thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Lack of food can give smaller people an advantage as well. Need less calories to survive. Cold dramatically increases the need for food. Over 5000 per day depending on locale.
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Uh, some are better than others... All I am saying is that nothing is certain- all we have is data and interpretation of the data. Some beliefs/ideas/theories/thought models/myths/projections/estimations/guesses/wacko notions work better than others, and we call the best "science" after a vote is taken and the "experts" agree to bless the interpretation. Once canonized by the Scientific High Priests, it becomes "fact", though will remain disputed until something better comes along. They also have an open canon. Science isn't a democracy.http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Copyright-UCS-and-MacLeod.jpg
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Science isn't a democracy.http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Copyright-UCS-and-MacLeod.jpgCute cartoon, but which is the real "smart guy" and which is the punk on twitter? At least the punk is questioning presumptions. The guy with the chalk thinks he has all the answers. The philosophy OF science is where the real dialogue takes place; scientists don't even know how to question their own methods. They are Written on Olympus and must not be questioned.
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) The philosophy OF science is where the real dialogue takes place; scientists don't even know how to question their own methods. They are Written on Olympus and must not be questioned. Possibilities that have not been confirmed in the scientific method or revelation are meaningless, because there are endless possibilities. Good and Reasonable possibilities are not meaningless, but I do not think you are talking about reasonable possibilities. Scientists do question a lot. Edited August 25, 2014 by MormonFreeThinker
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Once canonized by the Scientific High Priests, it becomes "fact", though will remain disputed until something better comes along. They also have an open canon. No, once canonized by the scientific High Priests (and priestesses), it becomes a scientific theory. (although I do consider evolution a fact.)
thesometimesaint Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Cute cartoon, but which is the real "smart guy" and which is the punk on twitter? At least the punk is questioning presumptions. The guy with the chalk thinks he has all the answers. The philosophy OF science is where the real dialogue takes place; scientists don't even know how to question their own methods. They are Written on Olympus and must not be questioned. First method in the Scientific Method is to ask a question. The philosophy of science is to question everything. The next is stick with what can be demonstrated. 1
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Seriously, tho, please take a look at MormonFreeThinker's link, and follow that up with some Wiki articles on evolution, the human genome, prehistoric migrations, the false category of 'race', etc. It's more than a little disturbing that [among others] Hispanics like me are not seen as part of the 'we' in the OP.)In plants and animals they just call it a new species. For some reason it is a "race" when it comes to us humans. A race is probably a better way to do it??. The best thing though would to not put so many things in to categories. Oh well.
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Cute cartoon, but which is the real "smart guy" and which is the punk on twitter? At least the punk is questioning presumptions. The guy with the chalk thinks he has all the answers. The philosophy OF science is where the real dialogue takes place; scientists don't even know how to question their own methods. They are Written on Olympus and must not be questioned.That is simply not true. Positivism insisted that a scientific method be proven. Other scientists questioning that method (namely Karl Popper) made way for the standard to become falsifiablility. That method of determining a valid theory has proven much more practical and reliable.
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 In plants and animals they just call it a new species. For some reason it is a "race" when it comes to us humans. A race is probably a better way to do it??. The best thing though would to not put so many things in to categories. Oh well.People of different races (or as we call it in biological anthropology, "ancestry") are not different species. My husband is of Danish ancestry, but my friend's husband is of African ancestry. We both have children who are capable of having children. The term "species" has some problems with an "across the board" definition but there is only one human race and only one non extinct human species. We categorize each other because that's just what our brains do. We detect that which is "different" or "foreign" to us. It's an instinct. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 No, once canonized by the scientific High Priests (and priestesses), it becomes a scientific theory. (although I do consider evolution a fact.)That's ok, yes I know thanks. I suppose I should have not brought it up - I am talking about the philosophy of science, and I am questioning certain assumptions, not appropriate really for this board. I should have kept my mouth shut!
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 That's ok, yes I know thanks. I suppose I should have not brought it up - I am talking about the philosophy of science, and I am questioning certain assumptions, not appropriate really for this board. I should have kept my mouth shut!You Wittgensteinien pot-stirrer!
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 That is simply not true. Positivism insisted that a scientific method be proven. Other scientists questioning that method (namely Karl Popper) made way for the standard to become falsifiablility. That method of determining a valid theory has proven much more practical and reliable.At least read the abstract for this article. But even this guy misses that Wittgenstein later reversed himself on the Tractatus. Obviously Wittgenstein and Popper have a history beyond the scope of this thread. That's what I am alluding to. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FB%3AJGPS.0000005086.09598.5e
mfbukowski Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) You Wittgensteinien pot-stirrer! Exactimundo! Somehow that discussion I don' think would have much to do with a global flood or evolution. Edited August 25, 2014 by mfbukowski
Sevenbak Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 (edited) We'll, I know it's not likely for all races, but given that many things in the scriptures follow patterns and are repeated, it's quite possible to me that the Lord has done similar things to groups of people like he did to the Lamanites. It could be for disobedience, direct apostasy against so much light, etc. etc., or whatever reasons He has had. Only a genetic modification could explain the change that came over Laman and co. to make the sugsequent generations have the same change. And yes, I believe that was the Lord's doing, and not because they spent too much time in the sun. I know that's not particularly politically correct, but there it is. Edited August 25, 2014 by Sevenbak
katherine the great Posted August 25, 2014 Posted August 25, 2014 Cold dramatically increases the need for food. Over 5000 per day depending on locale.That is true. The caloric intake of Neanderthals was thought to be about that--hence their enormous protein and fat intake. (I can only imagine the bad breathe.) Their bodies were also shorter and stockier than modern humans, among other adaptations. A low surface area to volume ratio body helps to conserve heat. (I'm sure you know about Allen's rule.)
Johnnie Cake Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 All of our genes can be traced back to Africa. As very ancient humans migrated out of Africa, they gradually adapted to the environments of their new homes. Those who could not adapt died out while those who had the genetics to survive passed on the genes for those adaptive traits to their children. These adaptations manifest themselves in somewhat superficial (as rpn stated) traits such as lighter skin (which helps prevent vitamin D deficiency in sunlight deprived climates), shorter stature (which is advantageous is colder climates), extremely dark skin (advantageous in tropical climates) and a myriad of other traits that might also give them advantage in sexual selection. After many thousands of years of separation, if the descendants of these groups came back together, they would look markedly different to each other--both physically and culturally because cultural norms were also developing of this time. This didn't always (or usually) prevent marriages between different tribes of people so then the genes would be mixed again. Over time we have come to occupy most of the habitable land on every continent except for Antarctica. A side note to this is that there are often, for instance a population of tall people in a cold climate or a population of dark skinned people in a cold climate. Once a population has adapted to its environment, through human culture they are often able to survive through cultural means and not a physical adaptation. Inuits would be normally be expected to have very light skin in their environment, but when their ancestors moved into the frigid environment, they had a plentiful marine food source that made up for the vitamin D deficiency that would have otherwise led to their demise so there was no necessity for them to move on or die out. So they were able to preserve their skin tone, however they are of a very short and stocky body type that is ideal for that environment. That is a very bare bones explanation for the great variety in human appearance.Wow... Impressive ...there is Truth on MD&D
Johnnie Cake Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 (edited) Duplicate Edited August 26, 2014 by Johnnie Cake
katherine the great Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Wow... Impressive ...there is Truth on MD&DI don't know whether there is truth, but there IS anthropology! 3
ERayR Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Thanx. I see a better fit with Punctuated Equilibriumhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtmlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events None of which were anywhere near the proposed time frame of Noah and his boat. I know that for you this is creationism heresy but here is a couple that are plausible: http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/PattenBiblFlood00a.htm http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/
MormonFreeThinker Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I know that for you this is creationism heresy but here is a couple that are plausible: Why do you believe the Earth is Old?
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 That is true. The caloric intake of Neanderthals was thought to be about that--hence their enormous protein and fat intake. (I can only imagine the bad breathe.) Their bodies were also shorter and stockier than modern humans, among other adaptations. A low surface area to volume ratio body helps to conserve heat. (I'm sure you know about Allen's rule.) Years ago my son was in the military in Italy he visited France . He said he was horrified with the French maids. They positively reeked of perfume and sweat.I hadn't directly known of Allen's Rule, but I do agree. I'm still trying to figure out the Tutsi and Pygmy peoples living very close together.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I know that for you this is creationism heresy but here is a couple that are plausible: http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenBiblFlood/PattenBiblFlood00a.htm http://www.creationism.org/patten/PattenMarsEarthWars/ I think you misunderstand. I'm fine with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe. For me using God as the means by which God did it is circular logic. IE; How did God do it is how God did it. A Global Flood as proposed by Mr. Patten is a physical impossibility. Water has weight. The amount of water in the air needed to produce such a flood would parboil Noah and his critters. SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling. From all the evidence Mars if it ever had life it was very simple life at best.http://www.space.com/23882-mars-life-lake-curiosity-rover.html#
ERayR Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 I think you misunderstand. I'm fine with God using Evolution in his Creation of us and our world/universe. For me using God as the means by which God did it is circular logic. IE; How did God do it is how God did it. A Global Flood as proposed by Mr. Patten is a physical impossibility. Water has weight. The amount of water in the air needed to produce such a flood would parboil Noah and his critters. SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling. From all the evidence Mars if it ever had life it was very simple life at best.http://www.space.com/23882-mars-life-lake-curiosity-rover.html# I can't help you if you don't read it.
thesometimesaint Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 Maybe I wasn't more clear. I did read your links and they are bunk by a overly religious fanatic.SEE "There are abundant evidences of a watery, global cataclysm -- evidences which are not easily refuted. They are so universal, so astounding, and so inter-related that they require re-examination. How is it explained, for instance, that ancient peoples, from six separate continents, almost invariably had a Flood tradition? Why is it that ancient peoples almost always had a pantheon of sky-gods and traditions of celestial chaos? Why is it that ancient peoples all over the world, in diverse cultures possessing independent traditions, yet possessed similar traditions of cataclysms containing similar motifs? And if the ancients simply happened to have comparable or corresponding hallucinations, why, then, does our solar system also contain abundant evidences of historical astral chaos? And is it possible that our Earth could have escaped this? Re-examination of these universal evidences and their implications leads to a serious and careful consideration of the Flood catastrophe".
LOSTONE Posted August 26, 2014 Posted August 26, 2014 What does God look like? What race and nationality is God? You think you know, but do you really know? Is there proof of what God looks like, his race and nationality? Remember, we are all created in God’s image so when I see a black person, white person, asian person, so on and on, I see God in them.How do we know what Adam and Eve look like? What their race and nationality was? Do we know for sure about them too?How do we know if there was or wasn’t more than one race and nationality created somewhere down the line in God’s image? How do we know God didn’t add a little more that has not been written or spoken of?All I know and need to know is that I see images of God in all of his people regardless of race and nationality. I am okay with that. I also know never, ever, to past judgment on anyone based on race or nationality. Such judgment is wrong.Oh and what race and nationality are you? Am I? I don’t even know about me for sure given I am adopted and live in the United States but speak with a mix British / Irish accent.
Recommended Posts