Large Scale Central

Record temperatures

General Discussion
#261

My,
Wikepedia quoting HJ Mueller.
I’m impressed.
Convinced…nah.

The problem is that anyone who finds it hard to believe we started as an “accident” how ever many years ago and evolved is assumed to do so because of religious reasons.

We survived evolving, always fortunate enough to be in the temperate zone( assuming there was one). Always lucky enough to survive the flooding when things warmed up. Survived all natural disasters. Survived all disease. Did all this without leaving fossil evidence for all stages except Homo Erectus.

I have never stated it wasn’t possible. I don’t believe it is probable.
It has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
Ralph

#262

Ralph,
you require evidence of my beliefs and yet all you can come up with is “possibly this could happen…” This is hypocritical to require something of someone else which you are unable to come up with yourself. You require me to accept your statements as true, simply because you say ‘possibly’, then I can say that evolution is ‘possibly’ true and using your logic, then by golly evolution must indeed be true. Your methology is called a hypothesis. To claim a hypothesis as fact, requires unequivocal solid evidence. Science has no place for the word ‘possible’. If it is insulting to you for me to doubt your credibility, well, when you make claims that man could have ‘possibly’ lived for a thousand years, then why stop there, why not two thousand years or possibly three thousand years.

    Anthropology,  has evidence of fossilised remains of human creatures,  as they evolved from early man, almost two million years ago.  Fossilisation requires ideal conditions to preserve the physical form evidence of the dead object.  The fossil is not the actual remains of the object (except for insects fossilised in amber),  but is a chemical substitution resembling the form of the object.  Fossilised remains of sea creatures that  deposited in muddy seafloors remain intact and yet other creatures that deposited on the sea floor,  ended up as oil deposits.  Not all creatures have the luxury of becoming fossils.

     I firmly believe in evolution as an answer to the natural world around me.  I do not use it when it suits me.  Evolution does not deny the existence of a supreme being.   You confine your beliefs to one book,  which is a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite.  How much content has been lost in the translation from firstly,  the spoken word to the numerous translations from the originally written word?  How fluent is your Hebrew?  There are hundreds of bible variations around.  Which translation is the true message?  Remember that the bible was not written down for thousands of years and required the story to be handed down from generation to generation.
#263

Ralph,
Quote: “Did all this without leaving fossil evidence for all stages except Homo Erectus.”

Homo Erectus only represents the last forty thousand or so years of human existence. There are many fossilised remains of Neanderthal man and the humanoids that preceded him. I believe the oldest humanoid dates from around two million years ago and was named ‘Lucy’. Evidence of early man (pre-Homo Erectus) have been found in Africa (Rift Valley), Asia (Mongolia and Indonesia). Homo erectus represents the final link (known to us) in the chain of man’s evolution. He is definately not the last, as no doubt, like his predecessors, he will evolve to suit his future environment. I suggest that you take your nose out of the holy book and read something of the real world, like maybe an elementary science book, for starters. I had a Catholic high school/college education and I was taught both religous instruction and evolution and the existence of early man as a very young person (around ten or eleven years of age). It never occurred to me, at the time, that there were people around, bound by archaic religious beliefs, that did not believe in evolution. Perhaps because of its apparent conflict with their beliefs, they preferred to ignore the evidence around them, as it would have instilled doubt in their followers.

#264

Tim,
I use the word possible, because science has to eliminate all possibilities, before making a declaration.
As when speaking of the Bible…proving it wrong does not eliminate the possibility of a creator, God, supreme being etc.

You said:
“You confine your beliefs to one book, which is a rewrite of a rewrite of a rewrite.”

When have I quoted the Bible? When have I said anything about the Bible being correct ? I guess you didn’t reread my posts, because you still have it wrong.
As for the Bible being a rewrite of a rewrite…I agree. This is exactly why proving the Bible wrong does not eliminate the possibility of a creator. It also does not eliminate the possibility of God or a supreme being.

You have made evolution part of your religion. I didn’t bring religion into it.
Ralph

#265
Tim Brien said:
Ralph, Quote: "Did all this without leaving fossil evidence for all stages except Homo Erectus."

Homo Erectus only represents the last forty thousand or so years of human existence. There are many fossilised remains of Neanderthal man and the humanoids that preceded him. I believe the oldest humanoid dates from around two million years ago and was named ‘Lucy’. Evidence of early man (pre-Homo Erectus) have been found in Africa (Rift Valley), Asia (Mongolia and Indonesia). Homo erectus represents the final link (known to us) in the chain of man’s evolution. He is definately not the last, as no doubt, like his predecessors, he will evolve to suit his future environment. I suggest that you take your nose out of the holy book and read something of the real world, like maybe an elementary science book, for starters. I had a Catholic high school/college education and I was taught both religous instruction and evolution and the existence of early man as a very young person (around ten or eleven years of age). It never occurred to me, at the time, that there were people around, bound by archaic religious beliefs, that did not believe in evolution. Perhaps because of its apparent conflict with their beliefs, they preferred to ignore the evidence around them, as it would have instilled doubt in their followers.


