Israeli archaeologists have discovered human remains dating from 400,000 years ago, challenging conventional wisdom that Homo sapiens originated in Africa, the leader of excavations in Israel said on Tuesday.
Avi Gopher, of Tel Aviv University's Institute of Archaeology, said testing of stalagmites, stalactites and other material found in a cave east of Tel Aviv indicates that eight teeth uncovered there could be the earliest traces so far of our species.
"Our cave was used for a period of about 250,000 years -- from about 400,000 years ago to about 200,000 years ago," he told AFP.
"The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years. The oldest are 400,000 years old", he added."
That calls into question the widely held view that Africa was the birthplace of modern man, said Gopher, who headed the dig at Qesem Cave.
"It is accepted at the moment that the earliest Homo sapiens that we know is in east Africa and is 200,000 years old, or a little less. We don't know of anywhere else where anyone claims to have an earlier Homo sapiens," he said.
Gopher said the first teeth were discovered in 2006 but he and his team waited until they had several samples, then conducted years of testing, using a variety of dating methods, before publishing their findings.
Digging continues at the cave, the university said, with researchers hoping to "uncover additional finds that will enable them to confirm the findings published up to now and to enhance our understanding of the evolution of mankind, and especially the appearance of modern man."
Explore further:
A 200,000-year-old cut of meat
Quantum_Conundrum
Neanderthal man was probably the result of some sort of relatively minor genetic anomaly, such as can be seen in modern cases of dwarfism and midgetism. The dwarfs and midgets appear very different, much smaller physically, including proportional down-scaling in the case of midgets, and yet they can hold a phd, and are sexually compatible with normal people.
I would even argue that midgets are a good evidence against the conventional wisdom that cranial capacity is proportional to intelligence, because we have lots of midgets who have high intelligence and have become highly educated. Which makes it a modern evidence that a Neanderthal could have been just as intelligent as anyone alive today, regardless of cranial capacity.
It's probably something genetic that isn't even significantly different than race, color, or dwarfism today.
LuckyBrandon
All this really means is that mankind left africa sooner than we thought.
QC-if weve existed since "creation", than so did our cousin species...the fact we had cousin species pretty much invalidates the bologna of all religions...would any "god" had made us in his image, yet made at least 2 other species as well that co-existed with us? i think not...its like saying dinosaurs never existed and its just a joke that god played on us..religion holds our species back, and ALWAYS has. We would have colonized space 100s of years ago if it werent for religious zealots (look at the dark ages where science was heressy). even the pope admitted that evolution is real...the difference is, he tried to say that religion and evolutionary science are not mutually exclusive.
Modernmystic
LuckyBrandon
Quantum_Conundrum
Have you...read...the Bible?
There are at least 4 different types of humanoid and psuedo-humanoid beings referred to as angels. Not to mention, by some interpretations, the possibility of hybridization between man and "angels" as seen in Genesis chapter 6, where the phrase "Sons of God" is the same as later used in the book of Job to refer to those beings known as "Angels".
The existence of other sentient, humanoid beings would therefore not invalidate the Bible in any case, but rather supports it.
LuckyBrandon
we do not have the same excuse in today's day and age.
and to add onto that, the lack of understanding and fear of death lead people to actually buy into that bs.
Quantum_Conundrum
Nope.
By definition, a "Midget" is a small person who is proportional to a normal human.
A "Dwarf" is a small person with disproportioned body parts. i.e. "Big head and hips, but short arms and legs".
The smallest man alive is a midget, and he has an approximately proportioned size head.
Whereas the family you see on "little people," or whatever it's called, are "dwarves," because they have heads similar size to normal people, but have small bodies and especially small limbs.
Therefore a Dwarf is not the same thing as a midget. they are small for very different genetic reasons, and this is obvious from morphology. Not to mention, there is more than one type of dwarfism, and more than one type of midgetism. So if two dwarfs or midgets marry and they have different genetic types of the condition, the child could potentially have both forms of dwarfism and/or midgetism.
LuckyBrandon
in a way i agree with you, because there are different flavors of every animal due to genetic variation and isolation, but guess what, that IS evolution. given what we know, god would have been a sloth like creature and our inbreeding and incesting made us into something that wasn't intended in the first place.
Shootist
ninnyhammer
Quantum_Conundrum
Come on now.
Anyone intelligent enough to compose any portion of the Bible would also be intelligent enough to know the difference between hearing an actual voice giving specific instruction from a burning bush, vs a meteor.
You do realize they knew what meteors were in the Bible, and they knew meteors and stars were not Gods too? As evidenced by the book of Jude, they also knew the difference between "fixed" stars as opposed to "wandering stars," which is what we call planets and comets in modern times. They just didn't have as precise of terminology as we use today. Even our own terminology on planets has been changed again in the past several years.
The Jews did not worship objects in the sky, in fact, it was specifically forbidden in the Torah, and the old testament prophets are often seen rebuking any sect who did something like that.
Try again dude. You can start by actually reading the text before you try to argue against it from ignorance.
Ratfish
LuckyBrandon
and btw, i have a preacher father in law, trust me, i know the bs he spits well, and all religious people can ever do when confronted with reproduceable fact is to say something like "god wanted it that way", which is a cop out by far. my example of the meteor was actually in reference to Thor's chariot. And btw, if you read closer, you'll find that books in the bible also reference god coming down in a fireball...i don't think ive ever seen an exception to that in any religion. there is always some small reference...
@ratfish-i completely agree, it will turn what we know upside down and cause a lot more research to be done :)
Shootist
Imagine an omnipotent being who wished to create a Universe(s), which followed Laws, Laws knowable by lesser minds,. These Chowder Heads have no problem with E=MC^2, or the square of the length of the hypotenuse equals the sum of the squares of the lengths of the other two sides, do they?
Assuming one can wrapped their mind around the idea of an omnipotent being, it shouldn't be too difficult to imagine this putative Great Maker creating a Universe where life evolves from the simple to the complex. Can it?
Willful ignorance is a sin in any religion.
Quantum_Conundrum
This fossil no longer jives with that time scale for several reasons.
1) It now pre-dates the oldest african fossils by a factor of at least 200%. Since you've never foudn an african fossile anywhere near this old,nevermind older, you can no longer assume or hypothesize modern man came from Africa. Even within it's own dating regime, the standard theory of "human migration" is now directly contradicted by it's own evidence.
2) The conventional explanation of what happened to Neanderthals is that "modern humans" showed up at just the right time to out-compete them, or out breed them, or interbreed with them. Now that the actual fossil evidence says modern humans were there twice as early, that theory is no longer internally consistent either.
LuckyBrandon
that i can agree with...part of my comment that was cut out was to say that I don't discount there could have been something that snapped its fingers, made the big bang (or expansion) occur, which in turn caused all else to play out.
such a being would likely care of us as much as a grain of sand though
frajo
CHollman82
Perhaps one day you will realize that the quantity of physical evidence that directly contradicts all of your irrational beliefs and the 2000 year old document that you base them on could fill a thousand libraries and museums from floor to ceiling...
Perhaps one day you will realize that your understanding of the breadth and depth of human knowledge is akin to a child's understanding of the depth of the ocean when looking at the waves on the surface...
Quantum_Conundrum
what is your rational basis for that assumption?
If God is all powerful and intelligent, etc, and if he is also rational, then why would he waste his time by making something he doesn't care about?
SuicideSamurai
teledyn
SuicideSamurai
SuicideSamurai
"Digging continues at the cave, the university said, with researchers hoping to "uncover additional finds that will enable them to confirm the findings published up to now and to enhance our understanding of the evolution of mankind, and especially the appearance of modern man."
NOtice the "enable them to confirm." Which in plain english states that the university itself considers their findings intriguing but non-conformational of their theory.
aw216
Shootist
Sorry, wasn't arguing with you. Just using your statement to further the point.
teledyn
geokstr
You forgot to mention Islam, didn't you, in the religions lucky enough to not be extinct?
The only reason they still exist are:
1) By geographical fortune, their camel herds just happened to be sitting on top of the civilized world's lifeblood, oil
2) Unlike Christianity, which mainly grew by persuasion, Muslims offered three choices once they gained power: a) convert, b) live as second class citizens and pay a hefty tax, c) die.
They still live by those rules and now, armed with several trillion extorted from the West, want to drag us back to the 7th century where they still reside.
As an atheist, if I had to choose which to live under, Islam would be a distant last.
lexington
The moment Christians were in a similar position they started doing the same thing (though they quickly started dropping the "be a second class citizen" option). Islam just happened to have military power earlier in its lifetime.
