aperson wrote:And you do?
I believe I see a bigger picture, yes.. I may not see it all and I may not know some parts of energy as well as most physicists but I see a wider spectrum that they refuse to even entertain. They are juvenile in their logic of a thing that is tremendous in scope and breath. This simply shows a limited ability to perceive enormous energy and intelligence on their part. It could be rooted in ego, it could be rooted in ignorance and, well, it may be science but I choose to doubt the latter...
Lightwizard wrote:This is Able2Know, not Able2Snow.
Are some unable to know? Science dogma is a real killer of an original thought.
Always something new to discover - just when you figure Rex can't come up with a sillier post, he surprises everyone with his talents and abilities.
There's original thought, which btw isn't original at all, and the aboriginal thought. In fact, they have more savvy as to the creation of the universe than any Western religion.
Don't think timber that Rex's statement was foolish simply because you think it is. It is a quite respectable position actually.
Of course I understand that you might consider an original thought to be the trial and error payoff one when a real original thought is under scrutiny but really a proper original thought is epoch making and when it next comes you won't even know it's happening so slowly will it emerge just like the one that started science off our way did.
It will be a religious mind that has it though.And it will be 100% science and 0% technology.And as whacked out as whacked out gets.
Ancient fossils fill gap in early human evolution By Patricia Reaney
Wed Apr 12, 1:05 PM ET
An international team of scientists have discovered 4.1 million year old fossils in eastern Ethiopia that fill a missing gap in human evolution.
The teeth and bones belong to a primitive species of Australopithecus known as Au. anamensis, an ape-man creature that walked on two legs.
The Australopithecus genus is thought to be an ancestor of modern humans. Seven separate species have been named. Au. anamensis is the most primitive.
"This new discovery closes the gap between the fully blown Australopithecines and earlier forms we call Ardipithecus," said Tim White, a leader of the team from the University of California, Berkeley.
"We now know where Australopithecus came from before 4 million years ago."
Found and analyzed by scientists from the United States, Ethiopia, Japan and France, the fossils were unearthed in the Middle Awash area in the Afar desert of eastern Ethiopia.
The area, about 140 miles northeast of Addis Ababa, has the most continuous record of human evolution, according to the researchers.
The remains of the hominid that had a small brain, big teeth and walked on two legs, fits into the one million-year gap between the earlier Ardipithecus and Australopithecus afarensis which includes the famous fossil skeleton known as Lucy, which lived between 3.6 and 3.3 million years ago and was found in 1974.
"It is fair to say that some species of Ardipithecus gave rise to Australopithecus," said White, who reported the discovery in the journal Nature.
The fossils from about eight individuals include the largest hominid canine found so far, the earliest known thigh bone of the species and hand and foot bones.
The finding also extends the range of Au. anamensis in Ethiopia. Previous remains of the species were found in Kenya.
White said the large teeth suggest the hominid was able to eat fibrous foods and roots, compared to earlier species of Ardipithecus that had smaller teeth which restricted their diet.
Along with the hominid fossils, the scientists discovered hundreds of remains of pigs, birds, rodents and monkeys as well as hyenas and big cats which gave them an idea of the habitat in which they existed.
"Here, in a single Ethiopian valley, we have nearly a mile-thick stack of superimposed sediments and twelve horizons yielding hominid fossils. These discoveries confirm the Middle Awash study area as the world's best window on human evolution," White added.
Lightwizard wrote:There's original thought, which btw isn't original at all, and the aboriginal thought. In fact, they have more savvy as to the creation of the universe than any Western religion.
I fully agree, I made mention of this earlier when chatting with aperson.
Chumly wrote:The worship of physical personifications as opposed to noncorporeal personifications is not linked to "sacrificial cults/sects". Both types of religious beliefs may have "sacrificial cults/sects" or may not have "sacrificial cults/sects".
It's a common fallacy to claim that religions tied to the worship of physical personifications must equal "sacrificial cults/sects" any more than religions tied to worshiping noncorporeal personifications.
There is no evidence to support this claim, despite pronouncements to the contrary from some religious groups such as some Christians.
spendi, your demonstrated unrivalled mastery of the practice is beyond dispute, but does not confer upon you the office of arbiter of silly, nor, apparently, does it enable you to recognize silly.
Is silliness really next to godliness?
Strong argument to the effect the two at least bear a relationship evidently may be made.
Because science cannot measure energy beyond the physical realm it cannot know... So it cannot be a source of information outside of what is known...
How about potential energy, or energy as expressed in the form of mass, is that a problem too?
