Roll what u got against me..?!? ??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx



Edited By (ShinKu_Ryu) on Mar. 24 2004 at 21:02

[quote:post_uid0="(ShinKu Ryu)"]Roll what u got against me..?!? <!--emo&??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx[/quote]
Ahem.....

This is a SCIENTIFIC DEBATE. NOT RELIGIOUS!

Look at the topic title: Human evolution from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint.

Look at the topic description: Scientific debate, NOT a religious one

Therefore, since that post is incredibly off-topic, it's really considered spam.

Secondly, even IF religion was allowed in this debate, your "adam and eve" is NOT proof. Why? Becuase religion does not HAVE proof, only blind faith.

By the way....why did you bring up 'adam and steve?' Are you implying that I'm gay by believing in science and not religion? By saying that you want to turn the topic to "adam and eve, not adam and steve joe," you are therefore implying that I have been talking about "adam and steve" and you don't want to hear it anymore. However, since I have not once mentioned an "adam and steve," I am getting the rather distinct feeling that you are attempting to insult me, something you definately don't want to do. I don't believe in 'adam and steve,' despite what you apparently claimed. I also don't believe in 'adam and eve' either. Now...

<span style='font-size:11pt;line-height:100%'>RELIGION IS NOT PROOF!</span>

Or, to be more specific....the Bible is NOT proof!!

Now THAT is something YOU have to think about before YOU make such conclusions.

Bring up religion again and I'm getting a mod to delete your post. Do it yet again, and that will definately constitute as spamming, and you can probably be banned if you keep it up for much longer. If you don't have scientific evidence to debate with, then don't post anything at all.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 24 2004 at 21:20

[quote:post_uid4="Shauku"][color=green:post_uid4]Well nosoul closed the religion topic, but not before blanka was able to make a post concerning the topic of human evolution that I brought up. Thus, I'd like to talk a little more on the topic of human evolution.

This topic is from a SCIENTIFIC standpoint, not a religious one. So if anyone posts here saying something like "ur wrong tho cuz evolutin doesnt exist god made man," then that's gonna be considered spam. I've been in search of a clean, straightforward debate for quite some time now. My debates on BG have more or less run their course, so I figured I'd return to my roots here on this forum. Now, let the human evolution debate begin![/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4][i:post_uid4]blanka09 said...[/i:post_uid4]

Ok.. Let me put it this way.. Humans [b:post_uid4]didn't[/b:post_uid4] evolve from chimpazees.. cause if they did.. Why didn't the other chimpazees involve??[/quote:post_uid4]

[color=green:post_uid4]There was a special on the discovery channel a year or so ago that I really wished I had recorded. You might be able to find an article about the program on the Discovery Channel website, or possibly backorder a copy of the program.

Either way, that's a good question. If humans evolved from chimpanzees, then why didn't ALL chimpanzees evolve? First, you'd have to take a look at evolution at large.

What causes evolution? The biological definition of "evolution" is the "change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." (source: http://dictionary.reference.com)

The result of natural selection. Look at wild animals, or more specifically, animals that hunt and live in packs or herds. More specifically, look at creatures such as the wolf, lion and monkey. All three of these creatures are family-type animals. The females protect the children, and the males protect both the females and the children. Now, the males in the pack do not always get along. When this happens, one or more males will challenge the leader of the pack. The loser is exiled from the social group. Sometimes, the loser will be followed by a share of females and children, and strike out on their own. Scientists believe that this is the spark that lit the fuse of the stick of dynamite called "human evolution."

Take a look at a human and a chimpanzee. If you look at a strand of chimpanzee DNA, you will find that it matches a strand of human DNA almost completely, making a match at 99.4% indenticality. Now take a look at the physical aspects. Both human and chimpanzee have two arms, two legs and a head. The head contains two eyes, two ears, a nose and a mouth, in almost exactly the same facial positions. Chimpanzees have tails, while humans do not. HOWEVER, we do have a tailbone, which provides evidence that human beings, lower on the evolutionary ladder, once had tails. But for some reason, we no longer needed them, and eventually evolved to the point where tails were no longer part of our anatomy. Humans and chimpanzees share the exact same internal organs and various systems--nervous, reproductive, digestive. All organs are located in the exact same areas of the body as in humans. Finally, take a look at their brains. Similar brain size and shape (proportionally). They have the ability to think...they can plan, they can solve puzzles, and they have the ability to use simple tools. Socially, they contain the same basic primal social, family and hierarchial traits as basic humans. Both are also very territorial, and will protect their territories and families with fierce savagery.

How can two creatures be so similar, both anatomically and mentally, and yet not be related? Now, for the theory of the human evolution.

Remember what I said above about natural selection? About how one group of creatures from a larger social family will be outcast? Well scientists have conjured up the following theory:

Around five million years ago, there was a schizm in the social structure of a large group of mammals....either a relative of the modern-day chimpanzee or ape or whatever. A large portion of this social structure was outcast, being cast out of the jungles and forests and into the grasslands and plains of africa (where most scientists believe human evolution first began). Over time, these monkeys became bipedal. They learned to balance, stand and walk on their hind legs. The reason for this was so they could peer over the tall grass in order to spot predators. Therefore, the first step of human evolution. Over the next 4.8 million years or so, this large group of human-like mammals continued to evolve, until finally forming [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] around 200 thousand years ago. To be honest, I'm not too sure about the details surrounding the period of time after the outcasts were sent into the grasslands, which is why I didn't specify on anything. Once I find the program or article from the Discovery Channel, I'll elaborate a bit more. But that's what scientists believe. Human beings evolved from an outcast group of chimp-like mammals.

Now, why didn't the rest of the chimpanzees evolve into humans, you ask? Simple....they had already adapted to their jungle- and forest-type of environments. Therefore, no evolution was necessary. The outcast group, however, was suddenly thrust into an alien environment. They had no instincts of how to survive in such an environment, and therefore were forced to adapt and evolve. No evolution was necessary for the jungle chimps because they had already adapted to their environment.[/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4]Now an earlier species known as the Australopethicus Africanus or in the early man is where we evolved from. From that to the homo habilis (cause they could handle stuff).. to the homo erectus (cause they could walk straight) and to the present homo sapiens.. (cause they think.. which isn't sometimes good for them.) Now do I believe in what I've just wrote.. maybe.. maybe not. But that's just the origin of the present human beings according to science.[/quote:post_uid4]

[color=green:post_uid4]Actually, the origin of present-day humans goes back a little farther than the [i:post_uid4]africanus,[/i:post_uid4] and you also skipped a few key stages in human evolution. The origin of present-day humans actually looks something like this:

(source: http://www.onelife.com/evolve/manev.html)
[img:post_uid4]http://home.graffiti.net/nantuko/evolution2.jpg[/img:post_uid4][/color:post_uid4]

[quote:post_uid4]If infact the science was true and correct and accurate all along, then why haven't the homo sapiens evolved.. after living for such a long time?? These are just some of the questions.. that how should I say.. distorts my belief in science and evolution as the origin of man.