Ramael
Modernmystic
Can we say ironic?
Jonseer
Modernmystic
From where we were previously thought to have evolved? About 2,500 miles "on foot".
How so?
True, but do we base our science on what we might find, or what is possible rather than on the facts at hand?
tk1
Argon
How are they getting these figures for the age of the teeth? Carbon dating (of charcoal in cave) is not accurate for anything that old (400,000 yrs) is it? Aren't they assuming that the 400,000 years worth of dripstones formed AFTER the teeth were deposited in the cave, or, were the teeth found inbeded in the dripstones? In other words how do they know that the teeth are as old or older than the dripstones?
For example, the fact that material(calcium carbonate and sediment) is flowing into the cave over time would seem to open up the possibility that the teeth may have originated outside of the cave, possibly from a nearby burial site where the teeth could have, through natural processes, been transported to and finally deposited in the cave itself. Look for nearby grave sites with missing teeth?
zevkirsh
trekgeek1
I would hope so, since we are now comparing apples and oranges. But would they know the difference between a meteor and a flaming sky chariot? Also, it is HIGHLY probable someone just lied about the bush. You do realize that believing this absolute nonsense means we should believe all the other ridiculous tales from around the world, right? All other holy books, and embellished stories. So good, Zeus was real after all, so says the texts. Even talking about the bible like it's not a fairytale makes me want to run down the street shaking people, screaming "How can you believe this crap?!" I feel like I'm in a twilight zone episode with nut jobs.
trekgeek1
So assuming a child of ten years old walks .68 miles per day with his family, the individual would arrive 2,500 miles away in ten years at an age of 20. This sounds completely plausible since they hadn't perfected agriculture and thus probably covered much more than .68 miles per day while foraging and hunting. And this is assuming covering the 2,500 miles in one generation, ignoring children being born.
John_balls
lolololollolol.. get off this site you are embarrassing yourself.
Quantum_Conundrum
People tend not to walk in straight lines when they don't know where they are going or why. Even in the colonial period when you had all the exploring mariners on ships with the use of sextants and star charts, they mostly still hugged the coast. The first exception being Columbus, and that only worked "by chance" because the earth was actually about twice as big as he figured it to be...
Even with very primitive technologies, such as stick and stone tools, and skin/fur clothing and tents, you'd need to carry all of your belongings with you...for 2500 miles.
trekgeek1
Completely plausible. They likely walked more than .68 miles per day since I can walk that around my apartment in a day. And I assumed a single individual making the trip. What about 3 or 4 generations? hundreds or thousands of individuals radiating out in all directions? 2,500 miles is nothing for a population.
Ramael
No way is anyone claiming that man traveled from Africa to Israel in a single year. It seems unlikely to me that it wouldn't happen. After all, prior to man leaving Africa and migrating to Europe, Europe was already populated by Neanderthals which are also native to Africa, along with the rest of the hominids. Whether we are native to Africa is not at question, when we left it is.
I agree with trekgeek1, completely plausible.
Caliban
Either dispute these dates, or formally retract every prior instance of dating dispute, quaint "conundrum".
Additionally, the generations listed in Genesis, the One True Word of your Lord God, does not permit of the creation of _any_ "kind" of human much more than four to five thousand years ago.
You can't have your Creation and eat it, too.
geokstr
But right now, at this particular moment, which religion is mostly benevolent and which mostly confrontational, and often violent?
I've been in too many debates where liberals defend the horror that Islam is inflicting all over the world today with the unbelievably inane and insane comparison to what the Christians did in the Crusades a thousand years ago.
Caliban
Your best bet is to defend neither, and that way, you won't be bothered by any debates with pesky liberals, even if you do get taken to task by your own kind for not "defending the faith". At least you could "split the difference" in the abuse game, eh?
DamienS
In a different thread QC pleaded his achievement of educating himself despite his underprivileged surroundings and how it was frustrating for him trying to carry out an 'intelligent' conversation with his uneducated relatives and friends.
With statements like the above, he was clearly disingenuous in his boasts.
Terrible_Bohr
zslewis91
ekim
This is the proof. Just like QC said 4 different types of humanoid beings and the tooth fairy must be one of them.
I am escaped with the skin of my teeth(and hid them in a cave).
-Bible (Old Testament)
Job19:20.
See further proof.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
kevinrtrs
It actually can, especially if that Omnipotent being actually told you exactly that He created everything in just six days. Then there' absolutely no space for manoeuvre to incorporate the atheistic evolutionary theory. Those theistic evolutionists who are compromising on what stands quite clearly in the bible have been cowed and cajoled into submitting to that false god. They are taking what is outside of the bible, making that their authority on the creation and then bringing it back to others and telling them they are idiots not to accept the "scientific knowledge" of the atheists.
Yet the bible hold true with every new discovery found in nature. Take a look at what's happening in astronomy where just about every new observation is debunking BB
Argon
"Take a look at what's happening in astronomy where just about every new observation is debunking BB"
Will you please cite some examples of this debunking of BB.
Agile_Mathew
DamienS
No, you wouldn't sockpuppet. You're just trolling.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
Have you not heard of the Chaos Theory? I have heard your argument before. Though basing your claims off of chances are simply unproven assumptions.
DamienS
Only in your warped mind.
Agile_Mathew
Agile_Mathew
I looked at the video you send via PM, but couldn't find a reason to explain away the fundamental postulate of statistical mechanics. The probability of the origin of a human gene through random process alone is too slim. First of all you need the right chemical alone right in front of you. The processes has take place one after the other in a particular sequence. We find it very hard to do it on a super computer. Difficult to believe such a theory.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
So what are you basing your probability on then? Their is a flaw in the way your process logic. So your basically saying, since it's to slim it can't be falsifiable or it's illogical. I'm sorry, that doesn't work with me.
Agile_Mathew
For a try let us base it say on the Big Bang model for the creation of universe. Now can this model predict the availability of required chemicals that can build up life at any point of time. It has to be those right combination. Then there must be some processes that will mix these chemicals in the right order. Can this happen right after the availability of those chemicals. Then these processes with its appropriate conditions has to remain for long enough to bring forth human being to existence and they must come in pairs- male and female, as we see them today.
Skeptic_Heretic
I haven't seen any evidence of neanderthals wiping out whole cities with a word in the fossil record. They learned that trick from the Christians, who learned it from the Jews. The three are more alike than you'd care to admit. We simply had our enlightenment after they did, and for a longer period of time without direct influence of the church thanks to Habeas Corpus and the division of the Protestants from the Catholics.
averageman
The article says they found only 8 teeth in layers dating from 200,000 to 400,000 yrs. ago. A group or community only loosing 1 tooth every 50,000 yrs. or so means they ad a great dental plan or weren't fighting over religion. I'm sure its extremely difficult to find 1 but with the caves in use for about 250,000 years wouldn't the layers be dotted with them? They look in quite good shape from the picture but are there any duplicates or difference in sizes to sow they came from more then 1 individual? Or different wear patterns from their diets?
Rooster
Ethelred
Argon No. Nor is it usable if the cave is limestone. Old carbon contaminates new carbon.
Ethelred
Ethelred
Ethelred
Modernmystic
OK I'll play that game. Using your own logic then people could have originated Russia, or Europe too. Both of which are in the 2,500 mile range. You just cut the legs out from underneath your own argument...
barakn
Or what the Christians did to Native Americans with smallpox blankets a century ago, or what the Nazi Christians did to the Jews 70 years ago, or what the Christian Serbs did to the Kosovo Muslims a decade ago? Surely you wouldn't gloss over important parts of history to strengthen a weak argument?
Modernmystic
Quit assuming things into your argument.
You're making two unfounded assumptions:
1. That the man traveled any significant distance at all.
2. That if he did travel it must have been from Africa.
Neither of those two assumptions is evidence based.
geokstr
I'm an atheist, and my entire concern with religion right now is which one is by far the most dangerous to human civilization in the present. If you say that both are, then you are insane, or a leftling, but I repeat myself.
Of course, all religions over their lifetimes have good and bad periods. But at this moment, it is evident to any thinking being which is more a threat to our way of life in the West.
Or do you want to go back to the 7th century - no SUVs, no new CO2 sources, no need for oil, et al? Maybe that explains it.
Ethelred
Fundamentalists show up every time there is a major item with evolution. Some are new and some are the exact same actively ignorant regulars.
Don't piss on the newbies before trying reason. Ignorance is curable. So are bad manners.
Ethelred
Ethelred
More
Ethelred
More
Quantum_Conundrum
Eh, ~6,760 years, give or take a generation or two, by my personal calculations. There are two gaps that are hard to pin down exactly, but I don't "think" they are any longer than a few generations, given context.
This article interests me primarily because the findings, contradicts the standard theory, not because of the manner in which they contradict the standard theory. I still hold to my position of having no faith in the reliability of the presumptuous dating methods employed.
It's just that this site is further evidence that the historians and atheists, such as yourselves, really have no clue what you're talking about. You're just making all this crap up as you go along, and yet anyone who disagrees "must" be an idiot.
Ethelred
And in any case why believe a book written so long ago that can't even keep the same order of creation in Genesis two that is in Genesis one. Two chapters in and its already contradicting itself and NEITHER match the physical evidence.
Ethelred
Modernmystic
This is NOT an attack QC, but rather an honest question. Are there any methods of dating that you'd be willing to accept?
Agile_Mathew
Skeptic_Heretic
Nothing other than the church they worship at.
The threat to the west is theocracy, regardless of the faith that attempts it. Simply look at the Texas Board of Education.
Nah I'd rather move from the 19th into the 21st and use nuclear. QC how dumb are you?
Dug
Oogle
Maybe you should look at a non-Abrahamic religions then. One that does not try to convert you to their faith and believes that your god is on the same level as theirs then? Try Hinduism maybe?
I think it is the lack of education and knowledge of others that makes a population dangerous. The inherent belief that others are different from you and that they are out to get you.
jmcanoy1860
I'll just point out how obviously wrong this statement is. The oldest which African fossils? Any? Hominid? Humanoid? Human? How easy is it to make a fossil? How close is Israel to Africa? You don't get to pick JUST this fossil and ignore the rest there, cherry picker.
I would advise no one jump the gun on preliminary dating findings from an initial release.
Djincs
Pe-TROLL-eum!
StandingBear
My question however is why!? Why has man been around so long and did so little, and then suddenly progressed in the last ten thousand years, with the vast majority of the progress on an exponential curve arising from the 'noise' about two to three thousand years ago after some false starts. Written records go back about ten thousand years ago to the Black Sea Lake and the Persian Gulf Lake before both were drowned by the sea.
Skeptic_Heretic
We tend to stay fairly stagnant, then a technology, culture or process that allows us to multiply and survive pushes population up exponentially in a rather short geological timescale. The discovery or agriculture and animal domestication brought us from thousands to million, urbanization brought us from millions to tens of millions, and on and on and on.
We'll probably crown trillions once we start colonizing other planets.
boredat20
You realize, of course, this also no longer jives with the whole 6000 year old earth either.
sihaya
Caliban
Largely agreed, but a couple of problems- there is no indication in the article as to how the dating was accomplished. It would have to be meticulously performed, indeed, given the circumstances.
By 10,000 years old, are you referring to the cuneiform script of Sumer?
Lastly, a few people have wondered regarding taxonomy. In the article, it states that these teeth are(paraphrasing) morphologically identical to those of modern humans, ie, Homo sapiens.
400,000 years old doesn't prove or disprove any of the current understanding of the Tree, but it does make it necessary(if the dating and ID stand) to make a few adjustments -which are long overdue, anyway, as there is plenty of anomalous material out there.
jsa09
Why not? Who says god cares? answer: people who wrote and edited and rewrote bible that's who.
I of course assumed the unassumable by making assumption of supreme creator the only evidence of which is some text in books that could as easily have been written by the Brothers Grimm.
Sean_W
Maybe they saw a star in the east. And the east *coast* of Africa runs right up the Red Sea. Can anyone in the class give me the modern name of a region close to the north end of the Red Sea?
Sean_W
Not having found older modern human fossils might have been complicated by the fact that much of North Africa had lots of predators and scavengers, low populations spread out over distances and are, in modern times, covered with and scoured by sand and patrolled by militants, bandits and evil desert spirits. If H. sapiens got it's finishing touches in North Africa it could have got to Israel well before going south (that North coast again. Likewise an out of India scenario could have left few fossils as they beach-combed their way west(ish).
I want more research done before I start calling somewhere the point of origin of modern Homos.
PinkElephant
Gpnum
The finding would be less sexy if it was a group of homo sapiens close predecessor, with already nearly human looking teeth, who happened to have migrated up to Israel.
There is reasonable theories about humanoids regularly leaning Africa to populate Europe and Asia.
Ethelred
From Agile_Mathew's PM. - I don't feel like writing for just one person when it is not actually personal. Quick answer, NO.
There is no universally accepted definition. Some people think that viruses don't count as life. A decent working definition:
Life is a set of chemicals and processes, that uses energy and resources from outside the set to make close duplicates of the set that are capable of doing the same. This might even count viruses. I am not happy with this definition because I don't think that life it limited to chemical processes.
I say close duplicates because nothing that we call life makes exact duplicates all the time. In the long run exact duplication is a dead end. Which leads to the second question.
More
Ethelred
ID, the Intelligent Design idea is an attempt to claim that there are changes in life that MUST have had an intelligence involved. I have yet to see an example where anyone has give conclusive evidence to support this idea. I have seen some rather bad claims by Dr. Behe. Maybe somewhere he has done so but it sure isn't in the first part of Darwin's Black Box. I didn't finish it because he made the same mistakes chapter after chapter and gave ample evidence that he didn't want to know how things could have evolved by natural selection.
More
Ethelred
Natural Selection, which includes sexual selection by my thinking, is the process of life getting killed or failing to reproduce due to environmental hazard or because the opposite sex thinks it's hot to have some odd attribute.
We know that the genome of all species or lines of descent, is subject to mutation. There are different levels of mutation that are seen in nature. Single point substitution is the minimum but large sections of the genome can be duplicated, lost, garbled, replaced, swapped or even infiltrated by viruses. Duplication is the most interesting because a duplicate gene allows there to be a fully functioning original and another copy that is free to change without losing an important chemical. Such changes can be good bad or indifferent. Many are bad, many have little or no effect but a few can improve the chances of reproduction and that is where the selection process works.
More
Ethelred
A change that isn't fit for the environment or the potential mates will be Selected OUT. Sometimes quickly if very bad and sometimes slowly if only a little bad. In the bad cases it may spread bit in the gene pool but it won't ever amount to much. Changes that improve the reproduction rate will be conserved.
Computer studies confirm this. Lab studies are difficult due to the long time frame involved. With creationists lab studies are a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. If you don't run them then Creationists say you have tests. If you do run then, and it has been done, Creationists say it was the work of men and thus not proof.
A way of looking at evolution that I think shows how it works is to think of the mutations as the raw material of change, like a block of marble is the raw material for a statue. Natural selection cuts away the material that is not conducive to reproduction much like the sculptors tools cut away marble.
More
Ethelred
That is the basics. There are a number of details and side processes and just plain calamities involved in the paths that the process of evolution takes. There are no goals to evolution except continued reproduction and that only because if there is no reproduction then the process stops. It is completely opportunistic in that any change in the environment or the genome can change what improves or degrades the chances of reproduction. Since useful changes are inherently conserved and poor changes will be selected out there is a tendency for life to increase in complexity over time for at least some species.
Most species died out without any descendants BUT ALL life that exists has ancestors, as far as we can tell, that go all the way back to the beginning of life on Earth.
More
Ethelred
And no we don't know how life got started but evolution is a process of reproduction and won't go away just because we don't know everything. A lot of people on this site and elsewhere are laboring under the impression that if they point out that we don't know how life got started then the evidence for evolution will somehow go poof and science will stop showing that the Earth is older than their beliefs support. Then there is the problem some have with having apes as ancestors, I have news for those, we ARE pretty much apes even if most of the people in Anthropology don't the guts to say so.
Ethelred
PS3
What does that mean for evolution?
Modernmystic
Uh, nothing?
Modernmystic
Just out of curiosity, what kind of research? What research was it that convinced you of the "out of Africa" theory in the first place? Was it because Africa was where we found the oldest modern human fossils?
srsly
Aside from the occasional comic relief, I surmise that the majority of readers find these people and their personal feelings about evolution to be tiresome.
srsly
35 percent of the population or just over 102 million people consider themselves fundamentalist christians
In an academic test given to 15-year-olds from 34 countries, the United States ranked 25th in math and placed in the middle for science and reading
What does this say for the future of America?
Parsec
I agree with everything you said. I would like to add to your comment about Ignorance being curable. Its really true. However, much less amenable to cure is willful ignorance and close mindedness. I find these rampant whenever religion and particularly evolution is discussed.
