The scary, the strange, the paranormal...
- Thread starter crazyclimber
- Start date
-
Come along to the amazing Summer Moot (21st July - 2nd August), a festival of bushcrafting and camping in a beautiful woodland PLEASE CLICK HERE for more information.
We continue to evolve of course and genetically we are different too as selection pressures differ now we live in large groups which mean disease is a big player etc. We are though, as far as not having fur etc anatomically speaking the same modern humans that left Africa. The modern humans who left Africa were not any smaller than today as far as I know Santaman. If anything they were bigger from what I have read. Perhaps we are talking about different timelines?
That could be what Grundel meant but he could also be asking about speciation events.
We have good, mutually supportive explanations which interlink and overlap for what happened at and after the big bang. There are many theories about what there was before. In some sense it may not even be a real question as time and space started at the big bang so to talk about "before" time makes no sense. M-theory suggests a multiverse like the foam on a beer, each bubble being a universe. The scientific method is the only reliable tool for taking away our prejudices and finding out the truth via testing of hypotheses. A theory is only true so long as it is not proved false. It is the falsifiability which is key. Science therefore corrects and updates itself. Inserting god into the gaps in our understanding answers nothing. Science encourages us to ask questions and search out the truth. Faith tells us we know the answers as it's all god's will etc.
Of course it is possible there is a god but it is not the best explanation of all the facts unless you are talking about deism. Sure a god may have got things going then abandoned it but that is a different god to the one I'm always hearing about. A universe created by a caretaker god should be a very different place to this. Mostly barren planets, 99% species ever existed extinct, human body plan a mess, pain, suffering, etc, etc. If there is a grand designer then he is an incompetent and I wouldn't let him so much as decorate my bathroom.
I would say it is not logical to 'believe' either. Belief requires a supposition to be accepted on insufficient evidence. Why not just say "We don't know yet" and use the most efficient tool at our disposal to find out? Or try praying for an answer, surely a creator could tell us. Maybe in a book or something? You know, include something that couldn't have simply been written by a desert tribe who knew little more than to keep their poop out of their food such as something about the internet or the Higgs Boson. Or some rules about coveting livestock and subjugating women perhaps?
Last edited:
While I disagree with your contempt of a grand design, we apparently agree on a great deal. Yes a theory is only that and good ones self correct as new evidence is uncovered. However as you said it depends less on what you can prove and more on what you are unable to disprove. We cannot disprove God; a god (or gods) of any Western or Eastern belief. I personally believe in science and in God. What I am suspicious of (in both pursuits) is someone who claims he or she completely understands either. While every answer science brings opens another question it must also be realized that if there is a god capable of such a fete as creation then he/she/they are certainly as far beyond my ability to completely understand as extra-terrestrials would have been to those desert tribes you mentioned. It is worth noting though that as limited as primitive peoples understanding was, almost all of them have some reference to a "creation" and an "end" which when you think about it is parallel to the big bang and the supposed coming collapse of the universe. Science postulated that the universe had always been (with no beginning or end) until Einstein theorized otherwise less than a century ago.
As to some of their cultural beliefs (i.e. subjugating women, slavery, some others we might consider objectionable today); if there is no higher being of authority then nothing is inherently good or evil. There is only what society excepts or does not except; Those practices are neither good (virtuous) nor evil (sin); they are only what society accepts or rejects and in the end will not matter either way.
It will not matter if we become extinct and take the planet with us since it would only be a coincidence that the universe exists at all.
Last edited:
Actually we are bigger now than we were a century ago. If you look back as recently as WWII you will see that shortly after the war standard sizes (table and chair heights as well as countertop heights, etc.) were raised to accommadate taller people. Aslo look at the museums and you will see that armor from the middle ages and ancient cultures would not fit most people today (you have an excellent armor museum in London) Here in the US the average American gained 1 inch in height per generation from the revolution until the the Baby-Boom. It is generally contributed to diet rather than evolution but the reasons have not been studied extensively. It does seem likely though since there has not been a corresponding increase increase in size in the oriental cultures where diet has not improved as rapidly.
P.S. It may seem counter-intuitive but disease resistance is better among urban people than rural people. We discovered that when the European settlers (urban) 1st exposed the native Americans (rural tribes) to deseases they had no immunity too. It was demonstrated again in the Civil War when the Northern troops had greater resistanse than the Southern troops when both groups lived in concentrated forces rather than the rural norm for the Southerners.
