DS, I would've put it up (and had a valid rationale for it too) but my response alone puts it at >12000 characters. The lecture boosts it to 44000. I refuse to make five posts just 'cause you can't be civil to one "jerk". Hell, mouth off to a d-bag if it'll balance out your civility quota, but get me a response. (Or we'll keep PrE alive just for that.)
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
DS, I would've put it up (and had a valid rationale for it too) but my response alone puts it at >12000 characters. The lecture boosts it to 44000. I refuse to make five posts just 'cause you can't be civil to one "jerk". Hell, mouth off to a d-bag if it'll balance out your civility quota, but get me a response. (Or we'll keep PrE alive just for that.)
It's not that I can't be civil, it's that Janus is an incompetent human being with the social skills of an adolescent, paraplegic mute, and I have better things to do than have discussions on another one of his soon to be dead forums. At least Ush stays out of conversations because he has a life(allegedly). And the only thing I wanted you to post was your rebuttal, not the entire conversation. I mean I can get bits and pieces of it from Gideon's form I suppose.
The Origin of Anatomically Modern Humans
When and where did fully modern humans-what paleo-anthropologists call anatomically modern humans- originate?One hypothesis for the origin of fully modern humans is that Homo sapiens evolved in each region from the local populations of H. erectus. This model of parallel evolution of modern humans is called the multiregional hypothesis. It is mainly advocates of this hypothesis who refer to the regional derivatives of H. erectus as "archaic Homo sapiens," giving the geographic variants of fossils sub-species manes, such as H. sapiens neanderthalensis for European forms. In this view, the great genetic similarity of all modern people is the product ofoccasional interbreeding between neighboring populations that has provided corridors for gene flow throughout the geographic range of humans.
On the other side of a very lively debate about human origins are the proponents of the "Out of Africa" hypothesis, also called the replacement hypothesis. According to this hypothesis, all Homo sapiens throughout the world evolved from a second major migration out of Africa that occurred about 100,000 years ago- a migration of anatomically modern humans that completely replaced all the regional populations of Homo derived from the first hominid migrations of H. erectus out of Africa about 1.5 million years ago. Most advocates of the replacement hypothesis prefer to give separate species names to the regional hominids that were not anatomically modern, such as Homo neanderthalensis for the Neanderthals in Europe.
Note that both hypotheses recognize the fossil evidence for humanity's African origin. The debate centers on the vintage of the most recent hominid ancestor in Africa common to all the world's modern populations. The multiregional hypothesis places that last common ancestor in Africa over 1.5 million years ago, when H. erectus began migrating to other parts of the world. But accoring to the replacement hypothesis, the diverse human populations of the world are much more closely realated. In this view, all of the world's populations diverged from anatomically modern Homo sapiens that evolved from an African H. erectus population and then migrated throughout the world beginning only 100,000 years ago.[...]
This section deals with humans: I think it is clear why the multiregional hypothesis does not support genesis. It insists Adam and Eve must have lived at a point far earlier than modern humans to allow them to be the first common ancestor of humanity. This does not allow them to actually be human. So that hypothesis precludes genesis.
Look at the replacement hypothesis though; it suggests evolution from a previous ancestor to a form capable of replacing the global populations of other hominoids. Could that be the 'deeper meaning' (the golden apple) of Adam and Eve? Is the biblical version of genesis an account of the first human colony? I think not.
Dr. Schroeder makes abundantly clear that the changeover from 'genesis time' to 'human time' took place with the creation of the first man: Adam. If we ignore the supernatural origin of man's body (Gen. 2:7- And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul), then we have the basis for a metaphorical interpretation. The underlined portion describes man's corporeal body while the bolded portion indicates the 'ensoulment' or creation of 'neshamah'. The importance of the latter half of the passage will become apparent soon.
Anatomically modern humans lived before 4,000 BCE- this much is indisputable. The best [s]data[/s] source I have available to me is that the replacement postulated would have occurred about 100,000 years ago. This is much earlier than the changeover to 'human' described in Genesis. The implication is therefore that there must be some non physical difference between "Adam's" ancestors and himself- the neshamah- that manifested itself about 6,000 years ago, fulfilling both Biblical descriptions and scientific observations.
