"Walking with Cavemen"

[voidx]

*sigh*

To be 'completely known'...? MY notery 'provides no real world evidence'...? AND Science loses the 'Truth of the Matter', in its demands for testable evidence.

To all your question marks the answer is Yes. We can't state that you were lying or were mistaken because there is no evidence of the tree any longer. All we can state is, I don't know. Its not here now, there's no proof it ever was, but the historical record states it was there. So, who knows. Is this something you want to base a belief upon? No it is not.

So, if a tree falls in the forest, and there IS someone there to see it fall, but he didn't take a picture of it falling and the only record made was one he wrote...it STILL didn't happen because you require proof of the event other than the eyewitness account.

Quit making things black and white. I never stated that because I could not prove your tree was in this spot now that you are wrong and that it never was. I just simply have absolutely NO way of proving it was, so the best I can do is say I'm not sure if there was a tree there or not like he says there was because I have no evidence of it. You're falling tree is the same. Just because no one see's it doesn't mean it didn't happen, or if only this one guy say it and remembers seeing it that it didn't happen. But if I go there, and the tree isn't still laying on the ground and there's no evidence it fell, all I can do is take you're word for it. I'm just saying this isn't much to go on.

THAT is why we wrote it down, so that YOU would know what we know. I think if ANYONE is living in a fantasy world, it is these ignorant scientists...

This incurrs the naive belief that all people right things objectively and without bias. Nobody does. Everyone's written accounts are tinged by their own perspective. Without a comparing account from another perspective we have to take history with a grain of salt, because yet again, if we don't take them 100% at their word, which we'd be foolish to do, then we have no way to verify what their telling us.

I prefer 'applied belief'. In that I don't just say this must be the way it happened it says so right here. Rather I say this is what the texts say, how does it 'apply' to the evidence we have? I BELIEVE this is true, let's APPLY it to the physical evidence we have and or other texts we have on the matter.

And this is you're main fault. You're already choosing what you want to believe and finding more evidence to support it. This is basically what science does too, but with a slight difference. Take evolution. They start finding bits and pieces of the fossil record. They've no idea what their looking at. Over time and over years of discovering more and more they begin to piece together from the physical remains they have a theory of why they are there and what caused them. Then the continued discovery of fossils and of eliminated gaps in the fossil record is used to continuously test and revise this theory.

You couldn't 'speak or interchange' with ME in MY example, but that doesn't mean that my note about the oak tree didn't reveal a specific detail about my scientific findings.

That's exactly the problem. I couldn't interchange them much with your oak tree example because you're not giving me hardly anything to go on. You're findings about the oak tree aren't scientific. Their verbal conjecture. Their someone's verbal account of the existence of a tree in a specific spot. The tree is no longer there, it appears to never have been there, and you have absolutely NOTHING else to support the claim. What does your historical ancedote reveal? That this person in the past used to think there was a tree here. I can't verify there was, so I don't know. Not really furthering our understanding now is it.

Your Theory doesn't provide the incrimential step by step proof, that it demands, for OUR development. It works out just fine for Neaderthal, except that he DIED out!

You don't know that. Why? Because if not neanderthal, one of the other variant cousins must have been the one your God/ET hyper-evolved. So which one was it? If we identify it, will we be able to prove the God/ET angle? Probably not. The evolutionary theory does too provide incremental steps in the development of neanderthal, of homo erectus, of the other variant species closely related to these. One of them could be us, we just don't know which one, if we find it, and if we find the missing piece of the gap, then we'll have the LAST step in the incremental series. To say we don't have this is false, we have it all except for some small gaps here and there, and a gap between modern man, and whichever of the subspecies he came from.

Either you can buy into evolution entirely and that it works, or you can buy into this other ideal of being created by God.
AGAIN, why do I have to take an either or stance!? Isn't that a false dicotomy?

What I meant to get across is you have to choose a method. You can't believe and choose the scientific method for most of it, and then toss it aside and insert vague God/ET hypothesis whenever you find a gap that sciences hasn't explained YET. Like I mentioned, its inconsistent.

Does one's inability to prove, 'disprove'?

Of course not, but I never claimed that either. I'm not saying you're God/ET theory is 100% disproven, it could always come out and be the case, but what you miss yet again is that if you are claiming it as your theory, you have to start proving it. I'm not looking for a one-shot prove the whole deal to me, but you've given me nothing that can't already, or probably won't be explained better by science. Also you claimed that if its written, its what is KNOWN, and then latter you say in your own words that its IMPLIED. Well which do you believe, you're being inconsistent, this is what i was pointing out.

Well, I don't know what the hell you are talking about now... You want me to tell you how to interpret historical data? Well, you look at it, you read it, and you try to imagine the world in which it was created. Then you ask yourself questions like, "What could the author have beeing looking at, from what perspective to arrive at this outcome?" I THINK that would be more productive than ignoring them because someone told yu they were fiction.

You're completely missing the point again. What SPECIFICALLY can these historical texts tell us? I don't want generalizations, Evolution is very specific and detailed in its account of human evolution showing stages, transistions between stages, biological explanations for these stages and possible transitions. History can't provide this level of detail, so how can it be used to prove anything? This is what I'm asking for? I ask for details or examples of how historical texts give specific details of how we evolved, how they explain this "gap" of yours, and I get Paul Bunyan and Atlantis. This doesn't help us.

Actually, the case, is that different people 'evolved' differently in different areas in accordance with their environment and those they encounted within it, be they terresterial or extra-teresterial. Your ignoring some people's hyper-evolution AND the texts explaining and detialing a relationship of heavenly beings 'bettering' those people... While I agree, that there ARE many differing accounts, and some show no signs what so ever of any kind of interaction with a foreign entity. Indeed, agree that the most consistant thing is god's inconsistancy.

