Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: KappaWing on April 29, 2007, 09:50:07 pm
-
Terrans and Vasudans. Evolving on different planets, totally seperate throughout the entire evolution chain starting from single celled organisms, yet they still end up walking upright with two arms, two legs, two eyes, similar body structure, etc. etc.
In my opinion, I think [V] really screwed up here. I know they wanted to make the vasudans seem more similar to the Terrans than the Shivans but the Terrans and Vasudans are still just too similar to be believable.
Arguments?
-
Well, Vasudans have the same structure (two eyes, legs, etc) but that's it, even their legs are different then ours, also Vasuda would seem to be an Earth like planet only with more deserts wich could explain why they're so "similar" IMO.
-
When you come down to it, it's certainly not impossible. Just... somewhat improbable.
But regardless, the Shivans more than make up for the Vasudans' comparative lack of weirdness. :D
-
Are the Vasudans really that similar? Sure, two arms, two legs, two eyes, mouth, stuff like that. But even in terms of purely visual differences their limbs are obviously not constructed in the same fashion. We know pretty much nothing of their physiology; I can't recall off the top of my head whether it was ever stated they were even mammalian.
Sharks and dolphins have a lot in common visually. Doesn't make them similar.
-
The thing is, it's actually even plausible.
Obviously life *could* develope to many directions. But seeing as how Vasudans and Terrans can live pretty comfortably on similar atmosphere, it's pretty obvious that Vasuda Prime was not too different from Earth after all in most fundamental regards such as atmospheric mixture of gases.
In fact, as far as we know, humanoid form could actually be the most likely basic form for sentient, culturally advanced life. Sentient being needs some things to develope an advanced culture. These are for example:
-relatively big size - requires either endoskeleton or plenty of nutrients for renewing exo-skeleton periodically during growth
-means to move - pre-requisite for pretty much all higher animals with few exceptions.
-means to think (central nervous system most likely)
-means to observe (sensory organs - eyes, ears and the like)
-means to manipulate (hands or other kind of manipulators)
When you combine this to two of nature's very fundamental tendencies - minimum energy principle and symmetry - it is possible that two legs, two hands, two eyes, two ears and so forth can actually be the most effective combination for a sentient being.
Obviously bilateral symmetry is not the only possibility on Earth either - but radial symmetry is the remaining option and it's mainly seen on simpler life-forms such as medusae and stuff.
Of course there is a chance that the life in Vasuda Prime would have evolved much differently, but just as possible is that it went to much the same direction as in Earth. If, for example, the initial members of phylae Mollusca would have happened to be superior to Cordata and eaten them, Earth might be populated by some sort of invertebrates or with a hard exo-sceleton and indeterminate amount of limbs... but then again, the gravity would be pretty difficult to beat for an octopus. Harder than for a vertebrate amphibian fish species for sure.
Chance is an important factor in evolution, but in the long run, natural selection will eventually spin up the best structures from the available pool. And if Vasuda Prime indeed is/was anything like Earth, then I see no reason to doubt why the Vasudans are humanoid form.
The Shivans are much more of an evolutionary oddity. I mean, the beam weapon and energy claws are pretty much even weirder than the electric eel, but they are possibly augmentations... weird symmetry is actually more mystifiable in an evolutionary sense. Their front end is clearly bilaterally symmetric, but the rear seems to be trilateral or something. They have way more limbs than they actually need and most notably, they don't seem to have the necessary motoric functions for finer manipulation of objects. So it's quite a mystery to me how the hell do Shivans do the stuff they do, or how they ended up the way they are.
-
Play The Procyon Insurgency, there is an explanation for that :)
Now for my opinion.
I think it's possible that 2 sentient species might be both umanoid, but what I find unlikely is that we have actually the chances of encountering them.
First of all, you must find a star which isn't neither too hot or too cold. Second, you must find a planet at the right distance from the star (so that it is not fried by the star's energy like Mercury and Venus, but it is not extremely far from the radiation like the outer planets). And the star has to be "quiet" (by "quiet" I mean rare flares and so on, the star of the Earth-like that has been just discovered has a lot of flares, and this reduces the likelihood of finding life on that planet).
This planet must have a mainly solid composition (I think it's quite impossible there could be life on gas planets like Jupiter, and this means that the star must be at least a "2nd generation" star, generated by a previous supernova), and a precise mixture of gases in the atmosphere. Oh, add also a lot of water on the planetary surface.
The Universe is big, surely a planet like this exists (other than Earth, obviously).
Now, we must find life.
Evolution seems to have started 3,5*109 years ago (correct me if I'm wrong). Man appeared only at the last stage (I read somewhere that if the story of Earth could be reduced to 24 hours, man would appear only at the last second). Let's suppose another sentient species follows a similar evolutionary line. It would also need 3,5*109 years to reach our stage. A similar form of live may have already existed, or will exist, but it is unlikely that could be find in our lifetime (by "lifetime" I mean the existance of a species until its extinction).
-
It's not that unbelievable. Being a bi-pedal species helps in the develpoment of tools and technology as it frees up the other two limbs for manipulation of such tools. Having two eyes helps when you wish to judge distances, helpful when you wish to hunt something, (and we all know Vasudans wuv fishies, we just don't know how they catch them). However, most predators have two eyes that point forward, like I said helps to judge distances, where as most prey have eyes on the sides of their heads, which gives them a wider field of view, helpful when looking out for possible danger!
Therefore it is more likely that the Terrans and Vasudans would have travelled down a very similar evolutionary route to each other.
What is more unbelieveable are the Shivans, how they are able to create and utilise technology, when they don't appear to have any way manipulate tools etc. is somewhat unbelievable and has led to people speculating that their ships are grown and they are living ships? Who knows, but this is also what makes them more scary than the Vasudans, because thay are so different!
-
Completely unbelievable.
People like to pont out convergent evolution but fail to consider that the animals involved started out from the same ancestor. The animals that are commonly mentioned (thylacines and wolves, icthysaurs and dolphins) already shared a common evolutionary history. Look at the examples, convergence only occured with those pairs well after the evolution of the backbone (something which happened pretty late in the development of life on Earth).
If you look you'll see that the foetus of most vertebrates are very similar so it's hardly surprising that the animals can converge. The other example given is the eye of the octopus but if you read up on the subject again it's an issue of having the same starting points. Yes the two have similar structure. It's because the two are expressing the same genes (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=509264).
Now lets take a look at vasudans. Unless you're a proponent of panspermia the vasudans won't have the same starting points. They certainly won't have the same genes to express. You will still get convergent evolution of course. There are some things like wings which are useful enough and general enough to evolve all over the galaxy.
What I find hard to believe is that you'd get so much of it in a pair of animals like humans and vasudans which are completely unrelated. There are other solutions to the problems animals from another planet are going to face for me to believe that a shape so similar is likely to evolve.
-
May I point out that external similarities are about the worst possible way to define similarities between species? Take the sharks and the dolphins for example. Both have long sleek body, two eyes, sharp teeth in a mouth, a tail fin, back fin and two main side fins. However, internally they are much different - more different than a giraffe and a mouse are from each other.
I know they are both vertebrates and have common origins to relatively late in the evolution, but the point still stands - dolphins line of evolution includes life forms much unlike sharks, yet they have evolved into much similar form due to similar environment.
Anyway, about the only thing we know about Vasudans is that they have a torso, two legs, two arms, a head with visible mouth, eyes and some other stuff (possibly ears and/or olfactory organs), and they are big and bloody strong. They also likely eat proteine based stuff like headz and fishes. But we know practically nothing of their metabolism, inner organ structure, central nervous system specialities and stuff.
Given the fact that they can obviously tolerate such deadly and corrosive materials like oxygen and dihydrogen monoxide in atmosphere, I'd say also that their metabolism and structure is based on carbon cycle, likewise to us. That is another very likely thing in extra-terrestrial life forms, and it is one similarity to begin with - carbon is about the best suited basis for life there is in the universe, assuming the laws of nature are similar everywhere. But I slightly digress...
I already pointed out that since Vasudans and humans can pretty comfortably co-exist in similar atmosphere, it means that chemically Earth and Vasuda Prime aren't fundamentally different. And, despite different origins, similar environments give advantages to vaguely similar solutions, which means that perhaps, just perhaps, it is generally advantageous for higher ground animals to have bilateral body symmetry, strong endo-skeleton, a torso, four limbs and a head. More limbs is obviously possible, but due to very likely existence of symmetry, they would add in pairs with very high probability. And you have to consider, would extra limbs offer significant advantage to a ground animal? In most cases they would just be a burden to grow. Which means that those big animal types with more than four limbs would have hard time growing up which would put them into a disadvantage if there perhaps was other big animal types with other number of limbs on the same region/planet. Again assuming that symmetry is as common in universe as in Earth, four limbs is pretty much the most likely number of limbs for a big ground animal to have evolved with.
As for anything but the very basic humanoid form, we know nothing of Vasudan evolution and what they have been before evolving into what we see in the game.
-
I know they are both vertebrates and have common origins to relatively late in the evolution, but the point still stands - dolphins line of evolution includes life forms much unlike sharks, yet they have evolved into much similar form due to similar environment.
It's even worse than that: sharks and its ancesters never left water, dolphins come from a land animal.
Other humanoid lifeforms is a perfectly acceptable idea to me, as long as it doesn't turn into Startrek or Babylon5 where 90% of the aliens are people with make up ( and the remaining 10% almost all come from B5, btw). Vasudans don't even fit in that category (try to make someone fit in a vasudan costume :p)
-
Or Stargate, how can you have nearly every single race in the known universe look an awful lot like an Earth human? ;7
-
Well, in Star Trek there was this ancient humanoidd race that purposefully modified evolution to eventually produce humanoid sentients all over the galaxy. In Stargåte, ancient humans themselves had occupied a large amount of planets, therefore humans are usually met in the series instead of actual alien life forms (and it's cheaper to shoot the series with humans with only light or no make-up at all).
In B5 there's no sign of such alterations, even though the remaining first one races did manipulate the younger races as they saw fit. Likewise in FS universe, panspermia is not likely, though remotely possible of course.
At any rate, the evidence points to the fact that in one case out of one known planet with Earth like environment, life has evolved to form bi-pedal, sentient humanoid species capable of developing complex, advanced culture. So clearly it is not impossible to happen on other planet with similar enough environment. :drevil: :lol:
-
I rather like the theory in Procyon Insurgency.
-
Tink about it - any species that wants t odevelop culture, writing and interstelat travel has to have a few things:
- decent size (not too big, not too small)
- flexibility (ability to survive in different enviroment, not tied to a specific food type)
- very accurate manipulators (hands - still the most perfect manipulator)
So I don't see what's so strange with having humanoid species out there...
-
I'm not saying that humanoids are impossible. I'm saying that humanoids so similar that they look like they could have evolved on Earth are impossible.
-
There is only one possible explanation for the similarities. They had a common ancestor. The facial configuration of humans and basically all others animals on earth is because we had common ancestors. True aliens in our universe would not look like any animal we have seen before.
-
There is only one possible explanation for the similarities. They had a common ancestor. The facial configuration of humans and basically all others animals on earth is because we had common ancestors. True aliens in our universe would not look like any animal we have seen before.
What about the Greys, they have two eyes, one mouth and possibly two ears, (although they could be missing a nose)?
:drevil:
-
Boooooo!!!!
You forgot sì and no.
-
Greys were obviously made up by someone with a poor grasp of evolutionary theory too then. :)
And believed in by people further down the evolutionary ladder too. :p
-
There is only one possible explanation for the similarities. They had a common ancestor. The facial configuration of humans and basically all others animals on earth is because we had common ancestors. True aliens in our universe would not look like any animal we have seen before.
Well...no. Scientists have discussed about it. It's probable that there might be insect-like primitive life beings in other planets. Their shape and their dimensions could be worrying, but insect-like creatures should be common in the universe...they easily survive, so it is probable thay many other habitable planets are full of insect-like life beings.
-
In my opinion, I think [V] really screwed up here. I know they wanted to make the vasudans seem more similar to the Terrans than the Shivans but the Terrans and Vasudans are still just too similar to be believable.
:v: screwed up? They did a lot better than most other SciFi. And a lot better than George Lucas.
