Go to Religion in the Modern World
- Add a comment
- Go to How long has mankind been on this planet?
ProperleyPlayed - but man "unkind" almost certainly has
posted by
gomedome
on April 10, 2007 at 8:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Pat_B - that's a good point
All of the mental contortions that we all go through in determining what is true or false are all problems of our own making. From attempting to maintain the credibility of ever redundant ancient holy manuscripts for some, to overcoming our own inherent prejudices and bias for the rest of us.
posted by
gomedome
on April 10, 2007 at 8:52 AM
| link to this | reply
Xeno-x - that has always been my greatest objection to organized religion
The notion of promoting research and discovery is all but completely impeded by the preservation of established truths that reconcile doctrine. As you say, how the original conclusions were arrived at seems to matter little to far too many people. Now that we are witnessing a groundswell of people promoting creationism as a viable and competing "theory" to evolution and are attempting to introduce these fairy tales into the school systems, we are also witnessing all that is wrong with this mentality. The religious folks are further dividing society into us versus them with a not so subtle agenda to discredit any science that does not reconcile Genesis to reality. How can society possibly benefit from the armies of brainwashed little children being produced by these knuckleheads? We should all be concerned for the future of our societies when a 10 year old steps up to the microphone and blathers on about how all scientists are liars, are influenced by Satan and then begins to recite some nonsensical creationism gibberish as if it were fact. All the while with deluded parents nodding their smiling approval in the background.
posted by
gomedome
on April 10, 2007 at 8:25 AM
| link to this | reply
According to your chart, man kind has not been here for one million years.
posted by
Jenasis
on April 10, 2007 at 8:25 AM
| link to this | reply
Amazing, how small a box the religious have built to hold their creator.
posted by
Pat_B
on April 10, 2007 at 8:12 AM
| link to this | reply
actually
the last link is linked to the first link, where the missing link is between people's ears.
refusal to accept that alternative explanations might exist keeps humankind from learning.
the original acceptance of 12,000 yrs ago as the earliest humans settled the Americas has been discredited by other discoveries; it's just that the 250 k conclusion seems so hard to believe in light of most discoveries -- and, as the article pointed out, there h ave been similar discoveries that have been squelched.
honest approach would be to accept the possibility of different conclusions and then researching them and publishing all research.
people are seriously retarded in their perceptions, for sure, especially when faced with evidence that contradicts what they have accepted as "gospel" for so many years, and has the weight of tradition and eons of acceptance attached to it.
i blame the early church leaders for rejecting alternative points of view in the first centuries, and dogmatizing spurious premises. their faulty reasoning has influenced Christian thinking ever since.
they come to conclusions and build expansive explanations on a thread of a premise; then the entire Christian world accepts what they have said as the truth, and no one wants to dispute what was totally disputable from its inception, but dispute was stifled, so our heritage is deception.
what is truth is what is discovered to be truth, not what is declared to be truth.
posted by
Xeno-x
on April 10, 2007 at 7:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos - there seems to be a grassroots movement amongst the religious
folks to discredit all scientific theories, discoveries and even proven facts if they don't support their religious doctrines.
We've seen it many times right here on Blogit where as you suggest; those who want to reconcile their doctrines with an ever non compliant reality, will point to anything that is still as yet unanswered and attempt to utilize it as a means of discrediting the entire contention. These people who seem to be growing in number are affecting society in an extremely detrimental way as they advance their agenda of reconciling the book of Genesis.
posted by
gomedome
on April 10, 2007 at 6:43 AM
| link to this | reply
gome
I have read about the rickets hypothesis for the existence of the N.'s, but there is far more evidence on the 'conservative' side, suggesting that they were really 'different', so I'm sticking with that. But we may never know the final answer. In fact, all the timelines (and I have looked at the link) are fluid.
Things get ludicrous when some people point to the fact that there are many unanswered questions and say, 'See? That's why you might as well accept...', and then they use the 'c' word...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 10, 2007 at 6:28 AM
| link to this | reply
Gome
It clearly makes one wonder, doesn't it?