Last edited:
Yesterday's fiction is today's fact and today's fact will be proven incorrect tomorrow....
Who's to say what is real and true and what is not??
From the perspective of a (very) mature science student in my 9 to 5 life I try to find a rational explanation for most things. sometimes though that just isn't possible. In today's scientific world humanity is very arrogant in that we believe science can "find the answers" to anything, but I wonder if it really can? I once had a very spooky experience in a church that left a lasting impression on me as a teenager. We had gone into the local church just for something to do and one of the three of us tried a door near the back, it turned out to be the bit where the choristers robes were kept (vestry?), he went in whilst the two of us being less bold urged him not to touch anything. He didn't come out quickly enough for our cowardly taste so went went in after him. While all three of were by the door we heard and smelled a match being struck at the far end of the room, and when we warily went to investigate there was a still warm freshly struck match in an ashtray there. Needless to say it was a brown trouser moment and we fled very quickly.
Thank you santaman2000 thats what I was meaning but with drunken posting you tend to loose concentration to what youre trying to put across. I must at admit I believe in both Science and a God type phenomenon. Since it can be proven we evolved from apes and the big bang theory but science still cant prove what started the whole process off in the first place.
i would tend to agree with zarkwon. except about the impossibility to exceed the speed of light bit. maybe we're looking at moving vast distances in the wrong way and rather than point to point in a linear fashion theres some star trekesque interdimensional way.
as far as ghosts etc. theres the whole thing about the world around you being 99% empty and its only the proton or whatever spinning round the nucleus and between that is empty. and then theres frequencies like when motors seen to stand still in fluorescent light. and i think maybe theyre connected.
and then my head starts to hurt and i go back to idle gossip and looking into the fire.
as far as ghosts etc. theres the whole thing about the world around you being 99% empty and its only the proton or whatever spinning round the nucleus and between that is empty. and then theres frequencies like when motors seen to stand still in fluorescent light. and i think maybe theyre connected.
and then my head starts to hurt and i go back to idle gossip and looking into the fire.
The Anglo Saxons however were as tall as us, archaeological evidence exists aplenty to support that, people got distinctly shorter from the time the Normans came. It is widely belived that was down to diet. Life expectancy however was not as long in Anglo Saxon times as today, but that is theorised to be down to poor hygeine and a lack of modern medicine (easy to forget that before penicillin a minor cut could easily be fatal). My point being that it puts doubt on modern evolution (but not the theory).
E
ex member coconino
Guest
I'm from up north, we don't wear fur coats we wear t-shirts.
Now, if that's not paranormal I don't know what is!
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Good points for and against. What I have trouble with is that 500 year ago science said the world was flat, anyone who said differently was considered heretic. 200 years ago zips hadn't even been invented. 110 years ago common people were gob-smacked to see an electric light.
What's to say in the next 100 years discoveries won't be made to prove a God exists or not?
Having a closed mind or being so blinkered in your thiking one way or the other is an ignorant practice worthy of the supersticious cavemen mentioned earlier. Being flexible in your thinking and open to the understanding that we don't know all there is to know is the way it ought to be.
Sorry to pi$$ on your parades for and against the god theory. I just think taking a stand for one camp or the other is futile. You won't convince the other he's wrong and you're right in a month of Sundays.
Accept the fact that some people experience things differently to you. Be open minded about that at least. Leave specialisation to the insects. We're human... can't say for sure about John Fenna or Southey though, the jury's still out on those two. LOL!
What's to say in the next 100 years discoveries won't be made to prove a God exists or not?
Having a closed mind or being so blinkered in your thiking one way or the other is an ignorant practice worthy of the supersticious cavemen mentioned earlier. Being flexible in your thinking and open to the understanding that we don't know all there is to know is the way it ought to be.
Sorry to pi$$ on your parades for and against the god theory. I just think taking a stand for one camp or the other is futile. You won't convince the other he's wrong and you're right in a month of Sundays.
Accept the fact that some people experience things differently to you. Be open minded about that at least. Leave specialisation to the insects. We're human... can't say for sure about John Fenna or Southey though, the jury's still out on those two. LOL!