The first part is essentially correct although it was mostly their skills in agriculture that evolved at different rates based upon their environment. List for me 2 people's hyper-evolutions, so I can look at them objectively and find out what I'm missing. I believe you're confusing "hyper-evolution" to mean which cultures became more dominant. Particularily Eurasion cultures compared to all others. You're taking a normal theory presented in Guns, Germs and Steel and using it to fit you're own view. These cultures got ahead of all others because of the advantage of plants and domesticable livestock which let them switch to the agricultural livestyle quicker, giving them a cultural and techonological head-start over all other cultures. These are skills and not physical evolution. Evolution since that time has been on a micro-evolutionary scale. To say European culture had to hyper-evolve to become dominate is wrong and misleading. They did not physically or mental capacity wise evolve to become dominant. They learned agricultural and technology sooner for varying reasons and thats what lead to dominance. Its all very easy to see.

Conjecture...? I don't take someone's written account as 'guesswork'. 'I' write what I know and see, especially when I do so for purpose of posterity.

But neither should you take their written account as 100% accurate un-biased gospel. Does that not make sense? Who care if I'm writing for posterity, which not everyone is, some histories are written to glorify the culture, in fact most histories are. It doesn't change the fact that I might not know what i'm talking about, or am misleading you in my account of what happened. The only way to be sure of this would be to read someone else account of the exact same events, then we could more objectively decide what might be accurate. But we don't have that do we.

Look we could go on forever like this. But this statement gives me no doubt that you're not really going to take many of our comments to heart:

Because you are wrong, and your pursuit will not lead you to the 'Truth of the Matter'

I don't think I'm wrong, and I think the theory of evolution is giving me a much clearer look at the "Truth of the Matter" than you're God/ET idea. You've given me nothing so far that objectively shakes my confidence that the theory of evolution will eventually fill these gaps and show conclusively the last few steps, just as it has provided every other step in the process of our evolution. Something you're theory has yet to provide, unless you can show me otherwise. But more importantly, you've provided me with absolutely nothing that proves or explains how you're theory is supposed to work. Not a general idea, not a link to a well, thought out theory. Nothing. Good luck to you.

 

[c0rbin]

Were it not, we'd have never found Troy.

And you know this how?

 

[voidx]

Another step closer for the fossil record:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030623-458776,00.html

 

[King of the Americas]

voidx


To all your question marks the answer is Yes. We can't state that you were lying or were mistaken because there is no evidence of the tree any longer. All we can state is, I don't know. Its not here now, there's no proof it ever was, but the historical record states it was there. So, who knows. Is this something you want to base a belief upon? No it is not.

*Why don't you KNOW, I JUST TOLD YOU! The First Man who could write and have his fellow man read it...WHY THE HELL DID HE DO IT!? The other guy's just gonna go, "You're making ◊◊◊◊ up again." You said that my note 'provides no real world evidence'. But it DOES, period. In fact, it provides the Truth of the Matter regarding my scientific findings that it was indeed an Oak Tree. When the cops get to a crime scene they DO take a lot of physical evidence, but they don't 'discount' the eyewitness accounts. They actually USE them to re-create the scene, to get an idea about what happened.

Quit making things black and white. I never stated that because I could not prove your tree was in this spot now that you are wrong and that it never was. I just simply have absolutely NO way of proving it was, so the best I can do is say I'm not sure if there was a tree there or not like he says there was because I have no evidence of it. You're falling tree is the same. Just because no one see's it doesn't mean it didn't happen, or if only this one guy say it and remembers seeing it that it didn't happen. But if I go there, and the tree isn't still laying on the ground and there's no evidence it fell, all I can do is take you're word for it. I'm just saying this isn't much to go on.

*You're the one making black and white demands, "Choose one method or the other." MY point is that you are justifying you ignorance of EVIDENCE, in my writings. THAT'S evidence, whether you want to accept it as scientific or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This incurrs the naive belief that all people right things objectively and without bias. Nobody does. Everyone's written accounts are tinged by their own perspective. Without a comparing account from another perspective we have to take history with a grain of salt, because yet again, if we don't take them 100% at their word, which we'd be foolish to do, then we have no way to verify what their telling us.

*We have to take them 100% at their word..., or not at all? Pardon me, but THAT is the dumbest ◊◊◊◊ I have ever heard. I know LOTS of story tellers who fudge on the details, but keep the main idea of the story intact. There are LOTS of ways to verify things. To to say that you can't use these texts as evidence and even roadmaps to more truths is folly.

And this is you're main fault. You're already choosing what you want to believe and finding more evidence to support it. This is basically what science does too, but with a slight difference. Take evolution. They start finding bits and pieces of the fossil record. They've no idea what their looking at. Over time and over years of discovering more and more they begin to piece together from the physical remains they have a theory of why they are there and what caused them. Then the continued discovery of fossils and of eliminated gaps in the fossil record is used to continuously test and revise this theory.

*That's right, I choose to believe what my fathers and grandfathers told me happened when they were here. However, my skepticism leads me to look for 'proof' of these events. In my looking I found many fossil remains of early primates. I even managed to arrange them in a logical order, and the trail look quite complete from Lucy all the way up to Lucille Ball. However, my more recent findings is that Homo Sapian did NOT actually evolve from Neaderthal, but from a much more primitative 'Workign Man'. So NOW, I summize that unlike the other Homo species 'we' got a lot better and a lot quicker, than everything else on the planet. MANY texts from different parts of the world, all contain a glaring similiarity 'heavenly beings better us by their standards'. The explaination and the fossile record are connected in their representation of the Truth of the Matter.

That's exactly the problem. I couldn't interchange them much with your oak tree example because you're not giving me hardly anything to go on. You're findings about the oak tree aren't scientific. Their verbal conjecture. Their someone's verbal account of the existence of a tree in a specific spot. The tree is no longer there, it appears to never have been there, and you have absolutely NOTHING else to support the claim. What does your historical ancedote reveal? That this person in the past used to think there was a tree here. I can't verify there was, so I don't know. Not really furthering our understanding now is it.

*STOP using the term 'conjecture' to demean the work of historic scribes. This is no less than scientific snobbery. Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.


