Create account

John_Doe
replied 2281d
Straw-man and deflecting. Skilled arguing. Piltdown was "discovered" 1912. In 1913 it was found to be a hoax, yet it took "scientists" 41 years to admit it was a fraud. Very credible.
2 / 81
replied 2281d
Shroud was discovered in the 1300 & they still haven't admitted its fake. 700 years and counting. Whats your point? All scientist are liars? Science is a LIAR sometimes?
John_Doe
replied 2281d
People lie. Money talks and bullshit walks. If you question the science you are branded a heretic and all your funding stopped. You lose your job etc. Do your own research.
replied 2281d
yes people lie. thanks for the update. that isn't a good counterargument to fossils gradually change over time (like evolution predicts).
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2281d
There still isn't a good example of one kind of animal gradually changing into another. If there is please show me.
replied 2281d
these skulls look to be slowly changing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2281d
Here you got monkeys turning into other monkeys. I'm looking for a chicken incrementally turning into an elephant or something like that.
replied 2280d
Well youre right, evolution doesn’t make such a prediction. no wonder you haven’t seen any proof. Evolution isn’t a biological philosophers stone, transmuting all living things.
replied 2280d
In bacteria evolution is more of a web because of horizontal gene transfer (bacteria can pick up stray DNA & easily incorporate it even across species).
replied 2280d
& species alive today would not be predicted by evolution to change into one another. Chickens & elephants have a common ancestor that likely looks like neither today.
replied 2280d
Looking through progressively older fossils of each you would expect to find slow changes back to something with the most basic qualities of both.
replied 2280d
Ie you would not expect the ancestor to have a trunk or chicken feet. Could expect multicellular, organs, brain, 4 limbs.
replied 2280d
From quota “The nearest common ancestor of birds and mammals was probably an eight-inch long reptile that lived anywhere between 320 and 340 million years ago.”
replied 2280d
Evolution predicts populations slowly changing over time & branching out as sub populations fill different niches.
replied 2280d
None of these “monkeys” invented the internet so something changed, or evolved.
replied 2281d
So we just have to wait 41 years after every fossil is discovered until its admitted fake. Then we can stick our head back in the sand & forget about “evilution”.
John_Doe
replied 2281d
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
replied 2281d
just that one lie doesn't negate all other proof.
John_Doe
replied 2281d
That is correct but a bunch of scientists going along with the lie and refusing to accept scientific proof of its falseness for 40 years shows they have no integrity and dont look at..
John_Doe
replied 2281d
..at all the evidence. They do as they are paid to do.
replied 2281d
So your point is this deception has continued into the present? That we should never trust scientists? That all other fossils are faked? You can look at fossils yourself,
replied 2281d
(your own research) & see slight changes progressing as the time the organisms lived gets closer to the present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
John_Doe
replied 2281d
So the fact that the scientific community covered up a hoax for 40 years is fine with you. No red flags. Lets agree to disagree then.
replied 2281d
sci community also uncovered & corrected it. you said solution is to, "Do your own research." I've given you a way to do that & you've avoided it in favor of weaker social arguments.
John_Doe
replied 2281d
The fossil records can be faked and the mainstream scientific community will not easily admit to this, as demonstrated. Can you refer me to a experiment that demonstrates this?
replied 2280d
Look for yourself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
replied 2280d
“Can be faked & was at least once” =/= all of it is fake
replied 2281d
& the church imprisoned Galileo for exposing a “hoax” they perpetuate. They didn’t concede until the 1970s, 342 years for those counting.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2281d
"The church" you're referring to is a centralized authority of humans and their loosely assembled minions. You straw man all Christians by knocking down this small cadre.
replied 2280d
“The church” that perpetuated this hoax was the Catholic Church, not the christian church. & in the Catholic Church the pope is infallible.
replied 2280d
Wouldn’t throw out all christianity because they at one time thought (along with nearly everyone else) that the sun revolved around the earth.
replied 2280d
Thats the purpose of this counterpoint. John_Doe is using one example of falsified data to throw out all data supporting evolution, a ridiculous position.
John_Doe
replied 2280d
You miss my point. My point isnt one instance of a hoax. It is that the mainstream scientists refused to consider the evidence of it being a hoax for 40 years.
replied 2280d
You make it sound like scientists of the time watched the fake being made then greedily rubbed their hands together thinking of all the money they could make off this hoax for 40 years
replied 2280d
Everything is obvious in hindsight. Scientists “refuse to consider evidence” every day. What you see as solid evidence may be disregarded by others as fake, weak, or unimportant.
John_Doe
replied 2280d
Yes. This is our fundamental difference on this subject, you believe in the mainstream scientists on this subject, I do not. We will not be able to convince each other. Lets agree on t
replied 2280d
Do you think BCH is trestles?
replied 2279d
*trustless
replied 2280d
You’ve also ignored the fact that the scientific community self-corrected. You can complain it wasn’t fast enough, if you’ve got a better alternative…
replied 2280d
Science isn’t about believing others. Data is presented as is. & it is possible to think for your self & reach the same conclusions as a majority.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2280d
The majority always gets up-ended by a minority. Often it's a single researcher who found something, gets ostracized, and then won't let it go until their reaserch is acknowledged.
replied 2275d
Seems more like a fact of life than an issue with science. kind of like BTC vs BCH.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2275d
Bingo
replied 2275d
then idk why people place this issue at the feet of science.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 2275d
Because many scientists in the majority have taken an arbiter-of-truth stance instead of one of curiosity. Also I think money is a very big factor.