Physical appearance isn't all that important, as has already been said. What would make an alien race totally incomprehensible to us is their psychology and other characteristics we can't see. Vasudans would have a totally different array of senses and thought processes. They probably wouldn't see things on the electromagnetic spectrum that humans use, although strangely all of their art and architecture seems to be made for humans to look at (well, not that strange if you consider that it's a game). Think of the window in the Vasudan main hall. It's made of a material apparently similar to glass and lets in human light wavelengths. Snakes see infrared, sharks can "see" magnetism, many insects see slightly above our "visual spectrum" into UV rays. Although I can understand if they're audible on human audio frequencies, their senses of sight, taste, and smell will be totally different from ours. Any alien would have a totally different way of percieving the world.
I liked the FS1 Vasudans. The first time I read the FS1 techroom description for them, I was hooked. Finally, an alien race that wasn't entirely humanoid. FS1 Vasudans were mysterious and foreign. Their language was indecipherable to us, we had only a vague idea what their cultural rituals were like, and the only time we came into contact with them was when we heard the monotone translation voice and emotionless head .ani . The Shivans were even better, creepier and indecipherable. Much different in size and shape than any human and totally confusing to us, Shivans are the closest thing I've seen in SciFi to what a real alien would be like (other than the easily-resolved tool manipulation issues mentioned earlier).
FS2 wrecked the Vasudans. No longer did we only get brief glimpses of them as head anis or computer-generated voices. Now they just had human voices turned up or down in pitch. :v: did a good job on the Vasudan Mainhall architecture, but other than that, in FS2 we learned that Vasudans are like humans, just with different looks.
-
The ancients did it.
-
The Ancients? They were aggressive. It's a bit off topic, but I would like to say that the Ancients are another extraterrestrial species designed very well by Volition. I have always read stories about other civilizations, disappeared many thousand years ago, but they were all about a pacific civilization, crushed by another one, the enemy. The Ancients are realistic. A civilization with an expanded Empire, aggressive and overconfident. In Inferno R1, what remains of the Ancients should have been another opponent....fair thing to me.
In FS2 there's an Alliance...Terrans and Vasudans are supposed to work together...that's why we can easily consider them similar. I would like to mention, however, different kinds of behaviours and how the Vasudans face death. There are no "Oh my God!" and "What the hell are you doing? Help us!!!", typical of Terrans... there are sentences like "Avenge me!" and "Long live the Emperor!" that come from a different species, a different way to see ourselves, to see the others, to consider Life a gift.
That's probably why the HoL lasted too long, even if it wasn't as armed as another group of rebels like the NTF: with most members ready to sacrifice their lives, the HoL was able to resist against coordinated attacks for a long time. Terrans are always ready to collaborate and rarely sacrifice their lives in order to save comrades or kill enemies.
-
Had it ever accured to anyone that humanoid shape may be the optimal shape for a cultural and technological race?
The human form is the one we KNOW works for what it was intended. Yes, a RACE could look like pretty much anything, but forthat race to survive or reach interstellar travel - it takes a bit more. Designs that don't work in nature die. Species and races that don't work also die out.
That's way I have no trouble in seeing humanoid races. In fact, I think they would be highly probable.
-
You're right...scientists demonstrated that humanoid species are perfect. They're physically weak, but their brain and their hands guarantee success.
But wait: we're saying humanoid. Someone is discussing about exaggerately similar life forms.
-
What the **** are you saying?
Of corse its beleiveable.. its cannon. Its the story, its fact.
We did both start as single cells and we both developed similarly. If we had dual cells we would be the shivans #2.
So there is no ripleys beleive it or not, its set and done, fact. Plain and simple.
-
FS2 wrecked the Vasudans. No longer did we only get brief glimpses of them as head anis or computer-generated voices. Now they just had human voices turned up or down in pitch.
I hope you actually played the game long enough to know those "human voices" are supposed to be the result of Vasudan --> Earth human translating systems.
-
There is only one possible explanation for the similarities. They had a common ancestor. The facial configuration of humans and basically all others animals on earth is because we had common ancestors. True aliens in our universe would not look like any animal we have seen before.
What about the Greys, they have two eyes, one mouth and possibly two ears, (although they could be missing a nose)?
:drevil:
What are greys???
-
The stereotypical aliens that supposedly visit Earth nowdays and abduct folks and such. You know, little short guys with big heads and big black eyes?
-
The physiology, maybe I can live with it. When you really look at the number of things that need to go right to develop an advanced, sentient, technological species, I don't think that we'll ever encounter another technological species that is vastly, vastly different to ourselves. No hyperintelligent shades of the colour blue and whatnot. But the technological similarities are ridiculous on a galactic timescale. Out of the three and a half billion years of our evolution, and probably a similar magnitude of time for the vasudans, we just happened to cross paths at the point when we were so evenly technologically matched that we could fight a war that ended in a fourteen year stalemate (and then encountered a race that were only a few decades ahead of both of us? Never happen.
-
The Ancients? They were aggressive. It's a bit off topic, but I would like to say that the Ancients are another extraterrestrial species designed very well by Volition. I have always read stories about other civilizations, disappeared many thousand years ago, but they were all about a pacific civilization, crushed by another one, the enemy. The Ancients are realistic. A civilization with an expanded Empire, aggressive and overconfident. In Inferno R1, what remains of the Ancients should have been another opponent....fair thing to me.
Theres nothing to suggest for or against races way older then either the ancients or shivans. For all we know maybe the Progenitors, or Steltek or some other ancient during the timewar, that might have helped things alone :)
-
Had it ever accured to anyone that humanoid shape may be the optimal shape for a cultural and technological race?
It occured. And then was rejected as a bunch of humanocentric bull****.
Give me one good reason why velociraptor or any of the other dromaeosaurs would have to change to an upright posture in order to achieve sentience and I might concede that you have a point.
Humans had to walk erect to allow us to come down out of the trees. But just because the selection pressures then led to sentience doesn't mean an upright posture should be considered a prerequisite for sentience.
-
How would you define sentience? :nervous: Who's to say dolphins are not sentient. :confused: Seem's to me they are probably more intelligent than us, all they do all day is play, eat, sleep and mate! they are not at the top of the food chain, but they aren't at the bottom either, and there aren't that many predators that prey on dolphins specifically. They have it made, and didn't need any technology to do it either!
-
Who's to say dolphins are not sentient. :confused: Seem's to me they are probably more intelligent than us, all they do all day is play, eat, sleep and mate! they are not at the top of the food chain, but they aren't at the bottom either, and there aren't that many predators that prey on dolphins specifically.
More intelligent than us? No. You, on the other hand...
-
Who's to say dolphins are not sentient. :confused: Seem's to me they are probably more intelligent than us, all they do all day is play, eat, sleep and mate! they are not at the top of the food chain, but they aren't at the bottom either, and there aren't that many predators that prey on dolphins specifically.
More intelligent than us? No. You, on the other hand...
Huh? Yeah maybe, sorry! I've just woke up and it was just a thought! It was just the idea that a species could be sentient without actually being technologically advanced! :(
-
The physiology, maybe I can live with it. When you really look at the number of things that need to go right to develop an advanced, sentient, technological species, I don't think that we'll ever encounter another technological species that is vastly, vastly different to ourselves. No hyperintelligent shades of the colour blue and whatnot. But the technological similarities are ridiculous on a galactic timescale. Out of the three and a half billion years of our evolution, and probably a similar magnitude of time for the vasudans, we just happened to cross paths at the point when we were so evenly technologically matched that we could fight a war that ended in a fourteen year stalemate (and then encountered a race that were only a few decades ahead of both of us? Never happen.
Does it say specificly that both sides were equal the the begining if hte T-V war? Maby one side had a clear tech advantage, but lost it (stealing tech).
Also, Shivans are apparently far more advanced... maby they're jsut sending in the reserve reserve fleet to deal with us..
And one final note - you assume technologywill develop exponentially - that is probably false. New scientific theories become more and more complicated, especially when we go into nano-scale (n-dimension calculation). We're making theories on concepts we can't even grasp.
Consequently, new tech become more and more complicated.
This all leads to that people need more time to master it, more training to mantain it. Ultimately, the human brain has it's limits. We're porbably going to reach a phase where progress will slow don significantly, and soon.
It occured. And then was rejected as a bunch of humanocentric bull****.
Give me one good reason why velociraptor or any of the other dromaeosaurs would have to change to an upright posture in order to achieve sentience and I might concede that you have a point.
Humans had to walk erect to allow us to come down out of the trees. But just because the selection pressures then led to sentience doesn't mean an upright posture should be considered a prerequisite for sentience.
For all intense and purposes, they were sentient. all animals are. The word you're looking for is advanced intelligence.
However a velocilaptor would never develop a intricate colture..I just don't see him capable of building anything with those claws...
another thing that's interesting to note - is advanced intelligence the result of evolution? Kinda strange we're the only species on the planet that is this "smart". Either way, there is no evidence that it is...more food for hte thought.
-
[quote author=TrashMan link=topic=46864.msg955610#msg955610 date=1178011543For all intense and purposes, they were sentient. all animals are. The word you're looking for is advanced intelligence.[/quote]
No it isn't.
Replace sentient with sapient if you want to get pedantic about it.
However a velocilaptor would never develop a intricate colture..I just don't see him capable of building anything with those claws...
And apes couldn't achieve sapience cause they would burn their trees down creating fires. :rolleyes:
I referred quite clearly to the dromaeosaurs evolving into an sapient life form. Not that they were one.
another thing that's interesting to note - is advanced intelligence the result of evolution? Kinda strange we're the only species on the planet that is this "smart". Either way, there is no evidence that it is...more food for hte thought.
It's not strange at all. Who says that any other animal on Earth ever had the selection pressure and the morphology required to achieve sapience?
-
However a velocilaptor would never develop a intricate colture..I just don't see him capable of building anything with those claws...
And apes couldn't achieve sapience cause they would burn their trees down creating fires. :rolleyes:
I referred quite clearly to the dromaeosaurs evolving into an sapient life form. Not that they were one.
Eh...what? :confused:
It's not strange at all. Who says that any other animal on Earth ever had the selection pressure and the morphology required to achieve sapience?
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
There are animals similar to us in many way in biology(apes) but who are light-years away from actually developing an intricate culture like us.
There's no comparison.. and selection pressure is allways there - adapt or die. You really think our pressure was somehow different than that of various ape species?
-
Does it say specificly that both sides were equal the the begining if hte T-V war? Maby one side had a clear tech advantage, but lost it (stealing tech).
Also, Shivans are apparently far more advanced... maby they're jsut sending in the reserve reserve fleet to deal with us..
It not a matter of one side or the other having a slight advantage - we're talking about a timescale measured in millions, if not billions of years. Consider the numbers. Assume both species took 3.5 billion years to evolve from the first self replicating molecules on their respective planet. If the vasudans had reached their FS1 technological level and encountered the terrans just 0.000000285% of that history before they actually did, they would have found us in the middle of the dark ages. It's not really classed as a technological edge when one side has plasma guns and subspace, and the other has horses and catapults. And that assumes they both started at exactly the same time and took the same amount of time to develop. It's a massive, massive coincidence - in fact, turn the number on it's head and you get a 1 in 3,500,000 chance of the two species encountering each other with technology levels of approximately 1000 years apart. Get it to the point where they can fight a stalemate war against each other (generously say an equivalence of within 50 or so years) and you get a 1 in 70,000,000 chance. Get it?
As for the shivans, in what ways exactly, were they far more advanced in FS1? Shields, Beams, can't be targetted, better quality fighters, subspace tracking etc. etc. All of which we had by FS2. They're more advanced, but not on the kind of scale they should be given these galactic timescales.
And one final note - you assume technologywill develop exponentially - that is probably false. New scientific theories become more and more complicated, especially when we go into nano-scale (n-dimension calculation). We're making theories on concepts we can't even grasp.
Consequently, new tech become more and more complicated.
This all leads to that people need more time to master it, more training to mantain it. Ultimately, the human brain has it's limits. We're porbably going to reach a phase where progress will slow don significantly, and soon.
Don't be silly. The more we understand, the more able we are to make use of it. Technological progress is going to vastly increase. You're right, things are getting more complex, and as a result, people are getting more specialized. But we've also got, for the first time in human history, large scale, easy access to the greater part of the sum of human knowledge (and a lot of porn) in the form of the internet. We're heading towards a technological singularity, not a slowdown.