You don't know that. Why? Because if not neanderthal, one of the other variant cousins must have been the one your God/ET hyper-evolved. So which one was it? If we identify it, will we be able to prove the God/ET angle? Probably not. The evolutionary theory does too provide incremental steps in the development of neanderthal, of homo erectus, of the other variant species closely related to these. One of them could be us, we just don't know which one, if we find it, and if we find the missing piece of the gap, then we'll have the LAST step in the incremental series. To say we don't have this is false, we have it all except for some small gaps here and there, and a gap between modern man, and whichever of the subspecies he came from.

*Okay, you say we have 'some small gaps here and there', but that there is a 'gap' between modern man and whomever he came from. So are you quantifying the gap in front of us as 'larger' than the other gaps in the fossil record? In the fossil record of Neaderthal, the transition between species seems smooth and uninterupted. Neanderthal was much less evoled that we are, and it would likely have taken him another evolution before becoming us. The fossil record however, suggests that there was a relatively short period of time of co-existance between Homo Sapian and Neaderthal. It raises my brow to see your willingness to see and quantify our fossil line's lacking.

What I meant to get across is you have to choose a method. You can't believe and choose the scientific method for most of it, and then toss it aside and insert vague God/ET hypothesis whenever you find a gap that sciences hasn't explained YET. Like I mentioned, its inconsistent.

*Your fossil record is inconsistant, "When it Comes to Explaining Our Origins". However, I CAN accept that it has had something to do with our development and still is. Your Theory DOES work, but NOT to explain everything especially OUR development. The application of the Theory to the gap precedding us, 'waiting on evidence', while ignoring or fictionalizing what we know what our ancestors thought happened.

Of course not, but I never claimed that either. I'm not saying you're God/ET theory is 100% disproven, it could always come out and be the case, but what you miss yet again is that if you are claiming it as your theory, you have to start proving it. I'm not looking for a one-shot prove the whole deal to me, but you've given me nothing that can't already, or probably won't be explained better by science. Also you claimed that if its written, its what is KNOWN, and then latter you say in your own words that its IMPLIED. Well which do you believe, you're being inconsistent, this is what i was pointing out.

*If I were to imply that you are an ignorant ass, would that mean I kNOW you are an ignorant ass? How about this, my findings lead me to imply that you are an ignorant something.

You're completely missing the point again. What SPECIFICALLY can these historical texts tell us? I don't want generalizations, Evolution is very specific and detailed in its account of human evolution showing stages, transistions between stages, biological explanations for these stages and possible transitions. History can't provide this level of detail, so how can it be used to prove anything? This is what I'm asking for? I ask for details or examples of how historical texts give specific details of how we evolved, how they explain this "gap" of yours, and I get Paul Bunyan and Atlantis. This doesn't help us.

*What 'specifically'...? Well for starters, historical texts identify entities as coming from the heavens. They remark how our ancestors interacted with them and were made better. This tale is a common one, with slightly different details, throughout the world. YOU WROTE: "Evolution is very specific and detailed in its account of human evolution showing stages, transistions between stages, biological explanations for these stages and possible transitions." *For Neaderthal, NOT Homo Sapian. The Fossil Record shows a HUGE transition for us, and NO preliminary stages. Evolution doesn't prove how we came to be, but does provide a solid explaination for how life becomes what it will be.

The first part is essentially correct although it was mostly their skills in agriculture that evolved at different rates based upon their environment. List for me 2 people's hyper-evolutions, so I can look at them objectively and find out what I'm missing. I believe you're confusing "hyper-evolution" to mean which cultures became more dominant. Particularily Eurasion cultures compared to all others. You're taking a normal theory presented in Guns, Germs and Steel and using it to fit you're own view.

*MUCH more dominate, and much better than their competitors. Homo Sapian got on the scene with far more ability, intelligence, and technology than Neanderthal and came to dominate the globe rather quickly. Later men in different areas still carried on developing in accordance with their environment, many of which carrying signs of suffering several other stages of hyper-evolution that coordinate with historical record that the makers hands are still at work.

These cultures got ahead of all others because of the advantage of plants and domesticable livestock which let them switch to the agricultural livestyle quicker, giving them a cultural and techonological head-start over all other cultures. These are skills and not physical evolution.

*They were taught these skills, by their betters. So the texts say.

Evolution since that time has been on a micro-evolutionary scale. To say European culture had to hyper-evolve to become dominate is wrong and misleading. They did not physically or mental capacity wise evolve to become dominant. They learned agricultural and technology sooner for varying reasons and thats what lead to dominance. Its all very easy to see.

*Looks like it is all very easy for you to ignore.

But neither should you take their written account as 100% accurate un-biased gospel. Does that not make sense? Who care if I'm writing for posterity, which not everyone is, some histories are written to glorify the culture, in fact most histories are. It doesn't change the fact that I might not know what i'm talking about, or am misleading you in my account of what happened. The only way to be sure of this would be to read someone else account of the exact same events, then we could more objectively decide what might be accurate. But we don't have that do we.

*Well, before you were pissed that I WASN'T taking it as 100% true. Now, you are saying that I CAN decipher it for reminates of truth!? YOU WROTE: "The only way to be sure of this would be to read someone else account of the exact same events, then we could more objectively decide what might be accurate. But we don't have that do we." *ACTUALLY...we DO. From all over the world, we have the same tales told over and over again. Most differing in the small detals, but all ablt to capture an overall ruling theme: "We are not alone."

Look we could go on forever like this. But this statement gives me no doubt that you're not really going to take many of our comments to heart:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you are wrong, and your pursuit will not lead you to the 'Truth of the Matter'
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't think I'm wrong,

*But you are.

and I think the theory of evolution is giving me a much clearer look at the "Truth of the Matter" than you're God/ET idea.

*Only if you choose to ignore two things: One-the big gap in our fossil record. Two-historical texts.

You've given me nothing so far that objectively shakes my confidence that the theory of evolution will eventually fill these gaps and show conclusively the last few steps, just as it has provided every other step in the process of our evolution.

