bump
Printable View
bump
All the answers to your questions are here:
originally when you posted this, i skimmed through it, and never read it entirely although i was intending to. ive done the same thing again, but i will read it sometime soon.
but the very few paragraphs i read, present some problems for me (even discounting that alien bullshit)
"White man has been living in Africa and the Americas for hundreds of years. Blacks and other persons with colored skins like Arabs or Indians have been living in northern latitudes of America and Europe for hundreds of years. Not the slightest change in skin color or ethnic traits has been noticed."
doesnt his argument here seem completely flawed, he even mentioned a few sentences earlier that man first appeared 45000 year ago (out of no where according to him..). how does he expect there to be genetic change over 100's of years when it took about 50000 for the small degree of genetic change we have now to occur. i cant really be bothered getting into much greater detail as i havent read the whole thing... but it is obvious that conditions over the last hundreds of years are vastly different than those 40000 years ago. my memory is sketchy on this... but skin colour is determined by control of vitamin e intake (honestly i dont remember totally, so it could be another vitamin, either way...), 40000 years ago sun exposure was easily the main source of vitamin e for most humans (inuits are an exception - inake of fish substitutes the exposure, hence their skin colour even though they are not exposed to great amounts of sunlight). in these early times, human couldnt avoid the sun, or substitute vitamin e readily in areas where a vitamin e rich food was plentiful. hence the skin colour mutation and consequence variation.
many people erroneously that humans have evolved into different breeds (for want of a better word), and it seems as though he has also. genetically there is minute difference between the darkest african and the palest european.
anyway, ive rambled on, and said more than im sure is true... i'll refresh my memory on certain things once ive read the whole article.
his arguments are in direct contradiction with the scientific consensus on the matter also ( not that this makes him necessarily incorrect)
anyway, ill give it a proper read later
BEST VID EVERQuote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
I think it's extremely racist, or at the very least, bigoted and absurd, to believe that ancient humans needed help from "gods" or "aliens" to build gigantic monuments.
racist? Racist? Bigoted? Because ancient civilizations were "black"? Its racist to believe aliens helped ancient civilizations because ancient civilizations were "black", WOW weve hit a new low.
No. I didn't say that. Racism isn't exclusive to black people. Maybe racism isn't the most appropriate term, since we could be talking about people of the same race as me or you or someone else. Of course, it's extremely hard to trace lineage back to either the ancient Egyptians or the Mesopotamians.Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro wooz
I'm saying it's rather bigoted to assume that the people of ancient times couldn't have built those things on their own. Why couldn't they have? They had mathemeticians and architects and plenty of laborers. It just took them a lot longer. They didn't erect pyramids in a year like you can do with a skycraper nowadays. It took maybe a decade to finish something like that.
we are an animal like all the others on this mother. we came from ealier animals before hand. who knows we may evolve into something some day.
problem is a lot of you dont get the concept of evolution and how it works. it takes thousands...millions of years for a lot of it to happen. sorry we are not morphing into something different within your life time. (although diseases morph within your life time, you ever wonder why dieseaes that we have vaccines for come back? because they evolved.)
there are lots of examples. look into it. the canary islands are one of the greatest examples. australia too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitey
You're loosing your time, most of em can't handle the truth
1. Why are still trying to press a scientific theory as fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by whitey
2. Who's been around for a million years to verify if this theory is true?
And the truth which is what?Quote:
Originally Posted by WU-KILLAH
It appears you don't actually understand what a THEORY actually entails in terms of science.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
A scientific theory IS NOT just a bunch of guys in white coats sitting around GUESSING and making CONJECTURES about how the world works.
Theories are based upon a string of related phenomena that are OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, and FALSIFIABLE.