1
replied 2267d
as do religious figures (of nearly all religions). there's just no way to prove them wrong. & doesn't mean we should listen to them. yeah money & public policy is likely a huge factor.
replied 2280d
There is not enough time in the day to consider every piece of evidence. Eg scientists could spend all day every day considering evidence from flat earthers.
replied 2280d
Even if every point were refuted flat earthers would find more evidence & we’d get nowhere.
replied 2280d
My 2 cents... stop believing everything you think you know is “real”. I think we live in a rational/ irrational construct. It could be both, or none all at the same time.
replied 2280d
umm... ok. thanks? any specifics? “rational/irrational construct” is very vague. & why should I blindly accept whatever you think is real (whatever that is)?
replied 2280d
I actually think flat earth theories are fun to explore deeply. These theories pose some valid questions and shouldn’t be dismissed just bc most can’t get beyond GROUPTHINK.
replied 2275d
flat earth theories are not being dismissed because of accusations of group think on either side. they're dismissed because they hypothesize things that are not observed.
replied 2274d
Reading flat earth, hollow earth, holofractal theories etc. expand awareness in our quest for truth. Theories aren’t necessarily truths. Most theories we have today aren’t truths.
1
replied 2270d
I would hope by considering such theories people would become more critical / better able to reason with data.
replied 2280d
Not asking you to blindly accept this. Try Rudolf Steiner: An Outline of Esoteric Science. It will open your eyes to a whole new theory that is just as plausible as anything else.
replied 2275d
Going to be honest though, dont have high hopes. These spirit things will become experimentally testable in time. Everything else has.
replied 2274d
There are many observable truths outlined in the book mentioned. What makes a living thing “alive”? As soon as you die you begin to decompose. What makes you compose?
1
replied 2275d
thanks for the book. reading through wiki of Anthroposophy is not encouraging though.
replied 2274d
Yeah Wikipedia will never get you there for any objective reality. Why not explore the source directly?
1
replied 2271d
there are too many things to read :(
replied 2271d
There are a lot of perspectives. Just remember not to fall for the fallacy from authority, or fallacy of majority. Just because MOST believe one reality doesn’t make it truth.
2
546
replied 2270d
Very similar to scientific consensus. “It is a fallacy to claim something is true because of scientific consensus. The claim is not that scientific consensus is true
replied 2270d
but that it is probable because of the supporting evidence amassed by those knowledgeable in the field and assessed by their piers. Very different.”
replied 2270d
I would add evidence that people can test. not necessarily just "those knowledgeable in the field"
replied 2270d
What we experience is not called reality because most people believe it. Its called reality because repeatable experiments collect data that describes (ie predicts) the world.
replied 2270d
Humans inability to photosynthesize is reality, not because we voted & chose that as our reality but because there is evidence that can be repeated that supports this view of reality
replied 2270d
(ie lacking proteins that plants use to photosynthesize, people starving to death in the sunlight, etc.)
replied 2274d
It’s important to realize humans perception of reality is very limited. Plant medicines offer even more perspective in our quest for truth.
1
replied 2274d
Plants are the source of health & happyness. Fresh fruits are my fuel. Marihuana opened my heart. DMT made me consciouss. Garlic is my antibiotic. Mother nature has all the knowledge.
1
replied 2274d
From sound in our ears, to light in our eyes, to taste on our tongue, to touch on our nerves; everything we perceive is frequency. How to perceive more bandwidth?
replied 2274d
What?? :)
replied 2274d
Everything we perceive is frequency. Think about it. Electrical impulses being fed into our sensory perception. Only 5 senses. What other senses are we not perceiving?
replied 2274d
As you say that it reminds me of my last LSD trip. I was in a dark room with little light looking at my hand which had waves around it. And thinking:...
replied 2274d
...that the ankles of my body are actually similar to these of robots and I could make half of my hand disappear with my thoughts that scared me. Did you ever take LSD?
replied 2271d
depends what you think reality is. if you assume every hallucination is reality then yeah our perception is limited.
replied 2271d
“Hallucination” is a word used by people who are afraid to test the boundaries of perception. Plant medicines should not be discounted so easily.
replied 2270d
“A hallucination is a perception in the absence of external stimulus that has qualities of real perception.” Also includes things that that cannot be reliably repeated & tested.
1
replied 2270d
If you throw out objectivity (ie repeatably testable), reality can be whatever you want it be (eg inedia). undermining the concept of reality.
replied 2280d
Yeah, your point is some scientists refuse to consider literally all evidence thus we cant trust any of them. Ie one instance of “refusing to consider the evidence” to throw
replied 2280d
out the rest of the sci community as unscientific & dogmatic.
replied 2281d
It wasn’t a ‘cover up’. “scientists increasingly regarded Piltdown as an enigmatic aberration inconsistent with the path of hominid evolution as demonstrated by
replied 2281d
fossils found elsewhere.” Limited data is ambiguous. Multiple theories could produce the same data (ie be correct). This hoax (& I assume other data) supported one
replied 2281d
theory, “large modern brain preceded the modern omnivorous diet”). As such it was accepted & defended.


About Privacy Terms Stats