*This reminds me of a picture I saw once, of a skeleton hold some flowers, sitting next to a sign that read, "Waiting for Mr. Right." I have no problem with you waiting around for your fossil record to get filled in. But I heed you this, "Your wait may not short or productive in your serach for truth."

Something you're theory has yet to provide, unless you can show me otherwise. But more importantly, you've provided me with absolutely nothing that proves or explains how you're theory is supposed to work. Not a general idea, not a link to a well, thought out theory. Nothing. Good luck to you.

*My Theory is that History 'works' albeit not very well. My forefathers wrote, so that I might see through their eyes. 'I' will take what my fahter's knew, and improve upon their findings by hoping to find evidence of their recordings. I will NOT dismiss their scriblings as fiction, and I WILL apply thier knowledge to my evidenciary findings.

To do anything less would be a practice in ignorance.

 

[Jocko]

KOA,

Please address my hypothetical example regarding the world-transforming concert that wasn't. If you force yourself to think through it, I think the flaws in your argument will be clearer.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believed the event would occur, and would have the effect you described. Yet it never happened. That doesn't make you a liar, simply mistaken. But this introduces the underpinning truth you continue to miss:

SINCERITY DOESN'T EQUAL ACCURACY.

You wrote about a tree. No evidence exists. You say that because you bothered to write about it, it must have been real and that's all the evidence any thinking person should ever need. Yet you wrote passionately and at length about a concert that never happened; according to your own standard, we should be compelled to think the concert happened as planned and we now live in an enlightened age of peace- demonstrably untrue.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Jocko:

I think you are confusing an issue here. My writings about my concert were about what "WOULD/could happen...", not what 'did' happen.

While 'parts' of some religious texts are given to 'prophecy', most of them are about what has happened, and how to live.

I think it is up to us as students to be able to dfferenciate between the different types of writing. In the case of MINE, one could easily reserach the outcome of my 'plans', and see that indeed they never came to fluidity.

AGAIN, the difference is writing to what did happen, and what might happen.

 

[CurtC]

KOA, I'm trying to take your misconceptions one at a time, but you don't respond. My last point was how you claim that our ancient texts are written by our forefathers about things that happened to them, but you admit that the writings are 4000 years old, and the "gap" to which you refer is 150,000 years old. Since you didn't answer, can I assume that you admit that tales handed down over eighty thousand generations couldn't be trusted one bit?

Now that that's settled, let's take your next misconception. You keep claiming that there is a more complete fossil chain for Neanderthal than for Sapiens. Yet you have not provided any clue to us about what you base this on. Both came from Homo ergaster, and both show several adaptations for their respective environments. One is not "more evolved" than the other, and from what I see, the fossil "gaps" are about equivalent for each. Please indicate what you base your contention on, that Neanderthal shows a complete record while we show a larger gap, otherwise please quit making this claim.

 

[Jocko]

Re: To Jocko:

Cue the patented KOA double standard!

I think you are confusing an issue here. My writings about my concert were about what "WOULD/could happen...", not what 'did' happen.

But you spoke about them with the certainty of tomorrow's sunrise, KOA. Show me where you include the terms "may," "could" or "might" in such a way as to provide you with this hedge. You didn't.

While 'parts' of some religious texts are given to 'prophecy', most of them are about what has happened, and how to live.

And you can tell the difference how? And not just tell the difference, but with ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY?

I think it is up to us as students to be able to dfferenciate between the different types of writing. In the case of MINE, one could easily reserach the outcome of my 'plans', and see that indeed they never came to fluidity.

So in your book, a student's opinion is the same thing as a proven fact? We've finally gotten down to the core of your confusion... facts are not decided by votes.

And if you'll notice in my example, I claimed that there would be no way to confirm that the concert took place... just like your vanishing tree. Don't change the conditions to fit your conclusion; that's intellectually dishonest.

And I think the word you're reaching for is "fruition," not "fluidity."

AGAIN, the difference is writing to what did happen, and what might happen.

I couldn't agree more. But you've never been able to make that distinction.

 

[voidx]

When the cops get to a crime scene they DO take a lot of physical evidence, but they don't 'discount' the eyewitness accounts. They actually USE them to re-create the scene, to get an idea about what happened.

Cops use eyewitness accounts to support or clarify the physical evidence. But in your Oak tree example we don't have physical evidence do we. We only have one type of evidence, this written account and it cannot be supported by anything else. We can't take it as 100% viable. Even you cannot deny this.

You're the one making black and white demands, "Choose one method or the other." MY point is that you are justifying you ignorance of EVIDENCE, in my writings. THAT'S evidence, whether you want to accept it as scientific or not. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Mis-leading. I'm simply saying be consistent in your method. In some spots you want to use evolution, in others you do not. You're writing could be evidence, they are evidence of a sort. But since we have nothing to help corraborate them, their rather weak, and yes, unverifiable evidence.

We have to take them 100% at their word..., or not at all? Pardon me, but THAT is the dumbest ◊◊◊◊ I have ever heard. I know LOTS of story tellers who fudge on the details, but keep the main idea of the story intact. There are LOTS of ways to verify things. To to say that you can't use these texts as evidence and even roadmaps to more truths is folly.

Black and white again. I said if we DON'T take them 100% at their word (which I'm defining as taking it purely on faith), if we only take them at say 30% of their word because we cannot concretely verify them, then we have to take their accounts with a grain of salt. Again, this is reasonable and logical.

STOP using the term 'conjecture' to demean the work of historic scribes. This is no less than scientific snobbery. Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it.

Oh relax, geez. I was referring to your theoretical Oak tree example anyway so I'm not demeaning any historic scribes, unless you take yourself as one. But I won't stop using the term. Until you could provide me some supportive evidence for the oak tree example, and other such historical accounts. Its only one piece, one viewpoint of what may have happened. We need to have more to accurately verify anything.

