Photography wasn’t invented 20,000 years ago, requiring that form of evidence is really being stupid.
A Civil Discussion: Evolution, Science, Theology, Atheism, Climate
- Thread starter Stretch
- Start date
Then what you call facts today weren't really facts were they being that the definition of a fact means something that is indisputable. If it can, at a later date be disputed, it really wasn't a fact to start with just a claim.
You have to remember though ,that all the evidence gathered over our history ,backs it 100 percent. It is not like theories are ephemeral.
Since truth, by definition, means something that is indisputable, you don't deal in facts if, at a later date, what you call a fact can be disputed with something else you call a fact.
If what you call evidence today is later refuted, it wasn't really evidence was it?
Demanding proof of God that one knows can't be provided is really being stupid. The difference is when I can't provide the type proof that person wants, they use it as a way to say God doesn't exist. However, when they can't provide the type proof I want, I'm still expected to believe what they call facts despite the possibility that something, by definition, that is indisputable can be disputed.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Darth,
All we are is the dominate species on the planet. But are we really so advanced? We can't even control our own populations, even though we all know the Earth will not support an infinite number of humans. We understand how large our planet is, we know we have already populated all the easiest and most hospitable locations for humans, the most desirable locations containing millions of individuals, yet still we keep churning out more and more humans.
If you ask a non-prompted question of 100 humans. No, make that one thousand humans:
"What does the world really need the most?"
I doubt a single one would answer:
'Oh, that's easy. We just need more humans on the planet.'
We can't even get organized or have any type of common authority. We have divided ourselves into nations and religions, and we are constantly fighting wars. And we call ourselves advanced? How absurd.
We are using up resources faster than we ever thought. The easy ones are all gone, so we continue to expend greater amounts of energy trying to get at the ones which are more difficult to extract. But do we ever stop, take a step back, and wonder if we should be doing this?
We could have it so freaking nice here on this amazing planet, but instead we are very greedy and hoarding of the things we value.
We are polluting the planet faster than we could ever hope to clean it up. Beaches everywhere are littered with floating plastic and human debris but we never stop to think all that stuff wasn't there 50 years ago. We know our water aquifers are pristine and irreplaceable, but that doesn't stop us from fracking nearby or injecting waste fluids underground.
The middle of every ocean is now full of floating plastic bits which gradually break down into micro pieces which absorb oils, microbes and bacteria and finally sink to depths where the stuff is eaten by plankton. Those plankton form the basis of the ocean food chain. They are eaten by predators which are eaten by larger predators and finally end up in fish we consume. No studies have been done to even decide if we want to be doing this.
Capitalism drives inhuman corporations which outlive humans to come up with all kinds of new chemicals never studied for safety and exposure to humans, and also to use crony capitalism to make sure those studies are never performed, even prevented by law, then these chemicals are placed into products marketed as safe. but we don't really know if they are safe or not or what long-term effects might occur.
Capitalism has decided we should be a throw-away disposable society. We make tons of products which are used to extract the wealth of common people for these inhuman corporations just so a very few individuals can have an absurdly opulent lifestyle not available to most of the workers who produce those products. These products are often designed to wear out and become useless within a relatively short period of time, and then simply be tossed into giant piles of refuse we call 'landfills.' We do our best to prevent nasty stuff from leaching out of these giant trash piles, but ultimately the Earth will claim it all and drinking water supplies will be affected. We burn up fossil fuels creating the short-life products, delivering them to consumers, and then removing the discarded debris to take it to the landfill. And that's by design. Not by design is all the junk which ends up in the oceans and the marine food chain.
And we have the nerve to call ourselves advanced as other species are doing none of this?
Ya know, it all depends on what metric you want to use if you want to think of humans as 'unique among even the higher animals.'
Yeah. We are unique alright. Whether or not that is a good thing is debatable.
Even if you say: is it at least good for humans?
We have wiped out many species which we later have learned were actually good for us.
Seen any Carolina Parakeets lately? How about the Great Auk?
All we are is the dominate species on the planet. But are we really so advanced? We can't even control our own populations, even though we all know the Earth will not support an infinite number of humans. We understand how large our planet is, we know we have already populated all the easiest and most hospitable locations for humans, the most desirable locations containing millions of individuals, yet still we keep churning out more and more humans.
If you ask a non-prompted question of 100 humans. No, make that one thousand humans:
"What does the world really need the most?"
I doubt a single one would answer:
'Oh, that's easy. We just need more humans on the planet.'
We can't even get organized or have any type of common authority. We have divided ourselves into nations and religions, and we are constantly fighting wars. And we call ourselves advanced? How absurd.
We are using up resources faster than we ever thought. The easy ones are all gone, so we continue to expend greater amounts of energy trying to get at the ones which are more difficult to extract. But do we ever stop, take a step back, and wonder if we should be doing this?
We could have it so freaking nice here on this amazing planet, but instead we are very greedy and hoarding of the things we value.
We are polluting the planet faster than we could ever hope to clean it up. Beaches everywhere are littered with floating plastic and human debris but we never stop to think all that stuff wasn't there 50 years ago. We know our water aquifers are pristine and irreplaceable, but that doesn't stop us from fracking nearby or injecting waste fluids underground.
The middle of every ocean is now full of floating plastic bits which gradually break down into micro pieces which absorb oils, microbes and bacteria and finally sink to depths where the stuff is eaten by plankton. Those plankton form the basis of the ocean food chain. They are eaten by predators which are eaten by larger predators and finally end up in fish we consume. No studies have been done to even decide if we want to be doing this.
Capitalism drives inhuman corporations which outlive humans to come up with all kinds of new chemicals never studied for safety and exposure to humans, and also to use crony capitalism to make sure those studies are never performed, even prevented by law, then these chemicals are placed into products marketed as safe. but we don't really know if they are safe or not or what long-term effects might occur.
Capitalism has decided we should be a throw-away disposable society. We make tons of products which are used to extract the wealth of common people for these inhuman corporations just so a very few individuals can have an absurdly opulent lifestyle not available to most of the workers who produce those products. These products are often designed to wear out and become useless within a relatively short period of time, and then simply be tossed into giant piles of refuse we call 'landfills.' We do our best to prevent nasty stuff from leaching out of these giant trash piles, but ultimately the Earth will claim it all and drinking water supplies will be affected. We burn up fossil fuels creating the short-life products, delivering them to consumers, and then removing the discarded debris to take it to the landfill. And that's by design. Not by design is all the junk which ends up in the oceans and the marine food chain.
And we have the nerve to call ourselves advanced as other species are doing none of this?
Ya know, it all depends on what metric you want to use if you want to think of humans as 'unique among even the higher animals.'
Yeah. We are unique alright. Whether or not that is a good thing is debatable.
Even if you say: is it at least good for humans?
We have wiped out many species which we later have learned were actually good for us.
Seen any Carolina Parakeets lately? How about the Great Auk?
There is no way to prove a fictional being exists. You make them up and you can believe what you want. But there is no body, no marks left, no evidence of it at all. Just your imagination. Or your belief is someone else's imagination. Show me proof the easter bunny does not exist. What would proof look like? Therefore the bunny lives. No, it is silly. Just like god.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
That’s fine, but they can dispense with the flat earther stuff in the meantime.
Darth Omar
Russian asset
Darth Omar
Russian asset
You really believe there’s nothing significantly different between man and the other mammals.
Amazing.
Well, then give it your best shot in scientific terms....other smart asses like yourself might find it at least amusing....Sorry, the big bang theory can't be put in layman's terms. It's irreducibly complex!
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well you're looking at biological evolution as if it's linear and has an endpoint. It doesn't. It's diffuse. It's not that evolution has reached perfection on very ancient species like crocks, sharks and Watermarks...err cockroaches.
When these species have significant mutations that cause phenotypic change over time they produce new species. Some of those deviations from the phenotype don't work out so well and die off but the primary phenotype has remained stable because it works. So just because an older species still exist doesn't mean evolution has reached an end point of perfection. Just because crocks, sharks and Watermarks...err cockroaches themselves are still around doesn't mean they haven't changed and it does not mean they haven't been progenitors of new species.
A good analogy would be a technology like books. We still have books. The concept works and is successful and has been around for a millennia and books them selves have not evolved radically, they are no longer hand written by cloistered monks, written on vellum instead of paper but basic function of books hasn't changed that much over time. We now read e-books on digital devices but we also still have books because the concept still works and they are probably not going away due to competition with e-books because they work. So it is with evolution. Successfully adapted creatures that lack competition to challenge it, like the Watermarks...errr cockroaches, will survive for vast periods of time but that doesn't mean that evolution has reached an end point with them and certainly not perfection.
You only need to look at a Watermark...err cockroach to observe that fact.
Last edited:
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
But but but ... Magic!
Darth Omar
Russian asset
The BB isn’t really all that hard to understand lol.
Galactic red shift is analogous to the every day Doppler effect except it involves the electromagnetic spectrum instead of sounds waves. And the red shift is consistent with an expanding universe. And an expanding universe is one that contracts as you go backwards in time.
Where it gets tricky is with the putative Singularity.
Ironically, a universe with a beginning is consistent with the very first verse of Genesis—except for the God part. Philosophers [I call anyone who speculates about conditions that lie beyond the universe or who/what played the causative agent—philosophers lol] try to get around this inconvenient fact by positing a multiverse scenario.
But there’s a fly in their ointment: any mechanisms that spawn random, parallel universes, would themselves, require fine-tuning—otherwise nothing gets created at all.
So their efforts only beg the question of fine-tuning in the universe. Maybe it doesn’t qualify as science, but logically, the most parsimonious explanation is the universe is the result of an infinite mind.
Most men refer this being as God.
/
Just as I predicted.....scientific observation IMPLYS the big bang.....
Why did it happen....science says "I don't know"
Where did all that matter come from that we call the universe...science says "I don't know"
Maybe the cyclic model is a better representation of reality. Bang, zoom, bang again, zoom again, over and over...
If you extrapolate all the way back to the entire Universe being in a single location with a nearly infinite density, before it expanded into what it is now, what do you get?
What you get is something that defies human logic...a tiny little ball that contained all the matter in the entire universe....
One thing I know scientists do agree on is the Big Bang ain’t the final theory of the Universe, it’s just a step along the way ....
the big bang may or may not be fact....it may be the best theory we’ve got so far but then again it could be shitcanned when some new
theory comes along.....
https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...g-wasnt-the-beginning-after-all/#4dcc44ea55df
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
That's correct but if your scientific theory doesn't have a factual basis then it's not a scientific theory but a hypothesis. Now just because a scientific theory has a factual basis doesn't mean that it's all right in all particulars or that there aren't facts or knowledge we are unaware of that could cause said theory to be modified or even falsified. That's always a possibility in science.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No they are certainly not ephemeral but no theory is backed 100%. Maybe 99.99999999% but never 100%.