[color=green:post_uid4]Take a look at the chart displaying the origins of human evolution. The first stage of human evolution lasted 1 million years. The second lasted 300 thousand. The third lasted 1.3 million. The fourth lasted 1 million. The fifth and sixth, which coexisted at the same time, lasted 800 thousand. The seventh lasted 1.6 million. The eighth lasted 200 thousand before we split off into neanderthals and humans, and the neanderthals died off after 170 thousand years. Now I know that adds up to more than 5 million years, but there was some overlapping of species here and there ([i:post_uid4]anamensis[/i:post_uid4] to [i:post_uid4]afarensis[/i:post_uid4], [i:post_uid4]afarensis[/i:post_uid4] to [i:post_uid4]africanus[/i:post_uid4], and [i:post_uid4]homo erectus[/i:post_uid4] briefly overlapped with the existence of both [i:post_uid4]Australopithecus robustus[/i:post_uid4] and [i:post_uid4]Homo habilis[/i:post_uid4], which coexisted with each other.

So in the past 5 million years, there have been 10 different species of human in the evolutionary ladder, including present-day humans. Now you say "why havn't [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] evolved?" Well there are a number of answers to that question...

1. We have indeed stopped evolving, due to the fact that we no longer have to adapt to our environment. Due to our technology, we are no longer forced to adapt to our environment, because we now have the ability to make our environment change in order to accustom our needs and comforts. Therefore, evolution is not forced upon us.

2. Evolution is still occuring, but has slowed down (due to the same reason stated above). We no longer have the need to physically evolve, so our brains and mental capabilities will continue to evolve over the millenia. At this moment in time, we are only able to consciously access 10% of our brain. Over time, maybe we will evolve the ability to access even more.

3. Evolution is still continuing, but we just havn't seen any sudden changes yet. Remember, [i:post_uid4]homo sapiens[/i:post_uid4] are still young. We have only been around for 200 thousand years. If you do the math, the average amount of time it takes for one specie in that chart to evolve to the next is an AVERAGE of 500 thousand years. We aren't even halfway through that. Therefore, we havn't seen as much change becuase we havn't been around long enough to require change, which gives rise to the BELIEF that we have stopped evolving, which is highly unlikely.



Okay, like I said above, I want a SCIENTIFIC, FACT-BASED discussion here. This topic is NOT about the existence of god, heaven & hell, the bible, the torah, the teachings of Siddharta Guatama, etc. This debate is about the idea of human evolution. If you can't provide facts and evidence to support your case, then don't post.

I'm *HOPING* for an actual debate here. Let's see if anyone can give that to me. I mean, if Hibiki could make a successful topic last year about the theory of relativity, I HOPE i can create a successful topic about human evolution.[/color:post_uid4][/quote:post_uid4]
natuku joe i was not fetting back to the religion that was way back...it was an example that i thought would help a brain like yours...?!?? ???

I read everything you said and of course they are scientific facts that some of you believe.......i can not give full proof that we where not apes but what i believe........ :alien: scientist's to have a lot to uncover...and i dont think that scientist's have full proof of it yet............ :)

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"]First off, there was no need to quote my ridiculously gigantic, information-filled post just for two run-on sentences.

How can you say you were not fetting back to religion when you said that adam and eve is proof against evolution? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about at all.

Finally, you admit it's your BELIEF. So I guess you can now stop saying that religion is proof, because it's not.

So like I said, unless you're going to use scientific evidence to debate your points, don't post anything in here at all.[/quote]
There is no scientific facts against this.......?!! :angryfire: but just tell me..and if we dont need to evolve again as you say..so why do scientist's say it might have been this way. ??? and i saw the discovery about it to...but i did not bother to see all of it... :angryfire:

[quote:post_uid0="(ShinKu_Ryu)"]Roll what u got against me..?!? ??? i know that you and joe agree on this nonsense but.............

Anywaz....to get back to the topic, Natuku joe i will try to make you understand.......i know its hard for your brain but.... :( roll,....you said that we dont evolve anymore becuse we dont need to...i do agree with some facts that scientist's have proven but this one i dont and never will......

ok...This is some proof i can give for now....lets go back to Adam and Eve....not adam and steve joe

Those where the first humans god created....the where already evolved from babbons as you say....This is funny because i dont think god would create those babbons first and then us humans.......thats something scientist's got to think for a moment before the make all this conclusions...

And joe dont act smart by correcting my spelling...thnx[/quote]
That made no dam sense what so ever. Babbons? Do u know how stupid your post sounds?

so nantuko, you admit with me that we are the ones creating stuffs, so if we are making mistakes then why wouldn't we be making a big mistakes with most of our technologies, then why would science be any better then religions ?

and, tell me where i said religions was better then science ?
i seriously don't like religions. but i unlike you, i'm keeping my believes for myself !

you believe science is the right way to go, some thinks its religions who think it is. and others like me do not care as it is non-important for our life !

and as far as i know, a debate about evolution of mankind cannot be won by neither party ! why ? because neither can prooves their theories, so basically this is an impossible to win debate. and seriously, you can't just try and back this stuffup with things like what you said... why ?

because even if many scientists have came to the same conclusion. they are still theories. just like any religions !

Do you even READ my posts? I NEVER said that i don't think we don't need to evolve. I said that I think we're going to continue natural evolution on a MENTAL level. Not that we completely stopped. I said that us being completely stopped is a POSSIBILITY, but it's not my own belief.

I don't know about what other scientists say on the matter, as I don't know any scientists to ask. I'll have to TRY and find sources on scientists outlooks, but that will be rather difficult considering the fact that scientists having public editorial sections on the internet is rather uncommon.

