It worries me that ppl in this thread believe that monkeys morphed into humans.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
it worries me that ppl running my country who believed in a talking snake
Collapse
-
-
-
Originally posted by Enayze View PostAgain 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.Originally posted by National GeographicSubmerged stone structures lying just below the waters off Yonaguni Jima are actually the ruins of a Japanese Atlantis—an ancient city sunk by an earthquake about 2,000 years ago.
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.
Secondly about Noah's Ark, you think that if you found a big boat at the top of a mountain (and before you start, no... nobody has ever found such an artifact) then that would be game-set-match against atheists and solid proof of your god. Well actually, no. The boat at the top of a mountain is the tiniest part of the evidence you would need if you wanted to present a credible Diluvian flood theory.
First you'd need to show credibly where the water came from and where it went. And you'd need to show evidence that the planet was flooded. Then you would need a credible explanation of the distribution of flora and fauna worldwide especially accounting for the genetic similarity of geographically close clades.
If you could provide evidence that the entire planet had at one time in the last 10,000 years been covered with water and that this water drained away then every animal on earth emerged from a single location and was distributed in the way we find it today from a single event then proving that it was a magic boat that conveyed them would be the least of your worries.
Here is another article on the Indian underwater discovery from BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1768109.stm
Originally posted by The BBCHowever, archaeologist Justin Morris from the British Museum said more work would need to be undertaken before the site could be categorically said to belong to a 9,000 year old civilisation.
Comment
-
Originally posted by No Ceilings View PostIt worries me that ppl in this thread believe that monkeys morphed into humans.
edit - making a flint knife and using other tools
Last edited by gingeralbino; 12-20-2010, 09:46 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gingeralbino View Posti know, ealry man living in caves using stone tools couldnt possibly have evolved from something similar to this.
edit - making a flint knife and using other tools
Comment
-
-
-
Originally posted by squealpiggy View PostNo, 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.
Underwater cities are fairly unusual, regardless of the timeline being attributed. The very aspect of it being underwater necessitates a given set of time has occured anyway.
If all previous conceptions were that mankind's next large scale city was 5000 years newer than the currently found one, then it does indeed surpass the parameters any other scientific model previously allowed.
Nothing wrong with due process and confirmation, but when "further study" becomes more of a mantra than a process, and become a tool for more traditional heads in science to "fillibuster" against paradigm shifting knowledge until it becomes forgotten or obfuscated.. then we have a problem.
Originally posted by SQYou 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!
As for Vedic science.. I believe it is limiting to blanketly paint them all as hacks and dangerous fringe. Its also interesting to note that only some of them were in Vedic science, not all. So in effect, you are making an assertion based upon a few of them being cited as being that particular discipline. Also, you are asserting that Vedic Science has no redeeming qualities whatsoever about it. I still believe it is flirting with closemindedness to just label a finding as founded by such and such a group, and proceeding to summarily dismiss it as a result.
Originally posted by SQIf 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?
Originally posted by SQNo, 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.
Originally posted by SQYou'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!
Originally posted by SQScience is the means we use to understand the world. Religion is an explanation given to us by people who should know better.
Originally posted by SQAt least you're admitting that your god is an unjust tyrant.
Comment
Comment