The 'neshamah' cannot be scientifically discussed- it is a matter of personal faith only. What can be scientifically discussed is the concrete facts around the time of the alleged 'neshamah's' creation and see if any difference manifests itself. Problems for Schroeder arise through this examination: there was a well organized state in Egypt before 6,000 years ago, and none of their records indicate a radical change in the nature or ability of Man (which would, of course, be a noteworthy event). In addition to the Ancient Egyptians' failure to notice a distinction between pre and post-Adam humanity, there is the plethora of earlier human activity.
Humans can be distinguished from other animals by certain behaviors:
[list]
[*]Humans have structured language- a definite grammatical structure and, occasionally, a writing system.
[*]Humans have the ability to create technologies to improve their standard of living and to improve those technologies- a beaver will not improve its dam by noticing flaws in the design. Even chimps (another species able to use simple tools) have not (to my knowledge) been observed to improve on the tools they use.
[*]Humans create art (music, dance and visual images). No other animal has been seen to create art.
[*]Often, humans formulate some sort of religion, while other animals have not been known to do so.[/list]
By these criteria then the 'non-human' predecessors to "Adam" would not have had a language or any form of art or religion. If they did then they would already have been human.
The problem is that organisms prior to 4,000 BCE did have those attributes- as suggested by archaeological evidence.
[list]
[*]The cave paintings in Pech Merle (France) are dated as old as 25,000 years before present- more than 4 times older than the Bible's 'humanity' is.
[*]Body adornments are seen as long as 35,000 years ago- almost six times older than Genesis's humanity. Bone needles have been found as early as 23,000 years ago.
[*]Pottery has been dated as old as 12-14 thousand years before present. This indicates that "prehumans" were able to build a kiln and get it to over 1000 degrees. Is there any non-human creature that can create pottery, let alone use it?
[*]Ancient communities about 8,000 years ago are seen to use seals, indicating some form of writing.
[*]Almost 2,000 years before the 'changeover' in genesis, Sumerian societies in Mesopotamia are creating temples! Is there any nonhuman creature that has an idea of religion?[/list]
The answer, of course, is no. "Human like animals" were displaying uniquely human behaviors long before the postulated 'final [spiritual] creation'. A contemporaneous society even fails to note any sort of change. There is no evidence whatsoever that any form of supernatural intervention made changes to society at that time, or even global society in the long run. Thus, the concept of a 'neshamah' defaults back into the area of pure faith.
Minimum viable population
[as an objection to a literal reading of genesis]
The Biology of Human survival: life and death in extreme environments
[Although this discusses space colonization, the principles of genetics within a totally isolated community remain sound]
This means a permanent human colony in space [or the very first one- without neighbors] will have to be of sufficient size and genetic diversity to avoid random extinction. The minimum size necessary for a permanent, self propagating space colony has never been determined[...] If the limited genetic diversity of reconstituted populations of endangered species is any indication, the minimum founder population for a remote permanent space colony is likely to be on the order of 100 to 200 unrelated individuals.
A minimum viable population (MVP) size is an estimate of the number of individuals required for a high probability of survival of a population over a given period of time.Inbreeding depression refers to the reduction of genetic fitness within a population as a result of breeding between closely-related individuals.
Two people simply do not provide the requisite genetic diversity to populate the earth.
This is not, of course, an important point if you do not suggest a literal reading of the explanation of Man.
The claims regarding time dilation are simply false. Their relation to scripture is irrelevant; whether scripture meshes well with pseudo science is irrelevant. This is a bold claim and is not a label I feel comfortable applying to something without good reason; I assure you that I do in fact have a rationale for such the accusation.