Because man created the idea of religion. Man did NOT create the idea of science, because science has been around all along. Man DEVELOPED THE ABILITY to be able to interpret scientific data...they did not create the idea of science.

Man created the idea of religion. Evidence of this is found in the fact that hundreds of different religions exist in the world. If religion created man, then only one religion would exist. But since there are many religions, it goes to show that in different areas of the world, different people had different outlooks on religion, and therefore created their own. Science, on the other hand, is universally accepted, because there is only ONE science, and it yields evidence of its existence.

Actually, they WOULDN'T be theories.

Tell me, so you are saying that science is merely a theory.

Are Newton's Laws of Motion theories also? Because last I checked, they were tried, tested, tried and proven true. And are evident in EVERYDAY life. Same as the theory of relativity, same as every single chemical equation, same as every single biological function. It's all FACT. Why? Because it's been tried, tested, and proven true.

Now the THEORY of human evolution is just that....THEORY. However, once more evidence is gathered, all the holes filled in, all the questions answered, then guess what? It will be proven FACT. Not "theory," as you claim, because all evidence in the world will point away from evolution and point straight towards science. It's happened already in other aspects of science and religion, and will surely happen over and over again in the future.

Must i kill you all?
Must I perform a ritual massacre of all of you rule breakers?

do NOT quote that much
do NOT be assholes

when in doubt, follow this simple rule--DONT BE A DICK

break that rule at yer own risk

escaflowne rulz



Edited By viper2040 on Mar. 25 2004 at 00:02

now you did it nantuko !
you just prooved yourself how patheitic you are about soime matters !
have you even studied religions to know that many religions came off only one and they separated because some weren't able to believe some parts of their own religions ?

example...
you believe in science... you got point of view on subjects... but the other scientist besides you do not see's it the same as you. is he the same scientist as you or it is he an outcast just because he doesn't think the same as you ?

its as simple as that, all religions have the same patterns, saw the same things or are describing the same thing, people just didn't see it the same way so they described it their way and many other people joined them in that way of thinking.

that is the reason there are so many religions !
if you didn't even knew that, then how can you back your arguments to say that religions are false theories !

science was made by humans, because we dictated those laws.
we gave a name to them. if we did so, that's because they were not existent and we found something that ables us to create even more !

its our way of life nantuko, science do not make us alive, it is just a bunch of theories, prooven or not ! they were just theories, some were found to be true, yet they are still theories, we make them laws. so that means we created them !

and again, you're not debating anything here, you are saying science is the answer to all because it supposedly have facts which is false itself, and let me give you this hints... SCIENCE is as much a religion then anything else !

you believe in it, fine, suits you, but don't come in saying science is the answer to all cause for all i understood of your post... is this !

COME AND SPEAK WITH FACT, SCIENCE IS THE KEY AND WILL GIVE YOU ALL THE TRUTH, FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE, CAUSE SCIENCE IS RIGHT REGUARDLESS OF WHAT YOU'LL SAY !

see its the same mumbo jumbo anyone have been saying all along here !

i may be not much of a debater, but i can easily identify people trying to enforece they view on others, and that's what you are trying to do here, may it be voluntary or not !

this topic has reached his maximum capacity of flaming and its maximum capacity of non-sens, that even you been saying !

if you don't want to be open minded then suits you, but we don't care about what you believe in and we didn't ask you to convince us either !

joe ,....hate to break this to you but science is man made ... ???



Edited By (ShinKu_Ryu) on Mar. 25 2004 at 16:37

Not necessarily true. Two completely isolated populations of humans, with NO contact between each other, will develop different religions in order to suit the personal beliefs of those in each respective group.

Religion did not "evolve" from a single common "ancestor." In other words, all the world's religions are NOT simply run-offs from each other. Most of them developed independently with no outside influence, and not as separations of other religions due to disagreements with particular beliefs.

The American Indians developed a separate religion than the Aztecs of South America, who developed a separate religion from the Africans. These religions are NOT simply different variations of each other.

What you just said would only apply to Christianity and Judaism, at least to my knowledge. Judaism came first, then Christianity. Then Christianity broke off into various branches....Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Protestant, Catholic, Roman Catholic, Byzantine Catholic, etc....because of differences in various individual beliefs. They all believe in the whole of the Bible, but are separated by various trivial details.

THAT is an example of what you stated. What you said does not apply to all the world's religions, because the majority of them developed in controlled, isolated populations of people with no outside influence with each other.

No no no, you've got it all wrong.

The only thing in science that scientists would disagree on would be THEORIES. Ideas that have not yet been proven true. The scientific LAWS, however, are universally accepted, because they've already been proven true. So even though two scientists may have different outlooks on THEORIES, they are in effect the same scientists because they are united by the common ground of fact. Religion is not like this, because EVERYTHING is a theory, none of it fact, and therefore there is no solid common ground.

No, not all religions have the same patterns, see the same things, etc.

Religions can be compared to stories. In a population of people, many people will be telling different stories, and everyone will have their favorite story, the one they can relate to the most. The people will then group together with other people who like that same story.

There was NOT a single story that spawned all these different story branches. They were all individual stories, and NOT just branches off one common ancestral story.

The same goes for religions.

In a population, many different stories about creation, or life after death, or whatnot will arise, and the people will group together under that common religion. Therefore, there will be many different religions. They are all individual and unique (for the most part), and were NOT merely the offspring of a central common religion.

No, that's not an accurate statement.

Science was not created by humans. Science was around all along, humans just became able to understand it. We did not CREATE the laws, we simply gave name to them. We did not CREATE gravity....we created the WORD "gravity." We did not CREATE the endocrine system, we merely created the PHRASE "endocrine system." We did not CREATE dinosaur fossils, we merely created the NAME "dinosaur fossils"

Newton did not CREATE the fact that an object at rest will stay at rest and an object in motion will remain in motion unless it is acted upon by an outside force.....he just put it into lay man's terms. He just created the words needed to understand it.

No, the facts themselves are fact. Whether or not you choose to believe them is up to you. It is a FACT that if you standing on the ground, hold an object whose mass is heavier and denser than the atmosphere surrounding it out in front of you and let go, the object will fall down towards the ground. That is FACT, there is no denying it. It is a FACT that if you roll a ball down an incline, the ball will continue to roll unless acted upon by an outside force (something in front of the ball hindering its movement, or the ball hitting the bottom of the incline). That is FACT, there is no denying it. Go out and try it for yourself. You can see for yourself that it's fact.