Gee Tim,
Here is one from the Museum of Science data base 800,000 years old. I guess you didn’t check the link I provided.

Fossil:
Sangiran 17

Site:
Sangiran
Java, Indonesia (1)

Discovered By:
Towikromo
09,13,1969 (1)
Estimated Age of Fossil:
800,000 ya

  • determined by Stratigraphic, faunal & radiometric data (1, 4)

Species Name:
Homo erectus (1, 7, 15, 38)
Homo erectus erectus (25)

Gender:
Male (1)

Cranial Capacity:
1029 cc (1)

Information:
Best preserved specimen from Java (1)

Interpretation:
Fossil rusty brown from iron oxide (1)

The last Homo Erectus was one million years ago.
The next fossil is 500,00 to one million years older.
Lineage to humans at this point is debatable.
Certainly not proven.
Ralph

#266

Deleted

#267

Albert Einstein.
Ralph

#268

Oh BTW today is Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.

Happy Birthday! Things have been very interesting!

Ralph,

Now you see why googling one’s name (in variations) doesn’t necessarily lead straight back to LSC. :lol: :lol: :stuck_out_tongue:

#269

Deleted

#270
TonyWalsham said:
Ralph, surely you jest?
Surely I did =D I needed a little comic relief. Ralph
#271

…or was it your way of answering the question even though you don’t know who wrote it? :wink:

#272
TonyWalsham said:
Make of this what you will.

“Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man—state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of this world, its encyclopedic compendium, its logic in popular form, its spiritual point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. The struggle against religion is, therefore, indirectly the struggle against that world whose spiritual aroma is religion. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

Anyone care to guess as to wrote it?

Ralph Berg said:
Albert Einstein. Ralph
TonyWalsham said:
Ralph, surely you jest?
Tony,

That isn’t a biblical quote, if it were the results would differ.

BTW on Darwin’s Birthday. It lends some more perspective to certain mindsets.

#273

HJ.
I know where the quote comes from. :wink:

It is usually not given in its entirety, with just the bold bit (which should be a clue) quoted out of context.

I was just seeing if those with “faith” knew too.

#274
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Now you see why googling one’s name (in variations) doesn’t necessarily lead straight back to LSC. :lol: :lol: :stuck_out_tongue:


HJ,
Whats up with the inuendo?
Google my name and many people come up, who are not me. Including a doctor in Goldsboro in some sort of trouble.
Google some variation of my name and you get even more people who are not me.
Ralph

#275
TonyWalsham said:
............or was it your way of answering the question even though you don't know who wrote it? ;)
I didn't know the answer. I thought Einstein was funny. Ralph
#276
Ralph Berg said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Now you see why googling one’s name (in variations) doesn’t necessarily lead straight back to LSC. :lol: :lol: :stuck_out_tongue:


HJ,
Whats up with the inuendo?
Google my name and many people come up, who are not me. Including a doctor in Goldsboro in some sort of trouble.
Google some variation of my name and you get even more people who are not me.
Ralph

Ralph,

It wasn’t me running a test because I didn’t like the Google results, was it?

Tony,

The quote has been translated a few times and the mileage differs. :wink: :slight_smile:

#277
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph Berg said:
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,

Now you see why googling one’s name (in variations) doesn’t necessarily lead straight back to LSC. :lol: :lol: :stuck_out_tongue:


HJ,
Whats up with the inuendo?
Google my name and many people come up, who are not me. Including a doctor in Goldsboro in some sort of trouble.
Google some variation of my name and you get even more people who are not me.
Ralph

Ralph,

It wasn’t me running a test because I didn’t like the Google results, was it?

Tony,

The quote has been translated a few times and the mileage differs. :wink: :slight_smile:


Come on HJ,
Got something to say…spit it out.
Who said anything about not liking the results? I said I ended the experiment and returned my full name.
Because I’m curious about how search engines work, I’m some kind of criminal ?
What happened to attention to details HJ ?
Ralph

#278

Yes Ralph,

Ralph B_rg said:
Ken Brunt said:
I gotta couple extra paint brushes..........your welcome to join the fun........;)

PS…Ralph, your last name shows up here as B _ R G …is this a computer glitch or are you making some kind of statement?


No.
I googled my name one day and had to wade through a ton of LSC posts. So I’m trying to see if this will keep it from expanding.
For those that don’t remember, it is an “E”
Ralph

If you don’t want to wade you could read this to get a better understanding.

And then this to dig in the evolution of the Net. I know, I know, Al Gore created the Internet, there was no evolution! :smiley:

#279
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
SNIP Tony,

The quote has been translated a few times and the mileage differs. :wink: :slight_smile:


Well it was written in German, so that should explain the variances. :wink:

C’mon y’all, put on your thinking caps.
Or you can take the easy way out and Google it?

#280

Tony,

You mean Bablefish and Google in their Neanderthal versions or just some flunkies who have problems with context?