The crux of Schroeder's argument lies on the theory of relativity's view of time dilation- the idea that time can move differently depending upon the reference frame from which it is observed. There is no absolute time. Thus, what seems like 15 billion years to us can seem like 6 days within a different reference frame. Hence the "agreement" between scripture and history. He suggests that God operates in his own reference frame up until the point of Adam's creation. At that point he switched to our frame of reference. The discrepancy is only that the bible looks from within that reference frame and science looks from within ours.
The idea is nice but not entirely accurate. Special relativity claims only that time flows differently in different reference frames. There are two factors (that I know of) that alter time in a relevant way: velocity and gravity.
To achieve the situation Schroeder describes under Special Relativity, God must be a physical body that occupies a fixed location in space, and in order to achieve the dilation effect postulated, God's frame of reference would have to be moving very, very quickly in relation to that of the universe.
Schroeder, however, does not use Special Relativity. He uses general relativity. He claims that as gravitational forces grew over time (due to the formation of matter through Einstien's e=mc^2) the flow of time slowed down. As he accurately notes, oranges would take longer to ripen on the sun than on earth (in terms of earth time) because of the different time flow (ignoring, of course, the absurdity of the situation; oranges are outlandishly expensive on the surface of the sun!).
I see an obvious flaw with the usage of special relativity (using velocity to explain the dilation): The universe cannot be compared with anything else. If the universe does not have an external inertial frame of reference then we cannot determine the changes in duration of time. (Just as one could not tell the changes of a car's speed based on the behavior of the other seats in the car.) Furthermore, the application of special relativity, rather than general relativity inserts the additional complication of determining G-d's speed in relation to the rest of the universe.
The same problem lies with general relativity: time dilation applies to all conceivable clocks within the universe. We can determine the age of the universe but not how long it has taken to get there because there is no absolute time. There is no standard against which to compare our own experience of time. The fundamental problem with Schroeder's calculations is that there is no way to examine them against another inertial reference frame.
While the concepts discussed by Schroeder are scientifically based, the application of the theory (theories) of relativity does not match their definition; by relying on the existence of 'absolute time' Schroeder directly contradicts those theories. Because Schroeder's interpretation uses scientific theories in direct contradiction to their actual meanings (intentionally- it is difficult to believe a doctorate holder would make a mistake like that) it becomes pseudoscience, in the formal usage of the word.
Time to start discussing Economics on this forum
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090713/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/us_economy_deficit
And phase 2 of the inevitable collapse of the dollar is complete. Keep it coming.
Originally posted by Eminence
Don't worry, the Republicans will save us. They're good at getting this country out of the piles of shit those silly liberals get it into.Palin 2012 FTW!
Both parties screwed the pootch and have been doing so since 1971. Who gives a shit about the denomination. Point is the inevitable is occurring already and most people are going to be painfully surprised.
Originally posted by Lord Luciennot a chance don't jizz yourself!
Ron Paul 2012.
*sings* we didn't start the flame war! peeps were hatin on it 'for i left my topic."
This is not meant to be crude. It is strictly for your edification and enjoyment.
Before the Battle of Agincourt in 1415, the French, anticipating victory over the English, proposed to cut off the middle finger of all captured English soldiers. Without the middle finger, it would be impossible to draw the renowned English longbow and therefore be incapable of fighting in the future.
This famous weapon was made of the native English Yew tree, and the act of drawing the longbow was known as "plucking the yew." Much to the bewilderment of the French, the English won a major upset and began mocking the French by waving their middle fingers at the defeated French,saying, "See, we can still pluck yew! PLUCK YEW!"
Over the years, some 'folk etymologies' have grown up around this symbolic gesture. Since 'pluck yew' is rather difficult to say (like "pleasant mother pheasant plucker", which is who you had to go to for the feathers used on the arrows for the longbow), the difficult consonant cluster at the beginning has gradually changed to a labiodental fricative 'F', and thus the words often used in conjunction with the one-finger-salute are mistakenly thought to have something to do with an intimate encounter.
It is also because of the pheasant feathers on the arrows that the symbolic gesture is known as "giving the bird."
Interesting. I doubt it's true, but interesting.