And basically, what you are saying is that "No you're wrong. Science THINKS that it's fact, but it's just a theory." Well go try it for yourself. If you can stand and hold a baseball and drop it and it DOESN'T fall to the ground, then you would have proven the laws of physics wrong. If you can take a basketball and place it on the top of an incline and let go, if the ball DOESN'T roll down the incline, then you would have proven physics wrong.

Go ahead, try it. Keep trying until you prove science wrong.

No, what I'm saying is this:

"IF YOU BELIEVE IN SCIENCE, THEN COME HERE AND DEBATE WITH SCIENCE. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DEBATE WITH SCIENCE, THEN DON'T DEBATE AT ALL."

If you'd like, I could easily create a topic debating the accuracy of all the world's various religions. The accuracy of christianity vs satanism vs judaism vs buddhism vs conflipianism vs Shinto vs Celtic beliefs vs Norse beliefs vs African beliefs vs the various North American Indian beliefs vs the various South American Indian beliefs vs the Pacific Islander beliefs vs Greek beliefs vs Roman beliefs vs Egyptian beliefs vs Chinese beliefs vs Japanese beliefs vs Mesopotamian beliefs vs Santarian beliefs vs Slavic beliefs vs all the other various beliefs in the world. I would then say "This is a religious debate using religious knowledge only....if you're not going to debate with religion, then don't debate at all." Would you be happy then?

I am very open-minded. I do not shut out ideas of over people, but rather I try to understand them and try to make sense of them. If I find faults, I will try to identify with them.

Look at the locked religion topic. I did not simply say "no ur religion is wrong and my religion is right." I tried to understand them. I'm always open to new ideas, which was actually the factor that caused me to convert to science from religion. I was actually very intrigued and interested in Roll's beliefs. If I was not open-minded, I would have been like "lol dubya tee effur stupid ur wrong." But no, I take the time to listen and try to understand.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, at least...that was not the purpose of the topic. The purpose of the topic was to be a scientific discussion between people who "believe" as you say, in science. It only turned to "convincing" when idiots start coming here attacking science and saying that "adam and eve and not adam and steve" is "proof," and when people make uneducated outlandish claims, stating that they are smarter than the world's scientists and saying that they are wrong.

If someone created a religion topic to discuss different religions, I would not invade the topic saying "no you're wrong I am right, blah blah blah" becuase it would be a discussion between people who believe in religions. I am not trying to convert anyone.

Look at how the religion topic started. SBYRD starts making claims saying "look hell exists, you are wrong and I am right," just because of the opinions of one man and an article from the National Inquirer. I said that the theologian beliefs of some nobody and an article from the National Inquirer are NOT proof of anything. Then other religious people start coming in saying "no it is proof because the bible says so, etc etc." Had no one been making false claims and trying to convert people, I would have kept my mouth shut. I only brought science in the mix when people start claiming that this is truth and this is false, that anyone who doesn't believe this or that is "too young and ignorant to see the truth," bullcrap like that.

Now, if it was a simple discussion about the exstence of heaven and hell from a religious standpoint, with discussions attacking and defending it only coming from religious sources (beliefs of other religions), then I would have kept my mouth shut. Likewise, the way I see it, this is a discussion about a topic of science. I would have expected that anyone who did not want to discuss this from a scientific standpoint would simply refrain from posting, and that the only posts would be people trying to debate this from a scientific standpoint....you know, I was expecting the same amount of respect that I would normally have shown to anyone else.

But coming into a topic about science and saying "science is wrong, religions is right" is the same thing as going into the DBZvsSF topic and saying "both street fighter and dbz are gay, inuyasha rules."

Posts like that are what I'm talking about, Karma. I'm making claims, but I can back them up with evidence. Yes, I know that the claims are concerning THEORY, but I bring evidence to the table to try and help support my claims.

Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.

Look at the intelligent posts here....me making a statement, and blanka09, among a couple others, respond to it, asking questions, making remarks, etcetera, and I respond. That's how a debate goes. Because of twerps like this kid, who simply makes unbacked claims based on absolutely nothing, the topic has turned away from its peaceful discussion intent and has ended up like this.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 25 2004 at 16:27

personally, i don't believe in evolution.

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"]Now look at that post. Is there any scientific debate material that can be used to discuss the topic at hand? No. Is there any evidence to back up his claims? No. All he is saying is the same old usual "I am right and you are wrong" bullcrap that pisses me off. He obviously has nothing intelligent to say in order to contribute to the topic, he's basically spamming and pissing me off, which in turn forces me to interject, sometimes forcibly and angrily. Hence the reason the topic has gone wildly off-course.

Look at the intelligent posts here....me making a statement, and blanka09, among a couple others, respond to it, asking questions, making remarks, etcetera, and I respond. That's how a debate goes. Because of twerps like this kid, who simply makes unbacked claims based on absolutely nothing, the topic has turned away from its peaceful discussion intent and has ended up like this.[/color][/quote]
blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....

and stop putting wors in my mouth :angryfire: ...I never said i wsa right and you where wrong...So why if we evolved from so-called apes , there is no next stage for us or for the apes right now..i nkow that you tried giving some proof about what i just asked,... :( but why is it that the apes right now are not as close as us

[quote:post_uid0="(ShinKu_Ryu)"]blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....[/quote]
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

First off, I'm going to state right off the bat that this is THEORY, scientists have yet to prove it, so it's THEORY.

The THEORY is that 5 million years ago, a specie of ape-like creature inhabited the forests and jungles of the land. Due to some sort of schizm....rivalries between males, etc....a large population of them was driven out of the forests and into the plains and grasslands of the world. This exiled group eventually evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, the modern-day human. They evolved and morphed AWAY from the ape-like creatures in appearance and behavior and features because these features were no longer necessary in the grasslands of the world, they were only needed in the jungle and forest situations.

It is speculated that apes did not evolve much farther because they were already at home in their environments. They had already more or less adapted to their homes in the jungles and the trees, and therefore no further change was required (same goes for sharks and alligators and crocodiles....they are virtually unchanged, the same creatures now that existed 70 million years ago.) Virtually all evolutionary biologists and anthropoligists are more or less on the same page about this.