It occured. And then was rejected as a bunch of humanocentric bull****.
Give me one good reason why velociraptor or any of the other dromaeosaurs would have to change to an upright posture in order to achieve sentience and I might concede that you have a point.
Humans had to walk erect to allow us to come down out of the trees. But just because the selection pressures then led to sentience doesn't mean an upright posture should be considered a prerequisite for sentience.
Increasign brain size would have neccessitated increasing head size, probably causing a body weight imbalance. You could counter this by increasing rear bulk or tail length, but this would have been less energy efficient than adjusting their posture to be more upright and centre the weight better over their legs. Plus, long tails would have made them vulnerable to ambush by larger predators (the only realistic defence a dromaeosaur would have had against a larger tyrannosaurid type predator would have been to run away after all, leaving their rear exposed). Admittedly, a more upright posture might have been less efficient for speed and raptorial predation, but this could well have been the selection pressure that led to a further increase in brain size, just as humans had to increase their brain size in order to survive the much stronger selection pressure on the plains rather than in the somewhat safer trees.
Admittedly, it's not an air tight theory, but it's certainly (IMO) a viable route towards increased inteligence and upright posture in dromaeosaurs. I reckon that, in earthlike gravity, for terrestrial bipeds heading for sentience, upright posture is probably the way to go, simply because it's much easier to keep your big, heavy, well protected head directly above your centre of gravity that to have to put a big counterweight out behind you. In lower gravity you might be able to do it, but you'd need to have some sort of advantage to promote it.
Of course, there's nothing saying that terrestrial bipeds are the only way you're going to get sentience. You could have marine animals (though I'd say finding technological sentience in truly marine organisms (as opposed to amphibious) would be very rare, because of the much more significant advantage of a hydrodynamic shape vs evolving complex manipulators. You could do it with tentacles I suppose, but that'd be... well, it'd be rare I suspect), or terrestrial quadrapedal-hexapods (i.e. 4 legs, two arms), etc. etc.
-
Regarding this topic as a whole, I don't think that anyone can make a qualified statement either way on the evolutionary development/form of potential sentient life on another planet, simply because we have no evidence at all to go on either way. The only ecosystem and planetary history we can observe is our own, and the only sentient (or at the very least, technologically sentient) species we can observe is ourselves; we're in a completely closed system here. Perhaps our planet's primordial situation was unique, leading to the forms of life we can trace over Earth's history, right up to ourselves. Perhaps any sort of advanced life that formed on another planet, even one very like our own, would be so radically different as to not even be recognizable as such. Or perhaps sentient life really could take the form of bipedal reptilians with a semi-exposed skeletal/muscular structure, complex linguistics, and a penchant for fish. We have no clue either way, and until the day comes when we're able to fully study an alien ecosystem, any discussion on the matter is not much more than fodder for science fiction.
And on that note, concerning oneself about the minuscule probability of humanity happening to stumble across another sentient species at an almost exact level of development as our own seems to me to be rather foolish, considering that this fact was the main construct that enables the form of gameplay seen in this series. :p
-
Had it ever accured to anyone that humanoid shape may be the optimal shape for a cultural and technological race?
It occured. And then was rejected as a bunch of humanocentric bull****.
Give me one good reason why velociraptor or any of the other dromaeosaurs would have to change to an upright posture in order to achieve sentience and I might concede that you have a point.
Humans had to walk erect to allow us to come down out of the trees. But just because the selection pressures then led to sentience doesn't mean an upright posture should be considered a prerequisite for sentience.
So... other people think considered the Dromeosauri smart enough to be "candidates". I considered me alone.
Well, if you look at Games Workshop's Lizardmen, you wonder...
-
Oh damn.
I have stumbled into a thread where everyone is trying to pretend that they know something about biology past the high school curriculum.
Step away... slowly...
-
I know Biology... or I can simply ask my mother :P
I know, but my English it limited...that's my problem. I'm like the Ancients, who cannot "deliver the hurt"...
-
Oh damn.
I have stumbled into a thread where everyone is trying to pretend that they know something about biology past the high school curriculum.
Step away... slowly...
I'm in the fourth year of my geology/biology degree at uni. That count enough for you?
-
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
*Sits down and straps himself in*
Okay then. What is it the product of?
Increasign brain size would have neccessitated increasing head size, probably causing a body weight imbalance. You could counter this by increasing rear bulk or tail length, but this would have been less energy efficient than adjusting their posture to be more upright and centre the weight better over their legs. Plus, long tails would have made them vulnerable to ambush by larger predators (the only realistic defence a dromaeosaur would have had against a larger tyrannosaurid type predator would have been to run away after all, leaving their rear exposed). Admittedly, a more upright posture might have been less efficient for speed and raptorial predation, but this could well have been the selection pressure that led to a further increase in brain size, just as humans had to increase their brain size in order to survive the much stronger selection pressure on the plains rather than in the somewhat safer trees.
Admittedly, it's not an air tight theory, but it's certainly (IMO) a viable route towards increased inteligence and upright posture in dromaeosaurs. I reckon that, in earthlike gravity, for terrestrial bipeds heading for sentience, upright posture is probably the way to go, simply because it's much easier to keep your big, heavy, well protected head directly above your centre of gravity that to have to put a big counterweight out behind you.
That's kinda my point. It's a route. But it's not necessarily the only one that they could have taken. They don't HAVE to become upright to survive. They could have. I'm not denying it. But they wouldn't have to.
In fact quite a few palaeontologists who have looked into the subject consider it fairly arrogant to say that dinosaurs would have ended up humanoid. Take a look at this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/petdinosaur/highlights/) for instance as you might enjoy it :)
-
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
*Sits down and straps himself in*
Okay then. What is it the product of?
GOD..... ;7
-
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
*Sits down and straps himself in*
Okay then. What is it the product of?
GOD..... ;7
You mean eating an apple from the Tree of Knowledge don't you? :drevil:
In that case is all because of Satan that the human race has high intelligence! :P
-
Don-t know if I would call it high intelligence.
Whatever it is, we are apparently the only one to have it, which is wierd. This trait is both a blessing and a curse..
As for the tree of knowledge bit... you do relise its all a metaphor?
-
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
*Sits down and straps himself in*
Okay then. What is it the product of?
GOD..... ;7
:lol:
The stereotypical aliens that supposedly visit Earth nowdays and abduct folks and such. You know, little short guys with big heads and big black eyes?
Don't insult the Asgard like that! ;7
-
That's kinda my point. It's a route. But it's not necessarily the only one that they could have taken. They don't HAVE to become upright to survive. They could have. I'm not denying it. But they wouldn't have to.
In fact quite a few palaeontologists who have looked into the subject consider it fairly arrogant to say that dinosaurs would have ended up humanoid. Take a look at this (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/tx/petdinosaur/highlights/) for instance as you might enjoy it :)
One person says it's unlikely, the other says it's likely. I personally come down on the side of humanoid being a damned good shape for sentience if you're starting from a terrestrial biped because, as I mentioned above, it's preferable to keep your big, heavy head directly over your centre of gravity due to pure physics. Once you get that going on, the basics of humanoidism (upright posture, eliminated or extremely shortened tail (which in dromaeosaurs only existed as a counterweight and rudder anyway) etc.).
-
The stereotypical aliens that supposedly visit Earth nowdays and abduct folks and such. You know, little short guys with big heads and big black eyes?
Don't insult the Asgard like that! ;7
*watches point sail over his head*
Sorry, don't get it; not a B5 fan. :)
-
The stereotypical aliens that supposedly visit Earth nowdays and abduct folks and such. You know, little short guys with big heads and big black eyes?
Don't insult the Asgard like that! ;7
*watches point sail over his head*
Sorry, don't get it; not a B5 fan. :)
It's Stargate you doof, they were the ones involved with the Roswell stories. The Vree are the Babylon 5 greys. :lol:
-
Well, there you go. Not much of a SG1 fan either, as I've made very apparent. :p
-
Come on, how could you not know these, they are both brilliant shows. Well one was and one is. :doubt:
B5 is forever within me...even though it's long dead on the media... :doubt:
-
Is is possible high intelligence is a product of evolution, however I doubt it.
*Sits down and straps himself in*
Okay then. What is it the product of?
GOD..... ;7
It's a good thing I'm strapped in right now so as to save me from killing myself with a massive facepalm.
-
Don't let me stop you....
Have you noticed how all the traits in nauture are never singular? Truk like an elephant? Several other species have it also. Marsupials (bag on belly) - there's a lot of those too.. Even the platapus isn't the only mammal that lays eggs...
So think...in 3 million years of evolution, only the human has a very specific trait?
-
Don't let me stop you....
Have you noticed how all the traits in nauture are never singular? Truk like an elephant? Several other species have it also. Marsupials (bag on belly) - there's a lot of those too.. Even the platapus isn't the only mammal that lays eggs...
So think...in 3 million years of evolution, only the human has a very specific trait?
Well we still are the only ones that will kill others in cold blood, not under pure instinct for survival purposes like animals do.
And platypuses are still freaks... ;7
-
Not another evolutionist hijack. Seriously. Save that for the correct thread.
And where is the lonely bastard who normaly quotes me to say i was wrong. You ppl make me sick.
EDIT: And for another counter-hijack, what do you guys speculate Vasudans evolved from? Fish? Crabs? Rocks?
-
What kind of a stupid question is that?
We all know it's fishes.
Here's the proof;
(http://www.shatteredstar.org/groups/freespace/freakspace/freakspace11.jpg)
-
Not another evolutionist hijack. Seriously. Save that for the correct thread.
And where is the lonely bastard who normaly quotes me to say i was wrong. You ppl make me sick.
EDIT: And for another counter-hijack, what do you guys speculate Vasudans evolved from? Fish? Crabs? Rocks?
There's not been such thing as an evolutionist since the early 20th century. Now go away you insignificant little man.
Hail fishies.
-
Hail fishies.
Can anyone say total thread disintegration? :(
(Not singling you out, BW, you were a good contributor. :) )
Personally I do think that although the humanoid biped is a good shape, there are others that I'm sure could work just as well which we are not thinking of. Also consider that they could be made of different material. This would certainly influence the design.
I appreciate the thought some of you guys put into the thread. Really helped me to see a few points. :)
And Char, if you dont have anything constructive to say, please kindly step out. :blah:
-
Not another evolutionist hijack. Seriously. Save that for the correct thread.
And where is the lonely bastard who normaly quotes me to say i was wrong. You ppl make me sick.
EDIT: And for another counter-hijack, what do you guys speculate Vasudans evolved from? Fish? Crabs? Rocks?
You forgot blueberry muffins. ;7
Boy I can find some good uses for that smilie.
-
Not another evolutionist hijack. Seriously. Save that for the correct thread.
It's not a evolutionist hijack. The entire bloody thread was about evolution. Trashman is the one who can't understand that fact. So it's a Trashman hijack.
Lets ignore the entire God/Evolution debate and go straight to the huge logical flaw he's missed. If there is a God and he gave Terrans their intelligence he obviously did the same for the Vasudans. In which case any discussion about their believability is moot since God could have made them look like whatever he wanted to.
Therefore Trashman's entire point must be that the Vasudans are 100% believable and always will be and he can cease any further discussion and leave the thread now. :p
Anyway getting back to the subject at hand I'd recommend reading something by Jack Cohen and Ian Stewart on the subject. I found them quite interesting.
-
To be honest there were enough single celled based evolutions here on earth kicking off at the same time, and look how different we all turned out. (even after the dino killing disaster)
-
It's not a evolutionist hijack. The entire bloody thread was about evolution. Trashman is the one who can't understand that fact. So it's a Trashman hijack.
Lets ignore the entire God/Evolution debate and go straight to the huge logical flaw he's missed. If there is a God and he gave Terrans their intelligence he obviously did the same for the Vasudans. In which case any discussion about their believability is moot since God could have made them look like whatever he wanted to.
Therefore Trashman's entire point must be that the Vasudans are 100% believable and always will be and he can cease any further discussion and leave the thread now. :p
Kaj, you are an extremly big arse.
No, seriously. Not a joke....
Whenever I don't agree with you (wehter 100% or jsut partially, or just don't belive that your explanation is the only one) you start some unholy crusade against me.
Now I don't know what issues you got but don't vent them out on me.
B.t.w. - the only logical hole is hte one in your hollow head.
