it worries me that ppl running my country who believed in a talking snake

[squealpiggy]

Well it goes both ways. I know they found evidence that man is older than science is saying, but science dismisses it. Its the underwater cities and pyramids they've found that predate other settlements. Science calls them natural formations even though ancient objects were found on the sites that were carbon dated... ludicrous the lengths they will go to to deny an expansion or pushing of the envelope. Science is supposedly not supposed to be this way. It was founded as a system of exploration. Now it has become a system of laws. Exploration is rarely seen anymore.

I think you'd need to back up several statements here. For example you would need to show the evidence that "man is older than science (sic) is saying". You would also need to back up the statement that "underwater cities and pyramids" have been found that predate "other settlements" as well as defining what you mean by "other settlements".

Another thing you might want to point out is what "ancient objects" were "carbon dated" and by whom.

Now I know the post on boxingscene you're referring to. It's this one:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...erwater+cities

First of all it's worth pointing out that the topic was started by someone who thinks that this:



Is a reconstruction of an actual historical event.

Secondly if you bothered to read the links therein (as you claimed you would) you would find that two of these settlements have been dated to be about 9500 years old by an unnamed laboratory. There is no mention of any dissenting scientists in either of those articles, but it does say that some of the supporting archaeologists describe themselves as "Vedic scientists" which refers to a mixture of new age and hindu mysticism. In other words "Vedic Science" is another way of saying "Not science".

There is reason to be sceptical about the 9500 years figure as the oldest known human cities date back around 5000 years and prior to these there have only been relatively small settlements found. The 9500 years figure is considerably more problematic for anyone who believes in a literal genesis creation than it is for me, however it is convenient that this "discovery" was made by hindu mystics and puts India at the dawn of civilisation, which is exactly what "Vedic" thinking says it should be.

The third link was regarding Japanese ruins being found, that were 2000 years old.

Adam and Eve makes sense. Even if you don't want to talk exact events, the bible could be using metaphors to get across something to the human miind that otherwise wouldn't be comprehensible.

What exactly is it a metaphor of? Mud man and rib woman being cheated out of their paradise by a talking snake who persuaded them to eat from a magical tree? That's just God's way of telling us about the DNA helix!

so it uses anecdotes and narrative.. because thats what reads most to us. But basically mankind started out favored... and then they lost favor with God. Because of their choices and actions throughout the milleniums

The metaphor appears to be "If you fuck up, even once, you and every generation of you offspring from now until the end of time will have to live in misery".

Rubbish metaphor.

[BrooklynBomber]

I like the whole "underwater cities" theory, not that it is believable, but it goes well with the universe of one of my favorite books.

[Syf]

I think you'd need to back up several statements here. For example you would need to show the evidence that "man is older than science (sic) is saying".

You said it yourself in the other thread. the settlement would be 9500 years old, which puts it 4500 years before any other scientific model previously allowed regarding the existence of man.

You would also need to back up the statement that "underwater cities and pyramids" have been found that predate "other settlements" as well as defining what you mean by "other settlements".

Nitpickery at its finest. You provided the thread I speak of.

Another thing you might want to point out is what "ancient objects" were "carbon dated" and by whom.

Vedic Scientists did apparently... Lol. So you discredit the scientist because they are not pure orthodox science.. You flirt with closedmindedness

Now I know the post on boxingscene you're referring to. It's this one:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...erwater+cities

First of all it's worth pointing out that the topic was started by someone who thinks that this:



Is a reconstruction of an actual historical event.

Lol, if you knew

Secondly if you bothered to read the links therein (as you claimed you would) you would find that two of these settlements have been dated to be about 9500 years old by an unnamed laboratory. There is no mention of any dissenting scientists in either of those articles, but it does say that some of the supporting archaeologists describe themselves as "Vedic scientists" which refers to a mixture of new age and hindu mysticism. In other words "Vedic Science" is another way of saying "Not science".

There is reason to be sceptical about the 9500 years figure as the oldest known human cities date back around 5000 years and prior to these there have only been relatively small settlements found. The 9500 years figure is considerably more problematic for anyone who believes in a literal genesis creation than it is for me, however it is convenient that this "discovery" was made by hindu mystics and puts India at the dawn of civilisation, which is exactly what "Vedic" thinking says it should be.