Now you keep saying that there's no next step for humans. This is not true, and I said that this is not true. I said that humans will continue to evolve, just not as much (or at all) physically as we will evolve mentally. I've said this many, many times, and you continue to ask me the same question over and over even after I answer this. No, this is NOT fact, it's theory, and moreover, my theory. I have yet to find any articles written by scientists on the subject of FUTURE human evolution, and therefore do not know what actual scientists believe.

I don't want to change the topic that much, but this might be an interesting read... (I posted this at Shoryuken.com, but it barely got any hits).





"I was having a good debate with my friend, and I commented that if we were able to "evolve" like the mutants. What I found out were a few different solutions.

1: We use 10% of our Brains

2: We Use all of our brains, just not at the same time.


(1) is wrong, any neurologist with a Ph. D. will tell you that, if we used just 10% of our brains, we wouldn't be able to speak, move, hear, think or even remember.

So (2) must be right, although we use all of our brains, we don't use it at the same time, or else that would cause some serious effects (brain damage, or even stroke).

Although we are the smartest living species in the world, our brain has some flaws, memory for example. Usually when we remember something, that memory depends on how motivated we are to remember it. If we don't care about that memory, then we'll forget it, and the statements of "Memory always stays in the brain, it's all just dormant" is false. Once that memory has been used and you don't have any purpose of remembering that memory, it fades away.

Another thing about the brain is that each function of the body has different neurons (brain cells) that are used for body functions, so if I cut off my leg, I would become smarter. How? Because the brain cells that are used for that leg serve no purpose anymore, so they go to other parts of the brain, depending on which brain gets it (So it's like hungry-hungry hippo).

One thing that I have wondered about is telekinesis. How people are able to bend spoons using the mind, tap into the dead, or read minds. Is it fake or is it real? If it is real, how much potential are we able to achieve? Will humans one day be able to lift up televisions and whirl them around in circles using the mind? Will we be able to manipulate fire just by thinking about it? How much untapped potential does the brain have?

Another topic of discussion is what the perfect body physique is. What is the perfect height and the perfect weight to complement the height? (Certainly it's not someone who's not 4 feet tall or someone that's overweight). And will we someday be able to have an immune system so well designed, that any disease, virus, or a bacterium that tries to attack it will be cast out of the way like Thanos vs. a crippled person? Although this might seem so, each time our immune system gets stronger, ####acteria strains always come, so will we be forever being competing against bacteria?

Our skin is used to protect the insides of our body, but we know it's not that tough, so will we be able to one day have skin as tough as diamond? Will our bones be so strong that it will never become sore or break? Will our eyes be so clear that we'll be able to see all the bacteria surfacing around the air? How fast will be able to run, how high will we be able to jump? How far can we hear and smell? Do we even have to eat? Post your opinions."


By the way Joe, I have to research more with how much brain power we use. I've gotten into a debate with my dad who says we don't use all of it, and my psychology professor who says we do.


My Dads point of view says that if we used all of our brain power (as the psychologists say), we wouldn't be able to learn as much as we do now, and we would be limited in what we learn. If we were at 100%, we would be able to do amazing things like not being able to forget, being able to calculate faster than a computer, and being able to use telekinesis (psychic powers as in being able to read thoughts and being able to move objects, manipulate energy, etc...)

My Professors point of view says that we use all of out brain power, but not at the same time, that the "10% brain power" is a myth. When I asked her about the spoon bending using the mind, being able to contact the dead, and if we can be able to move objects using the mind, she said that spoon bending wasn't real (a gimmick), being able to contact the dead (Ala John Edwards) is done by putting wire transmitters in his ears, and someone away from the set would talk into the transmitters. And being able to move objects with the mind simply won't be done.

I'm planning on calling a Neurologist (with a Ph. D. of course) to see how much brain power we exactly use. and if anyone here can help out, it would be an excellent piece for debating.

omg repetition... its so.. repetitive! but really, you know you only show that you know something by admitting you know nothing.

[color=green]Lol I don't mind the topic being changed slightly like this....at least it would be an actual discussion instead of n

[quote:post_uid0="Shauku"][quote:post_uid0="(ShinKu Ryu)"]blah blah blah blah..........joe my scientific prove is that many scientist's have dfferemt views on this matter... ??? so do i....[/quote]
That's not scientific proof. Find me a SCIENTIFIC website authored by a SCIENTIST explaining why evolution is false, and it'll be valid debate material. But you claiming that scientists have different views on human evolution, without backing up your claim with sources, isn't valid debate material.

First off, I'm going to state right off the bat that this is THEORY, scientists have yet to prove it, so it's THEORY.

The THEORY is that 5 million years ago, a specie of ape-like creature inhabited the forests and jungles of the land. Due to some sort of schizm....rivalries between males, etc....a large population of them was driven out of the forests and into the plains and grasslands of the world. This exiled group eventually evolved into homo sapiens sapiens, the modern-day human. They evolved and morphed AWAY from the ape-like creatures in appearance and behavior and features because these features were no longer necessary in the grasslands of the world, they were only needed in the jungle and forest situations.

It is speculated that apes did not evolve much farther because they were already at home in their environments. They had already more or less adapted to their homes in the jungles and the trees, and therefore no further change was required (same goes for sharks and alligators and crocodiles....they are virtually unchanged, the same creatures now that existed 70 million years ago.) Virtually all evolutionary biologists and anthropoligists are more or less on the same page about this.

Now you keep saying that there's no next step for humans. This is not true, and I said that this is not true. I said that humans will continue to evolve, just not as much (or at all) physically as we will evolve mentally. I've said this many, many times, and you continue to ask me the same question over and over even after I answer this. No, this is NOT fact, it's theory, and moreover, my theory. I have yet to find any articles written by scientists on the subject of FUTURE human evolution, and therefore do not know what actual scientists believe.[/quote]
JOE even u should be able to understand that not all scientist have the same point view towards evolution, proof isn't really necessary but if youwant it that badly!!!...then i will prove it to you. Even though ur backing ur claims JOE it doesn't mean that all scientist agree with the kind of proofur talking about. I assure u that not all scientist agree that there is human evolution. ???

[quote:post_uid0="vx unicom"]JOE even u should be able to understand that not all scientist have the same point view towards evolution, proof isn't really necessary but if youwant it that badly!!!...then i will prove it to you. Even though ur backing ur claims JOE it doesn't mean that all scientist agree with the kind of proofur talking about. I assure u that not all scientist agree that there is human evolution. ???[/quote]
Yes, I know what you're saying.

