[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?

What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?

 

What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.

What?.. Because you were talking about Christians and it's in the name, and you were trying (I think) to set some sort of grounding for those of a religious bent, to say FE was there from the beginning. Which if you actually read what people say isn't in dispute, as it's a primitive world view fully consistent with the pre-scientific world. What I am trying to point out is that as soon as people started to think deeply and do experiments they came to a different conclusion.
As some one who has crowed on about his ability to think outside the box you seem pretty keen on cleaving to a bunch of old myths to prop up an outdated world view.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

But.... 270 years before christ Aristarchus of Samos proposed a heliocentric system with the Earth as a ball, and 190 bc Seleucus of Seleucia took it up, as an awful lot of stuff from around that time is lost it's a good bet they weren't alone and as they were the leading lights in science as it was then do we listen to them or a bunch of desert cultists?

 

What does christ have to do with anything? Those quotes are from 1300bc and obviously the concepts predate that to before written text. I guess stupid desert cultists like the Egyptians weren't too bright after all, their advancements in medicine and science weren't notable, and the pyramids they built are easily reproduced. You're right, we truly live in the age of enlightenment, just look at how well our superior education has done for us, we're about to nominate a self absorbed bigot to run for president.

What?.. Because you were talking about Christians and it's in the name, and you were trying (I think) to set some sort of grounding for those of a religious bent, to say FE was there from the beginning. Which if you actually read what people say isn't in dispute, as it's a primitive world view fully consistent with the pre-scientific world. What I am trying to point out is that as soon as people started to think deeply and do experiments they came to a different conclusion.
As some one who has crowed on about his ability to think outside the box you seem pretty keen on cleaving to a bunch of old myths to prop up an outdated world view.

My counter-point was that the Egyptians weren't just desert cultists. They were able to accomplish things we still don't understand, in this "golden age" of "deep thought" and "science."

 If you think the Romans were primitive, and the philosophers of Ancient Greece were shallow, and people like Neil DeGrasse Tyson are the pinnacle of human thought, then you are completely wrong, on all accounts.

And again, I'm not using old myths (which I guess you can call the themes like the great flood, shared by civilizations never in contact with each other just products of a creative mind) to prop up anything. I simply asked the question, why believers of the flat earth aren't particularly interested in the spiritual, supernatural, and religious, when 85% of people do. I pointed to the irony in believing in a flat earth, while also believing in a big bang, and man evolved from a monkey.

You can call my views outdated, but until science can actually explain how a lucky coincidence produced the human circulatory system, I'm going to believe that we are the product of a greater consciousness unimaginable to man.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Just a few points, (as you don't seem to be able to assimilate more);

Isaiah, from a cursory check was a 7th century BC bloke from Judah,  not 14th century BC and Aristarchus  & Seleucus  were Greeks.

Great flood themes on a world whose surface is 71% ocean is hardly a surprise (two catastrophic Tsunamis in the last decade).

The Human circulatory system has nothing to do with lucky coincidence, but evolution, a concept you will struggle with (see “man evolved from a monkey”), so don't bother. There is a greater force that's going to make it all, all right.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Just a few points, (as you don't seem to be able to assimilate more);

Isaiah, from a cursory check was a 7th century BC bloke from Judah,  not 14th century BC and Aristarchus  & Seleucus  were Greeks.

Great flood themes on a world whose surface is 71% ocean is hardly a surprise (two catastrophic Tsunamis in the last decade).

The Human circulatory system has nothing to do with lucky coincidence, but evolution, a concept you will struggle with (see “man evolved from a monkey”), so don't bother. There is a greater force that's going to make it all, all right.

Don't agree with you, so of course I must be incapable of reading comprehension herp derp. Classical attempt to invalidate my ideas by making me out to be a buffoon.