So, basically, yes, you can't ever be sure that a scientific theory is "true" but the basic philosophy behind science is searching for the truth based on observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and conclusion. A good scientific theory should be held up to extreme scrutiny. It should forbid other things, but also itself be able to be proven wrong. If it does not have the possibility of being proven wrong it is not scientific and of no use. Now, just because a theory has the possibility of being proven wrong doesn't make it weak. A theory must be able to be tested over and over. While there's no divine ordinance to say that after a certain number of trials a theory is "FACT", a theory that holds up in a number of experiments can usually be accepted as factual (that's not to say a new advancement still couldn't prove it wrong, but the odds of that definately decrease).
Certain theories that are the cornerstones of observing nature and the world are regarded as "laws" and are basically unchallenged because the amount of theories built off of them are enough corroborating evidence to suggest there's no reason to doubt it. Still even these laws, such as the Law of Gravity, the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy, etc. COULD hypothetically be disproven if another testable theory emerged and new evidence proved the old theories wrong.
When most people use the word "theory" they actually mean either hypothesis or conjecture.
A hypothesis is an educated guess that can be tested through the scientific method. A string of related hypotheses that stand up to a number of experiments or tests become regarded as theory.
A conjecture is some times synonymous with hypothesis, but it can also have the connotation of a simple guess or estimate based on logical thinking but not hands-on testing.
so.....
Why is it pretty ridiculous to believe aliens or gods created "race" and started civilization? The thing is, there is not enough corroborating evidence to give such ideas any credence. The current scientific theories on the origins of humankind and human civilization have far more tested evidence to back them up.
Futhermore, they are much more simple than a conspiracy theory about aliens. Ever heard of Occam's razor?
hey i've got a theory too! about 5 million years ago, a species of hominids that are closely related to modern day chimpanzees began walking on two legs instead of using all 4 limbs for locomotion. this freed up the use of its hands for manipulation of the environment. over the course of a few million years this led to smarter and smarter organisms as individuals with better toolmaking abilities and decision-making abilities spawned more offspring than their dumber brethren. complex language developed along with the more intelligent groups, greatly improving their chances of survival. by 200,000 years ago anatomically modern humans had already emerged but it wasn't until just 10,000 years ago that they figured out how to farm! once they learned that trick, well, if you don't know how important agriculture and animal domestication is to human history, i suggest you look it up (or just think really hard about what it would be like going from following herds around all your life, living day to day, versus setting up a permanent camp somewhere, planting some seeds, and reaping in more food than you and all your friends could ever possibly eat).
ya but it's just a theory. the aliens thing is pretty convincing too i dunno.
You don't have to believe that....however it is a nice story that threads things together.
Way to go Bill Nye the science guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cthulhu
You think your the only person that read the first chapter in every science book ever written. It's okay, there's probably somebody here that needed to read that.
That's the most ridiculous theory I ever heard. Next thing your gonna tell me it's your nature to fling shit with your bare hands at your fellow man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Humanface Huggah
I really don't have to think hard about what life would be like following herds, seeing how i've been studying how my ancestors did it and were able to produce enough protein to pro-create enough warriors to keep the savage U.S. government at bay for over 60 years during the indian wars. All the way up until point when they agreed to have peace --just long enough to trickle in and leave our babies bleeding in the snow.
But you guys don't want a history lesson, you want a science lesson:
The fossil record doesn't support evolution. There aren't enough transitional fossils across the board to even keep the theory floating. My First Timbs can come in this thread and verify that for me, or maybe he won't because that'll hurt his book sales.
There are however enough dick riders to jump on the next mans nuts. I'll bet my testicles on that one.
peace has been and always will be a losing proposition. it occurs in isolated places, for short periods of time, among relatively small groups of people. in the real world, the powerful dominate and the weak die off. that's evolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini
but to be fair, the native americans never really had much of a chance. corn isn't nearly as suitable for agriculture as wheat and barley, which the europeans had access to. and have you ever tried taming buffalo?! not nearly as easy as domesticating cows and horses, which again the europeans had access to. so with poorer agricultural resources, native americans were at a tremendous disadvantage. they were doomed from the moment they crossed the bering strait.
wow. i mean if you've never actually studied fossil evidence for human evolution, then what's wrong with saying you simply don't know enough to take a stance one way or the other?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slippy Capalini