A protoscience? Whats wrong with a protoscience? It is through protoscience that you can expand your base of knowledge and laws. Without Protoscientists and the few orthodox scientists that still theorize, there would only be skeptics. And this entire system of laws regarding what we see and hear in this world would grow stagnant. Not that it hasn't already. Now that man has reached closer to the limit of his senses and understanding, how can science expand at the same exponential rate it has in the past? The answer is it can't.

]What exactly is it a metaphor of? Mud man and rib woman being cheated out of their paradise by a talking snake who persuaded them to eat from a magical tree? That's just God's way of telling us about the DNA helix!

What is what a metaphor of?

The metaphor appears to be "If you fuck up, even once, you and every generation of you offspring from now until the end of time will have to live in misery".

Rubbish metaphor.

No, its that we chose freedom and the power of free choice as a species, and any foul that comes upon us, is a byproduct of that very same free choice. Others' free will can hinder yours. Such is the tree of good and evil.

[Bastian Loc]

Gravity is not a "theory".

Its actually been proven.

[Syf]

Gravity is not a "theory".

Its actually been proven.

What is the cause of gravity, Jack?

Is it as Newton said? a force that pulls all objects to other objects...


Or as Einstein said? A curvature in space time?



It is not conclusive by any means how in fact, gravity works. And why.

[Enayze]

I accept the evidence for evolution.

Yes ... if they genuinely believe in any religious dogma. I'm not convinced that all of those who claim to believe, actually do.

The genesis account of the creation of life is undeniably wrong. We KNOW for an absolute fact that we share a common ancestor with "lower" life forms. I can't understand how anyone, who understands evolution, could deny this.

So, are you an atheist now Phook?

We share common genes with lettuce and tomatoes amongst other vegetables and fruits, does that mean we came from those things.

[Miburo]

Hypotheses non fingo, plebeians.

[Enayze]

I think you'd need to back up several statements here. For example you would need to show the evidence that "man is older than science (sic) is saying". You would also need to back up the statement that "underwater cities and pyramids" have been found that predate "other settlements" as well as defining what you mean by "other settlements".

Another thing you might want to point out is what "ancient objects" were "carbon dated" and by whom.

Now I know the post on boxingscene you're referring to. It's this one:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...erwater+cities

First of all it's worth pointing out that the topic was started by someone who thinks that this:



Is a reconstruction of an actual historical event.

Secondly if you bothered to read the links therein (as you claimed you would) you would find that two of these settlements have been dated to be about 9500 years old by an unnamed laboratory. There is no mention of any dissenting scientists in either of those articles, but it does say that some of the supporting archaeologists describe themselves as "Vedic scientists" which refers to a mixture of new age and hindu mysticism. In other words "Vedic Science" is another way of saying "Not science".

There is reason to be sceptical about the 9500 years figure as the oldest known human cities date back around 5000 years and prior to these there have only been relatively small settlements found. The 9500 years figure is considerably more problematic for anyone who believes in a literal genesis creation than it is for me, however it is convenient that this "discovery" was made by hindu mystics and puts India at the dawn of civilisation, which is exactly what "Vedic" thinking says it should be.

The third link was regarding Japanese ruins being found, that were 2000 years old.



What exactly is it a metaphor of? Mud man and rib woman being cheated out of their paradise by a talking snake who persuaded them to eat from a magical tree? That's just God's way of telling us about the DNA helix!



The metaphor appears to be "If you fuck up, even once, you and every generation of you offspring from now until the end of time will have to live in misery".

Rubbish metaphor.

Again the pig strikes, right on time. You concentrate on the Indian article primarily because it is the easiest to discredit, while ignoring the fact that the city off of Cuba has been identified through sonar by credible oceanographers who by their own acclaim state that the city is by no means a natural phenomenon and if their technology was better they would be able to explore such depths of the ocean. This story also has been featured in national geographic back first when the city was discovered.
Secondly the city off the Japanese coastline is credible as it was presented in national geographic and other various sources, however you mistakenly claim it was 2000 years old. If it truly was 2000 years old then there would have been references to it in Japanese history, and surely someone wouldve noted somewhere that a city had sunk. That city however is thousands of years older than what you claim.