-
Does God approve of your insults?
-
Evolution thread #2, the resurrection :lol:
-
Here comes the Karajorma Fan Club... :shaking:
Incoming jump signature! It's LGM, Bob-San and DySko! TrashMan, withdraw! Withdraw!
-
He has proven your point wrong in an attempt to get you to stop derailing the thread.
Its not working.
B.t.w. - the only logical hole is hte one in your hollow head.
:snipe:
Your God commands you to continue this over PM for your own dignity's sake.
Now, a new line of inquiry...
What other designs could develop besides the humanoid biped that would be equally effective? What other organic materials could they be made of?
If there arent any others, I guess the Vasudan design is actually somewhat probable, although they are still a bit too similar to humans.
-
Wait a sec - you think I'm trying to pass of creationism? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, that's a good one.....
Well, it can't be the language barrier, since I speak english fluently...oh man...
Now this isn't (and it shouldn't be) a evolution debate, but jsut to clear thungs up:
He didn't prove me wrong. Where is that proof? There is no proof that intelligence is the result of evolution.
Millions of years on life on our planet - from the proto-dinasours till now, and we are the only one who posses that special something? Kinda hard to belive. While our physical apperance is most likey product of evolution, our intelligence is another matter.
THE END.
-
Wait a sec - you think I'm trying to pass of creationism? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Man, that's a good one.....
Well, it can't be the language barrier, since I speak english fluently...oh man...
Now this isn't (and it shouldn't be) a evolution debate, but jsut to clear thungs up:
He didn't prove me wrong. Where is that proof? There is no proof that intelligence is the result of evolution.
Millions of years on life on our planet - from the proto-dinasours till now, and we are the only one who posses that special something? Kinda hard to belive. While our physical apperance is most likey product of evolution, our intelligence is another matter.
THE END.
JOIN THE F'ING MEETING HALL PLEASE
-
To attempt to bring the thread back on topic....I think that terran and vasudans, most likely being both carbon-based life forms may have evolved similarly. Maybe 2 million years or so ago vasudans looked exactly like terrans and are the next step in evolution (quite a conspiracy theory)....but seriously i think that since the vasudans evolved (relatively) "a couple houses down the road" from us (It's a big galaxy after all), they wouldn't be that much different.
-
He didn't prove me wrong.
Actually I did.
Where is that proof? There is no proof that intelligence is the result of evolution.
Millions of years on life on our planet - from the proto-dinasours till now, and we are the only one who posses that special something? Kinda hard to belive. While our physical apperance is most likey product of evolution, our intelligence is another matter.
THE END.
Once again you've missed the point Trashman and gone off on an emo rant about how I hate you and have a crusade against you. When the simple fact is that if you talk sense I'm more than happy to debate the matter at hand.
The point you've missed is that the entire God created intelligence/intelligence evolved debate is complete irrelevant to the discussion because.
1) This discussion assumes that intelligence is evolved
2) Even if it isn't then any alien lifeform is believable no matter how evolutionarily unlikely they are. Once you mix God into the equation they're all equally likely. Perfect replicas of humans who just talk English backwards are as believable as Vasudans if you're saying God created intelligence.
So basically your argument has pushed you down a logical cul-de-sac and your only option is to say that they're all believable since God created them and God by definition is all powerful and therefore can create any ****ing alien he wishes to no matter how unlikely they would be to evolve.
-
Do you have a personal vendetta gainst Trashy? >>;
-
I once tried to write up a list for what an origanism would need to be before it could get to be technological. It was long. It's a very, very complex thing that's easily procluded.
I wish I could find that list. I never finished the thing, but it was pretty cool even so, I thought.
-
Do you have a personal vendetta gainst Trashy? >>;
No.
But I can start one if he really wants me to. :p
-
Once again you've missed the point Trashman and gone off on an emo rant about how I hate you and have a crusade against you. When the simple fact is that if you talk sense I'm more than happy to debate the matter at hand.
The point you've missed is that the entire God created intelligence/intelligence evolved debate is complete irrelevant to the discussion because.
1) This discussion assumes that intelligence is evolved
2) Even if it isn't then any alien lifeform is believable no matter how evolutionarily unlikely they are. Once you mix God into the equation they're all equally likely. Perfect replicas of humans who just talk English backwards are as believable as Vasudans if you're saying God created intelligence.
So basically your argument has pushed you down a logical cul-de-sac and your only option is to say that they're all believable since God created them and God by definition is all powerful and therefore can create any ****ing alien he wishes to no matter how unlikely they would be to evolve.
Now you're making little sense. Just becosue God can do whatever he wants doesn't mean he will do it (or has done it). What use is extreeme intelligence to a species that can't make full use of it (example - snake?).
Also, God kinda doesn't like breaking the laws of the universe he set up...except in extreeme cases.
Your precious "argument" doesn't make any sense.. According to you, I should throw all science out of the window simply becosue I belive in God, and run around claming that everything is likely and elivable.
-
I love it when people know what God means and doesn't mean to do.
And yes, you might as well.
-
I love it when people know what God means and doesn't mean to do.
Well given that (assuming he's a catholic) he's claimed on this thread to know Catholicism better than Pope John Paul II (Who claimed that the Vatican had no objection to the entirety of the theory of evolution including the descent of man) why not push it a little further and claim he understands what God would and wouldn't do.
Now you're making little sense. Just becosue God can do whatever he wants doesn't mean he will do it (or has done it). What use is extreeme intelligence to a species that can't make full use of it (example - snake?).
It's quite simple Trashman. The debate is whether the Vasudans are too humanlike to have evolved. If you're claiming that God messes in evolution the entire point is moot. No matter how similar the Vasudans are it doesn't matter cause God created them that way.
Also, God kinda doesn't like breaking the laws of the universe he set up...except in extreeme cases.
ROTFLMAO!
So God doesn't like to interfere with the laws of the universe yet you claim that the proof you have that he exists is the fact that he interfered with the laws of the universe to give humans intelligence? Even though there is an explaination that gives humans intelligence without God needing to interfere? :lol:
According to you, I should throw all science out of the window simply becosue I belive in God, and run around claming that everything is likely and elivable.
You already have thrown science out of the window by ascribing a supernatural explanation to something which science can already explain. All that remains to be seen is how committed you are to doing that! :p
-
Well given that (assuming he's a catholic) he's claimed on this thread to know Catholicism better than Pope John Paul II (Who claimed that the Vatican had no objection to the entirety of the theory of evolution including the descent of man) why not push it a little further and claim he understands what God would and wouldn't do.
I make a conjection based on the teachings of the Churrch and God's past behaviour. You don't see him stepping in lately creating pillars of fire or mana from heavens, do you?
You also seem to forget that evolution is a THEROY that explains a humans biological descent. Wether intelligence is the product of evolution is not proven.....
So God doesn't like to interfere with the laws of the universe yet you claim that the proof you have that he exists is the fact that he interfered with the laws of the universe to give humans intelligence? Even though there is an explaination that gives humans intelligence without God needing to interfere? :lol:
Evidence? Who ever said anything about evidence? I said it's strange.. and it is.
You already have thrown science out of the window by ascribing a supernatural explanation to something which science can already explain. All that remains to be seen is how committed you are to doing that! :p
So according to you, if I do something once, I should do it all the time, under all circumstances? Such primitive generalizations are below you...
Now plase, leave this be allready.
--------------------------------
ON TOPIC:
It is possible Terrans and Vasudans had the smae descendants, or even that Vasudan genetic material came from Earth 8on a metoer or something9.
IT's not liek things like that aren't uncommon in Sci-fi.
-
LOCKLOCKLOCKLOCKLOCKLOCKLOCKLOCKALOCK
-
No, don't! Someone just make a thread in the Meeting Hall.
-
I make a conjection based on the teachings of the Churrch and God's past behaviour. You don't see him stepping in lately creating pillars of fire or mana from heavens, do you?
Yes... indeed, as opposed to the last time you saw him creating pillars of fire from the heavens. Which obviously happened, just not lately.
-
Millions of years on life on our planet - from the proto-dinasours till now, and we are the only one who posses that special something? Kinda hard to belive.
Neanderthals?? And before you say something foolish like "Well, they aren't alive anymore." remember what natural selection is.
Also, how intelligent must a species be for you to acknowledge it?
-
Here we go...talking about religion...the one thing that can easily start a global war but not stop one...nothing more than an opinion created by humans to try to counter the fear of their inevitable death...all it does is bring misery to the world. Drop it immediately... :doubt:
-
BUT MY GOD IS MY SAVIOR!!!!!!!
-
Heresy. The Orici will not tolerate it!
-
Hallowed is the Orici. Blessed are those who in unision with her.
Anyhoo, back on-topic...
-
I totally agree with commander Zane on this one
Here we go...talking about religion...the one thing that can easily start a global war but not stop one...nothing more than an opinion created by humans to try to counter the fear of their inevitable death...all it does is bring misery to the world. Drop it immediately... :doubt:
-
Hallowed is the Orici. Blessed are those who in unision with her.
You just had to bring Adria in on this one.
The Orici is yummy. :D
-
Now plase, leave this be allready.
First up it is incredibly cowardly to make a point by point dissection of my reply and then try to claim I should leave it alone so as to prevent me replying.
If you want the subject to end I suggest you stop replying rather than trying to get the last word with underhanded techniques.
I make a conjection based on the teachings of the Churrch and God's past behaviour.
You made a connection which the pope himself has categorically claimed does not exist. That's fine. Faith is a personal matter and you're allowed to invent it any way you see fit but that still does mean that you are saying you have a better understanding of God with respect to the way mankind achieved sapience than the pope has. And for once it would be nice to hear you actually admit that you think you're right and the pope is wrong.
You also seem to forget that evolution is a THEROY that explains a humans biological descent. Wether intelligence is the product of evolution is not proven.....
Gravity is a THEORY. :rolleyes:
In science theory is as good as it gets. There is nothing above theory. You need to understand that there is an enormous difference between the scientific meaning of the word theory and it's colloquial use. They do not mean the same thing.
Evidence? Who ever said anything about evidence? I said it's strange.. and it is.
Not really. For 5 billion years there was simply nothing else around to say "hey, isn't it strange that I'm the only thing that can think around here"
And as someone else has pointed out there were other animals around who could think. Like Neanderthals for instance.
So according to you, if I do something once, I should do it all the time, under all circumstances? Such primitive generalizations are below you...
Why are you making one here then? Who said anything about all circumstances? Who said anything about doing it all the time?
You've continually failed to see my point. My point is that it is the height of stupidity ascribe something to the divine intervention of a superior being who you yourself will (hopefully) admit has motives you can't understand and then claim that you understand why or why not he would do something.
Dragging things back to the topic at hand. The Vasudans (for the purposes of this dicussion) exist. They look humanoid. You've claimed God exists and must do for intelligence to exist. How can the Vasudans ever not be believable? At what point would you look at the similarity between the Vasudans and humanity and go "There's no way God could have done that?"
Cause to me that seems like you're actually putting a limit on God's powers.
Your only possible answer is that the Vasudans are believable. Quite why you feel the need to debate the matter is beyond me.
-
First up it is incredibly cowardly to make a point by point dissection of my reply and then try to claim I should leave it alone so as to prevent me replying.
If you want the subject to end I suggest you stop replying rather than trying to get the last word with underhanded techniques.
now who's trying to have the last word?
You made a connection which the pope himself has categorically claimed does not exist. That's fine. Faith is a personal matter and you're allowed to invent it any way you see fit but that still does mean that you are saying you have a better understanding of God with respect to the way mankind achieved sapience than the pope has. And for once it would be nice to hear you actually admit that you think you're right and the pope is wrong.
No. Once again, your'e misinterpreting everything I say....and I'm not surprised.
And not only are you putting words in my mouth, now you're putting them in the popes' mouth too... way to go :doubt:
Not really. For 5 billion years there was simply nothing else around to say "hey, isn't it strange that I'm the only thing that can think around here"
And as someone else has pointed out there were other animals around who could think. Like Neanderthals for instance.
Which were also humanoid. And again, a single species (or two) in such a long timespan is nothing compared to other traits that appeared again and again, multiple times.
You've continually failed to see my point. My point is that it is the height of stupidity ascribe something to the divine intervention of a superior being who you yourself will (hopefully) admit has motives you can't understand and then claim that you understand why or why not he would do something.