<I know I should not feed the rocks er animals, but they look so forlorn>
aperson wrote:RexRed wrote:aperson wrote:RexRed wrote:aperson wrote:RexRed wrote:aperson wrote:Would everyone please STOP TALKING ABOUT LIVING ROCKS!!!
Rocks are not living. Stop. Period. The End.
How about if we shift the discussion to if hydrogen is or contains a living entity?
Will you please cease your attempt to convince everyone that inanimate objects are living??
If you want facts you could go into the science thread yet you are in the religion thread. In this thread you are going to hear things you don't believe according to your religious "science". If you want one sided facts science forums are the place to get what you want to hear rather than the truth.
How about if you stop trying to convince people that inanimate objects that are obviously animate, are not...
Now are you trying to tell me that hydrogen and neutrinos don't move?
Listen to yourself you are trying to shut someone up just because they do not agree with your rigid, lifeless, dumbed down view of the universe...
Point made...
I am not trying to tell you that hydrogen and neutrinos don't move.
And my "rigid, lifeless, dumbed down" view of the universe is one that thousands of scientists all over the world have established. I mean, who are you to define life? These people have done years of research. And I'm not following their view blindly, I actually do think that it's a logical and sensible view.
Can you tell me, how exactly does a scientist measure and observe God?
You have swallowed something possibly harmful to your spiritual health...
Romans 1:21
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
You're now assuming there is God.
You blindly follow God without making an effort to actually go and find out what exactly you're talking about.
What ever gave you the idea I "blindly" follow God? That is an assumption on your part. You don't know what God has shown me... You blindly ignore God...
Flip this logic over it may finally be turned upright for a change and make some sense.
RexRed wrote:Because science cannot measure energy beyond the physical realm it cannot know... So it cannot be a source of information outside of what is known...
Ahem.
Please demonstrate the existence of any realm other than physical.
Once you have done that, you will have foundation to proceed beyond that.
Seems to me, your wagon is lightyears ahead of your horse, rex old boy
Chumly wrote:How about potential energy, or energy as expressed in the form of mass, is that a problem too?
<I know I should not feed the rocks er animals, but they look so forlorn>
They breathe with life, the divine energy of God. Science cannot be faulted for saying this is as far as our instruments can measure but it is mere speculation to believe that energy and intelligence does not far surpass what science can observe with their primitive physical constructs.
Doktor S wrote:RexRed wrote:Because science cannot measure energy beyond the physical realm it cannot know... So it cannot be a source of information outside of what is known...
Ahem.
Please demonstrate the existence of any realm other than physical.
Once you have done that, you will have foundation to proceed beyond that.
Seems to me, your wagon is lightyears ahead of your horse, rex old boy
Ahem, the metaphysical, spiritual, supernatural, etc....
We see only a small band of light energy with the naked eye. Are we to assume this is the only light spectrum because we cannot observe the other light spectrums? What if all observable physical energy is only a small band of a larger spectrum that we cannot measure with our physical instruments (eyes).
There is logical reason to believe this is the case...
Rex , are you a member of the Abenaki Nation? Your "discussions" sound like a Passamaquoddy shaman. Ever been to te pictograph cliffs at Emden on the Kennebec?
Theres a book by bruce Bourque that touches on the animist beliefes of the Abenaki NAtions . "Twelve Thousand Years-Ameerican Indians in Maine" (2001, Univ Nebraska Press)
Rex,
Quote:
Ahem, the metaphysical, spiritual, supernatural, etc....
All functionally meaningless.
Quote:
We see only a small band of light energy with the naked eye. Are we to assume this is the only light spectrum because we cannot observe the other light spectrums?
Physical science is the only reason we have knowledge of any 'light spectrums' not visible to the naked eye in the first place. I'm pretty sure metaphysics has made no contribution in this area.
Quote:
What if all observable physical energy is only a small band of a larger spectrum that we cannot measure with our physical instruments (eyes).
What if the moon were really made of cream cheese?
Quote:
There is logical reason to believe this is the case...
Ok, I'd love to hear it.
Let's have it then!
farmerman wrote:Rex , are you a member of the Abenaki Nation? Your "discussions" sound like a Passamaquoddy shaman. Ever been to te pictograph cliffs at Emden on the Kennebec?
Theres a book by bruce Bourque that touches on the animist beliefes of the Abenaki NAtions . "Twelve Thousand Years-Ameerican Indians in Maine" (2001, Univ Nebraska Press)
I have not read that book but living in Maine so long that same thought may have occurred to me. I am a very earthy guy (pretty good for a conservative) and I think that is one of the greatest qualities of the American Indian belief system is their deep spirituality with nature...
I guess you could loosely call me a member...
