mcmanus
Well-Known Member
Skashion said:Not exactly a scientific graph is it?SWP's back said:
What units is 'Scientific Advancement' measured in?
Skashion said:Not exactly a scientific graph is it?SWP's back said:
mcmanus said:Skashion said:Not exactly a scientific graph is it?SWP's back said:
What units is 'Scientific Advancement' measured in?
If it is you'll be able to give me the sources of data then. Also, why does it ignore scientific advances made in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages? Why too, has it not labelled the Renaissance, the Christian Renaissance, as the Renaissance was substantially funded by Christian patronage? It's a graph that's very clearly biased against religion. That's before we even get to problem of assigning qualitative importance of scientific advances that allow us to plot a graph.tonea2003 said:it is
mcmanus said:Skashion said:Not exactly a scientific graph is it?SWP's back said:
What units is 'Scientific Advancement' measured in?
shaiomarali said:I am intrigued by the idea of how the bite of the forbidden apple from the tree is actually symbolic of a DNA mixing event between extraterrestrials and early hominids, giving hominids a new found ability to acquire intelligence.
It's like the birds and the bees way of extraterrestrials saying, well, we reconfigured your dioxyribose nucleic acid chain by adding new RNA on the nth chain of your DNA tree, do....you....understand???
There is just a big gap in the evolution of intelligence that what is more plausible is outside interference. We have been living with apes for many centuries and none so far have shown as much capacity to develop further intelligence, while we humans seem to become more intelligent in leaps and bounds.
It's a bit shit tbh, the progress should be in city blue.Skashion said:Not exactly a scientific graph is it?SWP's back said:
Skashion said:If it is you'll be able to give me the sources of data then. Also, why does it ignore scientific advances made in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages? Why too, has it not labelled the Renaissance, the Christian Renaissance, as the Renaissance was substantially funded by Christian patronage? It's a graph that's very clearly biased against religion. That's before we even get to problem of assigning qualitative importance of scientific advances that allow us to plot a graph.tonea2003 said:it is
Skashion said:If it is you'll be able to give me the sources of data then. Also, why does it ignore scientific advances made in the Islamic world during the Middle Ages? Why too, has it not labelled the Renaissance, the Christian Renaissance, as the Renaissance was substantially funded by Christian patronage? It's a graph that's very clearly biased against religion. That's before we even get to problem of assigning qualitative importance of scientific advances that allow us to plot a graph.tonea2003 said:it is
Rascal said:Yep I remember this thread.
It has appeared every year since I joined. Its like a comet