However, the ONLY theory I've ever heard of concerning the development of mankind is the theory of human evolution. If other scientists had their own theories on human development, then they most likely would have been published already, and I would have already read about them. But I've only EVER heard two theories on human development:

-Religious creation
-Human Evolution

Aside from those two, I havn't heard anything else. So yes, I'm aware that some scientists don't agree with it, but due to the fact that I've never heard any other theories, I can make the assumption that that number of scientists is a strict minority.

So if you'd like, you can go search for various other theories of human development, and I'll be glad to discuss and/or debate them.



Edited By Shauku on Mar. 26 2004 at 11:07

Well, if you use hypnosis, then yes, you can recover the forgotten memories, but memory by itself (without the use of hypnosis) is sort of like that disease (where memory detirirorates(sp?)) Once the memory starts to fade, it's hard to get back, unless there is some medication for it.

But it's hard to bring back memories of people in their first 2 years of their life, especially when they aren't challenge/challeneged enough in any fundamental study. It's hard to say exactly how much of the subconscious we use though, and what it exactly is.



Yeah, those charts count usually the average weight for that respective height. So basically, a very healthy weightlifter would be considered overweight and possibly even obese (for some reason, I don't know). And even though Tight Ends are healthier than most of the people with a height to mass ratio that follows the chart, they are still classified as unhealthy. They should probably negate the chart as a whole, and put an asterisk so people won't have to be confused about it.


[quote]Most likely, unless whatever gene that controls the strength of our immune system is altered...either via natural evolution or scientific experiments. The reasons these ####acterias continue to plague us is because of the fact that our immune systems are becoming stronger. Therefore, the bacteria and viruses continue to mutate and evolve to try and get around our defenses. So unless we can create a perfect immune system (kind of like wolver

Bravo ppl bravo... reading the posts here.. all I can say is, this is going to be interesting..

Okay.. from Joe

First off, your theory on telepathy is far fetched. Although the human brain has evolved to stunning heights, it would take more than just the physical to get us to a level where psionic abilities can be fully achieved. For telekinesis to become a mental ability you are infact stating that the brain has to reach a level where it can actually communicate with its surroundings. The thought of that alone, not only excites me but makes me shiver.. then again, its possibility is nothing more than a logical fallacy. Why?? It's almost impossible. I say almost because.. with humans.. you never know! :biggrin:

Now think of this.. what is motion.. the movement of a particle.
Newton in his first law of motion stated that a body would continue in its present motion or remain at rest until an external force is acted upon by it. I hope I got that right.. Don't have much time to research on it right now. Anyway, for the brain to habilitate telekinesis and actually produce motion, the so-called untapped potential in our medula oblogota has to be transformed to kinetic energy.. which in turn does not seem possible. However I'm open to criticism.. and if anyone can tell me how on earth or heaven it is possible for us to become psionic or psychic.. so to say.

I'll refer back to Nantuko's predictions of the past.. You said that our bodies do not need to evolve anymore, for we have developed a sort of equilibrium with our environment and quick evolution doesn't seem plausible.. except a slow and gradual evolution of our cranial.. or better put mental abilities.
If indeed this was a misquote.. I stand corrected.. but I don't for a second think our body would become any stronger than it is due to evolution.. no matter how slow or gradual the process might seem :biggrin:

However on the lad's opinion about the neurons in our brains.. I must say that they are pure fact!
For if you ever come into contact with a blind person... whose blindness wasn't as a result of aging or cell gradual degradation.. but an accident so to say. Then you'll notice that he/she has a keen sense of smell and touch. Thus the neurons responsible for sight have been transferred so to say, to aid the other sensory organs of the human.. as sight is more or less impossible at that time.

In conclusion, I'd like to state that the whole 10% of our brain usage is actually a myth! And indeed we do use all of our brain. But to think?? I think not. The brain is divided into various regions that each have it's own use in the control of the body as a whole. Funny enough, like Tarkan, I've got to do more research in order to save myself the stupidity of posting nothing but logical fallacies :biggrin:

-- nuff said! :biggrin:

Alzheimer's Disease....where the brain undergoes rapid memory loss. However, I don't believe that a memory can simply "fade" or "disappear." They're stored in the subconscious, and that's what gets tapped into with hypnosis. When someone undergoes a traumatic experience and becomes "afflicted" with amnesia, his or her memories do not "fade away," but fade out of the conscious. The only way to recover it would be either time or hypnosis. It wouldn't make sense that memories "fade away," because then that would mean that it would be impossible to remember them. You would have to try and "recreate" the memory, but that's not possible unless some form of mental residue remains in order to rebuild the memory. Therefore, that's why I believe that all memories are stored in the subconscious....whether or not you're "motivated" enough to remember a memory, it's still stored in the subconscious, and can indeed be accessed via various techniques, hypnosis being one of them.

That would indeed be what I was talking about, but would not be evolution, as it does not affect the genes or chromosomes. It would be, however a morphological change. You would not be of a different specie of human, but you would merely be different. In other words, it is not a character trait that can be passed on from generation to generation. It would be a next step in a way, but not via evolution.

This is the way I see it:

We are already able to manipulate matter using our physical abilities. My brain sends orders to my arm that makes me lift my arm, extend my hand, and grasp a ball of clay, then I can grip the ball of clay to crush it using my fingers. All are activities of the body controlled by the brain.

Now, my theory is rather sketchy, but it should still make sense. WHAT IF the brain was able to send these types of signals OUTSIDE the body? To create say...a field of energy produced by the brain. So instead of the brain sending a signal to the arm, hand and fingers in order to manipulate an object, the brain sends the signals to the object itself, and the energy is capable of physical contact.

For example, look at Star Wars. When Luke uses the Force, he extends his hand towards the object and concentrates, and the object can be levitated. WHAT IF human telekinesis was similar? That the brain's signals would give an impression on the outside environment that the arm, hand and fingers were longer. Therefore, even though you may not think you're physically touching an object 5 feet away from you, your brain is making it happen by using energy and tricking the environment into "thinking" that it's actually being manipulated.

I'm not quite informed enough to be able to say things that actually make sense, but it's a sketchy theory though.