Okay, you say we have 'some small gaps here and there', but that there is a 'gap' between modern man and whomever he came from. So are you quantifying the gap in front of us as 'larger' than the other gaps in the fossil record? In the fossil record of Neaderthal, the transition between species seems smooth and uninterupted. Neanderthal was much less evoled that we are, and it would likely have taken him another evolution before becoming us. The fossil record however, suggests that there was a relatively short period of time of co-existance between Homo Sapian and Neaderthal. It raises my brow to see your willingness to see and quantify our fossil line's lacking.

No. I'm not certain how large this gap is because it seems to be unclear. Also we should clarify between a time gap, and an evolutionary gap. The time gap to me doesn't appear to be significant. And from what I read of that article I posted last, the evolutionary gap doesn't seem so far fetched either. Lower you're brow. The links all state there was likely a time of co-existence with neanderthal, and I've never once stated that I thought the fossil record wasn't incomplete, it is obviously.

Your fossil record is inconsistant, "When it Comes to Explaining Our Origins". However, I CAN accept that it has had something to do with our development and still is. Your Theory DOES work, but NOT to explain everything especially OUR development.

Black and white again. It is not inconsistant, its incomplete. The progression it shows with the evidence we have is consistent and logical and makes sense. We're just missing a few steps here and there and so based on the rest of the timeline we have we assume likely progessions. So at no time is it inconsistant because it is continuously being revised as new discoveries are found. The last part of your statement is mis-leading. It does not yet explain the entire line of our development, we're missing a few steps. The steps we have, and the physical remains and evidence to support it fully explains those levels of our development. Like I said, its the gaps that we're assuming likely scenarios upon. What are we using to assume? The current steps we have information on and can show and prove the development within. At no point is this inconsistent, its merely incomplete, for now.

If I were to imply that you are an ignorant ass, would that mean I kNOW you are an ignorant ass? How about this, my findings lead me to imply that you are an ignorant something.

You can think I'm ignorant, but you can't Know it. Show me how you're theory works better than the theory of evolution I believe, convince others of it, and then in the face of all that, and science agreeing with your theory, if I still continue to believe in evolution, then you can call me ignorant. Until such time you're just avoiding my point and trying to insult me. Keep you're emotions out of it. I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just trying to get some concrete answers out of you. And IMO I'm not receiving them.

YOU WROTE: "Evolution is very specific and detailed in its account of human evolution showing stages, transistions between stages, biological explanations for these stages and possible transitions." *For Neaderthal, NOT Homo Sapian. The Fossil Record shows a HUGE transition for us, and NO preliminary stages. Evolution doesn't prove how we came to be, but does provide a solid explaination for how life becomes what it will be.

You continue to avoid this question. Science agree's we did not come directly from Neanderthal, but instead must have come from another varying cousin of Neanderthal or perhaps Homo Erectus. You're God/ET MUST have evolved one of these variant cousins. You say we hyper evolved, and I'm asking, from which variant species since its not Neanderthal. If we know this, and then find more physical proof of this variant species, then we can truly find out the answer. And I have almost no doubt it will continue to support the assertions of scientists and the theory of evolution of how we came about. I do not think we will see a single generational hyper-evolution jump to current Homo Sapien. Which is what must be found to support you're theory agreed?

MUCH more dominate, and much better than their competitors. Homo Sapian got on the scene with far more ability, intelligence, and technology than Neanderthal and came to dominate the globe rather quickly.

Rather quickly still meaning tens or hundreds of thousands of years. And more than likely before or during the the first stages of the mass migration out of Africa. I'd like to see a more thorough description of just what you mean by "far more ability", than Neanderthal. Since we don't know which variant Sapien came from exactly its kind of hard to quantify just how much ability he came "on the scene" with.

They were taught these skills, by their betters. So the texts say.

They were smart enough to learn these skills on their own. Read Guns Germs and Steel again. It explains this very well. We can learn all these other abilities unassisted (art, language, science) after our assisted "hyper-evolution" but we needed help with basic agriculture? I find that hard to swallow.

Looks like it is all very easy for you to ignore.

You're avoiding my point. Eurasian culture became dominant because of its headstart with the agricultural livestyle, which let it create advanced society quicker, and imbued it with biological defenses against disease caused by living in close dirty conditions with livestock and other people. All of these reasons are what lead to European dominance. Now you can say that their advantage of agriculture was a gift in the form of a lesson from the Gods. That you could try and argue. But physical evolution only played a part insofar as immunity to disease as far as their spreading dominance is concerned. But it just doesn't seem to be the case that they learned this gift of agriculture in a single generation. It still took tens of thousands of years to develop.

Well, before you were pissed that I WASN'T taking it as 100% true. Now, you are saying that I CAN decipher it for reminates of truth!? YOU WROTE: "The only way to be sure of this would be to read someone else account of the exact same events, then we could more objectively decide what might be accurate. But we don't have that do we." *ACTUALLY...we DO. From all over the world, we have the same tales told over and over again. Most differing in the small detals, but all ablt to capture an overall ruling theme: "We are not alone."

No, I found it unwise that you seemed to take it as 100% true. That you took historical text as known and to be true, and just needed to be applied to the right evidence. I'm saying, and have always said that there may be hints of truth in historical texts, but without varying other types of physical evidence or corraborating accounts we can't verify it as 100% accurate, so it has to be taken with a large large grain of salt. We have varying types of similar stories about seperate, but sometimes similiar gods. We do not have parallel identical accounts of these histories for each region, which means we have to give each of them a tad bit of the benefit of the doubt, which means they cannot be taken as 100% accurate.

I don't think I'm wrong,
But you are.

