I didn't bother checking out the person you're calling stupid. It could be an accurate description or maybe not, but it seems to me you're being a bit nervy yourself to go on a rant about someone who doesn't subscribe to your beliefs. I don't agree with everyones various opinions and beliefs, but I respect their right to hold them. I view that as one of the major keystones on which freedom stands. So chill out would ya! :) Josh
A lot of people tend to get beliefs about Neanderthals from the Clan of the Cave Bear series of books. While they are very entertaining, there are serious flaws in the books. The books are based on conjecture and the author's ideas. We do know the Neanderthal buried their dead, which leads us to believe they had emotions as we do. But their technology skills could not keep up with Cro Magnon (us) and so there are several possibilities. We outhunted them and they could not compete for available game. Or our weapons technology gave us a huge firepower superiority over them and they could never hope to close the "Projectile Gap" and we basically wiped them out in conflict over hunting/foraging grounds. They probably didn't have atlatls and if we did and they didn't, it's the equivalent of a culture with nuclear weapons engaging a culture without even a bow. If they could not launch projectiles, they were pretty much hosed. I'm not saying we did pull the plug on them, but it is possible. Another possibility is environmental/weather changes occurred and they died out. Or Cro Magnon had diseases for which they had no immunity, smallpox perhaps. There are a number of diseases that could have wiped out the Neanderthal.
I find it unlikely that Neanderthal could have gotten away with raping and killing Cro Magnons when they were at a firepower disadvantage. But had they done so, Cro Magnon certainly would have had the pretext to remove them from the equation. If Neanderthal had no atlatls, and they most likely didn't, it would be like shooting fish in a barrel if they engaged Cro Magnon who did.
Not quite, Pappy. Science is based on observation of the natural world and working out the hows and whys of it. Evolution is stood for 150 years and it's not gonna get debunked because it explains the how and why of species diversification. I accept it, there is no belief when there is empirical evidence to back it up. There is an answer, many just refuse to accept it on principle that it clashes with belief. I equate it to dinosaur with feather. I don't like it, but I cannot deny the fossil evidence, so I just have to accept it. But that is far besides the point and we got off on a tangent.
Not quite, Pappy. Science is based on observation of the natural world and working out the hows and whys of it. Evolution is stood for 150 years and it's not gonna get debunked because it explains the how and why of species diversification. I accept it, there is no belief when there is empirical evidence to back it up. There is an answer, many just refuse to accept it on principle that it clashes with belief. I equate it to dinosaur with feather. I don't like it, but I cannot deny the fossil evidence, so I just have to accept it. But that is far besides the point and we got off on a tangent.
not sure i can agree with you there. We don't have substantial proof to prove that evolution is true or not, not on a macroscopic level anyway. What the theory of evolution is is merely an extrapolation of what could be. there are so many possibilities that its just insane to think that this is the guaranteed method, its a possibility and we should consider the possibility, but we should also be ready to consider other possibilities if they arise.
Mike, I must respectfully disagree. No one knows what happened to Neanderthal and science has not proven any of my theories as being wrong. It is more than possible disease wiped them out as I said. We know from our own world history what happens when a culture with access to superior weaponry encounters one without. Not to mention the disease factor. If Neanderthal had no immunity from smallpox, for example, it could have wiped them out by the droves. At least a third of a population will die during a smallpox outbreak. Now, if your best hunters die, what happens to the rest?
Good science does not state things to be completely wrong if there is no proof that it is, in fact, wrong. Science is not perfect, either, I must point out. Indeed, science has given us wonderful things like computers and the internet. But let's not forget how the internet came to be. It was originally a classified project from DOD and DARPA to provide a means of sharing vital information in the aftermath of a cataclysmic nuclear war between us and the Soviets. And what are the causes and conditions of such an event happening? Because science gave us nuclear weapons in the first place. Science also gave us VX nerve gas. Science isn't as far-looking as it claims to be because it never asked the questions: Is developing these weapons skilful? Is this mindful of what humanity will do with such technology? We are also on the brink of DNA being used to discriminate against people and it's already being used to try and "tailor" children to have certain traits. This is the stalking horse of another thing that science once did, which is eugenics. My point? Science has quite a few flaws and if one practices deep looking, it becomes very clear what those flaws are. Science does not practice deep looking because if it did, it would realize that it is responsible for some rather horrific things and still is. Thus, it would not assume itself to be always correct simply because it is not relying on a cultural religious structure or mythos to explain things. Evolution happens, but we don't know why in some cases. There are causes and conditions attached to all things.
