Who has figured out when man began?

[ThinClient]

prove it...your turn...

I like how the resident religious retard troll likes to use proof and evidence against those who defy the positive claims of Christianity... yet refuses to provide any proof or evidence, himself, that god is real, that the bible is the infallible inspired word of god, or that christ was divine.

What a fuckin idiot

This is a bit excessively personal attacking for OT. -Admin DrPizza

 

[Thebobo]

Please ignore the trolls --

The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors

Studies of hominid fossils, like 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi," are changing ideas about human origins

 

[PottedMeat]

space jesus should have just wanked his space seed into the waterfall

 

[sandorski]

I'm not talking about this theory or that. You claimed science has the answers. I replied that science can contradict itself as well. There is never a total consensus. This is needed for a definitive answer to the origin of man. I doubt science alone can provide this.

Examples?

 

[WelshBloke]

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

I'm going to start in a few minutes, the wife just got out of the shower.

 

[Thebobo]

NO please stop feeding the trolls jeez - nothing will change they wont listen.


There is no point!.

 

[raildogg]

Examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

[Thebobo]

Resist the need don't respond, he is trololololing you!!!!

 

[sandorski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

So a tiny minority disagree. Most are not even in the applicable scientific field. If any of them are correct, they can produce the Scientific Data/Results that will change the Consensus.


You do realize that Evolution is one of the most well established Theories in all of science? There is simply no way that there has ever been just 2 people. To even suggest there was is nonsensical.

 

[raildogg]

So a tiny minority disagree. Most are not even in the applicable scientific field. If any of them are correct, they can produce the Scientific Data/Results that will change the Consensus.


You do realize that Evolution is one of the most well established Theories in all of science? There is simply no way that there has ever been just 2 people. To even suggest there was is nonsensical.

I understand. What I'm saying is that if one is looking for a definitive answer, science does not have it regarding many areas, including the so-called origin of man. Even if 10% of science disagrees with the theory I linked to, that's still substantial.

 

[IronWing]

I understand. What I'm saying is that if one is looking for a definitive answer, science does not have it regarding many areas, including the so-called origin of man. Even if 10% of science disagrees with the theory I linked to, that's still substantial.

That scientists disagree on a point or state that a phenomenon is not well understood does not open the door for every nutjob with a sock-puppet and a tin can. That every aspect of human evolution is not documented in evidence to the extent that scientists would wish is not an opening for aliens/gods/turtles/wardrobe malfunctions as explanations for human existence.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Genesis.

 

[raildogg]

That scientists disagree on a point or state that a phenomenon is not well understood does not open the door for every nutjob with a sock-puppet and a tin can. That every aspect of human evolution is not documented in evidence to the extent that scientists would wish is not an opening for aliens/gods/turtles/wardrobe malfunctions as explanations for human existence.

Yes, so there is no pure conclusive solidarity even among scientists regarding a subject. Let's leave the other people out but even among scientists and people who study a particular area, there is often disagreements and variations. So this is why I was saying that it is hard to look to science and say that they've got something totally conclusive. A total truth is something that is concrete.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Science.

that's not proof...that a word...prove it....you stepped in it....
Science is one word --- using science or whatever else you may wish to use..pink unicorns...etc..prove it...

 

[JEDIYoda]

You do realize that Evolution is one of the most well established Theories in all of science? There is simply no way that there has ever been just 2 people. To even suggest there was is nonsensical.

links....proof....oh it`s your opinion I get it.....

 

[Schmide]

Step one. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Step two Goto Step One

 

[tcsenter]

The Human Family's Earliest Ancestors

Studies of hominid fossils, like 4.4-million-year-old "Ardi," are changing ideas about human origins

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.

 

[raildogg]

Step one. Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Step two Goto Step One

Interesting to see the majority of Youtube people bashing the "religion" guy and supporting the science guy. I am not surprised. Science is widely accepted all over the world. People want to accept both science and religion. Science when it suits their material purposes and religion when it suits their "spiritual" purposes. It all depends on their moods, their circumstances, etc.

One thing though is that most people don't directly work with science. They may "believe" it by reading or being taught but they don't actually carry it out. So in other words, science to these people is also something of a faith. Interesting how similar it is to the religious people and their faiths. They also read about it and are taught it yet they don't actually carry it out. So are science people and religious people similar? I don't want to start another conflict please.

 

[sandorski]

Interesting to see the majority of Youtube people bashing the "religion" guy and supporting the science guy. I am not surprised. Science is widely accepted all over the world. People want to accept both science and religion. Science when it suits their material purposes and religion when it suits their "spiritual" purposes. It all depends on their moods, their circumstances, etc.

One thing though is that most people don't directly work with science. They may "believe" it by reading or being taught but they don't actually carry it out. So in other words, science to these people is also something of a faith. Interesting how similar it is to the religious people and their faiths. They also read about it and are taught it yet they don't actually carry it out. So are science people and religious people similar? I don't want to start another conflict please.

No. The evidence of the efficacy of Science is all around us everyday. It is a matter of Trust, not Faith.

 

[raildogg]

No. The evidence of the efficacy of Science is all around us everyday. It is a matter of Trust, not Faith.

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.

 

[cyclohexane]

I'm not talking about this theory or that. You claimed science has the answers. I replied that science can contradict itself as well. There is never a total consensus. This is needed for a definitive answer to the origin of man. I doubt science alone can provide this.

Please take yourself to a natural history museum, and look at the fossils of the many extinct human species. Then you'll have a better idea of your question.

 

[Lifted]

Much easier to predict when man will end. 100 years would be optimistic.

 

[Jeff7]

No. The evidence of the efficacy of Science is all around us everyday. It is a matter of Trust, not Faith.

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.

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.

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.

 

[raildogg]

Please take yourself to a natural history museum, and look at the fossils of the many extinct human species. Then you'll have a better idea of your question.

Ok, those fossils and historical artifacts would still be around if scientists were not there to study them. They've just been collected and transported to a place where people can see them.

 

[Jeff7]

Ok, those fossils and historical artifacts would still be around if scientists were not there to study them. They've just been collected and transported to a place where people can see them.

Plenty of things on display are recreations - indeed, some of the fossils and such are too valuable to be sitting in a museum. The genuine articles are elsewhere, available for study.
Or some artifacts may simply not be terribly unique, or that additional study of them may not be inherently valuable.