E
ex member coconino
Guest
Sorry Biker, I can't let ya get away with that!
500 years ago Galileo was laying the foundations of the modern scientific method, but it had been know since Greek times that the Earth was spherical. For instance, Plato estimated the circumference at about 62,800 km, which isn't far off, and that was 400 years BC. By the 16th century, nobody but religious dogmatists and uneducated fantasists believed the Earth to be flat, and seafarers knew the contrary as an everyday practical reality.
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Ok point taken cocnino, science said the world was round, the church and nanny state said it was flat. Maybe they also said the universe revolved around Earth until Galileo showed them otherwise.
But you get my point don't you?
Just because someone or some "official" organisation says something is so, shouldn't be so set into stone that it becomes dogma and therefore taboo to think otherwise.
You got me wondering about the zip comment too now. Maybe Naploeon had flies in his Emperor's uniform... I'm sure he had fleas though, he always depicted scratching his left armpit. LOL!
But you get my point don't you?
Just because someone or some "official" organisation says something is so, shouldn't be so set into stone that it becomes dogma and therefore taboo to think otherwise.
You got me wondering about the zip comment too now. Maybe Naploeon had flies in his Emperor's uniform... I'm sure he had fleas though, he always depicted scratching his left armpit. LOL!
Interesting! However, holding atheism and theism as two sides of the same coing is - basically - quite wrong. Theism demands you to suspend logic and engage "faith" mode - after all, remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster church has provided a prize of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that the FSM isn't God. This is - and will pretty much by definition - remain uncollected. People over the millennia have believed in thousands of different gods, and pretty much every faith has had examples of visions - and martyrs - which "prove" their faith is the only one. Atheism basically says - don't buy anything on "faith"; believe something only when its been proved.
Personally, I believe that the particular path that evolution has driven us down has provided a curiosity about the world that has resulted both in science and the quest for a "meaning of life". Science attempts to answer the questions about "why does this happen" by looking for provable reasons. Religion provides an easy "out" to the hard work of science - after all anyone can make up a god (either maliciously, or inadvertently by having a dream, then being sufficiently persuasive to give it "life"), then indoctrinate the young into believing it. And it makes a great social control tool! Of course religion jumps onto the "afterlife" - promising a great life after death as long as you obey the Church's rules in this one. And of course, disconnect all questions - just have faith. When you think about it, its the Used Car Salesman's mantra -"Trust me - it's a great little runner! Sevice history? Independent Inspection? MOT? Test drive? You don't need that, I've told you its a good'un!"
With curiosity, and the ability to reason and speculate and philosophise, comes the classical question - what comes next? Is this life all there is? Of course, no-one knows; logically, nothing comes after - your body disintegrates into its separate elements/molecules and once again becomes the building blocks of the universe that has been around for nearly 14 billion years. So in a way, we are all part of everything!
Personally, I believe that the particular path that evolution has driven us down has provided a curiosity about the world that has resulted both in science and the quest for a "meaning of life". Science attempts to answer the questions about "why does this happen" by looking for provable reasons. Religion provides an easy "out" to the hard work of science - after all anyone can make up a god (either maliciously, or inadvertently by having a dream, then being sufficiently persuasive to give it "life"), then indoctrinate the young into believing it. And it makes a great social control tool! Of course religion jumps onto the "afterlife" - promising a great life after death as long as you obey the Church's rules in this one. And of course, disconnect all questions - just have faith. When you think about it, its the Used Car Salesman's mantra -"Trust me - it's a great little runner! Sevice history? Independent Inspection? MOT? Test drive? You don't need that, I've told you its a good'un!"
With curiosity, and the ability to reason and speculate and philosophise, comes the classical question - what comes next? Is this life all there is? Of course, no-one knows; logically, nothing comes after - your body disintegrates into its separate elements/molecules and once again becomes the building blocks of the universe that has been around for nearly 14 billion years. So in a way, we are all part of everything!
Last edited:
I suspect that more basic cultures used sensory skills and perception levels beyond our modern limits.They had no reason to suspect that the spiritual side their of lives was no lesser part of their environment than the trees or birds .
Proving something using the criteria and science of the day does not automatically disprove that which has not been proved .