My last point is, there are a lot of mistaken impressions about Neanderthal. But the science of the day is where these mistaken impressions originated. Causes and conditions attached to the mistaken theories originate from science itself. So if science wishes to correct itself, it cannot, therefore, assume itself to be right in any case at any time until it can prove what it says. I do not necessarily believe Cro Magnon engaged in an extermination policy against Neanderthal. But if I look deeply into history, I can see that this is a possibility since this very thing has happened before on this planet when an advanced culture encounters one who is not. Many times, in fact. And very recently. I can also see that disease wiped out a number of civilizations that had no immunities. Humanity has still not learned how to use science skilfully and with mindfulness of future consequences. So, we need to investigate science itself as science investigates things.
That evidence as i said before is allowing us to extrapolate. We don't KNOW, we can make educated guesses, but the fact remains that none of us were there back then, so we cant be 100% possessive, just like all the scientists of the world thought the world was flat so the same thing could be said about evolution. Im not saying its false, but im also saying that its not proven true.
Mike, something I wish to point out. Much of medical science today is not driven by evolutionary biology, but on profit margin. Science is wilfully neglecting the evolution of diseases becoming antibiotic resistant to instead concentrate on "lifestyle diseases" generally cured by proper diet and exercise. Science cannot have it both ways. It cannot ignore rapidly evolving "superflus" in order to devote its attention to Restless Leg Syndrome.
I must disagree about science not being responsible for the acts of humans using the technology it provides. All of the scientists on the Manhattan Project knew what they were doing and did so anyway. They must assume personal responsibility, as must science itself, for the development of nuclear weapons. Science cannot fall back on religious myth (Pandora's Box) when it so chooses to abdicate personal accountability for its actions. The scientists who took the atomic bomb to the next level by developing the hydrogen bomb also knew exactly what they were doing. Science cannot then claim some Pollyanna innocence and say, "Well, yeah, we invented these weapons capable of exterminating the planet, but it isn't our fault if people loaded these weapons on to delivery systems and intended to use them..." If scientists had a moral compass in such cases, they would have seen immediately why they were being asked to invent them. And the scientists went along with it willingly. Ergo, they cannot ask absolution from it now. Yes, there are scientists who look deeply into the ethics of new technology. But the nuclear weapons came to be nonetheless, did they not?
I apologize for sounding rude, but when you claim it's 'just a theory' it tells everyone A LOT about your understanding of science.
I do agree with you in not being opposed to anything. I was actually surprised to see this topic on the forum after reading the rules against politics or religion. The theory of Evolution is not religious, but all of the resistance to it is, so you really cannot discuss it in common circumstances without religion coming up.
You obviously do not know what a theory is in science. Look up the word. It is also called the theory of gravity,
I apologize for sounding rude, but when you claim it's 'just a theory' it tells everyone A LOT about your understanding of science.
I do agree with you in not being opposed to anything. I was actually surprised to see this topic on the forum after reading the rules against politics or religion. The theory of Evolution is not religious, but all of the resistance to it is, so you really cannot discuss it in common circumstances without religion coming up.
Marks,
If I were not the highly-proper, incredibly noble gentleman that I am, I would say something like, "Discuss it until the moderator says stop. Surely they won't ban you for the first offence."
But I would not say something like that. Nope.
I'm certainly no scientist. Theory, Law, Fact, Fiction......I'm not that worried about it.Mark, I do not believe in evolution, I simply accept it. I do not believe in anything. Either it is supported by overwhelming evidence or not. I shall not comment on the "evidence" for Christianity. It is your right to have an opinion and if you are offended, then I am sorry. With that said, science is the study of the natural world and explains how and why it works. Evolution is one of those explainations. That is why it can be discussed here and religion cannot be.
