- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:05 pm to LSUDVM1999
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:05 pm to LSUDVM1999
Do you guys even Robert Sepehr?
1
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:11 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
This is true for members of the lay public if they never participate in science, but you can in principle (and some people actually do in practice) work to acquire the skills to evaluate the validity of experiments and the scientific reasoning necessary to draw conclusions from observations, and yes, even replicate findings in experimental fields, etc.
In theory you are correct. But only in theory. In reality only about 1% of the population have the skills and aptitude to observe and confirm many concepts in science and mostly in applied fields. When you enter the world of theoretical science, 99% of us can only accept what is being said by scientist on faith, nothing more.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:19 pm to FreddieMac
I agree that it's impractical to personally validate scientific conclusions, but thankfully you can evaluate science as a community and social practice and judge it based on its methods, practices, intellectual virtues of practitioners. Still, a lot of that is mediated by trust in lots of social intermediaries (teachers, reporters, people you know who know this or that scientist, government reports) who give you information about science.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:23 pm to LSUDVM1999
quote:
Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa
How did I miss 10 pages of this?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:34 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
I agree that it's impractical to personally validate scientific conclusions, but thankfully you can evaluate science as a community and social practice and judge it based on its methods, practices, intellectual virtues of practitioners. Still, a lot of that is mediated by trust in lots of social intermediaries (teachers, reporters, people you know who know this or that scientist, government reports) who give you information about science.
Again, I agree with you this is the practice of science. When it comes to applied and observable science, then it is very accurate.
Here is my concern with the social and theoretical nature of "science." In my opinion, the closer that science moves towards purely theoretical, the more faith base it becomes; much less reliant on observations and evidence.
And many times the understanding is based on complex and often incomplete mathematics.
That is where most closely resembles religion. Not trying to start a political discussion, but you hear all the time from people that man-made global warming is "settled" science. That term in-of-itself is unscientific. We never have settled science, we have accepted current understandings that are always subject to change based on new discovery and knowledge.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 1:36 pm
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:41 pm to ItNeverRains
quote:
Do you guys even Robert Sepehr?
Like Graham Hancock, these suppositions are very long on speculation with little empirical evidence to back it up. I can agree to the diffusionist concepts both expose after reading Hancock's book, but assuming it is the work of an advanced civilization destroyed in the Younger Dryas period is hard to conclusively prove or disprove.
It is very likely that Sphinx is much older than first thought. Gobekli Tepe pushes our understanding of human civilization much further into the distance past than first thought. But Hancock and these guys take large mental leaps to explain things.
For instance, Handcock suggest that soil in the Amazon was the product of advanced agriculture the product of a lost, advanced civilization. While he is making this claim on Joe Rogan's podcast, you can quickly look up scientific articles that document the human and natural processes that produce terra preta.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:48 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
That is where most closely resembles religion. Not trying to start a political discussion, but you hear all the time from people that man-made global warming is "settled" science. That term in-of-itself is unscientific. We never have settled science, we have accepted current understandings that are always subject to change based on new discovery and knowledge.
I agree completely and don't disagree on the issues regarding a lot of scientific work that is highly theoretically and minimally empirical resembling religious and other sorts of metaphysics. IMO, "settled science" is bad science communication because you're right that scientific conclusions are always provisional, but the fact you recognize them as such means that you recognize the fundamental distinction between science and religious beliefs. Laypeople in modernity do often end up trusting scientists like high priests, but you don't have to. Just like the scientists should accept their conclusions as provisional, citizens should too (but lacking ability to evaluate the first-order evidence makes what to base provisional confidence in a bit more tricky).
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:50 pm to LSUDVM1999
this thread is some of the dumbest collection of posts I've ever read on this board
holy shite
holy shite
Posted on 4/9/24 at 1:51 pm to Liberator
It would be one thing and you went with all that skepticism to a radical conclusion of "therefore we know nothing", but you then go "ergo flat earth" and other ridiculous nonsense.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 2:05 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
but the fact you recognize them as such means that you recognize the fundamental distinction between science and religious beliefs.
I do not necessarily accept that religious beliefs are as static and unchanging as you suggest. For example, Judiasm to Christianity represents a significant shift in religious belief. Unified Catholic belief to Catholic/Protestant beliefs. But, I grant you this, science is typically much more flexible with shifts in understanding than religion.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 2:16 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Laypeople in modernity do often end up trusting scientists like high priests, but you don't have to. Just like the scientists should accept their conclusions as provisional, citizens should too (but lacking ability to evaluate the first-order evidence makes what to base provisional confidence in a bit more tricky).
