Religion, mammoths and dinosaurs,

[JoeMercer'sWay]

quote="Bodicoteblue"]

We have opposable fucking thumbs.

Big cats and bears do not.

The 'accepted' theory you mention, is the theory of evolution. And there is no 'gap' in that theory, that's Creationist bullshit.

Nothing about the theory of evolution is 'open to debate'. Unless you are a religious nutjob and called pauldominic.

Its far from creationist and my tangent has never been religious in nature, rather, pseudoscience.

Besides, there is well written scholarly articles on the gap in the evolution of hominids, which is a lack of fossil evidence that explains how neantherthals became us. There have been many homonid types found globally and these have thus far been linked to one with the other, yet the quest to find the elusive homonid that completes the evolution theory remains. We have homo heidelbergensis, habilis, ergaster, erectus....but even scholarly voice admits we currently are missing at least one intermediate homonid, and one that is the crucial keystone of intelligence.


In layman's term, that t-shirt print of the evolution of man from a hunchback bipedal to a handsome bloke? Well, at least one of those figures in the line is missing.

The theory of evolution is a well accepted theory and is now the null hypothesis. It is the theory that is best fit for purpose and one that has been well accepted in the academician circle I give you that. But the same proponents also profess that we are still missing evidence in the middle. Hence an alternative hypothesis.

I am also not a proponent of the extraterrestrial theory and justly mentioned my intrigue of it as an alternate out of the box justification to a theory that seems to have found an impasse.

We now have the technology of dna replication and manipulation. What makes us have the divine right to be the sole being in this universe to be the first to do so? If it is to do with opposable thumbs, what advantage does that give us. Other apes have opposable thumbs too but they have not advanced as much. Thumbs do not contribute to a spurt in intelligence. We might hold a twig better or braid yarn, but it's not as advantageous as having wings, lower centre of gravity, acute senses, camouflage.

I agree that extra terrestrial existence lies currently in pseudoscience, but the idea of dna manipulation is not, as we humans ourselves have begun to learn.

I am interested in finding out alternative hypothesis whether it be science or pseudoscience. Even spiritual so long as based argument is put to the table. If conjectures, then let it be fairly argued.based on evidence thus far.

You'll be looking in vain to find evidence for how Neanderthals evolved into Homo sapiens , because they didn't. We shared a common ancestor about 700,000 years ago then our two species diverged and they became extinct as a species somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 years ago .

I was using that as pop culture reference, much like the evolution graphic on t-shirts. The gap I was alluding to is 3 million years ago, where the common descent map of homonids is still unknown and where the lines are dotted. It is also the expanse in time when homonids developed intelligence.

I am not arguing about the evolution of man, but rather the evolution of man's intelligence. It's fascinating how far we have come in our innovations, and what is more fascinating is how far will humans evolved intellectually as theory of evolution suggests that by selection.we also rewire our brain to greater use.

Did our intelligence develop naturally or did it require artificial selection to kickstart the dawn of homonids.[/quote]

It is pointless looking that far back as the evolutionary changes that enabled us to be so smart have largely happened within the past 100,000 years.

 

[tonea2003]

'Ship Of Fools' had it's moments of half decent discussion, amidst assorted threats of fire, brimstone and banhammer.
There were also some comedic classic interludes, albeit mostly unintentional, and invariably when Pauldominic had overdone the altar wine late in the evening.
I seem to recall him ranting that you were the biggest **** on the forum, or some such bonkers defamation, which came as a bolt from the blue to me, as I thought I had that title well and truly in the bag years ago.

It was I whom he proclaimed to be the biggest **** on here.

He also proclaimed it on Twitter.

I remember how gutted you were, too.

Although, it's almost time for the annual awards and you're up for several categories after an outstanding effort this past year.