It wasn't a misquote, simply a slight misinterpretation of information. True, that I theorize that physical evolution has slowed, I mean as in an evolution of our body structures. For example, earlier forms of pre-human primates had tails, but they were no longer needed. Therefore, over time, we evolved physical bodies without tails. Now, various physical features such as texture of the skin, enhancement of our five senses, things like that, could indeed be part of human "advancement," simply because they could possibly be results of environmental changes that force our bodies to change. For instance, growing amounts of pollution may cause our lungs to change in order to become better filters of the air around us. The changes will be morphological at first, but may end up evolving into genetic traits that can be passed on to create a better form of human being.

We havn't FULLY adapted to our environment, I apologize for not elaborating on that. For the MOST PART we have, but there are still aspects of our environment that are harmful and we are not used to, that could still warrant slight physical changes to our anatomy in order to adapt.

Yo joe....if you really look at this the way im looking ??? we are both right and we are both wrong...Well really i dont believe in evolution...

Anyway what im trying to say is that some scientist's say that there was evolution and some say there was'nt.so your taking side on those who agree and im on those who are saying there was not evolution...so we will keep talking about this and no one will win....... :alien:

Well, since you kindly stated that your theory was sketchy, I wouldn't term it as a logical fallacy.. as I usually do.. *cougH* .. but I can read a little bit of sense to your theory. But this is the way I see it. You said that if the brain could send these signals outside the body... but you forget one thing my friend.. Theses signals aren't the air. There are neurons that carry these signals that the brain uses to control the body to the arm and other parts of the body. These neurons are in fact matter.. they have weight and occupy space.. thus, they cannot be transferred from inside the body to outside the body.

The brain is a very special organ that it is... but it's abilities are limited. What it does, is work in a mechanical manner. The only thing that differentiates us as humans from machines is the ability to make sometimes.. stupid decisions. A machine.. wouldn't say.. if it could drive, want to cross a red light; except it has been programeed otherwhise. But as a human might be in a hurry and would want to run it... and would try as much as possible to do that. Thus our brain is in our will.. There are in fact voluntary and involuntary actions that our brains perform and the voluntary ones are way more than the involuntary ones.. Thus I'd have to conclude that if the human body as a whole reaches the level of telepathy or ever has psionic abilities (i love that word.. :biggrin: ) then the brain wouldn't be the focal organ that would control it.

Forgive me if I attack ur theories head on like it's something to be proven soon.. but I just don't see that happening.. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.. but it can be transferred from one form to another.. First law of thermodynamics.. now there has to be a permeable or non permeable tract for energy to be converted.. It can't just go from one point to another the way you've described it. You talk of the untapped potential energy of the brain... well fine. I don't know what inside this block head of mine.. but even if there is potential energy.. How on earth or even jupiter would it be transferred to kinetic energy. You can manipulate urself into thinking that the object would move.. but according to Newton's first law of motion.. that object would remain in its state of Inertia!

True.. but so is the shark and the whale. They aren't living the perfect life.. so to say in the ocean.. Sure they're well adapted.. there are still somethings that'll hurt them.. that doesn't mean they'll evolve again. Who knows.. maybe the body wasn't made to reach perfection.. We might have gone far and evolved much.. but what if we weren't supposed to be perfect. Also note the fact that the environment is a parameter that defines at what level the body would work or evolve.. optimum effeciency so to say.. and with the ever changing environment we live in.. it's hard to note what kind of evolving our body would go through in order to counter that sort of change. :biggrin:

-- may the biggrin be with you. :biggrin:

--nuff said! :biggrin:

I found some good info about the brain on these websites, especially howstuffworks.com (the most reliable info website there is).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypnosis.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/esp.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/brain.htm

http://www.techtv.com/bigthin....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html



Edited By TarkanX on Mar. 27 2004 at 03:01

Here's another article about what the future will be

http://web.media.mit.edu/ minsky/pap...m.inherit.html

Edit: Some more (This gets even better and better)


http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/tenper.html

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm

http://www.theness.com/articles/brain-nejs0201.html



Edited By TarkanX on Mar. 27 2004 at 03:32

[quote:post_uid0="TarkanX"]I found some good info about the brain on these websites, especially howstuffworks.com (the most reliable info website there is).

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hypnosis.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/esp.htm

http://www.howstuffworks.com/brain.htm

http://www.techtv.com/bigthin....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/callfor....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html

http://www.techtv.com/screens....00.html[/quote]
what does the brain have to do with this topic..?!?! ???

And like I said.....find me some other SCIENTIFIC theories of how human beings developed over millions of years, or some other SCIENTIFIC article on human advancement.

Good point....I've gotta stop making these debate posts at 3 in the morning......

I'll have to think up of some new way to argue my point now.....damn you *shakes fist*

I'm not sure how well this would apply, but here goes:

I've heard a couple stories of people who have been admitted to hospitals due to slash marks on their arms and bodies. They were mentally unstable....not to the point of being completely psycho, but a simple instability in the brain....and were claiming that they were being attacked by invisible forces. After doing a psychoanalysis, EEG (or whatever brainscans they did), they determined that there was no "invisible forces." What had happened was that the "victim" believed that he was being attacked to such a degree that the brain actually believed it too, and therefore CAUSED the slash wounds to open on their own, with no outside interference. The brain was tricked into thinking that some invisible force with a knife was attacking, and therefore the body responded as though it was actually happening....the brain caused the body to think that a knife was sliding across the skin, and in turn, the skin sliced open and bled. In The Exorcist, when the words "help me" appeared on the girl's stomach, they said that the brain has the ability to manipulate the body in strange ways....and attacked the idea of her being possessed by saying that the brain could have been TRICKED into thinking that she was possessed and was trying to call for help, and therefore the skin reacted in such a way as to raise up in the form of letters....I will have to try to find more sources on this but I do remember hearing reports of this.

Either way, the premise for my theory is that the brain might be able to manipulate the energy around an object to "trick" the object into "thinking" that it's being manipulated. Just as the brain tricked the skin of the body into thinking it was being sliced open, the brain could possibly "trick" the environment around it, and make the object "think" that it's being lifted up by an outside force, and therefore have the object float in the air, being manipulated by the brain's.....persuasiveness.

Sharks and alligators/crocodiles have remained virtually unchanged for a few hundred million years....it is speculated that they have already reached the pinnacle of their evolutionary status, and have become perfectly adapt to their current environments. Now, there are still things that could harm them, but they are perfectly evolved in order to perform their tasks....hunting. They are the perfect hunters in their environments. Whales, let's say, are the perfect large herbivores....because they have no natural defense mechanisms for themselves (no teeth [Sans the killer whale, really], no method of self defense), they evolved to be very large, and travel in packs usually....thus making it difficult for other sea predators to try and kill them.