This is why the current trend of shouting down or attempting to cancel scientists/researchers with research and data that challenges the status-quo is so dangerous. If laypeople can't verify on their own, and you actively work to discredit anyone speaking against the consensus (especially those with valid claims) you remove any remaining voice those laypeople have to challenge the science.
Couple that trend with the trend of politics holding greater and greater sway over research, and you have a big problem.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 2:24 pm to LSUDVM1999
quote:
Fossils in Greece Suggest Human Ancestors Evolved in Europe, Not Africa
Is this good or bad? How does this help me win an argument on the Internet?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 2:33 pm to Liberator
quote:
Liberator
quote:
Do you really seriously believe these voodoo-evo "science" claims? There is not a single shred of evidence that proves any of these heathen-atheist fairy tales is remotely possible.
Are you logged into the wrong account or something? You post some of the craziest shite here but evolution is where you put your foot down?
Posted on 4/9/24 at 2:56 pm to FreddieMac
quote:
I never understand why people believe that understanding must be played out within a dichotomy.
Just to be clear, I don't. I had just narrowed it down for liberator based on what I was reading.
I think there are scientific or historically factual explanations for most things in the bible if you don't take it literally, which I don't.
There was definitely a cataclysmic event, and likely a flood, at some point in history. Nearly every religion ever has a flood story. Whether you believe a man named Noah and his family literally loved on a boat with the seedlings of all life isn't as important as knowing that something wild happened that wiped out much of humanity at least once if not multiple times in history.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:01 pm to GRTiger
quote:
There was definitely a cataclysmic event, and likely a flood, at some point in history
There have been many massive floods throughout history, localized. They happen now.
Barely literate desert nomads would consider a flood covering their patch of the Middle East to be "the whole world".
There has never, at any point, been a world wide flood. There's no evidence for it, and its completely impossible for a variety of reasons.
quote:
knowing that something wild happened that wiped out much of humanity at least once if not multiple times in history.
I'm not aware of any weather event that did that.
There have for sure been plagues throughout human history that were massive in scope.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:03 pm to GRTiger
quote:
There was definitely a cataclysmic event, and likely a flood, at some point in history. Nearly every religion ever has a flood story. Whether you believe a man named Noah and his family literally loved on a boat with the seedlings of all life isn't as important as knowing that something wild happened that wiped out much of humanity at least once if not multiple times in history.
It's almost as if humans have historically settled near water sources, which are prone to flooding, and they then told (and later wrote) stories about the floods. Seems more likely than some world-wide cataclysmic flood that destroyed all of humanity.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:05 pm to Fun Bunch
There was certainly a bottleneck around 70k years ago. shite went down at the end of the younger dryas. I don't know if it was a flood or some ELE from space or pole shift or what, but I lean to a flood doing a lot of damage at some point just given the aggregate of stories from essentially every religion from around essentially the same time.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:08 pm to Mo Jeaux
quote:
It's almost as if humans have historically settled near water sources, which are prone to flooding, and they then told (and later wrote) stories about the floods. Seems more likely than some world-wide cataclysmic flood that destroyed all of humanity.
It's almost as of you have decided what is right and what is wrong. Much like Liberator, please don't take offense to me not really putting much stock into your very definitive opinions.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:08 pm to sqerty
quote:
I ain't come from no ape. Adam and Eve are my ancestors.
Agreed, and even science agrees that we all share a common ancestor. They just kick the part out that doesn’t support their anti-God narratives and doesn’t prop themselves up as little gods that don’t answer to a creator, and that is the whole point behind all of that.
Posted on 4/9/24 at 3:10 pm to NPComb
quote:
Is this good or bad? How does this help me win an argument on the Internet?
Yes, thanks for getting us back to what's important.
This story is good culture war bait because if you don't pay attention it seems like it's challenging the out of Africa theory of human origins (and thus you could use it to stoke race politics). It's not really challenging the theory or only in a kind of trivial way because it's suggesting that common ancestors of both humans and apes might have originated on the European continent. But the status quo theory isn't saying every step in human evolution came out of Africa, only more recent evolution.
This post was edited on 4/9/24 at 3:16 pm
Page 10 of 25
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News