Oh fucking hell - you're right - I remember now - I apologise for erroneously awarding your title to Skashion.
That 'Ship Of Fools' thread was epic - 100 and odd pages of utter mayhem.
It was great, because I could get banned and then pick up where I left off a week later because nothing had changed, in fact in many ways it was the Cellar version of the 'Discuss Pellegrini' thread.
Maybe I can have the 'Lifetime Achievement' award instead.

the main protagonists johnny crossan and pauldominic are they still haunting the cellar in some other guise?

george hannah was one possibility

i miss their inputs, johnnys rent a quotes and pauls tangents and engineering prowesses

never answered a question though

 

[blueish swede]

interesting theory, though I'm not sure why lions and tigers have not auditioned for Cats since they consume more protein per body weight than us. besides, when we decided to jump down that tree, we aren't really as adept hunters as bears, big cats or big apes.

following your theory, I thought of this. we eventually devised tools to compensate for our lack of speed, predatory instinct and nocturnal prowess, several traits of a protein high animal. in the animal kingdom, we were and still is quite weak when bare handed.

with the evidence that we devised hunting tools, it meant that intelligence came before a high protein diet, not because of a high protein diet. before tools, I hazard a guess that we were scavengers and foragers. intelligence gave us the upper hand.

and another point of your theory is that we were previously tree dwellers. there is indeed an accepted theory of evolution that links man with apes, like chimpanzees. but as I mentioned earlier, there is a big evolution gap, a void of fossilized evidence that link us and our primate - homonid ancestors safe for genetic similarities and to certain extent, physical appearance. it is what transpired in this evolution gap that is of most interest to the topic.

we can't rule out your theory as that might just be exactly what happened in this evolution gap. but what actually transpired during this unknown period is still very much open for debate.

i am interested in the origin of your theory though. reading into it might be enlightening.

There is an alternative (sub)theory which is that it’s all about becoming less furry!

When hominids lost body hair and developed sweat glands it relieved the respiratory system of the work of maintaining core body temperature through panting. This allowed for more complex forms of grunting to develop.

Together with the evolutionary changes in the skull and throat it enabled for the development of complex language. The continued evolution of intelligence could be driven (partly) by the increased value of communication, in both co-operation and competition within hominid social groups as much as the more commonly envisaged predator/pray survival competition.

This explains why intelligence continues to evolve beyond that of other animals and in homo sapiens beyond other hominids like Neanderthals.

 

[aguero93:20]

interesting theory, though I'm not sure why lions and tigers have not auditioned for Cats since they consume more protein per body weight than us. besides, when we decided to jump down that tree, we aren't really as adept hunters as bears, big cats or big apes.

following your theory, I thought of this. we eventually devised tools to compensate for our lack of speed, predatory instinct and nocturnal prowess, several traits of a protein high animal. in the animal kingdom, we were and still is quite weak when bare handed.

with the evidence that we devised hunting tools, it meant that intelligence came before a high protein diet, not because of a high protein diet. before tools, I hazard a guess that we were scavengers and foragers. intelligence gave us the upper hand.

and another point of your theory is that we were previously tree dwellers. there is indeed an accepted theory of evolution that links man with apes, like chimpanzees. but as I mentioned earlier, there is a big evolution gap, a void of fossilized evidence that link us and our primate - homonid ancestors safe for genetic similarities and to certain extent, physical appearance. it is what transpired in this evolution gap that is of most interest to the topic.

we can't rule out your theory as that might just be exactly what happened in this evolution gap. but what actually transpired during this unknown period is still very much open for debate.

i am interested in the origin of your theory though. reading into it might be enlightening.

There is an alternative (sub)theory which is that it’s all about becoming less furry!

When hominids lost body hair and developed sweat glands it relieved the respiratory system of the work of maintaining core body temperature through panting. This allowed for more complex forms of grunting to develop.

Together with the evolutionary changes in the skull and throat it enabled for the development of complex language. The continued evolution of intelligence could be driven (partly) by the increased value of communication, in both co-operation and competition within hominid social groups as much as the more commonly envisaged predator/pray survival competition.

This explains why intelligence continues to evolve beyond that of other animals and in homo sapiens beyond other hominids like Neanderthals.

So, how come Naked Mole Rats, Hairless Cats, Chihuahuas, Magellanic Penguins, Hippopotamuses and the Transylvanian naked neck Chicken aren't of above average intelligence then?

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Two of each animal that God created went onto the ark, yes?