Wasn't my plan to get involved in all this. Just wanted to point out that I can't discuss my beliefs but you can discuss yours. There is scientific evidence to support Christianity but I'm not allowed to discuss that here.
You obviously do not know what a theory is in science. Look up the word. It is also called the theory of gravity,
sorry i have to correct you on this, its the law of gravity and theory of gravity... just finished a physics course with 95%. The theory is a theory, A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. so its not disproved yet, but there is always that possibility. Gravity has a set law for calculating it, but we don't yet fully understand it.
Edit: btw, Scientific Theories are disprovable but not provable. If data does not agree with a theory, then the theory is wrong and must be changed or replaced.
Belief has no such limitations because there is no science involved (nor should there be).
I have a theory. I should have some more tea. :)
You obviously do not know what a theory is in science. Look up the word. It is also called the theory of gravity,
sorry i have to correct you on this, its the law of gravity and theory of gravity... just finished a physics course with 95%. The theory is a theory, A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. so its not disproved yet, but there is always that possibility. Gravity has a set law for calculating it, but we don't yet fully understand it.
OK, so let's go deeper into the rabbit hole.... Those equations are the 'classical' equations for gravity. Gravity is NOT really a classical force, it is a quantum force... one of the four forces and the least understood. The warping of space-time by mass.... Einstein.. well, that's not really correct either because his space-time wasn't quantized.
And then there's 'dark matter'. Something that we have not idea of ... except we can feel it's gravity (it's what keeps our Galaxy together). The more you look, the stranger the Universe appears.
Edit: btw, Scientific Theories are disprovable but not provable. If data does not agree with a theory, then the theory is wrong and must be changed or replaced.
Belief has no such limitations because there is no science involved (nor should there be).
HaHa! You all now know how I feel when teaching evolution to 8th graders >:D
Teaching doesn't pay nearly enough but I love it!
Tracy
They might as well teach it. Most high school science courses are geared for preparing students for university, and they don't tiptoe around the issue like public schools do. I started out in a Bachelor of Sciences seven years ago, and the first day of Biology 1001 the prof was very clear that he was not going to discuss the validity of evolution, nor was he going to make curriculum exceptions for anyone. If you answered that evolution was an invalid concept on a test, you got zero. He said it was an accepted scientific principle, and until such time as it is disproved we were required to learn it.
I believe that actual evolution has been observed in several species. I kind of remember one study done on domesticated foxes. Within a few generations several characteristics had changed to better serve their needs as domestic animals. The most notable change was a significant reduction in the length of the snout. I also believe its been observed in species of insects, especially those with quick reproductive cycles. And I know that bacteria is capable of adapting to new conditions exceptionally well, not just by changing the way it behaves, but by altering its DNA i.e evolution.
I guess I didn't realize that this was even still an issue. I thought that it was mostly accepted by just about everyone. But then, Canada is a more secular society than the States, and I know most of you guys are rocking the stars and stripes.
I don't see how anyone can look at what dog breeders can do and then say that evolution doesn't exist. Its kind of a proof of concept if you ask me. If a person can take an animal and turn it into everything that dogs have been become, then I imagine natural selection can do the same.
There are people on youtube that purposely say things to get other people worked up. They're called trolls and they're best ignored. There are even smart trolls that are very good at what they do. You could waste hours arguing with people online and it won't do a lick of good.
Glad to see it's stayed civil. ;) :) :)
Pappy
It's only two pages if you change your settings to allow for more posts per page. Just saying.
8)
The earth is only around 6000 years old....carbon dating is crap.... science now that is accepted as fact turns to crap later...neanderthals skulls n bones found are just warped by elements or were deformed humans...and ignorance is bliss :P >:D :laugh:
Saw this today, seemed appropriate :)
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t253/cbergerman/640/science.jpg)
I'll get that tea warmed up. Green or black?