But then you proceed to show your ignorance. The torah was written in 1300bc, dripping with myths and allegory dating to prehistory. The great flood allegory is very specific, not just a bunch of cultures saying, "yeah man, we totally had like a big flood that kind of sucked," it's very specific and deals with the extinction of humanity save for a select few that were chosen and two of each animal. Do I think it actually happened? Probably not, I don't take sacred texts as literal. There is a lot more to be learned through the subtext and the metaphorical interpretation of the rites of mithras or the crucifixion of Jesus.

Just because you believe your existence to be bleak, meaningless, and insignificant --which coincidentally fits in perfect with the scientific view of the cosmos-- doesn't mean I should feel obliged to agree out of fear of being ostracized by the contemporary glut of enlightened brilliant minds.

If it makes you feel better to think I'm pinning all my hopes on magic guy in the sky taking my bad feelings and make them good feelings then fine. But you may be relieved to know I believe that Man is perfectly capable of being a source of his own providence, happiness, and enlightenment. We're born with the faculties to think and feel in ways that make us stand apart from the countless other animals on this planet, monkeys included. Inherently, we have an ability to resonate with a higher state of being.

But of course we can also resign to the fact that life is meaningless and everything dies.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Well finally you are right about one thing, almost.

“Just because you believe your existence to be bleak, meaningless, and insignificant --which coincidentally fits in perfect with the scientific view of the cosmos “

The view you are desperately peddling is one where Humanity and by inclusion you, are the centre of all things, be it gods plan, the conspiracy or the universe itself.
Paranoia and narcissism are flip sides of the coin you keep tossing, therefore the fear of insignificance that the scientific view inevitably leads to, has to be kept at bay by any means.

However, life can still be fun and I am having a whale of a time, even though ultimately life is meaningless and everything does die.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Actually, cosmology has only proven how unique we actually are, so far. There's no way you can look out at the universe known to man, and into our own solar system, to see how incredibly blessed we are as a species.

The less life we find in space, the less "habitable" planets we find, the more this becomes obvious.

Until we find a being or a race obviously superior to us, I guess we have a free pass to be as narcissistic as we want.

I don't personally believe we are the center of the universe, rather we are mistaken about what the universe actually is. Even if we do imagine that we are in the midst of an infinite universe, there is entirely a possibility that there are beings that exist in a different dimension than the one we currently do. We are manifestations on a physical world, naturally bound to what we can see, hear, smell, touch or taste. Beyond that we couldn't perceive what else might exist.

I'm glad you are having a good time, I am too. I love everything about being alive, that includes embracing my instictual animal nature, as well as embracing my higher self, which even if it is somehow proven that there is no such thing, it is still a powerful way to improve one's self and be a more well rounded individual.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Back to something you mentioned earlier, not having missing links in evolution, you might find this interesting. http://earthsky.org/earth/chameleon-in-amber-is-worlds-oldest

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Back to something you mentioned earlier, not having missing links in evolution, you might find this interesting. http://earthsky.org/earth/chameleon-in-amber-is-worlds-oldest

Fascinating stuff. I definitely can see how survival of the fittest can play out in speciation, and modified traits can pass on while others die out. But I still haven't seen any evidence of generations of fish with small legs, medium legs, full sized lizard legs, gills turning into enclosed lungs anywhere in the fossil record.

All the "missing links" between monkey and man eventually get proven to be hoaxes and forgeries by desperate people trying to capitalize on a gullible public.

The fact is, if evolution exists as they say, there would be tens of thousands of missing link bones to be found documenting the individual steps between becoming upright, our skull moving to the top of our spinal column, facial features changing, cranial cavity enlarging etc. But there isn't, and it's not for lack of trying.

The theory of evolution is another faith based science very similar to scientific cosmogony, or "the big bang."

[Saddam Hussein]

But I still haven't seen any evidence of generations of fish with small legs, medium legs, full sized lizard legs, gills turning into enclosed lungs anywhere in the fossil record.

Now you have.

All the "missing links" between monkey and man eventually get proven to be hoaxes and forgeries by desperate people trying to capitalize on a gullible public.