Height of stupidity? Good work..you now insulted every person who belives in any diety or afterlife. Ya...we can't prove it so it MUST be the height of stupidity to belive...
The thing is that inteligence is NOT PROVEN to be the result of evolution. So when I belive something that is not proven, I'm stupid. When you belive it, you're a genius? LOL..
Oh...and the reson I debate this with you is becosue you go on my nerves by continually twisting my words and arguments. I've seen more then enough of your underhand tactics in debates to know this.
-
I seriously think this has gotten out of hand.
-
God has abandoned this thread.
-
Exorcism needed! :shaking:
-
now who's trying to have the last word?
I never said I wasn't. :p
I'm more than happy to carry on debating the matter. You're the one who answered all my points and they tried to deny me the right of reply by saying I shouldn't answer.
No. Once again, your'e misinterpreting everything I say....and I'm not surprised.
And not only are you putting words in my mouth, now you're putting them in the popes' mouth too... way to go :doubt:
It is a fact that the pope has claimed that Darwin's Origins of the Species was a great work and that the Vatican has no issue whatsoever with the theory of evolution. So how am putting words in the pope's mouth by pointing out that the pope has said that when I can provide proof he said that.
How am I misrepresenting you? How am I misinterpreting you?
You simply don't understand my point and instead of asking for clarification you just went off on a rant about how I had a vendetta against you.
Which were also humanoid. And again, a single species (or two) in such a long timespan is nothing compared to other traits that appeared again and again, multiple times.
I've never said that Intelligence was common. It might be that life is common on other planets and intelligence requires a certain uncommon set of selection pressures.
You've continually failed to see my point. My point is that it is the height of stupidity ascribe something to the divine intervention of a superior being who you yourself will (hopefully) admit has motives you can't understand and then claim that you understand why or why not he would do something.
Height of stupidity? Good work..you now insulted every person who belives in any diety or afterlife. Ya...we can't prove it so it MUST be the height of stupidity to belive...
Trashman. If you don't understand what I'm saying you really need to ask for clarification. I didn't say it was the height of stupidity to believe in God. I said it was the height of stupidity to claim you understand God.
If you check with the same people you claimed I insulted I'll bet you'll find that most of them agree with me on that fact. No human could ever understand an omnipotent being. It is sheer arrogance to say that you do.
So once again you have failed to understand me and have gone off on a rant about the point you mistakenly thought I was making. :lol:
Oh...and the reson I debate this with you is becosue you go on my nerves by continually twisting my words and arguments. I've seen more then enough of your underhand tactics in debates to know this.
I think this last post pretty much proves that you simply don't understand what I'm saying and are just set off by trigger words instead.
-
ON TOPIC:
It is possible Terrans and Vasudans had the smae descendants, or even that Vasudan genetic material came from Earth 8on a metoer or something9.
IT's not liek things like that aren't uncommon in Sci-fi.
Same ancestors you mean? How? The sytems are millions of light years apart.
And the "genetic material argument" doesent really make much sense since humans have been around for only a few million years. Not enough time for a meteor to travel, with material intact, thousands of light years away and the lottery chance of it landing on a habitable planet. How would humanoid genetic material get on the meteor in the first place?
If you mean an asteroid coming from Vasuda prime and hitting the Earth, the argument makes a bit more sense. You still have the astronomically low chance of the asteroid landing on a life-friendly planet, the extreme time difference for the asteroid to travel, the genetic material surviving intact on the asteroid ride, and how the genetic material gets on the asteroid in the first place.
I think the bottom line is that the Terrans and Vasudans could never have exchaged genetic material at any point in time, and that they evolved completley seperatley from single celled organisms. We're trying to gague the probability of them evolving into the extremley similar humanoid life forms.
Trash, quit trying to get the last word. Go start a thread in the meeting hall and continue the epic battle with Kara there. Snail and others, please stop egging them on.
-
I think the bottom line is that the Terrans and Vasudans could never have exchaged genetic material at any point in time
Maybe we should question Japong as to the validity of that comment. :p
Actually on second thoughts no we shouldn't. Definitely shouldn't.
-
Are you implying that....
NO. JUST NO!
-
God has abandoned this thread.
:lol:
Right, KappaWing, it should be illegial to color your text like that. I would quote your specific, offending post, but that would only bring further pain and suffering to others.
Also, since I have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion, I would like you all to direct your attention to the pixels not in the immediate vicinity of this post. Your cooperation is appreciated. :nervous:
-
:lol:
This thread is amazing... it should be in classics or something... OMG
-
It should be torched and burned so we may propagate the true story of God.
-
Trash, quit trying to get the last word. Go start a thread in the meeting hall and continue the epic battle with Kara there. Snail and others, please stop egging them on.
I wasn't edging them on, I was just wondering why Karajorma wasn't acting like his wonderful, friendly self and contradicting Trashy on every turn he makes. I'm not taking sides or trying to be an ass here, but sorry for anything I may have done to make the situation worse.
-
Trash, quit trying to get the last word. Go start a thread in the meeting hall and continue the epic battle with Kara there. Snail and others, please stop egging them on.
I wasn't edging them on, I was just wondering why Karajorma wasn't acting like his wonderful, friendly self and contradicting Trashy on every turn he makes. I'm not taking sides or trying to be an ass here, but sorry for anything I may have done to make the situation worse.
And I'm sorry for pointing fingers.
Is there any chance we can get back on topic?
-
Is it possible that the Vasudans are descendants of the Ancients?
-
I always had that feeling.
-
the last time was here on this subject i got critisized for having a outside the box idea of the way things are with the ancients. the problem is will it happen again?
considering the anceints were almost wiped out. and humans have been on this planet for around 120,000 years. thanks to the chinese. its not even possible to consider that the humans are descendents of the ancients. and considering the vasudans were also around in their infancy its also impossible to consider that these vausdans were also ancients... i do not think these races are even remotly linked.
another interesting point; what did these Ancients look like anyhow?
-
The Ancients were an advanced race of Neo-conservative snail-like beings. Duh.
Watch the four Fs1 monologues again, all will become clear...
-
ehm. words are words. Pictures are proof. Bring me more than words and i will accept it.
-
ehm. words are words. Pictures are proof. Bring me more than words and i will accept it.
No ****, son. :rolleyes:
Trash, quit trying to get the last word. Go start a thread in the meeting hall and continue the epic battle with Kara there. Snail and others, please stop egging them on.
Kappa, stop using the multi-colors. ****ing hell, it looks like a mother****ing parade in this goddamn thread. I propose BDZ's and anti-material rounds for this thread.
-
Kappa didn't use those colors.
Well I guess it goes to show how many people actually pay attention to what others write.
-
Is it possible that the Vasudans are descendants of the Ancients?
I've heard that idea a whole bunch of times before but I've never bought it.
It's much more likely that the Vasudans were one of the races crushed and subdued by the Ancients.
-
That's likely in the respect that it isn't likely at all.
-
Well I guess it goes to show how many people actually pay attention to what others write.
You did what to a sheep? And in public?! That's disgusting!
-
i should have known that this would SOMEHOW degrade into a evolution vs. creationism.
karajorma, i expected more out of you. go take it somewhere else, and leave this guy's thread alone.
-
the last time was here on this subject i got critisized for having a outside the box idea of the way things are with the ancients. the problem is will it happen again?
considering the anceints were almost wiped out. and humans have been on this planet for around 120,000 years. thanks to the chinese. its not even possible to consider that the humans are descendents of the ancients. and considering the vasudans were also around in their infancy its also impossible to consider that these vausdans were also ancients... i do not think these races are even remotly linked.
another interesting point; what did these Ancients look like anyhow?
Aye, the Ancient empire actually only started eight thousand years ago while we've been here for over a hundred. So it is likely that the humans and Vasudans weren't descendants of the Ancients, but they could have come into contact with the Ancients.
This is most likely to be true with the Vasudans. Most Ancient finds were found in Vasudan space and it's also noted somewhere (FSRefBible?) that the Vasudan homeworld was more barren than expected for life. So the Ancients may have helped the Vasudan species evolve from a struggling species to a thriving civilization.
My personal belief is that the Ancients, in light of there annihilation, decided to implant their civilization and history into the Vasudan's culture, indirectly preserving their species. Remnants of these ruins probably gave rise to the HoL's stupid little prophecy (Prophecy of Light, was it?).
-
Oops, wrong button....
Anyway, it is possible. First, everything that is stated above about similiar planet+ atmosphere, its a good theory.
The second theory is that of natural duplicating... In england, a type of bird (forgot the name) knew that if it pierced trough the... thing that you use to close a milk bottle (the plastic thing) you would get milk, (or, more precisly, a part of that milk I forgot the word), eventually, those same type of birds in the Netherlands (and other parts of the world) knew that to, however, these birds did not "migrate"
Same can be true for this, humunoid lifeform somewhere, eveuntually, a similar one pops up somewehre entirely else.
-
(Prophecy of Light, was it?).
Hammer of light.
Oops, wrong button....
Anyway, it is possible. First, everything that is stated above about similiar planet+ atmosphere, its a good theory.
The second theory is that of natural duplicating... In england, a type of bird (forgot the name) knew that if it pierced trough the... thing that you use to close a milk bottle (the plastic thing) you would get milk, (or, more precisly, a part of that milk I forgot the word), eventually, those same type of birds in the Netherlands (and other parts of the world) knew that to, however, these birds did not "migrate"
Same can be true for this, humunoid lifeform somewhere, eveuntually, a similar one pops up somewehre entirely else.
show me proof instead of words and you conviced me. otherwise i got no need to hear too much into this.
-
You could just go look it up. It's proovable (if that's a word :lol:).
BTW, Centrixo, just before I wrote Prophecy of Light I wrote HoL.
-
sorry ive listened to people, i'm too serious to joke. i noticed that when someone jokes around i do not notice it.
Words are words, but english was created by a monk in england who was condemned, what are there original meanings then? ovbiously over time word meanings have changed. eg American Slag.
but proof is something you lack to convince.
-
And Char, if you dont have anything constructive to say, please kindly step out. :blah:
I was being constructive. Don't push me aside like BW did.
Listen. You say it is about the evolution of Vasudans correct?
So my CONSTRUCTIVE point was:
Terrans > apes (or whatever technical term)
Vasudans > ? (is it for sure fish? If so what kind? As humans are not monkeys but apes, vasudans are not fush, but what?)
-
Vasudans look a lot like apes too, if you think about it. When my mom first saw a picture of a Vasudan as I was playing the game, she thought it was a deformed monkey of some sort. :D
-
Humans (Homosapiens) i think that is how it's spelt.
-
Does anyone have any gold stars left? I'm fresh out.
-
And Char, if you dont have anything constructive to say, please kindly step out. :blah:
I was being constructive. Don't push me aside like BW did.
Listen. You say it is about the evolution of Vasudans correct?
So my CONSTRUCTIVE point was:
Terrans > apes (or whatever technical term)
Vasudans > ? (is it for sure fish? If so what kind? As humans are not monkeys but apes, vasudans are not fush, but what?)
Ah, fush, en evolved form of fish, that developed lungs in conjunction with their gills. ;7
-
*goes stark raving mad*
-
Oh man. One thing in life i hate is those close minded religious types. Humans may have just appeared as humans from being created by god with the adam and eve story, or we may have have evolved from single celled organisms. One thing is certain though, evolution does exist, and does happen. It's part of life adapting and changing wherever it lives getting rid of what it doesn't need, and adding in maturing features for what it does need.
Human life on planet earth has had some obvious evolutionary changes as well. Humans on average are getting a lot taller and lankier, back in medieval times and before that humans were a lot shorter like 5ft or something, but they were also a lot more muscular all waving around heavy ass swords, and shields and stuff. Back then before bow and arrows humans could throw a spear a football stadiums length, probably more. Another thing about human evolution is that everyone these days just has wisdom teeth that don't come in correctly at all. Hell, some people don't even come with wisdoms anymore, or they just have some of them (i only had 3 wisdoms...the 4th just wasn't there). With teeth not coming in correctly you could say eating habits have changed or something.
Besides evolution about ourselves around here. Evolution has been proven on the galapogos islands. Scientists went there and noticed that the birds would have smaller beaks when the seeds they eat weren't hard to break into. And then when the next generation of birds comes along and the seeds need to be cracked open the same species of bird by then will have bigger beaks to do so, of course the smaller beaked birds pretty die out about this time because they don't have the big beak to break **** open with.