People like QC and keninrts (and others) simply do not understand and probably never will understand the difference between fact and opinion. This is required before ignorance can be affected.
ryggesogn2
All public schools are controlled by liberal teacher unions that oppose all attempts for parents to choose effective schools, public or private.
What does this say for the future of America?
srsly
Your statement itself, even if taken at face value, says nothing of relevance.
Your response as whole says everything. It says you are dogmatic in your beliefs and that you don't understand sarcasm or irony.
Additionally, although generalizations based on limited anecdotal evidence are rarely accurate, I believe you to be a typical example of fundamentalist ignorance as a whole.
Skeptic_Heretic
Rather simply, we're fucked.
soulman
And that's really scary. With these fundamentalist whackjobs outbreeding the secular demographic, where birthrates are in decline, the prospect for an accelerated descent into ignorance is chilling.
Terrible_Bohr
For me, it has a lot to do with that. Also, there's the whole corroboration of the theory by DNA analysis. Furthermore, it's somewhat reassuring that it wasn't a theory promoted by raging bigots...
ryggesogn2
Why not? Look at what Michelle Rhee did for DC schools. She was hated by the teachers and when an unfriendly mayor was elected, she resigned.
FL just revised their education system allowing students many options.
KIPP and many other charter schools are graduation students who are performing as are home-schooled students.
It is certainly relevant to the previous bigoted comment.
PinkElephant
Charter schools get to pick and choose the cream of the crop, and their applicant pool consists of highly motivated students to begin with. So you can't compare them with public schools, any more than you can compare apples to oranges.
As to teacher unions, I think that applies just as equally to all the 24 other industrialized nations that routinely leave USA in the dust. Obviously, their "socialist" education systems are somehow superior, and the reason has nothing to do with "choice".
Perhaps it has something to do with a better structured, more integrated, more rigorous and uniform curriculum, higher academic standards, discipline (including dress codes), and emphasis on analysis, thinking, and deep comprehension rather than rote memorization and artsy-fartsy fluff busy-work masquerading as homework. For starters...
Maybe it's time America stopped trying to reinvent the wheel, and instead started borrowing from its betters all that actually, demonstrably, works.
Agile_Mathew
Thanks for writing again. it is a joy to hear you. My next question is- (3) What about von Neumann machine? What is its present research status?
Agile_Mathew
I have more questions, if you can answer I will be grateful.
(4) Does the time (13.7 billion years or so) given by Big Bang Theory enough for reaching the complexity seen in human species?
(5) Do we have any solid observation that confirms inter-species evolution other than the fossil records?
(6) What is your speculation on the origin of life?
(7) What happens if inter-species sex occurs? Does it lead to any new life form?
Skeptic_Heretic
Aside from the fact that you and I are having this conversation, the answer is unequivocally yes. I can think of 3 off the top of my head. The leptorids (butterflies) of Hawaii eat dessert bananas. They're not native to Hawaii, they were introduced to the island about 1000 years ago. Dessert bananas are not native to their native habitat. They've evolved whole new mouth, esophagial tract, and stomache features to digest bananas. Same with the monitor lizards in Indonesia. (TBC)
Skeptic_Heretic
Not ethelred, but I go with the Shostak Hypothesis.
Skeptic_Heretic
If you're talking a horse and a donkey, they're so closely related that on occasion they can interbreed and create viable offspring. Same with the various types of baboons. They're so closely related that they create viable offspring no problem and something wildly interesting occurs.
They develop novel traits within two or three generations. It appears when you take two subspecies, that are on the verge of speciation, like the asian and african baboon sub species, and they breed you see a hypercharged frequency of allele substitution. This is considered to be a possibility within humans. Many think the reason why people are so different is due to interbreeding with other homonids when we left africa. Geographically isolated groups bred with other homonids of close but not exact species relation and boom, trait variance explosion, ie: race.
retrosurf
Not that it matters to a troll: theory, hypothesis and evidence have nothing to do with belief. And as soon as belief begins to pretend that it can be supported by facts, it's not belief anymore.
Skeptic_Heretic
Observational evidence for how many years of seperation, or how many allele changes create a new species is very thin. As far as we can tell, the boundary condition for mammals is about 2 million years give or take. Horses and donkeys diverged about that long ago from what we know. Baboons diverged from each other about 1,200,000 years ago as far as we can tell.
Humans and neaderthals had diverged about 500,000 before they encountered each other, as far as we can tell.
JaxGun
With respect.
Skeptic_Heretic
We have almost complete representations of the majority of our fossil ancestors with a few exceptions.
In reference to Neaderthal itself:
http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
I'd suggest you read up on this topic a bit more.
nxtr
JaxGun
I shall now go enlighten myself on wikipedia.
Skeptic_Heretic
JaxGun
Also, I am looking at more than wikipedia, that was just the start.
Caliban
In future, you might try Agile Mathew's strategy, ie, just asking. You'll generally get a courteous, thoughtful response, and not be exposing yourself to the level of ridicule that feigned stupidity/ignorance/ideologuery is likely to provoke.
At the same time, you may avoid developing the habit of "ends justifiy the means" behavior, which, while often effective, often also results in harsh consequences.
Unless, of course, you plan to enter upon a career in Politics/Corporatics/Finance-ics.
Happy Learning!
Shootist
Nothing, as the most successful countries, vis a vis education, are the most 'liberal' countries.
America's education problem isn't the result of Liberal vs Conservative. It is more likely the result of such failed policies as "no child left behind" - trying to give a college prep education to students with IQs of 85, or even 100, is bound to fail, particularly the high achievers.
University should be for the top 10%, the rest should seek vocational training. After all, we need plumbers, carpenters and auto mechanics more than we need lawyers.
Shootist
Sorry, poor response.
ScientistAmauterEnthusiast
Skeptic_Heretic
Need for attention.
Egleton
It seems entirely plausible that humans developed in isolation out of Africa in Israel, and then re-colonized Africa.
It would be advantageous to isolate the descendant from the common gene pool in order to create a different "species".
Darwin noted this effect in his study of Galapagos finches.
diego
ryggesogn2
Do you feel the same about the atheists who decide to go on a scientific website and sound ignorant?
diego
diego
ryggesogn2
'Told to believe'?
Another arrogant atheist.
BTW, atheists here have agreed that one can't be a true atheist until one dies. And even then, no one can be certain you were a true atheist. (You may have told yourself that you believe in God and kept it a secret.)
Those who call themselves atheists state CS Lewis was not a 'real' atheist. Lewis stated he was just as all atheists here.
There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.
diego
ryggesogn2
'Told to believe'?
Another arrogant atheist.
BTW, atheists here have agreed that one can't be a true atheist until one dies. And even then, no one can be certain you were a true atheist. (You may have told yourself that you believe in God and kept it a secret.)
Those who call themselves atheists state CS Lewis was not a 'real' atheist. Lewis stated he was just as all atheists here so state.
There is no way any atheist can objectively prove they are true atheists so maybe it is best atheists focus on objective facts.
diego
Skeptic_Heretic
diego
diego
And as a matter of fact, I do...
frajo
ryggesogn2
Prove you are not lying.
You lie about me, why should you be believed regarding anything else?
diego
ryggesogn2
Diego, you raised the issue now you say it is irrelevant?
"How arrogant!" is an exclamation in English.
diego
BTW do we really need to have idiotic adds in the middle of this page lol
Skeptic_Heretic
Ethelred
Thick doesn't begin to describe you on this.
Ethelred
Ethelred
DON'T be dragged down to their idiocy.
I am more experienced than they at this.
I don't delude myself that I can change their minds. They ARE idiots. Many have CHOSEN to be idiots.
However some of them are merely ignorant and that is curable. You can't change the mind of the ignorant by assuming they are among the idiots.
Ethelred
winthrom
I am almost 69 yrs old. From 1947 through 1955 I attended public schools and never saw a classmate with disabilities. I saw a pluralistic white (Jews, Christians) group and some 5% to 10% blacks. This was 10 miles from New York in New Jersey. The entire city was this same mixture. When I attended Engineering college, we car-pooled to Newark and about a dozen of us (same mixture) went together every day to a non-dorm school. Most of us were poor.
