Who has figured out when man began?

[sandorski]

What I'm saying is that people don't actually test out this stuff for themselves. They read about it and accept it. Just like the religion people. There is no experimentation, no personal verification, no nothing. They accept it on faith.

It's automatically assumed and believed by many if not most people. They are wired to say that science is correct and must be followed. Yet, they don't actually act upon it or know it. They just agree to it on faith. Just a bunch of followers just like the religion people.

No, it is not "Faith". It is Trust based upon mountains of evidence of the efficacy of the Scientific method. Do you have Faith in the Internet? Your vehicle? The Light Switch on your wall?

No, you have Trust based upon near countless times they have done what you expected them to do. IOWs, based upon the Evidence.

 

[sandorski]

And evidence.
I see a GPS working, despite not knowing the exact workings of general or special relativity, nor have I ever seen an atomic clock.
I use a computer that employs flash memory, but I've never seen an electron tunnel through an insulator.
I use LED light sources, but know little of quantum mechanics.
My computer uses MOSFETs in its CPU, but I know little of the physics of doped silicon.



The nature of our inherently miniscule lifespans means that this is simply a logistical impossibility. What science offers over religion or blind faith is that verification is possible.
If everyone needed to personally verify everything they were taught, we'd probably still be stuck trying to finish writing out mathematical proofs for single-digit multiplication tables.

Exactly.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What a fuckin idiot

I like how you all cry when we ask you for proof of something and you try to turn it on us with wild and exaggerated claims....you have way too many atheist talking points or reasons for not giving answers.....that's okay -- Jesus still loves you!!

 

[88keys]

What I'm saying is that people don't actually test out this stuff for themselves. They read about it and accept it. Just like the religion people. There is no experimentation, no personal verification, no nothing. They accept it on faith.

It's automatically assumed and believed by many if not most people. They are wired to say that science is correct and must be followed. Yet, they don't actually act upon it or know it. They just agree to it on faith. Just a bunch of followers just like the religion people.

It's not just 'accepted' like a matter of faith. Science holds a very high standard of proof when one is to accept something as fact.
Religion has no standard of proof and things are accepted upon faith.

A simple way to put it.
A scientist searches for clues and forms hypothesis and conducts tests to reach a conclusion in hopes of being able to make a working theory.

Religion and pseudoscience advocates already have the answer. So they just cherry picks the 'facts' which support that answer while ignoring all others.

The scientific method holds a high standard of proof. A working theory must show predictive capability

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

• 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
• 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
• 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
• 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
• 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made

Science - Just because you don't understand it does not mean it's false.

 

[tcsenter]

It's not just 'accepted' like a matter of faith. Science holds a very high standard of proof when one is to accept something as fact. Religion has no standard of proof and things are accepted upon faith.

And beyond that, trusting that our planets revolve around the sun without definitively verifying it yourself mathematically and observationally, among numerous other propositions accepted as fact or most likely fact, doesn't really matter in any questions that are important. As Hitchens put it in one of his debates, whether or not Socrates actually existed is of little consequence. The method named for him, and the merits of that method, are what matters, whether anyone named Socrates ever existed.

Nobody goes around condemning others to hell, supporting legislation to deny civil rights or equality under the law, conspires to socially or politically disenfranchise anyone or treat them as a second class citizen, or to criminalize someone's behavior, up to and including on pain of death (if they could only get enough votes on their side), on the basis of whether or not they believe the planets revolve around the sun or whether Socrates existed.

Lastly, science invites you to question, to verify it for yourself, if you have any doubts. Religion forbids you to question, forbids you to have doubts, for these things are the work of evil forces bent on shattering or shaking faith. Religion requires to 'just believe' it, to have faith in spite of all the reasons to disbelieve, or else hell and suffering and misery, both in this life (as righteously administered by the faithful) and the next. Or worst of all to religion, causing other's faith to be shaken or relinquished. That person who causes other's faith to be shaken truly deserves the worst sort of hell and suffering and misery that God (and the faithful) can prescribe.