And this is where you contradict yourself. You want people to take the historical texts seriously, you want them to take them as evidence, and as far as I can tell you want them taken at 100% or close too accuracy. Everyone here has said that they don't deny that there might be snippets of truth in historic texts, but that we just don't have enough to verify them, and so they can only tell us so much. We do not dismiss them, but they are only of say 5% importance. So we've shown that we are not whole-heartedly dismissing you're theory as wrong. It seems very unlikely, and in our opinion, and sciences, evolution seems a lot more likely. You on the other hand simply tell me I'm wrong. You know it. You believe it, and you will not be convinced otherwise. So I'm done discussing this with you. Its been entertaining though. I wish you luck in convincing others of how your theory works better than Evolution alone.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Voidx:

Entertaining and informative. Thank you very much I enjoyed the exchange.

P.S. Just to so long as you are willing to accept that 'I' might be right, and that it isn't outo fthe realm of possibility.

 

[CurtC]

I notice that you have ignored my questions.

 

[King of the Americas]

To Curt C:

KOA, I'm trying to take your misconceptions one at a time, but you don't respond. My last point was how you claim that our ancient texts are written by our forefathers about things that happened to them, but you admit that the writings are 4000 years old, and the "gap" to which you refer is 150,000 years old. Since you didn't answer, can I assume that you admit that tales handed down over eighty thousand generations couldn't be trusted one bit?

Now that that's settled, let's take your next misconception. You keep claiming that there is a more complete fossil chain for Neanderthal than for Sapiens. Yet you have not provided any clue to us about what you base this on. Both came from Homo ergaster, and both show several adaptations for their respective environments. One is not "more evolved" than the other, and from what I see, the fossil "gaps" are about equivalent for each. Please indicate what you base your contention on, that Neanderthal shows a complete record while we show a larger gap, otherwise please quit making this claim.

*The only quesiton you ask is: "Since you didn't answer, can I assume that you admit that tales handed down over eighty thousand generations couldn't be trusted one bit?"

I don't think you should assume anything.

AND moreover, I think I am quite able to recopy my father's works well. I am not saying I write exactly as he did, but I AM able to read his work, and re-write in it my script. Given the nature of my fahter's attitude, I have taken special care to make them as accurate as possible. History for the sake of history is something worht doing well, if at all.

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by King of the Americas

History for the sake of history is something worth doing well, if at all.

How about history for the sake of furthering one's own agenda?

You can't seriously be insisting that accounts can be handed down over tens of thousands of generations -- surviving countless translations and editings -- with anything like reasonable accuracy?

 

[Dymanic]

I don't think you should assume anything.

Without assumptions, human communication (designed to favor speed over accuracy) would be almost impossible. The process depends heavily on sender and reciever either: having a large set of shared default assumptions, or: being able (at least one of them) to accurately assess how much different the other's set is; we not only rely on assumptions, but on assumptions about assumptions, and this is largely transparent to us.

How often, in conversation, do you find yourself saying, "wait, do you mean this..."? You might expect written communication would be better, but how many gazzillabips of bandwidth every day are devoted to stuff like, "no, no, that's not what I'm saying; when I said that, what I meant was this...?

The last paragraph of your post contained two errors (well, it contained two typographical errors, which I am sure you will agree to -- how many factual errors it contained is something we almost certainly do not agree on). I count that paragraph at 281 characters. Say 1 error out of 141 characters. Care to extrapolate what an error rate like that will do to the integrity of a manuscript after some thousands of generations?

In quoting you, I took the liberty of making the correction: worht-->worth, based on the assumption that that was what you meant. This sort of thing occurs very frequently in transcription of text. In relating a verbal message, the situation is worse, as 'corrections' tend to take place automatically -- the listener constantly making assumptions without even realizing that he is doing so; example: the Jimi Hendrix line, "Scuze me while I kiss the sky" could (by one so inclined) be heard as, "Scuze me while I kiss this guy" -- the listener's frame of reference has a strong effect on the default assumptions he will rely on. It is not unusual at all for a listener, following along with what someone is saying, to suddenly realize that he has become lost -- making it necessary to back up, trying to find the place where he made a wrong turn. (Not every listener is so lucky as to even realize that he has made an error, and may walk away with a very different version of the story than the one the speaker intended).

In translation, the situation becomes more treacherous still, with the translator frequently required to make choices of words based on his best guess as to what the writer meant. If writer and translator have very different cultural frames of reference, the results may be badly mangled.

It is because of this that 'historical accounts' -- standing alone on their own merits -- are considered virtually worthless as scientific evidence.

 

[King of the Americas]

First of all..

...'I' am a half-handed scribe, in that I suffer partial paralysis in my hands, and errors usually abound when I type almost anything.

When I write for interent stuff, it is usually a quanity of quality thing... I write a LOT, but don't always have time to go back and edit. I AM actively trying to get better at finding time to edit, but int he mean time you are stuck with my inadiquacies.

Now, this changes when I write for hugher purposes. Say if I am writing an e-mail, a letter, an editorial, or printed work of any kind. However, if I am writing to be 'graded', I put even MORE time and enerny into the endeavor, and that is how I think true historical scribes face the task.

*THIS* is the most important work I have ever done. It is of the utmost importance that I do this task well.

However, I can not dismiss wholly your contention, that small bits here and there get missed or changed. And over time this leads to vast changes from the original version.

'I' hold that there must be a little of both going on. I think it is quite easy to capture 'themes' in repeated tales, while losing character and background details. Great men are written about, as are memorable times. These men and times DID exist, although maybe not in the same supernatural state the texts put them in.

In my example of the oak tree, I based by writing on what I believed I KNEW. Now, my son may find my note, recopy it, and give it unto you. You read it and it remarks that 'I' saw a White Oak and where it was. You visit the site to find a Red Oak. I think this is the most likely error to occure in historical work, other than linguistical ones. My point?

There was still a tree that I saw, and if you'll follow the directions in my note you'll find it.

 

[Jocko]

Re: First of all..

...'I' am a half-handed scribe, in that I suffer partial paralysis in my hands, and errors usually abound when I type almost anything.

And of course, ANCIENT scribes were never handicapped by polio, birth defects, animal attacks, industrial accidents, etc. Your excuses do not change the facts of the matter, that your own inaccuracies (after touting your accuracy so shamelessly) adequately demonstrate the fallacy of your thinking.