I wonder what would happen in life if people were not so caught up in where they came from or where they are going.
posted by
Afzal_Sunny7
on April 9, 2007 at 10:25 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos - I just edited this post and included a link to a suggested
chronology for the existence of man.
HERE . . . I watched a TV special awhile back that suggested neaderthals were not a distinct human species but instead simply a group of homo sapiens that had distinct features as a result of a common disease. A form of rickets which deformed head and facial bones as well as causing curvature of the spine and increased bone mass. Where this suggestion is mostly dismissed by those in the field it does illustrate how we can possibly be completely wrong in our conclusions pertaining to early man.
posted by
gomedome
on April 9, 2007 at 9:51 PM
| link to this | reply
Nautikos, thank you for the explanation. My knowledge is superficial; at the layman’s level. I am edified. MoonSpirit 
posted by
syzygy
on April 9, 2007 at 9:37 PM
| link to this | reply
MoonSpirit
Your observation is quite apt! There is indeed a resemblance between
h. neanderthalensis and
h. politicus, which is the species inhabiting Washington DC, Ottawa ON, and many other places around the globe. But while there are similarities, there is one important difference.
Neanderthalensis was apparently fairly gentle and withdrawn, whereas
h. politicus is known to be aggressive and vicious...
posted by
Nautikos
on April 9, 2007 at 9:34 PM
| link to this | reply
I’m no scholar, and I don’t like being disagreeable, and I’m sure that Nautikos is far more knowledgeable than I, however, I feel compelled to respectfully disagree. N eanderthalensis is still quite alive and viable as a species. I’ve met quite a few. A large number manage to make it into elected office and live in Washington, DC. MoonSpirit
posted by
syzygy
on April 9, 2007 at 9:19 PM
| link to this | reply
gome
it all depends on where we want to begin. The first of the genus homo, homo habilis, lived from about 2.5 to 1.8 million years ago. But even australopithecus afarensis, probably a direct ancestor, had already developed bipedalism...Of course, homo sapiens sapiens (that's us, there ain't anyone else around) is only about 450,000 years old, give or take a little.
But until about 35,000 years ago, there was another species around as well, h. neanderthalensis, with distinct characteristics. Interesting is that they had larger brains than us, which means that, when it comes to brains, size isn't everything, but rather the way things are organized. There is some speculation that interbreeding may have occurred, but as yet there's no proof of that.
posted by
Nautikos
on April 9, 2007 at 9:13 PM
| link to this | reply
TVBlogger - glad to be of service and I wish you well with your project, it
sounds very interesting.
And considering it is the type of TV programming that I am interested in, you will have to let us know when and if it is going to air.
posted by
gomedome
on April 9, 2007 at 9:00 PM
| link to this | reply
Thank you
for your interesting post and the 2nd link. This topic is actually what my series pilot is about so I think that website will have some very interesting information for me. Thanks again.
posted by
TVBlogger
on April 9, 2007 at 8:52 PM
| link to this | reply
Ignorance is like a tidal wave, inundating us, overpowering us, sweeping us under; yes, truth has a heavy battle in order to prevail. MoonSpirit
posted by
syzygy
on April 9, 2007 at 7:32 PM
| link to this | reply
MoonSpirit - I'm still working on the sun revolving around the earth
Seriously though, I was quite shocked to see this question when posted in several public forums always receiving the "young earth" answer by the majority of commentors. Where this is of concern is in that the proliferation of ignorance can gain a critical momentum just as any other prevailing mind set. When the chorus of ignorance becomes loud enough it drowns out the truth, or in this case overwhelms factual evidence.
posted by
gomedome
on April 9, 2007 at 7:26 PM
| link to this | reply
You know Gome, sometimes you just go too far. 
Am I going to see a post from you soon contending that the Earth is NOT flat? 
MoonSpirit
posted by
syzygy
on April 9, 2007 at 6:06 PM
| link to this | reply