That's not even close to being true.

The fact is, if evolution exists as they say, there would be tens of thousands of missing link bones to be found documenting the individual steps between becoming upright, our skull moving to the top of our spinal column, facial features changing, cranial cavity enlarging etc. But there isn't, and it's not for lack of trying.

Even if I take your word for it that we don't have fossils documenting those specific steps (something I'm doubtful of, given your obvious lack of research), your logic is extremely fallacious and intellectually lazy.  You are demanding perfection, and seizing upon the lack of it as proof that this branch of science is all a big lie.  I'm actually going to quote two posts from the old FES here, as the authors explained it better than I probably could:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55960.msg1395670#msg1395670

There are MANY transitional fossilized skeletons found for many different families of animal (including Humans).  Here's some of the problems with your argument, in easy to digest bullet format:

* You misunderstand what constitutes a transitional feature.
* You are ignoring the large number of fossils found.
* You are denying what the transitions those fossils represent.
* You are creating an expectation of accuracy far beyond what is necessary to illustrate transition.
* You are dismissing definitive examples of transitional forms, focusing on the ones that remain undiscovered.
* Your argument essentially moves the hypothetical goalposts every time a "gap" is filled, as each discovery of a transitional form creates two new gaps.

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=55960.msg1396165#msg1396165

Because not every bone fossilizes. In fact most bones don't fossilize. In fact almost nothing fossilizes. There is also a huge bias when it comes to the fossilization process. Certain areas generate fossils much better. Large hard things tend to fossilize really well while soft things tend to do so rather poorly. Etc Etc. This means that animals that live in the right place, are the right size, and have the right types of bones will become the majority of fossils while most animals (entire species even) will never leave a single fossil on the earth.

So while we have found more than enough transitional fossils to establish some very solid evidence of common descent, we obviously don't have a record of every mutation and adaptation there has even been in the history of life.  I don't think it's reasonable to expect there to be one.  In any case, you're not going to disprove evolution just by nitpicking the fossil record, not when we already have so much molecular and cellular evidence proving evolution to be true independently of any fossils.  Let me ask this, do you dispute that cells mutate?  That's pretty much the key to how evolution works.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature. To think that cellular mutations are the mechanism by which  monkeys developed demonstrably superior traits is plain stupid.

Have you actually looked at the evidence used behind postulating the existence of other human species? It's based on circumstantial shit like Piece of a jaw bone. Even when it's more, it's based on one skull. Not thousands, or even hundreds if similar fossils. I know, it's a shame that there just isn't a glut of fossils to substantiate these assertations, but one mutated skull, of an ape or a man doesn't an entire species make.

An excerpt from the wiki page you linked about transitional species, perhaps you should do more than link the first google result to prove a point:

Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.

[Lord Dave]

True, cells may mutate, but it's hardly ever lead to anything beneficial to the affected creature.

Which is why evolution is slow.  But once that beneficial trait keeps getting passed on, you have evolution.

To think that cellular mutations are the mechanism by which  monkeys developed demonstrably superior traits is plain stupid.

Why?  Bigger brains, opposable thumbs, using tools.  Hell, monkeys use tools now.  And can be taught rudamentary sign language.  We're the first species to be this complex on Earth but maybe not the last.  Or maybe we're not the first but the other ones have evolved so far beyond us that they don't need houses ans computers and KFC.

I respectfully disagree with your opinion that man emerged from a primordial ooze and life somehow emerged from it.

The only other option is that Aliens genetically made all life on Earth.
Or we spontaniously came into existence one day, Earth and all.

But if you really want evolutionary proof vs Intelligent design, look no further than tectonic plates.
When the landmasses were in different spots, climate was different.  Most current species would not have survived.  Thus, they either didn't exist and came into existence at some point by God/Aliens or they evolved.

Also, if evolution doesn't exist, why don't we find all modern species fossilized?  Surely monkeys have been around for a billion years, right?  Humans too?