Anyway my point being, for all of those religious zealots, despite the creationism theory or the evolution from single celled organisms theory, evolution does exist and happens. Even if we humans were just plain old created like adam and eve, evolution is here yes and necessary. Even if we humans came from single celled organisms millions of years ago, well of course evolution is here especially. Doesn't matter which theory you use to try to figure out how we got here, it can't be proven by today's methods. But, we can explain why were are the way we are today, and why we were the way we were in any other point in the past as long as you're talking strictly about homo sapiens and not neanderthals.
In the meantime for us humans researching where we came from, it's cool as **** to study what species are related to us, i mean chimpanzees, orangutangs, and gorillas are the ****!
Anyway all of this is blurted out the mouth of a missionary anyway. I went to ukraine, turkey, and hungary for god (i'm not mormon or catholic..just your average christian). I like to keep an open mind because one philosopher said "the bible tells us how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work" (from the dark ages when people were arguing whether the earth orbitted the sun or the sun orbitted the earth from back in the days of early telescopes). Of course one further thing i hate is when people are too sheltered by their religion to not actually see in detail anything that's going on around them (bullheaded ****s).
In reality it doesn't matter if creation happened or if we evolved from other animals, we don't know, and it ultimately doesn't matter. So why do other religious people need to get defensive (i have no clue, people don't think sometimes)? This stuff is fascinating, and the more you look into both theories the more you learn.
In my head i haven't the slightest idea what vasudans may have evolved from. But, one thing is for certain they are not insectoid, and they don't really seem reptilian either.
-
S-99 was that post even necessary? I don't think anyone here on the forum denies evolution....does someone? :wtf:
EDIT: In my previous post I used the term high intelligence for human..which is wrong... since many animals are highly intelligent ..let's just call it "a special something"..
-
I was talking about other people not in the hlpbb who do deny evolution with a passion.
-
I don't think anyone here on the forum denies evolution....does someone? :wtf:
I can think of a few off the top of my head, sadly.
-
How about spiders? All those eyes and the eight legs? Better yet, scorpions. Arachnids. Aren't those kind of similar to shivans? Also, would some form of psychic power be out of the question, such as telekinesis?
Any of you have steam and HL2/CSS? Check out the eternal silence mod because I think that it's possible to take some elements from both games to improve each overall.
-
Also, would some form of psychic power be out of the question...?
You mean like, Shadows? :shaking:
-
You all have it wrong...
Apes evolved from humans... this thread is proof of that.
Gravity is a ****ing theory, and this is irrelevant to the discussion, because if any higher power had anything to do with the creation of Humans and Vasudans, than they could look identical, now couldn't they.
-
Apes are cool as ****. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutangs. Those are some kickass animals. Normal monkeys like spider monkeys suck.
-
i should have known that this would SOMEHOW degrade into a evolution vs. creationism.
karajorma, i expected more out of you. go take it somewhere else, and leave this guy's thread alone.
Good job stoking up an argument that had already ended. Do you pour vinegar on wounds as an encore? :rolleyes:
The whole point of this thread is that it was taking evolution as a basic premise. Had someone started a thread on creation stories and their relationships to Vasudans you can bet money that I would not have brought evolution into it. Simple fact is that I consider God to be as much a work of fiction as the Vasudans are so I would have been quite happy to actually discuss the matter as if the existence of God was a basic premise of the storyline.
Pity that certain religious people can't do the same even though they consider evolution to be a similar work of fiction.
-
I love it when you dumbassses yell at each other over the internet.
*giggles*
*runs*
-
All you need to do is give me your address...
And I won't be yelling at you over the internet... I'd be stabbing you over the floor.
-
Creationisim and the god theory. sure.. show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son and then i will be more open to thinking 2 ways instead of one. as far as i know the only sane theory is from the boffins in the research labs.
I know full well we came from a massive f*ck off asteroid that hit this world which consequently killed off the bigger dinosaurs that do not whistle for words, and ultimatly humans were a boneless worm then a small animal then a fish then a land animal until we evolved into who we are. again show me proof that apes mysteriously landed on this planet, you try telling this to ordinary chinese people. chinese have lived alot more longer then the ancient mesopatamiens, that aside. the Vasudans.
it looks like Vasudans are created from a lizard of some sorts, because this race has scales on their ship armours and their skin.
-
I?m jsut interested in one thing...
What would you (or what should anyone for that matter) accept as proof of devine? An exmple would be nice...
-
I?m jsut interested in one thing...
What would you (or what should anyone for that matter) accept as proof of devine? An exmple would be nice...
show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son
you need glasses :P
-
What would you (or what should anyone for that matter) accept as proof of devine? An exmple would be nice...
FS3's release.
-
Had Derek Smart made it people would probably have considered that to be proof of Satan's existence.
-
There goes the looney bin... :doubt:
-
show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son
you need glasses :P
And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?
Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..
Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..
Too much hassle....
-
God this has spiralled.
:wtf:
My sapper sense is tingling, i feel a lockage coming soon......... :nervous:
-
show god in the sky and the garden of eden, then give me a scientific blood of bone sample that this man that claims to be gods son
you need glasses :P
And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?
Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..
Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..
Too much hassle....
And this is why I stay away from religion... :doubt:
Six billion people each with different opinions about what / who their god / gods are, and none of them can agree on one another. :doubt:
It'll be the annihilation of the human race...watch... :doubt:
-
And how would that constitute as proof? With what would you compare Jesuses DNA with? And what would you expect to find?
Bacisly no matter WHAT God could do - raise dead, make the sun purple, invert gravity - you could allways find anotehr explanation - illusion, mass hypnosis, a dream, government conspiracy, gas pockets, weather baloon, fancy FX, technobabble..
Except for maby the raise dead thingy, but that would only convince you directly.. You could tape the event, but the next generation would claim it's a fake, made on a PC or go with a conspiracy theory again. So basicly GOD would have to make some wonder for every generation, over and over again..
Too much hassle....
No proof will ever be found because by your own definition, god is a supernatural being.
The moment a proof was found, it would become a natural being. So it's pointless to argue about proof if none exists.
-
yeah, what Ghostavo said.
i hope this is clear enough example of what people want as an example. religious creationism vs science..
-
How did this thread turn out to another discussion about Religion?
Ah, I had a...verbal fight with one of my teachers. She is Creationist and was about to suspend me and my best friend just because... we were right! She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more. Since when Science supports Religion? If you have proofs, you no longer have the "blind faith" you're supposed to have. That's strange.
You know, I've always been interested on Astronomy and Science, so I exploited the weaknesses of that infamous Creationist theory mentioning the evolution of Dinosaurs and birds, for example. She even became angry, she called me "ignorant" and she also said I use drugs. Meh...stupid nuns!
Her ignorance was worrying...she even misspelt Big Bang(she said Big Ben instead :lol: )and made references to stupid pseudo-theories about the Chaos of the beginning. I wouldn't call a young Universe "Chaotic", that was just a stupid wat to justify Creationist theories(that thing about the Chaos comes straight from Greek Philosophers... and the Catholic Religion "made it pretty").
CRAP!
-
Since when Science supports Religion?
Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.
-
Since when Science supports Religion?
Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.
I know what Einstein thought and, in fact, I'm a bit confused mostly because of him...he was The Scientist and was Religious at the same time. That's something I don't understand.
And Einstein didn't find proofs... I said the Church continues to talk about having a blind faith... if what you want to believe on is supported by Science, you no longer have a "faith"....you're just afraid.
-
Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.
And wasted the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum theory because of it.
I do not believe that science and religion necessarily exclude each other. The problem comes when people attempt to use science to validate their preconceived notions of how the universe must work due to their religious views. This often results in them not getting the answer they expect ("Oh no! The geological record shows that Earth is more than 6000 years old!") and then fudging the data or simply lying about it in order to recover from that.
She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more.
Probably a huge misunderstanding of what Mitochondrial Eve was.
-
Mobius, remember that considering Science (with capitalized S) as absolute knowledge (like you seem to do) is like having Science as a religion. Instead of having a "blind faith" in Religion you have a "blind faith" in Science.
I'm not criticising you. I was exactly like you until some time ago.
I changed my mind with this year's Philosophy subjects. Popper said that Science is not a subject which leads to absolute knowledge. He said that a theory is not perfect when nothing can invalidate it, but it's perfect when you say how to invalidate it, so that a better theory is found.
Think about this :)
BTW, maybe this "science vs religion" off-topic could be split and moved in The Pub or in the Meeting Hall.
-
i am happy that no one has gone out of their way to kill each other with theories and creationisim. i expected ww3 myself :nervous:.
*Runs for the hills*
-
She said the most stupid things I have ever heard from an adult...according to her, Scientists demonstrated that we're all descendants of a SINGLE human being who wasn't a male or a female...he/she is our ancestor and nothing more.
Probably a huge misunderstanding of what Mitochondrial Eve was.
That was one hell of a misunderstanding... I joked a bit. We are all children of Adama or Evo. :lol:
Mobius, remember that considering Science (with capitalized S) as absolute knowledge (like you seem to do) is like having Science as a religion. Instead of having a "blind faith" in Religion you have a "blind faith" in Science.
I'm not criticising you. I was exactly like you until some time ago.
I changed my mind with this year's Philosophy subjects. Popper said that Science is not a subject which leads to absolute knowledge. He said that a theory is not perfect when nothing can invalidate it, but it's perfect when you say how to invalidate it, so that a better theory is found.
I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify. Creationists will never change their mind while I can if enough proofs are given.
I simply can't find other possible explanations...the way the Dinosaurs changed, everything makes sense if you take an evolution in consideration. The same is for the humans. We still have the coccigee, what remains of the tail our ancestors had...
Have you ever read something about the structure of the human body? Either God wasn't able to create an efficient species or we are the result of a long process we call evolution.
1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;
We look like God? Then God is far from being perfect.
Or...
We are the result of an evolution. Among our ancestors, the Australopitecus.
That nun said "You still believe on Darwin's theories. Darwin is old". Well, people like her believe on 2,000 years old "theories" which have always been contested and not demonstrated. I'm pissed off because no one should be allowed to say a bunch of stupid things in a public school. That teacher already tells hundreds of teenagers wrong things about social behaviour... :blah:
i am happy that no one has gone out of their way to kill each other with theories and creationisim. i expected ww3 myself :nervous:.
*Runs for the hills*
:lol:
-
That was one hell of a misunderstanding
Especially given that if you accept Mitochondrial Eve as a scientific fact you also have to accept that genetic drift puts her existence at 140,000 years ago. Somewhat outside of the bible's claim that Adam and Eve lived 6,000 years ago.
-
We should also consider the glaciations. If this Mitochondrial Eve was born after the last glaciation, only during which the human species had the possibility of moving to the American continent, the whole theory would be a nonsense.
-
I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify.
Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality, we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.
1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;
5) Just think to how long does it take to an ape to give birth to its first baby and compare it to a human woman. on this topic i read an interesting (and funny) article on National Geographic last year (italian version), you may want to have a look at it!
-
I don't have a blind faith on Science. I simply want to believe on what is demonstrated, on what I can easily verify.
Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality, we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.
The problems is that Darwin's theories are still considered...theories! They're the only possible reasons...finding definitive proofs is difficult, we all know this...but you want to follow Creationists instead? Their theories are stupid...
1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;
5) Just think to how long does it take to an ape to give birth to its first baby and compare it to a human woman. on this topic i read an interesting (and funny) article on National Geographic last year (italian version), you may want to have a look at it!
What are you refering to, exactly? That's another thing that makes us look unperfect...or that's a way to support Creationists' theories?!? I think I read that article too - it was also about the DNA, right?
-
Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality, we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.
Which is why theory is as high as science goes. There is no such thing as a 100% provable fact in science because the possibility always exists that your entire life is fake and you're just a computer simulation of you or a brain in a jar in some alien lab being fed electronic stimuli.
However the fact that science can't every be 100% proven correct is no justification for saying "Well then, I'm going to pick something less likely to be correct." Sure senses can be imperfect, but saying that this is a reason to choose something else is like saying that cause your eyes can be tricked you might as well close them and use The Force when crossing the road.
-
Meh. For all intents and purposes, supernatural phenomena do not exist.