Then there are those who claim quite natural phenomena as being supernatural because even some of those who have experienced or believe in these phenomena can't accept them as being normal .
Perhaps those of us who have experienced such things without drama or trauma and simply accept them as another experience are just suffering from evolutionary retardation .
Proving something using the criteria and science of the day does not automatically disprove that which has not been proved .
Then there are those who claim quite natural phenomena as being supernatural because even some of those who have experienced or believe in these phenomena can't accept them as being normal .
Perhaps those of us who have experienced such things without drama or trauma and simply accept them as another experience are just suffering from evolutionary retardation .
Last edited:
Biker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
AndyBb I see your point, very well put I must say.
Point taken about religion fobbing off the questioning believer with the "Have faith, my son" card. I suppose when you think about it science does offer a reasonable attempt at explaining something or disproving it. It's all these supposed theories that stick in my craw.
Theory for this, theory for that. Pretty soon those theories become fact as more people accept them and anyone not in the herd is considered heretic.
Obviously I'm no rocket science and it's just my opinion but science is also guilty of playing the "have faith card" too. "All of us clever chaps who are more educated than you have sat down in this room for days and days and debated the issue and we've come to the conclusion that ... XY&Z."
Pretty soon it's become an accepted "fact".
Big bang origin or the whole universe in a molecule in a glass of water? Seems to me the only thing you can trust are how you feel when you're in your hammock and something is keeping you awake at night and telling you pack up and leave. Put it down to your imagination, wood spirits or god. The choice is yours. I know what I'd do.
Point taken about religion fobbing off the questioning believer with the "Have faith, my son" card. I suppose when you think about it science does offer a reasonable attempt at explaining something or disproving it. It's all these supposed theories that stick in my craw.
Theory for this, theory for that. Pretty soon those theories become fact as more people accept them and anyone not in the herd is considered heretic.
Obviously I'm no rocket science and it's just my opinion but science is also guilty of playing the "have faith card" too. "All of us clever chaps who are more educated than you have sat down in this room for days and days and debated the issue and we've come to the conclusion that ... XY&Z."
Pretty soon it's become an accepted "fact".
Big bang origin or the whole universe in a molecule in a glass of water? Seems to me the only thing you can trust are how you feel when you're in your hammock and something is keeping you awake at night and telling you pack up and leave. Put it down to your imagination, wood spirits or god. The choice is yours. I know what I'd do.
Last edited:
Interesting! However, holding atheism and theism as two sides of the same coing is - basically - quite wrong. Theism demands you to suspend logic and engage "faith" mode - after all, remember that the Flying Spaghetti Monster church has provided a prize of $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove that the FSM isn't God. This is - and will pretty much by definition - remain uncollected. People over the millennia have believed in thousands of different gods, and pretty much every faith has had examples of visions - and martyrs - which "prove" their faith is the only one. Atheism basically says - don't buy anything on "faith"; believe something only when its been proved.
Personally, I believe that the particular path that evolution has driven us down has provided a curiosity about the world that has resulted both in science and the quest for a "meaning of life". Science attempts to answer the questions about "why does this happen" by looking for provable reasons. Religion provides an easy "out" to the hard work of science - after all anyone can make up a god (either maliciously, or inadvertently by having a dream, then being sufficiently persuasive to give it "life"), then indoctrinate the young into believing it. And it makes a great social control tool! Of course religion jumps onto the "afterlife" - promising a great life after death as long as you obey the Church's rules in this one. And of course, disconnect all questions - just have faith. When you think about it, its the Used Car Salesman's mantra -"Trust me - it's a great little runner! Sevice history? Independent Inspection? MOT? Test drive? You don't need that, I've told you its a good'un!"
With curiosity, and the ability to reason and speculate and philosophise, comes the classical question - what comes next? Is this life all there is? Of course, no-one knows; logically, nothing comes after - your body disintegrates into its separate elements/molecules and once again becomes the building blocks of the universe that has been around for nearly 14 billion years. So in a way, we are all part of everything!
About time the cavalry arrived.
We were talking about early modern humans. They were not smaller than us. Since the end of the last ice age and the change from the nomadic lifestyle there have been many changes in selection pressures such as selecting for immune systems resistant to those diseases which spread easily among large groups etc.
Similar threads