And your ham-handed (pardon the expression) hedges and excuses only serve to clarify how pointless it is to attempt to reason with you.

When I write for interent stuff, it is usually a quanity of quality thing... I write a LOT, but don't always have time to go back and edit. I AM actively trying to get better at finding time to edit, but int he mean time you are stuck with my inadiquacies.

Finding time to edit? Don't tell me you've gotten a job (other than your full-time position of King, of course)... just more excuses, nothing more.

Now, this changes when I write for hugher purposes. Say if I am writing an e-mail, a letter, an editorial, or printed work of any kind. However, if I am writing to be 'graded', I put even MORE time and enerny into the endeavor, and that is how I think true historical scribes face the task.

Oh, you "think" so, huh? I think convincing ONE PERSON on this forum that you're not a stark raving idiot ought to be your HIGHEST PURPOSE. How are you going to change the world, when you can't convince a single soul that you aren't hopelessly insane, and an education-shunning redneck to boot?

*THIS* is the most important work I have ever done. It is of the utmost importance that I do this task well.

Ah, I see you're grasping what I'm saying. So how come you still refer to it as a hugher[sic] purpose? More to the point, how do you know that ancient scribes feel the same way you do (even if you aren't able to deliver on your intentions of accuracy)?

However, I can not dismiss wholly your contention, that small bits here and there get missed or changed. And over time this leads to vast changes from the original version.

Oh thank you, oh merciful king! It is a wise man indeed who, when clubbed over the head with the facts again and again, begins to notice the welts.

'I' hold that there must be a little of both going on. I think it is quite easy to capture 'themes' in repeated tales, while losing character and background details. Great men are written about, as are memorable times. These men and times DID exist, although maybe not in the same supernatural state the texts put them in.

Ah, the old "maybe I'm half-right, can I slink away and pretend I won an argument?" approach. It was just a matter of time. Agendas drive everything, from reproduction to translation, to the point where two historical texts can't even agree on whether ot not someone like King Arthur actually EXISTED, and you still want to place 50% faith in that? God, are you gullible.

In my example of the oak tree, I based by writing on what I believed I KNEW. Now, my son may find my note, recopy it, and give it unto you. You read it and it remarks that 'I' saw a White Oak and where it was. You visit the site to find a Red Oak. I think this is the most likely error to occure in historical work, other than linguistical ones. My point?

There was still a tree that I saw, and if you'll follow the directions in my note you'll find it.

Because we should believe you, because you bothered to write it down, and we should continue to believe you even if all evidence of the tree has vanaished and your own neighbor's written record doesn't mention it at all.

In other words, we're right back at your first post. Congratulations, King, I've never seen a guy in a wheelchair run laps as well as you do.

 

[rdtjr]

Re: god's consistant inconsistancy...

Thanks for your previous screed in response to my post. My apologies for not being able to come back and respond earlier. Your posts show just how little you do understand of how science and the modern study of history works.

to rdtjr:

The problem with this explanation of yours KOA is that we know that various societies have created stories to explain various aspects of the universe, including their own place in it. We have been able to archeologically trace through early human artworks the development of religion from burial customs and the creation of fertility statues and other charms and watched through the archeological records as those fertility charms developed into idols and those idols began to take the shape of gods.

*Ahhh NO. You have evidence that SOME societies developed in this way, while others in other areas develope very quickly.

No we have evidence that all cultures that we know of derived their religion from amazingly common sources stemming from an need to understand and exert control over the world around them. Fertility idols etc., appear in the archeological record loooong before what we might called advanced religions developed. If your theories where correct we should see peoples going very quickly from such practices right into "advanced" religions. There is no evidence of this whatsoever. You have yet to provide any. No peer reviewed historian or archeologist has ever provided any. Where is this evidence that we went from crawling in the dirt to constructing giant temples in a fortnight.

Even today, there are vast differences in how people live in different places. Intelligence and Technology has not reached us all. And so it was too in the past, 'some peoples' were selected by 'some gods' to excell and succeed in their environment. These things being placed far away, conflict was ages away, if at all, due to these entities all working together to the same end.

Nope, your first sentence demonstrates the obvious flaw in this line of thought. Today we have societies that still operate at a stone age level. This has nothing to do with evolution. They are genetically identical to you or I. Almost every single one of those societies meets certain criteria: 1) they are geographically separated preventing the transmission of new ideas, tools, ways of doing things from the outside, and 2) they lack easily accessible metals for advanced tool creation. These factors were just as much of an impediment to techonolgical and cultural advancement 140,000 years ago as they are today. Why do we need gods or aliens to explain something that we have easy evidence of today?

Or something like that. We have to take the evidence we DO have about that time in the way of history and see how that matches the physical evidence we have found.

Good we agree. So far every bit of physical evidence we have matches with common modern understanding of history.

Applying a successful theory to imcomplete evidence, while characterizing the rational for the gap as 'fiction' is folly to me.

I'm really not following you here. This makes no sense grammatically or otherwise... I think I know what you mean, but your tendency to speak in double talk leaves the possibility open that you will change what you say this meant later. So, please clarify.

Evolution has and still IS making us who we will be. However, it is NOT the only influence over us. Evidence abouds throughout the ages of heavenly beings helping and guiding us.

Yes, as far as we know evolution will continue to affect us as a species. Strangely I see no evidence of extraterrestrial, extra-planar, or any other other-wordly being involved in it at all despite all the hullaballoo from the UFO crowd not one piece of verifiable evidence exists. And no, "evidence" does not abound that "heavenly beings" have been helping us and guiding us. Some literal interpretations of ancient myths, legends, and religions texts might lead one to think such a thing could be true but there is no evidence. If there is please show it to me. Better yet show it to any professional archeologist. The assertions of you and others that your literal interpretations (and interpretations is all they are) do not equal evidence by any standard.