So where were the Dinosaurs?

The bible makes no mention of the numbers.

Genesis 6:19-20 instructs Noah to preserve two of every kind...

Nothing to with what I posted.
Who gives a fuck what he was told to do.
How many did he actually take?

Try reading a bit further!

He only took two of the UNCLEAN animals.

 

[Bigga]

Science is diametrically opposed to dogma.

If you cannot see that or understand the scientific method then more fool you.

You can throw in Babylon all you wish but that is hardly modern science. Modern science started in the 16th & 17th Centuries. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it is not science.

That is totally at odds with religion and religious teachings.

You are emphatically dismissing the role of Islam in the 'modern' shake up of biology!! There are religious practitioners in modern medicine, even now. Muslim and Christian doctors exist, don't they?? It is shocking you think both practices cannot co-exist when it's clear they can!

I asked you, earlier, to show me proof that science developed independently away from religious following. You have shown me nothing. In fact, all you have done is chunter on about 'modern science'. I never asked you that. Don't tell me what science 'is'. I asked you to prove the development of science on its own. You cannot, so don't pretend otherwise.

In fact, it's only from around the 18th century the science began to separate itself from religion.

You don't know even know of the history you speak of, correctly.

 

[SWP's back]

Science is diametrically opposed to dogma.

If you cannot see that or understand the scientific method then more fool you.

You can throw in Babylon all you wish but that is hardly modern science. Modern science started in the 16th & 17th Centuries. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it is not science.

That is totally at odds with religion and religious teachings.

You are emphatically dismissing the role of Islam in the 'modern' shake up of biology!! There are religious practitioners in modern medicine, even now. Muslim and Christian doctors exist, don't they?? It is shocking you think both practices cannot co-exist when it's clear they can!

I asked you, earlier, to show me proof that science developed independently away from religious following. You have shown me nothing. In fact, all you have done is chunter on about 'modern science'. I never asked you that. Don't tell me what science 'is'. I asked you to prove the development of science on its own. You cannot, so don't pretend otherwise.

In fact, it's only from around the 18th century the science began to separate itself from religion.

You don't know even know of the history you speak of, correctly.

You are, rather predictably and unsurprisingly, mistaking the role of religion in the genesis of science.

You are stating that as some early natural philosophers were publicly religious, that science was born of religion. This is a false syllogism.

You may as well state that science was born of beards as a large amount of early scientists were hirsute.

It was in the 17th Century that science started to stand on its own two feet away from religion as before that, those speaking out against religion were generally arrested for heresy. Galileo Galilei himself was tried by the Holy Office and found to be "vehemently suspect of heresy", and was forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. His crime? The [correct] theory of heliocentrism (the planets moving around the sun, born of observation).

Or what about Giordano Bruno who also had the same notion as a fellow astronomer and early natural philosopher. He failed to recant and was burnt at the stake. And you wonder why it wasn't until later times that people would publicly state what a farce religion is/was?

So yes, I was correct in stating what science is. The search for truth. As I say diametrically opposed to all forms of dogma from your lovely religion. Science is a body of empirical, theoretical, and practical knowledge about the natural world, produced by scientists who emphasise the observation, explanation, and prediction of real world phenomena.

If you can't test it, it's not science. Imagine how far science would have come on without religion acting as an anchor of ignorance.

Your nescience abounds, as usual (you haven't a fucking clue).

 

[Richard]

Does this thread give me an excuse to post this?

 

[aguero93:20]

Does this thread give me an excuse to post this?

Yep. Where is this Ship of Fools thread? Sounds interesting...
Edit: Not going to bump it Ducado! ;)

 

[Le Havre Oswald]

Just everything in Christianity is absolutely ridiculous. Ive never gone to church put always felt like i should believe.
Faith and the whole jesus , god thing IMO is generated by a peoples fear of death. Its as simple as that.

Even being agnostic made me feel too tied down.
Last week some JW's came round so I just said sorry im an athiest.

I shut the door and felt so liberated it was brilliant "yes"! moment.

When I head into my final years will my opinion change? I hope not but I suspect it may.

and yet your the pope.

fucking scammer.