That generation produced the wealth and power that stopped the Soviets cold in their tracks. Somewhere in between then and now we decided that the public school system should educate to the lowest common denominator: This gave us the greatest game playing population in human history since the Roman Circuses. Former president "W" was a star example of this system, and he famously decided "no child should be left behind" while making sure that no money would back this great idea. We now have a caste system for schools:
More
TabulaMentis
winthrom
The lower down this schooling totem pole you go, the closer you get to fundamentalists. Since neither charter schools nor magnet schools are available to most kids, most kids are denied the education I had. The road to hell was paved with good intentions and theres no $ to pay for them.
PinkElephant is exactly correct in response to @ryggesogn2.
One should also note that the power of knowledge is now shifting heavily to the wealthy classes and away from the average American. This religious rant is an example of what results of an uneducated population.
TabulaMentis
If you are so educated and smart, then explain the origin of the Big Bang!
winthrom
I do not think the Big Bang happened without a predecessor. I think our "universe" cycles through convulsions in the larger "real universe" and that we are a product of the latest convulsion that we call the big bang. Since we do not have enough objective evidence to support this or any other theory like it, my thoughts are pure speculation, and not science. If I had the ability and facilities to pursue this speculation, perhaps I could find out if I am right about it.
TabulaMentis
Predecessor? At some point there was an absolute beginning. Forget about cyclic universe little bangs providing an answer to the origin of the Big Bang.
Caliban
Prove it, Nickelbag.
frajo
DamienS
frajo, I think you entirely missed the point of winthrom's excellent post.
Ethelred
OK it came from logic and math.
And which god it yours? There are rather a lot of them. According to Exodus even Jehovah believed that other gods existed. So which one have you picked out as the putative Creator?
That is philosophy and may or may not be true. However that thinking also applies to any god. Where did YOUR god come from?
Ethelred
frajo
I just want to learn whether the word "disabled" has a meaning I didn't know of until now.
IF, however, "disabled" denotes handicapped people of all kinds (as I have been assuming until now) THEN winthrom's post is not really excellent as it disparages handicapped people.
Ethelred
Of course YOU mentioned Hawking who:
When to school in England not the United State.
Didn't have any physical problems till he was at University. I think that is the British way of saying it.
Is a lot smarter than Winthrom likely is. Or me or pretty much anyone here based on some of the stories from when he was at University.
And I agree with you in any case. It went over the top on that point. Unfortunately everyone is NOT equal but he certainly had a poor choice of words. And the US equal opportunity is usually considered a good thing.
Ethelred
diego
ryggesogn2
Then I was not talking to you.
I do think you are dishonest. An agnostic claims to not know.
Ethelred
Agnostics don't claim to be stupid. I don't know if there is a god. I do know that SOME gods don't exist. Not my fault you can't see the difference. Or want to lie about if you do see the difference.
Which is the problem with habitual liars. You can't be certain when they are being stupid instead of lying yet again. Not that it makes any difference in your case.
Troll
Liar
Idiot
Ignoramus
You either have it all or you are a MAJOR piece of Troll. Which would still leave you as a liar.
Its not an ad homonym when it is true.
If you don't like that YOU MUST CHANGE. Not just your name.
Ethelred
TabulaMentis
Quote: It happened because it could happen. The rules of the Universe allow it. The Universe is allowed by logic and mathematics so why shouldn't it exist? OK it came from logic and math.
Answer: Wrong answer.
Quote: And which god it yours?
Answer: I think you are asking which one is my favorite God. I like the Holy Ghost the most.
Quote: So which one have you picked out as the putative Creator?
Answer: Most people prefer Father in Heaven, but there is more to it than that.
Quote: Where did YOUR god come from?
Answer: An atheist asked me a similar question years ago. It took a lot of luck and hard work to figure out the answer to that question. I am not in the business of giving away valuable information for free. I just wanted to show that the atheists and agnostics are not as smart and educated as the think.
Skeptic_Heretic
You've wasted a post and make ridiculous statements on a topic in which there is no new information thus far. Come back when you're willing to actually say something of merit or without merit, or really, anything at all.
Ethelred
Old Earth or Young Earth Trinitarain? So you are selling the Secret of the Universe then? 42? You failed. You didn't even understand my questions much less my answer.
Ethelred
ryggesogn2
Don't flatter yourself. Most atheist web sites and blogs claim Lewis was not atheist in spite of his self acclimation.
And that is the point. Lewis claimed to be atheist. If Lewis was not atheist than Ethel is not agnostic or atheist or whatever he wants to call himself.
Skeptic_Heretic
diego
Modernmystic
I watched an interesting history channel documentary on human evolution this weekend. I was struck by something I'd not known before. It was our upright gait, use of tools, and then language in that order that seems to have driven the development of our brains (not to mention a diet that included copious amounts of meat). I always thought the brain came before the tools or the language.
It makes me wonder what kinds of older hominids in Israel there were around the same time and I'm more interested in what their necks looked like (ie language capacity) rather than their cranial volume.
TabulaMentis
Quote: Saying "wrong answer" to a fully qualified and vetted resposne doesn't assist you in this aim.
Answer: I asked the above atheist and agnostic bloggers a serious question, that they do not have an answer. They acted as if they know everything, but they do not.
Quote: You information has no value as it is not demonstrable. Further, you refuse to demonstrate it, meaning that not only do you have no information, but you refuse to allow any information you think you have to be reviewed.
Answer: I will answer that question when I am in a position to be rewarded for years of hard work, but in the meantime I am sitting back listening to the atheists and agnostics make fools of themselves.
Quote: You've wasted a post and make ridiculous statements on a topic in which there is no new information thus far. Come back when you're willing to actually say something of merit or without merit, or really, anything at all.
Answer: I do not take orders from you!
ryggesogn2
You only know what was documented.
winthrom
frajo is correct; I did not choose my words carefully. I was referring to mentally handicapped kids, who, through no fault of their own, the Federal Government expects to perform at a norm established for the general population. The physically handicapped did not figure into my discussion.
I have a 5-year-old granddaughter with cerebral palsy that severely retarded her mental development. She cannot speak, nor does she understand more than a few simple words. I love her very much and she is the sweetest and most cheerful person. She enters public school soon at a likely cost to the school district of about $200,000/yr. We can never expect her to do much in life since she does not have the ability to learn. Children like this need care for their whole lives and it should not be at the expense of the school districts. If anything, this is a good use for Medicare/Medicaid.
Skeptic_Heretic
Which means that if the answer actually is "nothing or a void" which as so far it is, you won't accept it. Well reality doesn't care what you accept. You cannot pretend the truck screaming down the road at your child isn't there because you choose to not believe in it. Meaning you don't have an answer. If you're Christian, or some flavor thereof, your reward has already been granted for your understanding. It appears you understand nothing.
Modernmystic
Why should one accept illogical inconsistencies? To accommodate an atheist worldview? I'll go with the first law of thermodynamics...unless you've invented a new physics to share with us...
TabulaMentis
TabulaMentis
Quote: Which means that if the answer actually is "nothing or a void" which as so far it is, you won't accept it. Well reality doesn't care what you accept.
Answer: Did you not know that from nothing comes nothing? The same can be said about voids!
Kingsix
As for Brandon saying he has studied all of the major religions and found that, well we can pretty much be sure that thats a lie. Unless he considers reading the Wikipedia article on each, studying and if so then he is just stupid.
As for Religious people, like myself, who are stuck thinking that a literal interpretation of everything written in the Bible or other holy book is true. Just think a bit about how much people knew back then, even if it is Gods word, then I would bet he dumbed it down for his world is flat believers.
Skeptic_Heretic
Which means from nothing would come, absolutely nothing. 0=0 but 0 also = negative 1 plus 1.
I've seen particle physicists play minesweeper. That doesn't mean minesweeper takes the intellect of a particle physicist to understand. I've studied them all, care to quiz me?
aaaaaaaaa
It does say on every church,
'god loves ,saves you and protects you.'
This factual statement has been proven wrong.
I would like an answer from you religious.
Why did god not save or protect these people?
god doesn't exist.
p.s
Has anyone done the physics for Noahs Ark yet. Rough calculations show the numbers to be Hilarious.
Skeptic_Heretic
diego
As I stated in a above commen
Modernmystic
So it's OK for the universe to violate the first law of thermodynamics because...0=-1+1...mmmkay. About as convincing as Genesis, only far less poetic.
So what does the -1 look like if the universe is the +1? How can something be less than nothing?
I don't expect an intellectually honest answer, but it will be amusing to see the philosophical knots you tie yourself into trying to answer...
ekim
Perhaps you should learn more about quantum physics before posting. The concept of a negative and positive being derived from zero has been tested and proven. As far as Genesis is concerned, any tests of that theory have resulted in genetic abnormalities. Incest is wrong and always should be no matter what the Bible has to say.