[nametaken]

To OP (and anyone else interested) Set your browser up to replace "no one" with "God" and vice versa. Whether hilarious or profound, I guarantee you'll enjoy the results. There are plenty of compatible plugins for Firefox or Chrome to do this. Edit: "monkey" and "human" works wonders as well.

Ugh. Seems everyone here is already tired of xyzed arguments, so I'll spare. The BILLIONS one is what gets under my skin, there you know the chink in my armor. Just know, they have found soft tissue for dinosaurs, so we don't completely understand fossilization apparently; blood vessels, complete cells, ligaments, you name it.

Also not a creationist, just as I said tired.

[Lord Dave]

Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292

Selective breeding is not evolution. You can breed dogs, cats, and live stock, but you're not going to make any of them turn into complete different animals. You can't selectively breed a lower primate to become a human.

I never said speciation wasn't a thing. I dispute that single cell organisms mystically became multi cellular, then became vertebrates then slithered onto land and became everything we see today.

[Lord Dave]

Oh hey!
Man made evolution (no magic or genetic engineering) just old fashioned selective breeding.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10153652785842293&id=610702292

Selective breeding is not evolution. You can breed dogs, cats, and live stock, but you're not going to make any of them turn into complete different animals. You can't selectively breed a lower primate to become a human.

I never said speciation wasn't a thing. I dispute that single cell organisms mystically became multi cellular, then became vertebrates then slithered onto land and became everything we see today.

But selective breeding IS evolution, just wih a human hand.
You agree with microevolution: making a new breed of dog.  Well macroevolution is micro over a million years.  They won't have the same DNA, won't look the same either.

Question for you then: what is the difference between a chimpanzee and a human?  Why are they considered different species?  They're 96% genetically identical.  Why don't you call them a different breed of human?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Dude, did selective breeding introduce more or less chromosomes to the watermelon? Or is it genetically the same? Do any dogs, even with over a thousand sub species, have more than 39 chromosomes? To make it even seem possible, without any observed evidence, biologists invent ridiculous theoretical models to explain how chromosomes could ever increase in animal. Evolution is fraught with fantastic equations just like modern physics designed to obfuscate the truth of existense itself, which is we are products of intelligent design.

[Lord Dave]

Dude, did selective breeding introduce more or less chromosomes to the watermelon? Or is it genetically the same?

Irrelevant.  A chicken has the same count as a dog.  Are they the same?

Do any dogs, even with over a thousand sub species, have more than 39 chromosomes?

Yes!
The maned wolf has 2 chromosomes less than a dog or wolf.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
Yes, its a canine.  Same as a dog and wolf. 

Go look through that.  Not all species have the same count despite being related.

To make it even seem possible, without any observed evidence, biologists invent ridiculous theoretical models to explain how chromosomes could ever increase in animal. Evolution is fraught with fantastic equations just like modern physics designed to obfuscate the truth of existense itself, which is we are products of intelligent design.

Oh, you wanna see extra chromosomes?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter_syndrome
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy
Extra chromosomes in humans.
Thought that was impossible?

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.

[Lord Dave]

Ok point out the .0001% exceptions and say that's how single cell organisms turned into people. Nice try Dave.

You were talking abiut chromosomes and how they don't gain more.  Well, they do.  Or lose some.

But you're missing the point: thst .001% exception?  If that makes survival/breeding easier, it becomes more common until its no longer .001% but 95%.



And now to swing the thread back on topic.
Science doesn't have the answers to everything but its the best tools we have.  However, much like you're demonstrating now, it doesn't always change minds.  Science has the best chance of doing it, but if anyone is as firmly grounded on the Earth's shape as you are on evolution, no amount of debate, evidence, or faith is going to change it.

Now imagine we had this debate on evolution and my only response is "God did it." Or "Have Faith".
Would it really be more convincing than the evidence you ignore?