 

[Exophase]

Only thing I don't like about fossilized remains and interpretations of them is that even today we have quite a stunning amount of variation in anatomically modern humans. Some have more sloped faces and significantly more robust brow ridges and the like, than others. I mean, if we find 30 individual remains in reasonable proximity to each other, say within several miles, with like features, you *might* have a new sub-species on your hands. But just finding one or two individual remains could have been just an anatomical variation back then (200K years, 1M years, whatever), no different from the huge variability (and extremes) found in h. sapiens sapiens.

We have found lots of samples from different time periods (indicated by multiple dating methods) that paint a broad picture of the direction development has taken. This has never been about just one sample.

Besides, of what little has survived, wouldn't the odds by much better that they were not the extreme outliers of their day? At the very least, a lot of the samples we're talking about would look highly unusual among people today. And if those were merely the grossly deformed among an otherwise modern-looking human population they would be a lot less likely to survive to adulthood given the diminished standards of culture and technology vs today.. So really quite astronomical that these would be the samples we see now.

 

[SSSnail]

Look heathens, you can't explain how everything in nature is designed perfectly for man. There's no amount of "scientific proof" that can explain how a banana fits perfectly in human's hands, as an example.

 

[Naer]

I began on my birthday. I bet you did too.

This

 

[Exophase]

Look heathens, you can't explain how everything in nature is designed perfectly for man. There's no amount of "scientific proof" that can explain how a banana fits perfectly in human's hands, as an example.

Not sure if serious..

Lots of other primates are at least as good if not even better at eating bananas as humans are. Have you ever seen a monkey eat a banana? What do you think primates are, God's prototype where he worked out the kinks for the final product?

Man has pretty much zero physical adaptation that puts him above all other animals in being well suited to nature. And all around a ton of disadvantages and inefficiencies, it's just staggering thinking what other animals can do that we can't. But man's intelligence pretty much trumps everything. Nature isn't made for man at all, but man has quickly conquered nature in spite of this. I see human intelligence and civilization as being the biological singularity, the point where brute force biological evolution was no longer needed, where a (mostly) fixed species took over its own advancement.

 

[Schmide]

Look heathens, you can't explain how everything in nature is designed perfectly for man. There's no amount of "scientific proof" that can explain how a banana fits perfectly in human's hands, as an example.

I get what you're saying, but the banana is the worst example for a divine fruit. It has been bastardized to the point where it could be completly wiped out by a fungus, many previous lines have been wiped out, and it can't survive or reproduce on its own.

There are also may types of banana that are small, sour, hard, etc. Ironically those have no problem surviving without human intervention.

 

[mikeford]

Banana may not be the right answer, but it is appealing.

 

[mikeymikec]

It's automatically assumed and believed by many if not most people. They are wired to say that science is correct and must be followed. Yet, they don't actually act upon it or know it. They just agree to it on faith. Just a bunch of followers just like the religion people.

It's a bit difficult to build a piece of technology based on faith, let alone generation after generation of technology with steady improvement. When you manage it, let me know. Until then, stop using modern tools of any description and then start preaching how science is just like religion.

Look heathens, you can't explain how everything in nature is designed perfectly for man.

Yup, totally. Death Valley, the Sahara Desert, Space, the Sun, the ice caps, the sea, every harmful virus and bacteria, the fact that allergies exist, some plant life that is harmful to humans, worms that fuck up the human body, earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes....

PS - I would assume you're joking but frankly there's enough people in this forum who wouldn't be joking if they made a statement like that.

 

[PottedMeat]

PS - I would assume you're joking but frankly there's enough people in this forum who wouldn't be joking if they made a statement like that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z-OLG0KyR4

2 guys, a banana, and sexual tension

 

[lxskllr]

1971

 

[SSSnail]

You argued against the banana, but then what about strawberries? How do they know the two would be such perfect combination? Science cannot possibly create things that go together perfectly.

Religion +2, Science -infinity.

 

[sourceninja]

I began on my birthday. I bet you did too.

You guys have the same birthday??

 

[BudAshes]

What I'm saying is that people don't actually test out this stuff for themselves. They read about it and accept it. Just like the religion people. There is no experimentation, no personal verification, no nothing. They accept it on faith.

It's automatically assumed and believed by many if not most people. They are wired to say that science is correct and must be followed. Yet, they don't actually act upon it or know it. They just agree to it on faith. Just a bunch of followers just like the religion people.