Given that we can trace this path is easy to see how human gods became more complex and developed greater (back stories) as human societies became more complex. Historically, we know this to be true; human gods and religion became more complex as our cultures and societies became more complex. You and many other want to believe it happened the other way around - but you've got it exactly backwards and the archeological record bears that out.

*AGAIN, 'some societies' developed in this manner. Others have 'myths' about how gods and man exchanged things and thoughts, to the betterment of mankind to make the terresterial more extra...

See my previous comments on these issues above.

Further, to accept something as mundane as a tree having been in a certain place at a certain time is one thing. To believe that a bush/tree burned before you without being consumed and that a voice spoke from it takes a little more in the way of evidence. And embellishment and millenia of small changes building upon each other and the true story almost becomes totally unrecognizable. Think of the "telephone" game but spread it across countless generations and perhaps thousands of cultures by the time any story has reached us it has passed through billions of people. At least in your example you had physical evidence in the form of a photograph.

*Actually, there IS an olive tree that on really hot days emits an oil that can literally set afire, but not burn up.

Huh! I had never heard of this. Neat! Unfortunately for you yet another example of earthly things that could be misunderstood, misinterpreted, or mistranslated in passing. Do we need gods or aliens to "magically" burn bushes for us when nature provides much simpler explanations?

I am feel'n you now...you don't care to pay attention to what other people say, have said, or havd written. Gotcha!

This seems to be your modus operandi and I'll note that I have yet to cast a single dispersion on you. I debate the substance of your claims while you begin to resort to personal attacks. You know that personal attacks tend to be the last refuge of someone losing an argument, right?

You don't believe what they wrote yesterday, you don't read or pay attention to what I write here today, you are an island of KNOWLEDGE unto Your Science.

Actually, as a student of history I constantly pay attention to what others have written before me. I never consider myself an "island of knowledge" unto myself or "my science" whatever in the world that means. I trust what can be verified, what evidence supports, I understand the human beings past and present are prone to flights of fancy and hyperbolic story telling.

*Ahhhh, NO. In MY example, it was just me, mine eyes, and my notes. I saw a tree, I used my exerience with vegetation to draw a conclusion, and I made a note as to what I saw and where I saw it. This is what 'I' KNOW?

If someone comes along after me death, finds my note, and looks for the tree to find all evidence of the tree gone, would 'wrongfully' summize that I was in error, and that my work was fiction..

I yes, I did misunderstand your example. Others have quite adequately explained how a scientist, historian, or archeologist would approach this problem. Have you bother to read them? Or are you guilty of the sins of which you accuse others?

Secondary to this is the questions of historical relevance. Whatever personal relevance that tree may have to you, why would it even be important to historians 1000 years from now? Contrast this with historical accounts of ancient battles, which are indeed important. We can actually do archeological digs in possible battle locations and determine if a battle even occured there, if there is evidence of a battle whether or not it occured during the time frame we are studying, and depending on the state of remains, clothing, weapons, gear we can learn a great deal about the course of the battle, the combatants, their weapons, and probably even who won and lost. Thereby we can confirm what ancient writers may have to say about events.

Let's contrast this to all of your "heavenly visitors" stuff. Aside from certain interpretations of specific ancient religious texts nothing turns up. No scribes ever note the arrival of visitors to contemporary courts, or gifts of food, technology, knowledge to contemporary peoples... it's always something that happened loooooong ago. Hmmm, why is that do you think? You would think that these scribes and scholars who dutifully noted the ebb and flow of the Nile or counted every grain of a harvest would note something like a god showing up and teaching them how to build a temply or donating knowledge of advanced metallurgy.

MY point friends, is in the way of a lack of physical evidence all that we have are the written, and re-written accounts of are much removed ancestors. Now, I further stand that, given the nature of the passed along tales, reminates of the truth would have been 'inheriant'. This is NOT a game, and to trivualize history's workers in such a manner is no less than scientific snobbery.

Huh? Scientific snobbery? Remnants of truth would be inherent? Who decides which parts are the inherent truth and which are fictions? You and those who believe as you do? You make assertions about what you wish to be true and leave it at that. That is intellectual snobbery. The scientist and historian starts off with the knowledge that he or she does not know which is fact and which is fiction and investigates to sift the one from the other. That is a humble path to tread my friend... you should try it sometime.

'I' am in search of the 'Truth of the Matter'...not someone's proven theory applied to an incomplete fossil trail.

It appears that you are out to believe what you have decided to be true because you want it to be true. Things like evidence have nothing to do with it for you.

 

[rdtjr]

I'll add a final thought here. KOA is making a common mistake among folks who believe in this particular theory. This is confusion of biological evolution and technological innovations.

Biological evolution produced a species capable of advanced tool making, of vastly modifying his world, of forethought and planning, and the capability to communicate what he has learned to others, to pass on knowledge and new ideas.

It was this biological development of a brain and body capable of such things that lead to the subsequent technological booms. And frankly, by modern standards those ancient "booms" weren't all that stunning and were typically gradual. It was accumulated knowledge that got us around to settling into villages, then towns and cities. And this took thousands upon thousands of years. KOA and others I've argued this idea with claim Homo Sapiens "suddenly" developed advanced cultures and societies. Yet, they never define what kind of time span "suddenly" encompasses.

To contrast it took no biological evolution to develop the technical marvel of flight. And we needed no more biological modification to traverse into space. We did what we've always done: modified our environment to suit our purposes. To the degree that we can encapsulate a bit of our environment and fling it hundreds of miles into vacuum.

We've come incredibly far in just the last 2000 years and none of it required we change physically or mentally. Heck, we're identical in almost everyway but nutrition and clothing to our ancestors of 140,000 years ago. We and they are virtually interchangeable. And this puts the lie to KOAs pet theory. Every technological innovation is not matched by a biological evolution. And if it isn't the case today, why would it need to be the case 100,000 years ago? The search for a Deus ex Machina that engineered homo sapiens to our current state is a wholly unnecessary one as ample evidence of our brilliance and ability to accumulate knowledge abounds in the world around is.