deal of its complexity.
That's the great thing about the scientific method. Scale may matter on a 'common sense' level, but when the scientific method is applied we can
understand a great deal more about it.
True, we can examine and study - what we are studying and professing from these studies could be likened to describing what happens in a football game
when you can only see it through a pinhole.
Except that someone who has only viewed football through a pinhole wouldn't be able to make any useful descriptions, yet science makes plenty of
useful descriptions of natural processes.
Regardless of what people say, and what they profess to know, NONE OF US HAS ENOUGH INFORMATION to produce anything beyond a theory.
I'm sorry, but this level of stupidity is going to require me to call upon several pantheons (some may be from avowed works of fiction):
Oh Thor, Athena, Thoth, Amaterasu, Khorne, Cthulu, FSM, Jesus, Allah, Kronos, Brother Raven, and Hathor!
A theory is something that can be applied and tested repeatedly with the same results. Theories underly what's used in my laptop, your computer, my
mobile phone, a GPS satellite system (Einstein's theory of relativity means they have to be adjusted constantly), trains, planes, automobiles,
medicine, earthquake detection, radar, speed detectors, etc etc etc nearly ad infinitum.
Being a 'theory' is a good thing.
Some things are definitely provable and that's fine. I can accept that. I have no problem adjusting my beliefs accordingly. As with the
demonstration above regarding radio waves - just because something is not provable at the time doesn't mean it can't hold true, or that methods
might develop later on that might reveal it as true.
Yes, but the science 200 years ago hadn't been able to progress to the point where you could determine anything about the electromagnetic spectrum.
It wasn't even posited. But saying 'the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence' doesn't lay any proof of creationism at the door.
Think Flat Earth.
Which was already thrown out by the time Pythagoras and his weird cult popped up...
The innate sense that a parent might have regarding a child, whether it's sick or hurt, without having any other information received than just a
feeling is a sensation shared among many parents that has proven true.
Except that the care for a child's well being doesn't come from an innate sense, it comes from collected visual and communication cues. Parents are
often wrong about their children being sick as well. I remember being at the pediatrician's office several times because my mother thought I was sick
when I wasn't and I remember plenty of instances when other families would walk out with my doctor explaining that there's nothing wrong with their
This would defy the laws of science as it is understood, but I venture that a large percentage of parents would attest to the reality of this. Is it
provable? No. Understood? No. True? I believe, Yes.
Except that it's actually testable. Get a group of parents with newborn children and observe their visits for a period of ten years.
Your belief is irrational and demonstrably so.
Suppose we are just biological machines, driven by nothing greater than chemical responses, formed by nothing more than a series of freak accidents.
So what? What does it matter? The great and the small all have one destination. Death. At which point our bodies will return to the basic
compounds of which they are made. In less than a hundred years after your death, it is unlikely that any of your progeny will even remember your
name, or know where your body lies. What does knowing this change? What does it matter whether you spend eternity in a roomful of virgins (I'd
prefer a roomful of non-virgins), are re-incarnated, dissolve into a selfless ethereal bliss, or just experience the ultimate "game-over". The only
moment you have to do anything constructive with is this moment right now, and now....and now.
Um...this has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Why are questions of metaphysics pertaining to the afterlife arising?
Arguing for proof of this and that does nothing at all constructive. Go help a kid ride a bike, do something beneficial.
That child is most likely alive today because of people asking for proof of this and that. The scientific method is the search for the proof you mock
and it has lead to the wonders of medical science. I think the researchers at institutions around the world that are unlocking the secrets of the
universe are benefiting the child far more than a person teaching that same child how to operate a bicycle.
So whether you believe in God, or Buddah, or Zen, or Santa Claus - that's your business.
When did I bring up any of those ideas? This is a thread about the (supposedly) scientific theory of creationism/intelligent design. I'm not speaking
about any religion whatsoever, am I?
Oh wait, I'm an atheist so that means every single one of my posts on here has to do with religion.
Stuff those points and direct them to the appropriate thread in my sig.
If it makes you a better person, and the world a better place to live and reside - then I'm all for it. The true nature of happiness is contentment
with ones self, one's life, and one's place in the world. Do the best you can with everything you have to enrich your own life, as well as the
lives of those around you.
You mean like science? That thing that saves lives and allows us to marvel at the wonder of the universe? That thing that allows us to see images of
places that we can then visit thanks to the knowledge we've gained from it?
Everything else is just fluff. Abhor those who would make you believe otherwise.
So...screw it science doesn't matter? I'm sorry, I can't agree with that. You, mean, and 99% of the people on this board wouldn't be alive without
Scientific questions matter.
If you want to ignore them, go join an Amish community.
If you abhor scientific questions, please give up:
All electronic devices (including the computer you're using right now)
All modes of transportation other than those that are self-powered and made only of natural products
All medicine you may be taking
The building you're living in unless it doesn't require any notions of architecture, structural engineering, or mathematics to construct.
Any food that involves the following: modern farming techniques, automotive distribution, refrigeration, modern fertilizers and pesticides, genetic
manipulation, selective breeding, irrigation, etc etc
and the list goes on and on.
If you think you can give these things up, then you can go ahead and abhor the people that would suggest that questions beyond enriching your own
happy place and the happy places of others matter.
But then we won't have to hear that nonsense.