This is why we have a thing called college where you learn things like physics and chemistry and do crazy things like proofs and experiments. I know this is a new wacky new idea, but I think it's really going to catch on.

If college is to much effort for you then just pick up your cell phone and ask yourself a few questions. Who invented this cell phone? Who created all the technology behind it? Was it a god? No? Was it a holy man? No. Was it a bunch of scientists working together on technology that stretches back hundreds of years? Yes. So if you think science is a lie you need to stop using your car, turn off your hot water, disconnect from the internet and go build yourself a stone hut somewhere. Now lets talk miracles. A cell phone can talk to someone on the other side of the earth, look up the stats on a baseball game as they happen and can record reality with picture and sound. Science can cure someone on the brink of death, it can also kill millions of people at once. Sounds a lot like miracles.

But lets break religion and science down to there most basic levels. At it's core science is the idea that man can understand the universe and predict its behavior, religion is the idea that the universe is unknowable and that man should be content in his ignorance on the off chance that some deity will respect your lack of ingenuity and reward you. Which one sounds like the side you want to be on?

 

[WelshBloke]

You argued against the banana, but then what about strawberries? How do they know the two would be such perfect combination? Science cannot possibly create things that go together perfectly.

Religion +2, Science -infinity.

Banana's are horrible, strawberries are wonderful. Religious schism incoming.

 

[Rakehellion]

Who has figured out when man began?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_MiRWo4Myw

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Look heathens, you can't explain how everything in nature is designed perfectly for man. There's no amount of "scientific proof" that can explain how a banana fits perfectly in human's hands, as an example.

The only possible link between a banana and a higher power is how good hot women look eating a banana. That might not be purely a coincidence.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I once came across a person who said they don't believe in evolution. I asked them that they don't agree with the theories and laws? They said; "No, I don't believe in it, like I believe in God instead."

I told them that evolution is not a religion, or a counter to religion. It's about observations made and coming up with theories and if proven right, become laws, in the scientific sense.

She then went on how none of that matters, because evolution isn't something she believes in.

Sorry - but, when did science sharpen the evolution weapon and go after religion with it? I don't remember any gauntlets or wars being declared against religion, via evolution. How and when is science the 'enemy' of religion?

Personally, I believe in God and I aknowledge the facts evolution brings to light. I also do not believe in the Earth being only 6,000 years old. So, I can't figure out how and why the religious types feel they are being attacked. I don't know of any laws being passed to prevent people from believing/preaching creationism. Who is exactly attacking these people??

 

[Gibsons]

I once came across a person who said they don't believe in evolution. I asked them that they don't agree with the theories and laws? They said; "No, I don't believe in it, like I believe in God instead."

I told them that evolution is not a religion, or a counter to religion. It's about observations made and coming up with theories and if proven right, become laws, in the scientific sense.

She then went on how none of that matters, because evolution isn't something she believes in.

Sorry - but, when did science sharpen the evolution weapon and go after religion with it? I don't remember any gauntlets or wars being declared against religion, via evolution. How and when is science the 'enemy' of religion?

Personally, I believe in God and I aknowledge the facts evolution brings to light. I also do not believe in the Earth being only 6,000 years old. So, I can't figure out how and why the religious types feel they are being attacked. I don't know of any laws being passed to prevent people from believing/preaching creationism. Who is exactly attacking these people??

If your god exists within the gaps of human knowledge, you can find motivation to make these gaps as large as possible.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Sorry - but, when did science sharpen the evolution weapon and go after religion with it? I don't remember any gauntlets or wars being declared against religion, via evolution. How and when is science the 'enemy' of religion?

Of course your basic premise is correct! Yet Atheists declared war on religion via attempting to use science to go after religion! Since we have been through this battle in other threads.....that was the short answer. God Bless!!

Then again almost all scientists have no beef against religion or religious things! I didn`t say almost all scientists agree with religion. Most scientists are in this for the science, no agenda intended!

 

[88keys]

How is science declaring war on religion?

 

[Thebobo]

Should close thread since OP vanished and it appears to be a troll thread and the rest here is pointless.

Anyway trying to get back on topic.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/behavior/tools/early-tools

By about 1.76 million years ago, early humans began to strike really large flakes and then continue to shape them by striking smaller flakes from around the edges. The resulting implements included a new kind of tool called a handaxe.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive