Spirituality
23 Jun 11
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelScience is fairly well agreed on the emergence of man. It was a gradual process. You can read more about it on Wikipedia:
Ok. So "science" is totally agreed on the timeframe for the emergence of man? What was it again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
But a lack of a specific timeframe or exact details is not equivalent to your statement:
.... problems explaining how ape turned into man.
Your statement strongly suggests there is some reason why scientists should doubt that man could have evolved in the given timeframe, and you propose E.T.s as a 'solution' to this 'problem'.
No such problem exists.
You may believe in E.T.'s if you like, but please don't lie about science to try and rationalize your beliefs.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelE.T.?
The "missing link" is the transformation of ape into man ,(right?).
The religous people think they're onto something here because science has had problems explaining how ape turned into man (in such a short time). I think there was "oiutside" forces that sped up a "natural"" process.
I think E.T.'s were involved.
The E.T. explanation relates to ...[text shortened]...
It bridges a gap for me, but leaves me with more questions than answers, admittandly.
How exactly does the ET explanation relate to anything scientific?!
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadAtheist are very stubborn people, who do not like to admit they are wrong.
Science is fairly well agreed on the emergence of man. It was a gradual process. You can read more about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
But a lack of a specific timeframe or exact details is not equivalent to your statement:
[b].... problems explaining how ape turned into man.
Your statement strongly suggests there ...[text shortened]... .T.'s if you like, but please don't lie about science to try and rationalize your beliefs.[/b]
Like in this video where Dawkins must devise methods to defend the
indefensible and unwittingly admits that man did not evolve from apes.
&NR=1
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by RJHindsAre you for real or is this an act?
Atheist are very stubborn people, who do not like to admit they are wrong.
Like in this video where Dawkins must devise methods to defend the
indefensible and unwittingly admits that man did not evolve from apes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zal1XW88HQQ&NR=1
24 Jun 11
2 edits
Originally posted by karoly aczelSounds like he wants fossils from eastern Africa older than 200,000 BCE. I'm sure we've got those somewhere. No need for ETs.
The "missing link" is the transformation of ape into man ,(right?).
The religous people think they're onto something here because science has had problems explaining how ape turned into man (in such a short time). I think there was "oiutside" forces that sped up a "natural"" process.
I think E.T.'s were involved.
The E.T. explanation relates to ...[text shortened]...
It bridges a gap for me, but leaves me with more questions than answers, admittandly.
EDIT - Here are some:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm
The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus . The australopithecines (or australopiths) were intermediate between apes and people...
Over the last decade, there have been a number of important fossil discoveries in Africa of what may be very early transitional hominins, or proto-hominins. These creatures lived about the time of the divergence from our common hominid ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadOooookay. If I am lying , it is not intentionally.
Science is fairly well agreed on the emergence of man. It was a gradual process. You can read more about it on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
But a lack of a specific timeframe or exact details is not equivalent to your statement:
[b].... problems explaining how ape turned into man.
Your statement strongly suggests there ...[text shortened]... .T.'s if you like, but please don't lie about science to try and rationalize your beliefs.[/b]
I thought science had problems explaining the emergence of the human brain. (ie, the brain being exeptionally large due t it growing so fast).
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungProlly no need for E.T.'s, silly me. I will just have to dismiss a lot of what I've experienced and blame it on the drugs,eh?
Sounds like he wants fossils from eastern Africa older than 200,000 BCE. I'm sure we've got those somewhere. No need for ETs.
EDIT - Here are some:
http://anthro.palomar.edu/hominid/australo_1.htm
The immediate ancestors of humans were members of the genus Australopithecus . The australopithecines (or australopiths) were intermediate b ...[text shortened]... ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos, during the late Miocene and early Pliocene Epochs.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't know what you've experienced but most people I know who hear voices in their heads and have outlandish sounding ideas of where these voices come from are schizophrenic - and I know quite a lot of them. I'm not just spouting stereotypes.
Prolly no need for E.T.'s, silly me. I will just have to dismiss a lot of what I've experienced and blame it on the drugs,eh?
I don't know what drugs you're talking about but I recommend avoiding marijuana and hallucinogens.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe drug thing was a joke. I know the difference between different types of voices. There are no voices telling me what to do, and for the most part there are no voices at all.
I don't know what you've experienced but most people I know who hear voices in their heads and have outlandish sounding ideas of where these voices come from are schizophrenic - and I know quite a lot of them. I'm not just spouting stereotypes.
I don't know what drugs you're talking about but I recommend avoiding marijuana and hallucinogens.
I will just have to hold on to my crazy idea that E.T.'s have telepathically communicated to me because it does not seem to do the forum any good.(Promise). Still, in the intrests of telling the truth, I find it a significant thing that I have had these experiences which were definately not just "trips" ....
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelSorry if that came out as an accusation. It was not intended that way. Its not always easy to get across what I mean in the medium of posts.
Oooookay. If I am lying , it is not intentionally.
I thought science had problems explaining the emergence of the human brain. (ie, the brain being exeptionally large due t it growing so fast).
You thought incorrectly.
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf what you say is true than evolution is Truly amazing for having produced a mammal such as ourselves, with our big brains that just get us into trouble. To produce people like me, who are too intelligent to be doing too much and too stupid for trying to rationalize it. Or something like that ...🙂
Sorry if that came out as an accusation. It was not intended that way. Its not always easy to get across what I mean in the medium of posts.
[b]I thought science had problems explaining the emergence of the human brain. (ie, the brain being exeptionally large due t it growing so fast).
You thought incorrectly.[/b]
24 Jun 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelI realise that they were not just "trips" and were very real to you, but you should seriously consider the possibility that they are a psychological phenomenon and not evidence of the existence of E.T. Certainly from a scientific standpoint it is more likely.
Still, in the intrests of telling the truth, I find it a significant thing that I have had these experiences which were definately not just "trips" ....
What concerns me the most is not that you hear voices, but that are ready to believe just about anything even when it doesn't make any sense whatsoever.