TabulaMentis
Quote: The concept of a negative and positive being derived from zero has been tested and proven.
Comment: Before the Big Bang there was no vacuum.
DamienS
How do you know, did god tell you? Do you often hear voices telling you things inside your head?
ekim
Time and space dimensions formed with the big bang.
The concept of before time is irrelevant.
This belief arises from the mistaken conclusion that time is linear.
This happens because we perceive our memories as linear.
Much as the sun was once believed to move around the earth, our perceptions can deceive us.
There is no beginning or end, just the middle.
Let me know if you ever find the other side of the Möbius strip.
ekim
Time and space were formed with the big bang.
The concept of before time is irrelevant.
This concept arises from the perception of linear time.
This belief is flawed, just as the sun was once thought to travel around the earth.
There is no beginning or end to time, only the middle.
Trying to find the beginning of time is like trying to find the other side of a Möbius strip.
DamienS
You can't say that with certainty - it depends on which theoretical model you subscribe to.
No it isn't. While most cosmologists would have been equally dismissive thirty years ago, it isn't the case now. More and more cosmologists are asking the 'before' questions.
Again, how can you be so adamant? Some are also asking whether time exists at all. Does time exist without matter? How do you measure time in an empty universe?
I guess you can dismiss these types of questions and ideas as being purely philosophical, but asking and attempting to answer them may lead to unexpected and profound insights that may yield to scientific corroboration.
frajo
[1] The generation of offspring by the mating of two near relatives. This is wrong for several reasons and I don't think anybody will object.
[2] The mating of near relatives without producing offspring. Why should this be wrong?
Skeptic_Heretic
Lawrence Krauss explains this better than I in his lecture "A Universe from Nothing". Available on youtube if you haven't seen it.
TabulaMentis
Quote: How do you know, did god tell you? Do you often hear voices telling you things inside your head?
Quote: You can't say that with certainty - it depends on which theoretical model you subscribe to.
Quote: While most cosmologists would have been equally dismissive thirty years ago, it isn't the case now. More and more cosmologists are asking the 'before' questions.
Quote: I guess you can dismiss these types of questions and ideas as being purely philosophical, but asking and attempting to answer them may lead to unexpected and profound insights that may yield to scientific corroboration.
Answer: Funny how you criticize someone's model in one statement and then say it depends on which theoretical model one subscribes to in another statement. And then you dig the hole deeper with further statements the makes you sound phony and prejudiced.
Modernmystic
Tell me how it ISN'T a violation. It's the ultimate violation of the first law. The BB theory isn't an answer to anything, it's the epitome of "begging the question"...
If you can't HONESTLY see the weakness in the theory I can't help you.
So where's the -1? Negative energy is something. You can't steal the concept of nothing by calling it something "negative". Nothing is nothing. Your concept of -1 must be LESS than nothing to "work" in the manner you're suggesting. Try again.
Nothing but knots...
I'll check out the Krauss vid, but if it's what you just spouted it's inane BS. You still haven't shown how nothing can create something, much less how it can do so and still be consistent with the 1st law.
Skeptic_Heretic
Skeptic_Heretic
Modernmystic
I'm not talking about false vacuum. I understand that, and as far as that goes you're correct.
I'm talking about the rest of the universe. All the stuff in it, including antimatter, dark matter, dark energy it's all SOMETHING.
ie: Don't confuse you with the facts?
You're the one who's confused. You can't call energy negative and claim it balances a philosophical equation. I'm talking about the REAL world. In order for your position to be logically consistent you have to show how something can be less than nothing. Which is impossible...
Skeptic_Heretic
Skeptic_Heretic
Modernmystic
Terrible_Bohr
Religious beliefs surely ARE for the weak-minded.
See that - Are you going to buy into that? Of course not. The question is why you thought that your statement was somehow meaningful.
TabulaMentis
Religion is complicated and for some reason you cannot figure it out.
DamienS
Reading comprehension lesson - you said with absolute certainty:
A statement of fact and certainly not presented as a model. I pulled you up on it asking how you could possibly know that for a fact (admittedly with some condescension, given your track record).
You replied by quoting my thoughts on a different matter which were all qualified and presented as alternative theories. Note, they were not stated as FACTs. I even linked them to philosophy as there is no current evidence that supports them.
Except that you're the one doing the digging as you completely misinterpreted what I said.
ekim
Last time I checked mating was still the leading cause of offspring. Accidents do happen. That's why it's wrong. Of course your argument could be one of homosexual incest where procreation can't happen. I'm pretty sure the Bible doesn't endorse that sort of behavior though.
Skeptic_Heretic
You could very simply, just change the dogma, but you refuse to. Therefore, religion is only complicated to those who have an unhealthy view of how it should be and what it states.
ekim
Recent experiments with weak quantum measurements seem to reveal the non-linear nature of time. While much more study is needed, this experimentation pushes ideas on time from philosophical musings to testable theories.
Terrible_Bohr
Your efforts to make us all embrace religion sure aren't complicated. They amount to 'Agree with me, or you're stupid. This stuff is so obvious I don't even need to make a rational argument to support it.'
You say religion is correct, with no support behing your statement. I merely gave you a response that hopefully illustrated how pointless such a statement is. Based on your last response, you didn't get it. You simply say that religion is too complicated for me to understand. How is it so complicated?
To me, religion seems really simple. You do what the authorities tell you to; ignore what they tell you to; and, in many cases, give them the money that they tell you to. You have the comfort of ignoring all philisophical quandries, as it all comes back to one unfalsifiable belief.
TabulaMentis
Quote: The only thing that makes religion complicated is making sure it is "unchanging". This practice requires you to constantly make up new lies and falshoods to further the argument for unchanging dogma.
You could very simply, just change the dogma, but you refuse to. Therefore, religion is only complicated to those who have an unhealthy view of how it should be and what it states.
Comment: You have me confused with someone else. I never said everything in religious texts were correct. Many of my ideas do not agree with the written word for instance: I do not believe God has always existed and I have a different viewpoint of the Holy Ghost. That is part of the reason I said religion is complicated!
TabulaMentis
Well, it is nice to see you have a sense of humor.
But again, there was no vacuum before the Big Bang. If you want more information, then you will have to wait or figure it out for yourself.
DamienS
What methodology do you use to determine what is 'correct' and what isn't?
Other than gut feel and cherry-picking, what has led you to these conclusions?
The bit about god not always existing is a new one as it means someone or something created him (or he evolved like the rest of us). Maybe you think god is some kind of advanced alien? Either way it's a flight of fancy without any evidentiary support.
DamienS
Your reply wasn't unexpected.
TabulaMentis
Quote: What methodology do you use to determine what is correct and what isn't?
Answer: I started from scratch ignoring all but basic atomic theory and got lucky. It even attracted a lot of attention, if you know what I mean.
Quote: The bit about god not always existing is a new one as it means someone or something created him (or he evolved like the rest of us). Maybe you think god is some kind of advanced alien? Either way it's a flight of fancy without any evidentiary support.
Answer: What I am talking about goes way beyond Charles Darwin's ideas. Plus, I forgot to mention that an atheist will never figure out the origin of the Big Bang and I mean never.
Quote: Your reply wasn't unexpected.
Answer: You are being used! Thank You.
DamienS
How does that reply explain anything at all about your methodology?
Nope, I don't, since you haven't explained anything yet.
Again, you have nothing to say, except to name-drop.
That's probably true. A scientific thinker knows there are limitations to knowledge and the origin of the big bang might be one. Whereas a deluded theist will be satisfied in his certitude of the unknowable.
TabulaMentis
Quote: That's probably true. A scientific thinker knows there are limitations to knowledge and the origin of the big bang might be one. Whereas a deluded theist will be satisfied in his certitude of the unknowable.
Answer: Wrong again jerk.
frajo
Accidents do happen in lots of non-mating situations. Some are called "collateral damages". But neither traffic nor warfare is called wrong or forbidden. So why should non-fertile incest be wrong? Yes, this is one of the cases where I don't see any ethical obstacle. Do you? Why should the Bible matter? Most people on this planet don't care for the Bible.
This is PhysOrg and not SundaySchool.
frajo
It's ahistorical, unmusical, and intellectually shoddy.
Skeptic_Heretic
If you're here to proselytize in your chosen dogma, feel free, but recognize that you will encounter strong and intellectual resistance.
Enjoy your stay, try not to be ignorant.
Modernmystic
My religion is stupendously simple.
My spirituality is simple, it was dearly bought however. A price I'd gladly pay again.
Some people want to make religion "complicated", this is why I don't go to church, and why I generally detest ALL organized religion.
Christ's message is simple. Sad to see how some simple people want to make it complicated...
TabulaMentis
By the way, you folks should file a complaint with Physorg.com about their articles that include the word God. Just type-in the word god in the search table and see what you get. Maybe they will heed to your stupid request.
DamienS
I don't think it would do much good. Physorg knows all too well that religion is a polarizing topic, sure to bring out the cranks to stir the pot and therefore attract traffic to the site.
TabulaMentis
Quote: Why should the Bible matter? Most people on this planet don't care for the Bible.
Reply: There are about 2.1 billion Christians around the world. There would be more if it wasn't for the Muslim extremists. There are about 7 billion people worldwide. That adds up to about 1 in 3 people are Christians.
Terrible_Bohr
While the value of religion is debatable, it's a blatant lie to state that there is any science in Creationism. There are no legitimate scientific theories that rely upon divine or supernatural forces.
You say you're a grown-up, but you really like to resort to childish name-calling. But you're right: it would be stupid for us to request Physorg refrain from using god as an explanation in the articles it posts. The interjection of the g-word only occurs in the comments to the articles.
Oh, and 1 out of 3 is not a majority, by definition.
TabulaMentis
Quote: There are no legitimate scientific theories that rely upon divine or supernatural forces.
Reply: Not any yet made public.
Quote: The interjection of the g-word only occurs in the comments to the articles.
Reply: Look at the Physorg.com article titled: Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist.
Quote: Oh, and 1 out of 3 is not a majority, by definition.
Answer: Christianity is 33%, Islam is 21%, Nonreligious is 13%, Hinduism is 14% and so on. Christianity is the dominant religion or majority.
DamienS
I wonder why?
serenityweaver
frajo
frajo
Btw, my favorite cosmology is the ekpyrosis. That's Greek (as kosmos is) and it is embedded in a cyclic cosmological model which means it is creation-free. No creation, no philosophical headache. :)
frajo
Skeptic_Heretic
Argon
@heretic: Not to be mean, but, from a purely mathematical analysis, do you see the contradiction in your above statement? 50%? How is it that 50% of anything can be below an average when that average is obtained from the "50%" that are "below" it? Maybe I'm wrong. If so please correct me and please give me an example to illustrate to me how the math would work in the case of how "50%" of "ALL" people could, mathematically speaking, be "below" AVERAGE.
Skeptic_Heretic
Do you really need help with this one?
Argon
Are you extrapolating right of into la-la land? How do you know the 50% figure is correct? Have you personally tested ever person on the planet? Or did some person tell you and you believed them? And that leads to: well how do they know? It is a tremendous claim that you have made, one that includes 7 billion people.
Given the arrogance, I shall assume that you count yourself in the above average group and me and any one that disagrees with your brazen claims is in the under average group. Correct?
Ethelred
Not all human statistics follow a bell curve. Foot size in Europe has a camel back curve. Human intelligence has a long tail at the high end so it is VERY possible that MORE than 50 percent of the population has an IQ that is less than average. Whether they have taken an IQ test or not.
Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
Do you realize how incorrect that is? Especially when someone is attempting to counterclaim the percentage of religious adherants within the world populace?
Argon
I wasn't asking outright if 50% is possible. I was trying to blatantly point out that nobody can obtain a 50% below average figure that covers every person if every person has not been part of the test. See what I mean. Now you may test 100,000 people across the globe at random but when all is said and done you can only honestly say that according to this test administered to these 100,000 people we have caculated from "the data obtained" from the 100,000 people that so and so percent of these particular 100,000 people are below the average of the total 100,000 people. My point is you can get a number from the testing of these 100,000 people; how many of them fall below the average for the whole 100,000. Ok? Now to take what you know about these 100,000 people and try to apply it to the billions of people that you did not test IS NOT SCIENCE. If you tested 100,000 then use it for them. We must not speak of untested people as if they had taken a test that they did not take.
Ethelred
On TOP of which is the DEFINITION of average. You clearly don't understand it. Tested or not 50 percent will be below average as long as you have a bell curve. And the tests that have been done show something close to a bell curve. Except for that long tail at the top end which means that is MORE than 50 percent are below average.
Ethelred
Javinator
"I have all the answers, but I'm not giving them away for free".
Right.
frajo
Ceterum censeo:
The IQ does not measure "intelligence" as this term is undefinable as it's a remnant of 19th century burgeois thinking. Of course, you could define: "Intelligence" is to be understood as the result of an IQ test. Unfortunately, there are a lot of different IQ tests and all of them are biased to favour the thinking of their inventors who are primarily influenced by Western culture.
Thus, the graphic on sabahan.com/2007/01/18/
worlds-average-iq-distribution-map (put it together into the address field) is not at all astonishing.
Argon
I am not disputing wether or not 50% below average can be obtained. My arguement is that you cannot obtain ANY average from data that is not available.
In other words claiming 50% of people(read all people) are of below average intelligence can not be an accurate statement if you are trying to apply the figure to all people everywhere, because all people everywhere have certainly not taken whatever this test is that you still haven't given a name for. My point, as plainly as I can say it is: if 1 billion people took your test and it was found that 50% of them had below average intelligence. That's fine. Then we can say with confidence what we have learned about the 1 billion people who took the test. Please keep in mind though that it does not give you any data from the 6 billion people who didn't take the test.If you would like to learn about them then TEST THEM ALSO.
Skeptic_Heretic
We're not going to play math masturbation to make you happy with my general statement.
Argon
Skeptic_Heretic
Sediment dating works because it isn't the only measure used. We correlate sediment chemistry with atmospheric chemistry and geologic mobility.
If you want the teeth to be dated by the teeth alone, you don't understand how dating works or why we consider it statistically significant. Nothing, but if that had happened we would not receive a date of 400 kya.
Argon
@Heretic
from: science .mcmaster .ca
"Electron Spin Resonance Dating (ESR): Fossil teeth are a ubiquitous component of prehistoric sites, and as a consequence, ESR dating of tooth enamel is very widely applicable in archaeology and palaeoanthropology.
Since publication of the first papers on dating of sites in Israel (Schwarcz et al., 1988; Schwarcz et al., 1989) electron spin resonance (ESR) dating of tooth enamel has been recognized as a useful tool for chronometric dating in the time range beyond the 40 ka limit of radiocarbon and up to at least 2 Ma (Schwarcz et al. 1994)."
I think this might work alright!
Modernmystic
This attitude puzzles me. All of our nearest cousins were in the Near East 400,000 years ago too. Heidelbergensis fossils have been found in Greece...
On Edit: Actually Heidelbergensis is more of a "father" than a cousin for that matter.
Skeptic_Heretic
As I said, you don't understand dating if you think we run a single type of test and declare an answer. That would be "bad science".
Modernmystic
FTA:"Our cave was used for a period of about 250,000 years -- from about 400,000 years ago to about 200,000 years ago," he told AFP.
"The teeth are scattered through the layers of the cave, some in the deeper part, that is to say from 400,000 years and through all kinds of other layers that can be up to 200,000 years. The oldest are 400,000 years old", he added."
I know I'm missing something here SH, what is it?
Skeptic_Heretic
Argon
www-(replace w's>.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/staff-directory/palaeontology/stringer/assets/skhul-pdf. pd f (
Argon
-pdf . pd fwww-(replace w's>.nhm .ac. uk/research-curation / staff-directory/ palaeontology/
stringer/ assets/skhul (
Agile_Mathew
(1) Remain Agnostic and interpret the scientific facts
(2) Remain Theistic and interpret the scientific facts
(3) Remain Atheistic and interpret the scientific facts
(4) Let scientific facts alone guide you to become Agnostic or Theistic or Atheistic
ekim
One of the most intelligent posts I've read in a while.
Ethelred
I know of one case in India, don't know if the person was thinking AS a religious person or not. There is a city with these odd artifacts in the houses. Haven't been seen anywhere else even now. In archeology if something doesn't make sense in in another way there is a tendency to assume it's religious in nature. They decided the artifacts were family alters.
More
Ethelred
Well TOILETTES ARE still often referred to as the porcelain throne. Which is what that turned out to be. No one had EVER seen indoor plumbing before that far back or even close to it. Religious thinking is endemic in archeology even if everyone involved was non-religious. Difficult to see any thing different there between one and four. The reason being is that no one has any physical evidence for a god yet. Despite that some people claim to have been Atheists and changed their minds over something they discovered. Usually they don't convince any other Atheists and certainly no Agnostics. Usually the cause is something that appears fine tuned and they simply can't see how it could happen without a god. Narrow minded people with no imagination as I have never seen anything I can't see way to occur without a god.
More
Ethelred
There are 2 reasons I have not responded your last set of questions. The main is that Skeptic Heretic covered it. The other is because I wanted do other things. One of which was to read more about the Shostak Hypothesis which looks more interesting this time around. Mostly I have been playing on other threads.
There ARE other discussions going on. You could click on a name and see where else we rant.
Ethelred
frajo
Maybe we should read Dostoyevsky once more. Personally I know uneducated people (analphabetics - girls who had, unlike her brothers, to work on the fields instead of going to school because their parents were too poor to make ends meet otherwise) who are, due to their environment, believers AND at the same time extremely social, understanding, and friendly to anybody who respects their fate no matter whether he's a believer or not.
Ethelred
You can see it time and again, even from Agnostic or Atheist physicists. They want there to be ONE Universe and ONE set of laws which were the only ones possible. It isn't going to happen. All right that last is an opinion but I think it's well founded.
Once more would be the first. I just can't bring myself to read Russian novels. No problem with long novels. Just Russian angst. I like fantasy and science fiction. The occasional mystery and historical fiction.
Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
The work was already done, deal with the results. 400kya for the oldest specimens.
Argon
My curiosity is not satisfied by the level of information given in the article.
If I were on that team that is claiming something which upsets the apple cart I would make a big deal and go into great detail about how my discovery was dated.
Since funding is such a big issue for so many fields of research the conflict of interest really makes me question who I can trust espeacially if claims are not thoroughly detailed and clear.
Anyway I hope you are having a good morning.
Modernmystic
It's not proof like the teeth are, once humans were on the planet they could have developed civilization wherever they had spread to. However, it would make more sense that it might happen where they'd been the longest IMVHO...
Skeptic_Heretic
Terrible_Bohr
Try reading some Gogol. He has much the same psychological insight as Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy, but with absurdist humor.
Ethelred
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Gogol
Uhh no.
What do you think I meant by Russian angst? I am NOT looking for psychological insight, especially from someone that drinks booze he can't taste.
Evenings on a Farm Near Dikanka - oooh I can't wait to read that. How about corn in Nebraska?
Yes Yes yes I have got to read about that. But only if Rasputin is the protagonist.
I know, I could a get a root canal. Nearly fell asleep the one time I had one.
Maybe I will reread Anathem. Or the entire Boroque Cycle. Or finally read the Flashman books I own but have not read. There is one book by Dr. Penrose that intrigues me almost as much as it makes my brain hurt.
Dawkin's book on religion is NOT on my list.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
Options (1) and (4) are not the same. For in (4), there is a willingness to change one's position in front of compelling evidences which he may come across. Options (1) is unwilling to consider such changes. He says, he cannot know this at any time.
Terrible_Bohr
It was just a suggestion, and I don't strongly care what you read. However, having an understanding of human character doesn't mean the author is bound to write his characters bemoaning their fate.
Ethelred
You have just described an Agnostic. There is no compelling evidence for a god. There is no evidence that at least some kind of god doesn't exist. It is only some specific gods that can be ruled out by evidence. The Jehovah of Genesis is one of those that the evidence shows non-existent. Wrong. That is SOME Atheists not Agnositics.
There IS, not there can not be, no evidence for a god but there is no way to prove that ALL gods are non-existent.
Many people that call themselves Atheists also agree with the above statement.
Ethelred
Ethelred
I WILL RANT ABOUT RUSSIAN AUTHORS IF I WANT TO.
In which case it is best to remain ignorant of Russian authors. Please do not interfere with my closed mind on this subject.
On another, less strident, note, I hear Jane Austen is good.
I am not going to read her either.
It is a matter of time, there is simply more than I can read even if I speed read and I don't like doing that.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
But in front of compelling evidences he may come across in life, he can either choose to remain the same or to change his mind to become an Atheist or a Theist. Therefore, the difference between option (1) and (4). Can't you accept that Ethelred?
Ethelred
Nor is it me or pretty much any Agnostic.
THAT is the definition. Huxley coined the word himself. There is that total shortage of compelling evidence to deal with. No. You have the wrong definition of Agnostic.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
My definition is taken from a dictionary. I stick to that, and I think majority who uses the word may be unaware of your definition.
Ethelred
Merriam-Webster
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Note the PROBABLY and NOT COMMITTED, still not the Definitive definition which is inherently that of Huxley but close enough. Far closer than the one you used.
You can misuse any bad definition you want but US Agnostics are going to point out that it doesn't fit any Agnostic that I know.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
Good reasoning. There is a way to ascertain something to be right and something else to be wrong. Isn't it?
frajo
frajo
Ethelred
To pick a dangerously controversial example.
Are Conservatives always wrong? No, they may even be right more often than Liberals IF they are Conservatives in the original sense rather than people that want to back to a possibly mythical past. The reason being is that doing things the same way as before is more likely to be right than changing to new UNTRIED ways, key word is untried. But because new conditions often make old ways obsolete Liberals are often right even when the old way worked pretty well in the past.
More
Ethelred
So in an attempt to be on topic.
Assuming that Modern Men came from Africa may still be right even with this new evidence. Not because we should not take the evidence into account but because those people may not have had many or even any descendants. Humans took a heavy hit after that time, around 70,000 years ago, and we don't know where the humans that survived the hit lived. There is some recent evidence of survivors in India as there are stone tools above and below the ash layer from the Toba Super Eruption. The tools are supposed to be of the same type.
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory
At least some Human parasites also show a similar bottleneck thus lending credence to the idea that humans may indeed have been wacked pretty badly around that time.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
Are you sure of what you wrote above?
Ethelred
In general.
NO.
Especially the stuff on Toba. It sorta fits the evidence. I did not come up with it. Sorta because genetic clocks are inherently 'sorta'. Human tool kits were pretty limited then and that could be a reason for humans not doing so well. The first signs of true creativity came shortly thereafter. Survival may have depended on new ways of doing things. Thus making creativity a more important trait.
Definitions drift with time. Yes. Absolutely. English suborns words all the time.
That we live in fast changing times. Yes. VERY fast.
The Conservative vs. Liberal stuff. Pretty much think I have it fairly right. The balance is where it gets tricky. Some people have no clue that the other side sometimes has a point. Been a lot of that lately.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
Can you please write on my previous set of questions. Only in a fundamental way. I would like to hear you very much on it. Thanks for answering all the above.
Terrible_Bohr
I enjoy an occasional rant myself. No further interference on my part.
Ethelred
I had to look that one up as it was hazy. My first thought was Von Neumann architecture. I think you mean this:
At the moment someone could put together a set of basic robots that build more similar robots from a set a pre-made parts. Might be some the factory robots are made by robots already. The robots must be programmed by men and the parts will have human handling as well. Entire large factories are needed to make the integrated circuits that control the robots.
More
Ethelred
The recent developments in artificial proteins and some modular chemistry may eventually lead to molecular machines that are no longer dependent on natural organic chemistry. Despite the problems with Drexler's ideas of self reproducing nano machines there really is nothing stopping us from making things like them, though they may have to be two to say eight times the size, linear, that Drexler originally envisioned.
The claim by some chemists that this cannot happen is pure nonsense. WE are based on molecular machines. Generally larger than the Drexler assemblers natural machines are limited to what can evolve.
More
Ethelred
Von Neumann machines are still largely at the conceptual stage needing a lot of new developments. Some of which we might want to put under tight control or even ban. Self replicating nano machines really aren't a good idea. Nano-factories that cannot reproduce themselves without the co-operation of other nano-factories and control units could take some of the danger out of nano-tech. That is assuming that I am more right than Bush's pet Chemist is. And life shows that he is full of it.
Ethelred
Agile_Mathew
I meant, Self-replicating machine- an artificial construct that is theoretically capable of autonomously manufacturing a copy of itself using raw materials taken from its environment. Like a watch that begets watches.
Seems, no much progress toward it's physical realization.
Skepticus_Rex
They initially used Uranium-Thorium dating for the layers. Several other kinds of dating were also done and compared. The teeth were embedded in the layers over a period of around 200,000 or so years, with the lowest layer dating to 400,000 years. There were also a lot of animal teeth in the mix.
In any case, if the data holds true this may pose a challenge to the "Out of Africa" scenario. Many scientists are going to have a difficult time letting go of that theory. :)
Skepticus_Rex