It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by HappyBunny
I have to disagree. IMO abstract thinking and language is far, far older than the Neolithic Revolution. Doesn't art require abstract thinking? They found a "paint factory" dating back 100,000 years in South Africa. Not only had they figured out how to make paint (which requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry even if they didn't understand it in those terms), but they knew enough to store it in abalone shells. Abalone shells are glazed. Other shells would just absorb the color.
"in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.."
"he theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related,,"
Speciation is another example.
It's only been witnessed in some aquatic life, viruses, bacteria and some fly's.
I guess everyone has to have something to believe in.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
I looked at the first link and noticed how they are trying to question the possibility of there ever being supernatural beings. Simply because they know it to be false. This is the type of mentality I'm talking about, then you call me the troll. What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?
Originally posted by itsthetooth
What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by itsthetooth
What proof do they have that supernatural beings don't exist?
How does one go about proving that?
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by HappyBunny
I have to disagree. IMO abstract thinking and language is far, far older than the Neolithic Revolution. Doesn't art require abstract thinking? They found a "paint factory" dating back 100,000 years in South Africa. Not only had they figured out how to make paint (which requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry even if they didn't understand it in those terms), but they knew enough to store it in abalone shells. Abalone shells are glazed. Other shells would just absorb the color.
But that's still action -> almost instant reward type of situation, and could be just learned behavior. Not so with farming, where the result of action is like a year away. I don't however claim to be a linguist so my idea of abstract language being the enabler of the neolithic revolution could very well be wrong. Not claiming it to be a universal truth. Still, if abstract language is a very old invention, then why aren't there any very old postulated root languages in Africa?edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by HappyBunny
It looks more like they evolved from us.
Probably because you would posses crazy ability's, just like all the weird stuff in the bible, hey.
How does one go about proving that? What proof do you have that Batman or Cthulhu don't exist? What proof do you have that I am not God? Russell's teapot:
I see, so your side in this is that we as humans know everything, there is nothing else that can be learned, and there couldn't possibly be other life out there that has unexplained abilitys.
Clearly you haven't even read the links
And of course they won't accept a "# it, everything's possible...magic did it" answer. If they did, we would never discover anything for real. We wouldn't fly planes, wouldn't have sent people to the moon, wouldn't be able to type on computers, and so on. That approach leads to stupid results, like people cutting themselves in order to cure diseases in the middle ages.
Magic does seem to answer what was going on. Again magic is just a term we accept for not understanding. That doesn't mean its not real.
Easy...you use tooth's proven method of figuring out reality. Repeat after me:
"Everything's possible, magic can do everything even if all the objective evidence points against it!! Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand, Barbara Streisand!"
Don't ask why the Barbara Streisands are required, logic doesn't matter.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by MrXYZ
I see, so your side in this is that we as humans know everything, there is nothing else that can be learned, and there couldn't possibly be other life out there that has unexplained abilitys.
Clearly you haven't even read the links
And of course they won't accept a "# it, everything's possible...magic did it" answer. If they did, we would never discover anything for real. We wouldn't fly planes, wouldn't have sent people to the moon, wouldn't be able to type on computers, and so on. That approach leads to stupid results, like people cutting themselves in order to cure diseases in the middle ages.
Originally posted by MrXYZ
No, I'm saying there's stuff we know because of scientific objective evidence (eg. evolution), and stuff we simply don't know. You on the other hand simply fill a gap in knowledge (aka what we don't know) with magic (aka god or aliens intervening) even though you have ZERO objective evidence to support your case.
You don't need to fill any gaps, everything is already documented, its just an issue of identifying it.
No, I'm saying there's stuff we know because of scientific objective evidence (eg. evolution), and stuff we simply don't know. You on the other hand simply fill a gap in knowledge (aka what we don't know) with magic (aka god or aliens intervening) even though you have ZERO objective evidence to support your case
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
Surely not. You said the more you learn the smaller your ears get so if someone manages to teach you something you will be all No ears.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by itsthetooth
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
Really? I though just a few posts ago you insisted that living inside whales is a totally viable option for humans, even after being told what would happen..
From now on whenever someone invokes God, I will invoke Anti God, a being that cancels out ever single action of God.edit on 29-3-2012 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by colin42
Surely not. You said the more you learn the smaller your ears get so if someone manages to teach you something you will be all No ears.
Originally posted by itsthetooth
reply to post by rhinoceros
Hey as soon as someone fronts me some reality, I'll be all ears.
That's not all the "identifier of arcane virus" does. In many cases he flatly refuses to accept reality and forces magic into places where there are no gaps but in his mind.