Naturally, no creature could possibly evolve to the point where they are completely invulnerable to any and all forms of harm, because that would throw off the balance of natural selection, the food chain, etc. If all fish evolved very tough, shell-like skin equipped with sharp poisonous spines, then it would completely throw off the food chain for all animals above it.

Now, all animals alter their environment in some ways...animal feces on the ground act as fertilizers for plants. Animals use up oxygen and replace it with carbon dioxide, and plants take up carbon dioxide and replace it with oxygen. However, humans are the only creatures that alter our environments to the extent that we do. We don't maintain an equillibrium with our surrounding environment like all other creatures do. The human species is actually not unlike a virus, as Agent Smith said in The Matrix:

Now, I'm not saying that we're actually viruses, but the Wachowski brothers had a good point when they wrote that bit. Us humans are the only creatures that don't have a natural balance with nature...we are constantly changing it and altering it to suit our own needs. As a result, we are constantly causing new problems over the years....new health hazards, risks, etc. Therefore, we need to continue to change in order to survive these risks and problems that we are constantly placing on ourselves. Therefore, our forced evolution might be on a different scale than the rest of the natural world, which doesn't act in such a way as we do.

Becuase one of my theories was that human beings will continue to evolve, but with an emphasis on the mental state. Therefore, if we can understand exactly how the brain works and its highest potential and untapped ability, we may be able to predict the next step in human mental evolution.

This is probably an illusive question to ask while you are all talking of evolution from the past to the present, and their effects... but what about devolution? Is there a chance of devolution happening to humans, or other animals, or organisms of some type? Or is it just a horrid fantasy made into sci-fi movies for thrills and chills?



Edited By Roll on Mar. 27 2004 at 01:59

That.... doesn't truly answer the question. However, I suppose that's the only answer I can get at this time, isn't it? And, at the very least, it was simply put. Habakarisama, gurachemasu.

Um.. Kester, I have to agree with Nantuko on this one.. even though I believe as much as you do, we've been told to keep this topic totally unreligious ..

Now.. where do I start.. :biggrin:

OH yeah.. me too, me too... Mine's usually at 2.30 am :biggrin:

However true that is, I haven't really studied on the topic of
psychoanalysis and although I haven't heard of those special brain cases, so I don't have anything against them.. But you said that the the brain tricked the body into thinking a knife was attacking and caused the skin to slice open and bleed. Now take a look at that statement and the concept of being psychic.
The brain can "trick" the body into thinking something simply because it is in control of basically all the cells, organs and systems in the body. Thus it can trick so to say.. the body into doing something. There are various neurones that connect the brain to those systems.. to those organs and to those cells that inturn cause the reaction the skin faces. But for that object outside the body, the brain has no control over them. No matter how it tricked the body into doing something.. There had to be some sorta connection.. Some sorta message from the brain to that body part that would have reacted in that way.
But in the case of the stone or the other object, the brain has no connection with that object .. so it cannot move the object.

Take for instance I want to move a stone with my brain and Joe wants to move that same stone with his brain.. Which would move.. what would happen?? What would the poor stone do? :biggrin:

Now if you notice... I didn't take any of the quotes from the movies because they're not real.. but movies. Anyway, I like that Matrix quote. :biggrin:

[quote:post_uid0="blanka09"]Um.. Kester, I have to agree with Nantuko on this one.. even though I believe as much as you do, we've been told to keep this topic totally unreligious ..[/quote]
as long as i can get my point across to sombody.......

i dont see how shauku doesnt understand that what i presented was physical records from when the earth was created. its so simple



Edited By kester- on Mar. 30 2004 at 08:11

Kester.. those aren't physical evidences but records from the Bible. There aren't any physical evidence that show that God walked upon the earth... for He is spirit.

And it would be very wise if we stop going through the religious route or this topic would be closed.. :biggrin:



Edited By blanka09 on Mar. 30 2004 at 12:34

[quote:post_uid0="blanka09"]Kester.. those aren't physical evidences but records from the Bible. There aren't any physical evidence that show that God walked upon the earth... for He is spirit.

And it would be very wise if we stop going through the religious route or this topic would be closed.. :biggrin:[/quote]
i disagree, but i get your drift, ill stop

religion....science. ??? if youask me religion makes more sense.and natuku joe wants scientific proof and scientific evidence both at the same time..?!? :angryfire:

if youask me, this topic is usseless :buttrock:

What you presented was a passage from a book written by a man. That is not a "physical record[s] from when the earth was created." It's a book written by a man that christians/catholics/protestants/roman catholics/byzantine catholics/methodists/protestants/lutherans BELIEVE is the word of god, but when it comes down to it, it's a book written by a man.

I could go take J.R.R. Tolkien's The Silmarillion and say THAT is "physical records from when the earth was created." And going by your logic, you can't say jack. So enough with this religion stuff.

Like I said, you want to talk about religion, then you can create your own topic.

If you ask me, YOU are useless.

Scientific proof IS scientific evidence, so yes, it makes perfect sense that I want both at the same time. If you provide enough evidence about something, it may eventually be proven true.

And you say that religion makes more sense than science. What religion? Catholic? Christian? Greek? Greek Orthodox? Greek mythology? Shinto? Conflipianism? Aztec? Santarian? Mesopotamian? Roman mythology? One of a thousand other religions?

Don't bother answering that, I was just pointing out that you didn't specify at all about "religion," and giving you an example that there are many out there.

But as blanka said, no more religious stuff, or the topic will be closed.



Now, as far as the topic itself goes....I'm still trying to figure out a way to argue for telepathic/telekinetic abilities. I remember that a scientific explanation was given at the end of Phenomenon. Though I know that it is indeed a movie and not real, the explanation sounded scientific enough....I'll have to go re-watch the explanations for telepathic/telekinetic abilities in both Phenomenon and Powder, they both made perfect sense, and although the content of the rest of the movie was fiction, the scientific theory was in fact solid.

Well.. if the theory was in fact scientific.. go ahead and get re enforce.. I'm still going to be skeptic about the opinion that the brain might in fact get telekinetic or telepathic abilities.. without involving the mind. :biggrin: