Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Hades, Dec 7, 2006.
Carbon dating is a joke, but I've never heard of the other two.
Carbon dating is accurate within 45,000 years. Go read about the others.
I kinda got her mixed up with Lucy(hadn't had my coffee yet ;p).I wasn't sayng ape.. more like pre-human. An early prototype. One that gave rise to our genus and a few species of which we're the only ones left.
'Lucy' goes back further than Eve. She was a hominid and quite apelike. One thing they've discerned is that while she likely had many human mannerisms as far as child rearing goes, Lucy hooted and grunted like any other ape. The vocal chords hadn't developed into what we have just yet. Hell, they aren't even sure if she was fully bipedal or hung around in trees. Her skeletal structure is somewhat inbetween the indicators for either. That is not human. Hominid yes, human no.
Up until about 25k years ago we shared this planet with 'cousins'. Then they disappeared, likely through interbreeding with us(why europeans exhibit certain neanderthal traits in skull structure..).. as well as losing out in competition for resources.
Hell, there are some theories that we got our 'intelligence' through interbreeding with neanderthals. Other than being short ugly fuckers they were extremely strong in comparison to us, and they had a larger brain to boot. Why we won out in the end is likely the result of environmental changes during their time. for a period homosapien and neanderthal changed places quite a bit over a few millenia, and it seems to indicate that us humans stuck to warmer climes while neanderthal stuck to colder. So depending upon weather trends either they would move south and push us back, or we would move north and push them back. Eventually we exerted more pressure. But through all this mixing some of us picked up a brain related genetic mutation, and being the horny migrants we were(combined with the advantages the mutation gave in natural selection), it spread relatively quickly.
Think like a dogs family tree. Hominids being dogs in general. We humans are say.. german shepherds, while these other guys wouldve been malamutes, terriers, etc. same basic design for all of us, reproductively viable.. but quite dissimilar in physical attributes.
The reason why humans are but one species instead of many is because we've done a good show of swimming in the gene pool. Certain folks, like Egyptians and the people in Basque country, have/had a distinct genetic heritage from breeding only within their own groups. If they had stayed out of the 'public pool' long enough they would've eventually lost reproductive viability and diverged into a seperate branch on our family tree.
Africa has the largest showing of genetic diversity, which is understandable given that it gave rise to all of us. There are alot of tribes there who can only be considered human because they're close enough on the tree to still breed with the rest of us... aborigines are another(Those fuckers can survive extreme heat and cold that would kill the rest of us).
For the 100k-200k of years we were seperating and spreading around the globe, we did a good job of 'evolving' certain physical characteristics through a combination of favorable breeding traits and natural selection. Sinodonty being one, which links Native Americans to North East Asians. The bridge between Asia and America disappeared during a warming trend, so the founding population of americans started developing its own traits. Northeast Asians' earwax and eyelids developed differently as well, traits that came about to handle their habitat better.
Had we not been so adept at reproducing and surviving(and later raiding and raping), all these different groups would have kept adapting to their environments until we were seperate species.
Howbout horses and donkeys? They can produce offspring(mules), but aren't considered reproductively viable because the offspring is sterile. Give a few more millennia and they likely wouldn't be able to reproduce at all.
We're not going to witness macroevolution occuring suddenly within our lifetimes, its a long drawn out process which takes place over countless of our own generations. It doesn't just happen instantly. First a favorable mutation has to appear, and then it has to spread itself through the genepool. This takes a variable amount of time, depending upon reproductive cycle of the species involved. Other than playing connect the dots with what came before and what is now, the only way we could truly track and witness this happening is if we isolated a good chunk of a population and dedicated a quite a few generations of scientists to documenting it. This is why they perform their studies on moths and other critters with a high reproductive turnover.
I subscribe to the evolution theory more than the 'god made us!' theory because it explains these processes and changes better. However, we are proof that there is intelligent life out there, and our genetic sequence is surpisingly 'tidy' compared to others, it's almost as if somewhere down the line someone came along and 'snipped off' certain parts of our DNA sequence. I believe that evolution is what brought the world around to what it is today, but as far as humans go I wouldn't rule out some sort of tampering. Be it a God or an Alien... or a godlike(to us) alien. ;p
I think all the conflict comes with the human tendency to think within too small a timeframe. We haven't been documenting and studying this stuff untill fairly recently. A few hundred years out of about 10,000 worth of developing societies, which comes out of about 25,000 years worth of humans having 'dominion' over this planet, which comes from 200,000 years of our evolution, which comes from fuckall who knows how long of genetic mutations beforehand(around 2 million for us monkey types alone..). We've been asking ourselves these questions for longer than we could even write, and almost up until the present we were unable/afraid to pursue the matter deeper. For the longest time God(s) was the easy answer. Only time will answer this question.
And maeglin, carbon dating isn't a joke, It's reliability is just dependant upon the enviroment in which the subject matter had been preserved. This is why certain parts of Africa are favored for digs, as the environment was more suited to warding off the carbon degradation. Granted, it can't provide a specific date and time but it does give a timeframe.
Carbon dating is highly inaccurate from what I've read. Things they find in the ground are actually only a few centuries old are testing tens of thousands of years ago. Besides these are testing methods for a yet unproven theory, why should I believe it?
Why do you believe the earth is only 10,000 years old? That sounds like a theory to me. ;p
Because I do. And yes it is a theory. My point is why should I change my mind based off of almost nothing but someone else's educated guessing? If you could prove macro evolution we wouldn't be having this conversation. Same thing with how old the world is.
The innacuracies in carbon dating are almost always a result of improper calibration.
Other incosistencies can be attributed to cross contamination or sample size.
Carbon dating is used only as a ballpark. If you have multiple samples from the same time period, carbon dating all of them will get you decently accurate timestamp.
Maeglin, you seem to base your carbon dating theories off of theistic propaganda.
I'm with you on not believing shit you read/are taught in school, but there is plenty of proof of the accuracies of carbon dating when the proper conditions are available. I would like to see proof of your example of an item a few centuries old being misdated 10,000 years old. Examples like this, if true, are extreme exceptions and more than likely the result of one of the problems I listed above.
How does your theory explain dinosaurs?
Good point Sithdaddy. Alot of christian scientists believe there was a think layer of water/water vapor lining the planet. This encloser allowed longer lives, more oxygen, yadayadayada. Anywho the 40 day and 40 night flood is said to have been from this collapsing and causing some species to die out from lack of adapting. Just a wild theory, and I read that years upon years ago. I'll dig some carbon dating stuff up later, at work and cant look for too much shit online.
Are you a pro christain science guy?
I pick and choose what to believe mostly. For the most part I do believe in creationism over macro-evolution.
LOL 5 pages of shit, you fuckers just need to stfu. This wasn't a bible study thread, so if you bitches want to debate religion then start a new one.
It's been proven that neolithic humans lived as long as we did. And tended to die of old age instead of disease. These guys could survive heart attacks and shit without the aid of medicine because they were so fit. Lifespans of humans didn't drop into 30-40 years until population density brought about warfare and new diseases.
As to the great flood. There is evidence that the Black Sea region was one which was flooded, and some point to that for the whole noah's ark thing.. alot of people died when that happened. Thing is, every single culture on this planet has a flood myth of one sort or another, even the inuit. Given that when the Ice Age was coming to an end, the water didn't just slowly trickle off of an icecube it came in fits and starts with some pretty catastrophic events(creation of english channel, and bering strait, alot of those islands in south east asia were once much larger landmasses.. the black sea I mentioned.. etc etc etc) the flood myths are written off as a bit of genetic memory. Everyone has their own legends and explanations as everyone was affected.
The records of the ages of kings and other ancient people is another sticky issue. But in places like mesopotamia and egypt natural ages started appearing in records around the time that writing appeared. Of course, just as we try to record and document our pre-history, these folks were doing the same on a much more primitive level. In other words, people just guessed. Thats not to say that some events recorded didn't happen, it's just that without their own documentation they had to guess the time frame.
There are some interesting links between biblical texts and pre-history. One story in particular escapes me.. the dude with three sons whose one son raped him and cursed his own bloodline forever(which was later used as an excuse to enslave blackfolks..being his offspring..).. It's were we get our categories for some languages.. hametic, semetic, and the third which I forget.
It was some dudes way of explaining why there are different people and where they came from(biblical common ancestory ;p). And also why Africa sucks as a place to live("Their land is sucky cuz god cursed them!"). Of course, to those who study prehistory, you only need to look at the environment of africa to understand why most of it does not support complex societies. Most of the land is unsuitable(it always sucked, but not as bad as it does nowdays) to develop a dense population naturally. Without population density there is no pressure to further develop agriculture, bureaucracy, and all the other things that gave rise to 'civilization'. When people started getting around enough outside of their own habitats they started asking "Why do these people look different? So someone said 'because he comes from a different brother'. And when they said 'Howcome we have cities and writing and are so much better?' Someone else responded with 'because obviously god doesn't like them as much'.
It's a sort of monistic way of thinking that came about with the idea of 'one true god' during the first millenium B.C. There is one and only one and he makes you better because he doesn't like the other guy. As opposed to the 'We are better because our gods are stronger' which preceded it beforehand. Before we started giving gods human characteristics(for various reasons but much of the earliest 'civilized' gods can be placed as a founder of one city or another) and having pissing contests over them we were all just a bunch of nature worshipping hippies.
this thread jumped all over the place and I'm not helping because I'm a history nerd. =|
Puff puff pass Meph! You're fucking clinging to the bong again, man.
This is, without a doubt, one of the silliest conversations to be having in the 21st century. I question medical science on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean I go and trump it with my own dogma and random -- desperate -- notions. It certainly doesn't mean I dismiss it outright throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The reason so many people want to keep the bible’s version of creation is simple; hate. Have you ever heard of the term “mud” people used by Christian racists? The term implies that while Adam and Lilith were formed by the hands of god in clay, the lesser animals came out of the mud. Evolution basically says we’re all equal/brothers and that doesn’t jive with white Jesus, you dig?
On the other hand, evolution does support one story from the bible. The Sons of Abraham/Abrahem, which forked to form Judaism and Islam. Through genetic studies we’ve found that a specific genetic disorder only occurs in ethnic Jews and Arabs, which is a hallmark of a common ancestry.
Honestly if you lined up everyone from every part of the world the evolution of man becomes very obvious. Going to the east of Mesopotamia (Iraq), you have various flavors of Arabs and then hit India where you get lighter complexions with similar features (because Arabs and Indians are technically Caucasian) which transitions nicely across China into Mongolia and Tibet. Going the other way around the Arabs look remarkably similar to ethnic Jews, and they in turn look like Eastern Europeans, who look like Western Europeans.
I’m not saying this is Meaglin’s reason for believing what he believes, but it doesn’t take too many degrees of separation to find someone who does and that is why he was taught that.
Meaglin brought the bible into a scientific discussion, now it needs to get the shit beat out of it so that doesn't happen again. w00t for natural selection!
This is an excellent point Mephiston. Recently I've been contemplating the chronology of the bible and I am beginning to think that the two books are presented in an awkward chronology. The entire thesis would exceed the scope of a message board post, but I have always had a fascination with WTF the Rosecrucianists and Knights Templar at least thought they were up to.
Consider the Old Testament’s beginning with Genesis, describing Eden and the expulsion. Adam lives to be 930 and has a reproductive cycle into 300… this actually makes sense scientifically because our reproductive cycle is about 1/3 of our life span. Then you get into the floods and the Rainbow Covenant in which God promises with the sign of the Rainbow that he won’t ever take a swipe at the world again. Then how can the New Testament end with an Armageddon?
See the guys writing a lot of the Old Testament were some tricky mystics… and they were bored. I mean really fucking bored, they had nothing to do to keep them busy when they weren’t begetting so they would come up with goofy number games. From these they evolved even more complicated puzzles, and what we know of as Kabala. The favorite (and this was used throughout in an all encompassing manner) was to present several objects that an adept student should recognize as part of a set, but omitting one portion of the set. The student was to know that “hey this is missing” and that they were therefore only to concern themselves with the specific missing part of the set. Take this one step further and if you place things in an incorrect order that should seem glaringly obvious to the learned adept he is to know that there is a puzzle afoot.
If what Jesus and his boys were onto is right and that we are set for an Armageddon, then necessarily the Great Flood could not have happened yet and should not be read as history but as future. Then take that a few steps back…. We know people don’t live to be 930! Few more steps and you’re back to Eden. Revelations doesn’t mention any of this Rapture horseshit the Evangelicals keep buying bumper stickers about, it ends with Heaven on Earth which is exactly where we started the prequel with.
I think these poorly initiated souls are misguiding us. Cloning and stem cell research isn’t going to piss off the almighty; he’s counting on it because otherwise we’ll never get to the potential of living to 930 and achieving Eden. Keep in mind that the Romans bastardized the Testamant and story of Jesus by trying to make him out to be cooler and hipper than Dionysus. “Oh yea, so Dionysus was born of a virgin and died for our sins? Well…. Well…. Uhh…. Jesus did that, too… AND walked on water!” Now if you read the bible like this it becomes a much happier story about how a good and kind man wanted us all to live to our fullest potential through love and sacrifice for one another, without any worry about sin or other restriction.
So...the major events in the bible are going to happen in reverse?
Exactly what I've been trying to say in a much nicer and informative way.
The problem with Theistical science is they try to make science fit the story of [insert religious text here] instead of what can be proven.
I find that funny because if you look back, the Bible wasn't even mentioned until you entered the conversation. L2READ!!!
You're generalizing Christians and thier beliefs. Not to mention your attempt at understanding the Bible has obviously failed. Let's not judge all christians based on your view of a few gay-haters(I always find that funny coming from a die-hard lib).
Besides almost every example of evolution you guys are throwing out, is for micro-evolution.
To be fair Maeglin, while not directly mentioned, your theory asks the reader to believe some sort of form of creationism and so the bible is inferred.