What you do is pick and choose what you can easily get your fangs on to discredit, such as the Vedic scientists, like their discovery of a city is any less credible than a Canadian atheist scientist doing the same. Would you finding Noahs Ark be any more credible than me finding it.


Here is another article on the Indian underwater discovery from BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm

[Syf]

Hypotheses non fingo, plebeians.

This was a philosophy Newton created asking people basically not to question his findings.

So Einstein was breaking his Hypothesis non fingo mandate when he considered the cause of gravity being a curvature in space time.


Personally, Hypothesis non fingo is of little use, unless its to protect a system of ideas.

[squealpiggy]

You said it yourself in the other thread. the settlement would be 9500 years old, which puts it 4500 years before any other scientific model previously allowed regarding the existence of man.

No, you're confused here. Firstly the science in question here is archaeology which is a soft science. The discovery of a large city 5000 years earlier than the next earliest large city would be an extraordinary discovery, but not something that "any other scientific model previously allowed". It's plausible but it would be an extraordinary find, which is why the correct attitude would be one of scepticism. Hence further investigation is a must before you start making claims.

It's worthy of note that the existence of underwater cities is not that unusual. What is unusual is the timelines being attributed to this one.

Nitpickery at its finest. You provided the thread I speak of.

You haven't qualified your statements. You're claiming that there are "underwater cities and pyramids" but there is nothing in the articles in the thread I linked to that even mention cities. "Science" calling these "pyramids" "natural formations" is another thing that can only be obtained by misreading the articles. If you read them carefully you would note that the artifacts dredged up by "Vedic" archaeologists were the things that were possibly natural formations, nothing to do with pyramids.

You're making claims based on the claims of another poster as if they are indisputable, but the evidence provided by the person making the claims doesn't actually back them up!

Vedic Scientists did apparently... Lol. So you discredit the scientist because they are not pure orthodox science.. You flirt with closedmindedness

Vedic "scientists" are not in fact scientists at all. Among Vedic "science" disciplines is astrology and ritual as well as claims that modern scientific discoveries have been foretold in the Vedas.

Thanks for that Vedic "scientists". It's always great to hear about the things that your ancestors knew all about but had to wait for twenty centuries for us to get round to inventing them.

Lol, if you knew

If I knew that utterly frenetic mental contortions one must go through in order to consider a worldwide flood to be anything other than a children's story?

A protoscience? Whats wrong with a protoscience? It is through protoscience that you can expand your base of knowledge and laws. Without Protoscientists and the few orthodox scientists that still theorize, there would only be skeptics.

No, pseudoscience. Science is based upon scepticism. Against the reworking of theories according to repeated observation of phenomena in order to better understand the universe. Pseudoscience is based upon starting at a conclusion and obfuscating any contradictory data in order to promote this position. Vedic "science" has all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience: It has no observational basis. It records the hits and ignores the misses. It relies on anecdote instead of data. It insists that it is correct and most damnigly, it postulates a conspiracy of "orthodox" science to silence its claims.

If the science is sound and the methodology is rigidly adhered to then new ideas get accepted into mainstream scientific thinking. That's precisely what science is. Anybody who claims that their truth is being suppressed by mainstream science should immediately be causing alarms to go off - what they are telling you is horse-balls.

And this entire system of laws regarding what we see and hear in this world would grow stagnant. Not that it hasn't already. Now that man has reached closer to the limit of his senses and understanding, how can science expand at the same exponential rate it has in the past? The answer is it can't.

You're religious and this to me is what is at the heart of all religious thinking. It has been since humans first saw that big yellow ball in the sky and thought "what is that thing?".

Religion has always and will always be a limit on human knowledge. It's always the thing that says "We know enough" and "there are some things we just aren't meant to know". Hey if humans were meant to fly god would have given us wings. If we were meant to cross the oceans he'd have given us gills. If your family is meant to survive this horrible plague then God in His Wisdom will allow it. If we were meant to know why the sun went round then he'd have given us the knowledge now STOP ASKING QUESTIONS AND GET ON YOUR KNEES!

Science is the means we use to understand the world. Religion is an explanation given to us by people who should know better.

No, its that we chose freedom and the power of free choice as a species, and any foul that comes upon us, is a byproduct of that very same free choice. Others' free will can hinder yours. Such is the tree of good and evil.

At least you're admitting that your god is an unjust tyrant.