Anything that happens in our universe* or in any way affects it is unavoidably an integral part of the universe. Everything that happens in the universe is thus a natural phenomenon. Supernatural stuff can not, by definition, affect our universe because then it becomes part of our universe and thus a natural phenomenon.
"Supernatural" is just a concept often used to inaccurately describe things that don't seem to have an explicable origin, and more specifically seem to have an unknown, conscious origin. That doesn't change the fact that everything observable is part of the universe, and conversely, anything that is not part of the universe does not exist. Ergo, god(s) cannot be supernatural and must be natural entities. ;7
Whether or not one or more of these powerful, personal entities have affected the birth of Earth, life and it's evolution, we have no way of knowing for sure. I personally doubt it and don't think it's necessary in any way. But as it stands, it doesn't seem to make much of a difference because these entities sure did a good job of hiding themselves of something really *did* all this.
In other words, it's possible that all that is was actually made 10:12 pm last afternoon and our neurons just remember things before that because they were all set individually, but this is more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster domain of theologic theories and quite obviously highly unlikely. But possible, of course.
As to the original topic, the realism of Vasudans: I think it is certainly plausible to think that there would be other beings in universe with a torso, lower and upper pairs of limbs and a head of some kind, walking in more or less upright position. It's a pretty vague form and leaves a lot of things to be decided by evolution, such as the structure of the skeleton (endo/exo, amount of joints in limbs, chemical composition), cell biology like how to produce energy and from what elements, how to store genetic material (DNA, RNA, other mechanisms), what to consist of (proteines most likely, but polymers are also an option for example), internal organ position, nervous system structure (central nervous system or distributed nervous system), fine tuning of sensory organs (what wavelengths, sound frequencies and chemicals they would sense, and also the more exotic sensory organs like electric and magnetic fields)...
The existence of another humanoid beings in the universe is pretty much sure given the huge size of it.
Now, much less likely is to encounter one of the races set to the vague humanoid form such close to our origin system. Or any kind of sentient species at all to begin with. :blah:
*note that when I'm talking about universe, I speak of everything that affects each other. So actually universe in this context is the multiverse, but at any rate I think that multiverse is the actual universe in the true sense of the word... and what we know as "universe" is actually just a "verse". Or perhaps it is our observerse...
So, commonly used term "universe" would be "observerse" (the part of universe directly observable to us, also includes the parts beyond the red line the expansion event horizon), and consequently the term "multiverse" would be the actual "universe" (includes all observerses).
-
Going back to old R. Descartes' philosophy, what can we really verify?
Although science has proved to be a good method to analyse and, up to some extents, predict reality, we have to admit that, as every knowledge matter, it lies on a weak ground, which is sensorial perception. in theory, unless we prove the perceptions of our senses are the TRUE (!) and the RIGHT (!)ones, we cannot justify most scientific laws.
However the fact that science can't every be 100% proven correct is no justification for saying "Well then, I'm going to pick something less likely to be correct." Sure senses can be imperfect, but saying that this is a reason to choose something else is like saying that cause your eyes can be tricked you might as well close them and use The Force when crossing the road.
That's was I was trying to say. We can't be sure of something and believe on something else...something that looks like a tale.
In other words, it's possible that all that is was actually made 10:12 pm last afternoon and our neurons just remember things before that because they were all set individually, but this is more of a Flying Spaghetti Monster domain of theologic theories and quite obviously highly unlikely. But possible, of course.
I want to know why people follow these theories. They're possible, of course, but there's almost no trace of proofs(I just read something about Intergalactic distances, but I don't remember it now) while other theories have plenties of proofs to speak of.
As to the original topic, the realism of Vasudans: I think it is certainly plausible to think that there would be other beings in universe with a torso, lower and upper pairs of limbs and a head of some kind, walking in more or less upright position. It's a pretty vague form and leaves a lot of things to be decided by evolution, such as the structure of the skeleton (endo/exo, amount of joints in limbs, chemical composition), cell biology like how to produce energy and from what elements, how to store genetic material (DNA, RNA, other mechanisms), what to consist of (proteines most likely, but polymers are also an option for example), internal organ position, nervous system structure (central nervous system or distributed nervous system), fine tuning of sensory organs (what wavelengths, sound frequencies and chemicals they would sense, and also the more exotic sensory organs like electric and magnetic fields)...
The existence of another humanoid beings in the universe is pretty much sure given the huge size of it.
Now, much less likely is to encounter one of the races set to the vague humanoid form such close to our origin system. Or any kind of sentient species at all to begin with. :blah:
That's what we were giving for sure :)
-
ok you belive god is real, then ok i belive a race called the Tu'Brak is real and are a dangerous foe...
if you do not belive there is such a race, then it's easy to disprove superstitions...
-
God may be not real, but no one is authorized to act like my teacher did. We must respect the others' opinions, but being almost suspended because of a stupid discussion is horrible.
You're free to think whatever you want :)
-
Religion and science are only capable of being reconciled if one recognizes that science is based upon accumultation of observable facts (and thus yields knowledge which is true at a given point in time for all like observers) while religion is a collection of faiths/beliefs which are based upon accumulation of oral and written tradition and yields knowledge which differs between all possible observers at any given point in time.
Science is a way of knowing (if knowing is truly possible), whereas religion is a way of believing or making sense of reality, which is always possible.
Man has been using religion as a means of understanding the world around him for as long as man has recorded history (and undoubtably well before that). It is a very valuable form of knowledge. However, religion is a conditional form of knowledge tied to context. It is on this last point where modern religion finds itself in a quagmire. Rather than accepting that knowledge may change over time, they insist upon interpreting stories - which were written down by man's hand - as facts from God which are absolute.
Christianity, for instance, is reconcilable with both Big Bang theory and Evolutionary Theory, just as it reconciled with gravity and the realization that the world is round. The problem is that many individuals (see Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort for two astounding examples) insist that the bible be interpreted literally. It is my opinion 9and the opinion of many biblical scholars, so this isn't fluff from nowhere) that Genesis and Revelations, to choose a couple examples, are written using literary devices (such as metaphors) in order to explain the world in a time when no other explanation would have held water.
So - and I haven't read this whole thread - if any of you are Literalists, I suggest you take a good hard look at the Bible from a literary standpoint rather than a purely dogmatic one.
That said, Convictions and Beliefs are probably the most difficult knowledges to change or modify. I do not generally get deeply involved in religious discussions anymore because - while I can explain the molecular existence of evolution - I'm not going to convince someone who is resolute in their beliefs.
-
So - and I haven't read this whole thread - if any of you are Literalists, I suggest you take a good hard look at the Bible from a literary standpoint rather than a purely dogmatic one.
That said, Convictions and Beliefs are probably the most difficult knowledges to change or modify. I do not generally get deeply involved in religious discussions anymore because - while I can explain the molecular existence of evolution - I'm not going to convince someone who is resolute in their beliefs.
Well said. Idk why people like to mix religion and science. They're too different things, one is a belief, the other is quite literal with theorizing and tons of hands on learning. Taking the bible literally would just well suck for many. The bible tells you how to be a good person and how to get to heaven in the new testament, and in the old testament it tells you basically how to be a jew with moses and the ten commandments and all the other jewish laws from god.
The bible doesn't say, god hast taken quarks, and created an atom, and put thy atoms together to make a cow. It's only through science that we know matter is made up of atoms. The qu'ran and the bible certainly didn't teach you that. It took good hard thinking and proving. Christianity and other religions don't push for scientific method, because their not supposed to, but because they're not supposed to, religious leaders just put there hands over their ears and go LALALALALALALALALA! and start trying to put religion in place of science which is incorrect, as opposed to trying to understand things out there. And that's where you go those who are too sheltered by there religion (shall i mention the muslim community with why the **** women need to cover themselves up all the time, and why muslims go ape**** when a chick just dresses up in pants and shirt or something normal like that).
Anyway becareful with mixing science and religion. I mean according to your religion you'll hear something from the science community that will support claims in your religion until that something gets disproven for something else and that makes you go ape****. It's sort of like how many christians will only read about the science that tries to prove creationism and be all happy until they read about evolution as the beginnings of man :lol: People seem to forget though it doesn't matter if we were created or evolved, and if god is out there (which i choose to believe), then he's one talented scientific son of a ***** people don't give him enough credit for whether he evolved everything or created it.
-
Having faith does not mean you refuse science. Remember that Einstein was religious.
And wasted the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum theory because of it.
I do not believe that science and religion necessarily exclude each other. The problem comes when people attempt to use science to validate their preconceived notions of how the universe must work due to their religious views. This often results in them not getting the answer they expect ("Oh no! The geological record shows that Earth is more than 6000 years old!") and then fudging the data or simply lying about it in order to recover from that.
Meh... It might yet turn out that he was right... As our knowledge of hte universe changes, so do our theories... Wasn't there some discussuion about Einsteins universal Constant being brought back? And expecting a result doesn't mean thats how it's supposed to be...
Regarldess, I'm listening to quantum theory ATM..an extreemly interesting subjects, but so...strange... it amazes me how little we understand (and my professor is a lead reserachers at CERN, so he knows his stuff).
-
Have you ever read something about the structure of the human body? Either God wasn't able to create an efficient species or we are the result of a long process we call evolution.
1) Our brain became bigger, our mandibola not. The result? We give dentists thousands of €;
2) As I said, we still have the remnants of the tail;
3) Our body is fragile and has certain limits we can barely reach;
4) The way our bones in "critical" areas are placed gives us problems with our posture;
We look like God? Then God is far from being perfect.
Of course we are a process of evolution...But if God started that process or steered it..then in a way that is some form of creationism..isn't it? :wtf:
Just not the instant one some dweebs are proposing.. :lol:
And...we look like God? I don't think physical apperance was ment there, but rather some of our... mental or spiritual attributes (ingenuity, mercy, etc...)
-
SNIP..
Rubbish...Now you're just arguing semantics by equating everything that happens in the universe with nature.
Hell, let me play wit ha definition of a few worlds, you'll see that after taht I will be able to claim just abut anything...
I'll define supernatural as anything taht is not uranium....Wow..now allmost everything IS supernatural...
-
I see religion as a excuse for someone to look forward to death and then heading for heaven for a afterlife . True that is what the bible says, which is just a book with printed black ink, so it can be edited anytime. But in my opinion, people die and that is it.
Ok that is Off Topic...
Maybe we all need to find some information before the vasudans became what they are. Either a Fish or a Lizard is what the Vasudans evolved from at least that is what i think.
-
Science is about how the universe works. Religion is about what the meaning of the universe is. And what the meaning of life is. Science has no interest whatsoever in those questions.
The problem is that religion used to also be about how too. Most primative religions blame the supernatural for everything that they can't understand. Why does it rain? - The gods. Why does the sun shine? - The gods. Science wasn't around or was unable to give a suitable explanation for these phenomena so they had to be supernatural.
But we don't need religion to explain how any more. Religion needs to realise this and stop trying.
Meh... It might yet turn out that he was right... As our knowledge of hte universe changes, so do our theories... Wasn't there some discussuion about Einsteins universal Constant being brought back? And expecting a result doesn't mean thats how it's supposed to be...
It's VERY doubtful that he'll be proved right. For that to happen pretty much every electronic device you are using would have to be found to be working exactly as predicted by science despite that science being completely wrong.
There's a difference between him being right about small things and quantum physics turning out to be completely wrong (Which is pretty much what he thought).
-
SNIP..
Rubbish...Now you're just arguing semantics by equating everything that happens in the universe with nature.
Not nature (as in, environmental nature with trees and fresh water and stuff). Natural.
If you want to refer to unexplained phenomena as "supernatural", then it's your loss, I think that as pretty inaccurate way of describing things.
Hell, let me play wit ha definition of a few worlds, you'll see that after taht I will be able to claim just abut anything...
I'll define supernatural as anything taht is not uranium....Wow..now allmost everything IS supernatural...
You are not entitled to that opinion. Revoke it immediately or you may have to keep it.
The problem with that, obviously, is that there's no logical proof that uranium would be the only natural thing in universe and everything else supernatural. You just claimed that, whereas I based my claim on the structure of the words "natural" and "supernatural".
Basically, there's just one assumption in my claim and everything else is derived from that, so feel free to prove the following wrong:
Everything that happens is part of the universe.
Supernatural as a term is paradoxally flawed in itself. It is clear to me that everything that happens is part of the universe because it happens in the universe (well duh). Thus everything that happens is natural. And because everything that happens has now been defined natural things to happen in the universe, there's no room for supernatural. Unexplained, yes, but it is different from supernatural.
Hell, nuclear power plants are natural just as much as wheel is natural. But they are not inherent parts of nature in themselves.
-
I see religion as a excuse for someone to look forward to death and then heading for heaven for a afterlife .
It's so us chicken**** humans have something to say that we're no longer afraid of death...
-
not my problem i do not follow a book that has been re-written so many times. but i said that was Off topic and so is this bit.
Zane, loosen up, we are talking and for some reason it's gone off topic instead of vasudans and terrans :rolleyes:.
-
Bloody hell, someone had religions figured out in exact same way I do... There's not really much I can add to this quote:
Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.
Now, go find out who Siddhartha Gautama was, if it doesn't ring a bell already... ;7
-
I've purposefully avoided this thread for fear of little green men. Or lizards. I hate lizards. Especially flying lizards.
-
I've purposefully avoided this thread for fear of little green men. Or lizards. I hate lizards. Especially flying lizards.
There are no flying lizards in the UK...and I love Lizards :P (though I killed about 50 of them).
Bloody hell, someone had religions figured out in exact same way I do... There's not really much I can add to this quote:
Believe nothing, O monks, merely because you have been told it or because it is traditional, or because you yourselves have imagined it. Do not believe what your teacher tells you merely out of respect for the teacher. But whatsoever, after due examination and analysis, you find to be conducive to the good, the benefit, the welfare of all beings, that doctrine believe and cling to, and take it as your guide.
Now, go find out who Siddhartha Gautama was, if it doesn't ring a bell already... ;7
Of course...we all know that he was Buddha. What he said is perfect for my situation. There will be the second round tomorrow...I'll bring all the enciclopedies I have(well, only the ones I can fit in my bag).
Science is about how the universe works. Religion is about what the meaning of the universe is. And what the meaning of life is. Science has no interest whatsoever in those questions.
The problem is that religion used to also be about how too. Most primative religions blame the supernatural for everything that they can't understand. Why does it rain? - The gods. Why does the sun shine? - The gods. Science wasn't around or was unable to give a suitable explanation for these phenomena so they had to be supernatural.
But we don't need religion to explain how any more. Religion needs to realise this and stop trying.
Correct. We don't need tales anymore, we can get to the bottom of so many things. Actually, people continue to say that Science has certain limits and we can't be sure of what has been scientifically demonstrated, even undirectly(like Hume).
But there's a difference between saying "We are the result of an evolution" and "And embryo is not a living being". Our knowledge about nanotech and DNA research is still poor, but we have been studying animals for centuries. Some branches of Science have limits, others not.
-
SNIP
I was just pulling you leg Herra... God ain't I a stinker? ;7 :nod: :drevil:
LOL..
no, but in all seriousnes, now.. yeah. Whatever would normally happen in a universe is not supernatural.
But let's take something like raising ppl from the dead..that's something that by itslef will NEVER happen in this universe. Now if God were to bring up someone from the dead, then since those dead are part of this universe, the "bringing back" part would happen here, in the universe...logicly..
Does that mean it's not supernatural, sinply becouse of the location where it happens?
-
I was just pulling you leg Herra... God ain't I a stinker? ;7 :nod: :drevil:
LOL..
I thought so too. I also thought that the sentence "you are not entitled to that opinion" would give that away... ;7
no, but in all seriousnes, now.. yeah. Whatever would normally happen in a universe is not supernatural.
But let's take something like raising ppl from the dead..that's something that by itslef will NEVER happen in this universe. Now if God were to bring up someone from the dead, then since those dead are part of this universe, the "bringing back" part would happen here, in the universe...logicly..
Does that mean it's not supernatural, sinply becouse of the location where it happens?
Indeed it means exactly that, at least to me... Since it happens in the universe, it consequently means that it can happen in the universe (duh :p). Therefore, natural. One could argue that wheels or gears never normally happen in the universe (although that's debatable), they need someone to make the wheel round and make an axis and chassis, and only then you have a cart on wheels. Yet, we seem to think they are completely natural. Natural, as in they work by the fundamental principles of nature.
If you consider what God would need to do to raise people from dead (considering their bodies have decayed and such) he would simply need to manipulate matter in such way that it forms a copy of the dead person, then simply set the stuff in it to motion and there you go. If you do that properly, copying all the neural connections, a copy of the person on his dying moment is born with it's original personality retained. That is theoretically possible, it would just require hell of a lot of data storage and processing power, and obviously a way to replicate the scan data. If such thing as God exists, I would say that's the least of the problems in this case. But to affect the universe - even personally created universe - even God cannot go past the laws of the nature. He could possible change them, but then again, then he would be doing stuff according to that new set of laws of nature.
Remember the quote: Sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
Obviously, that only applies to people who don't know the science behind the technology. That's why a cell phone might appear magical to medieval peasants, yet the wheels and gears would feel natural things to them since their physics is pretty intuitive after all.
Note that God, or creator, if such thing exists, is by definition also integral part of the universe. Or if you wish, you can say that the universe is part of it's creator. Or you can say that both universe and it's creator are parts of a multiverse. I tend to think that universe is it's own creator, but without consciousness or inherent purpose... ;7
...anyhow, I maintain my position that a much better term for "supernatural" would be "unexplained" or "inexplicable", although I prefer the former for obvious reasons. I don't think there's anything that by definition couldn't be explained, but it's pretty sure there are a lot of things that are yet unexplained things. Such as the inertia of mass...
That's pretty interesting thing by the way. As of now, there is no accurate explanation in physics to explain why mass has inertia (although the hypothetical Higgs' boson particle is a prime candidate along with the structure of space-time), yet it is not considered supernatural. And same applies to ball lightnings and some other phenomena... :p I suppose there's a difference between "spontaneous unexplained things" (things that clearly are just things that have a reason and consequence without any obvious conscious intent, but we only see the consequence), and "induced unexplained things", of which we also see just the consequence but for one or another reason think that there's a conscious entity behind the reason. The former category encompasses things like inertia, gravity and stuff like that, while the latter category has the traditionally "supernatural" phenomena that is thought to have conscious origin.
-
Oh. I also hate Raa Lizards. I hate Raa Lizards.
-
That's pretty interesting thing by the way. As of now, there is no accurate explanation in physics to explain why mass has inertia (although the hypothetical Higgs' boson particle is a prime candidate along with the structure of space-time), yet it is not considered supernatural. And same applies to ball lightnings and some other phenomena... :p
We now know more about ball lightning. They've been recreated in a laboratory if I remember well. Are you talking about the lights of Hessdalen? They're quite a mistery... I heard of a light which had a mass of alabaster, that's something interesting.
These phenomena aren't considered supernatural...by scientists. There are so many people always ready to pick up strange proofs about the true nature of these phenomena.
-
We now know more about ball lightning. They've been recreated in a laboratory if I remember well.
So has gravity... The ability to replicate a phenomenon is an important step to understanding it, but does not automatically mean that it's completely explained. IIRC, it's simply a bunch of plasma that happens to flow in a certain way and that flow of charged particles creates a magnetic field that contains the plasma and makes it possible for the flow to continue for macroscopic periods of time. But what sets the plasma into motion just that way is unknown. And apparently it stays aloft because it's pretty much just ionized, glowing air and thus about the same weigh as the surrounding stuff.
Someone correct me if I'm talking BS here, my memory is kinda vague about those critters. :)
Are you talking about the lights of Hessdalen? They're quite a mistery... I heard of a light which had a mass of alabaster, that's something interesting.
Hessdalen? What are those? ...well, off to wiki then... ---> :D
-
It's ok people. Science use to be dominated by religion hundreds of years ago in the dark ages. Now science is more independent of religion thank god, but it really is sure to show you how people like to stick with old ways that worked long ago don't apply to this new advanced modern world where we have an advanced understanding of everything.
Now let's all go out and burn our books of mormon, scientology, and jehova's witnesses doctrine ;)
-
It's ok people. Science use to be dominated by religion hundreds of years ago in the dark ages. Now science is more independent of religion thank god, but it really is sure to show you how people like to stick with old ways that worked long ago don't apply to this new advanced modern world where we have an advanced understanding of everything.
Now let's all go out and burn our books of mormon, scientology, and jehova's witnesses doctrine ;)
YES!!! :lol:
-
Hessdalen? What are those? ...well, off to wiki then... ---> :D
You're finnish, right? That's something you should know better than me. :)
I don't remember if Hessdalen is located in Finland. I know it's in North Europe. People here talked a lot about them because many of the research teams were Italians. We also had something similar here... in a town of the south, many strange things happened. People saw strange lights, and many fires have been caused by electronical systems malfunctions. As expected, someone said they were caused by Aliens or Demons...
-
i know finland is made of around 180 islands. as for the name... Hessdalen, thats Norway.
-
This discussion is going too fast for me! I still have to reply to old posts!
The problems is that Darwin's theories are still considered...theories! They're the only possible reasons...finding definitive proofs is difficult, we all know this...but you want to follow Creationists instead? Their theories are stupid...
Which is why theory is as high as science goes. There is no such thing as a 100% provable fact in science because the possibility always exists that your entire life is fake and you're just a computer simulation of you or a brain in a jar in some alien lab being fed electronic stimuli.
However the fact that science can't every be 100% proven correct is no justification for saying "Well then, I'm going to pick something less likely to be correct." Sure senses can be imperfect, but saying that this is a reason to choose something else is like saying that cause your eyes can be tricked you might as well close them and use The Force when crossing the road.
of course I prefer to accept scientific theories, which have proven to be reliable in many areas, to creationist theories against which several valid (=supported by factual proofs) objections have been moved.
this however, as somebody else has already stated here, doesn't make science an absolute value.
5) Just think to how long does it take to an ape to give birth to its first baby and compare it to a human woman. on this topic i read an interesting (and funny) article on National Geographic last year (italian version), you may want to have a look at it!
What are you refering to, exactly? That's another thing that makes us look unperfect...or that's a way to support Creationists' theories?!? I think I read that article too - it was also about the DNA, right?
I'm referring to the fact that evolution has caused, as a drawback to walking on two legs instead of four, some critical changes in the ilium-ischium-pubis region, whcih cause the birth to be a complicated and risky moment both for mother and child. (I think the article was about the drawbacks of human evolution in general, expecially the problems of the joints.)It's ok people. Science use to be dominated by religion hundreds of years ago in the dark ages. Now science is more independent of religion thank god, but it really is sure to show you how people like to stick with old ways that worked long ago don't apply to this new advanced modern world where we have an advanced understanding of everything.
That because probably religious values are easier to accept for ignorant people. on the other hand, scientific knowledge seems sometimes awfully complicated, thus leading people to remain faithful to old, simple beliefs. Moerover, for somebody the destruction of a religious-like certainty could be a shock; this could be a reason for which people stick to religious values.
Another reason could be that religion, to some extents, makes life easier. religion can be undoubtedly a support in the moments of pain and sorrow (like the death of a close relative).
Scientific knowledge (and atheism), in this kind of situation would give little or no moral support (if you tell somebody whose mother/father/husband/wife/son has just died that the only certainty in life is death and that to die is a natural thing and that he also will die, sooner or later, well, i think he won't be very happy.)
Hessdalen? What are those? ...well, off to wiki then... ---> :D
I don't remember if Hessdalen is located in Finland. I know it's in North Europe.
I think it's in Norway.
-
Hessdalen? What are those? ...well, off to wiki then... ---> :D
I don't remember if Hessdalen is located in Finland. I know it's in North Europe.
I think it's in Norway.
I know, I didn't remember the English for Norvegia...Norway :D
That because probably religious values are easier to accept for ignorant people. on the other hand, scientific knowledge seems sometimes awfully complicated, thus leading people to remain faithful to old, simple beliefs. Moerover, for somebody the destruction of a religious-like certainty could be a shock; this could be a reason for which people stick to religious values.
Another reason could be that religion, to some extents, makes life easier. religion can be undoubtedly a support in the moments of pain and sorrow (like the death of a close relative).
Scientific knowledge (and atheism), in this kind of situation would give little or no moral support (if you tell somebody whose mother/father/husband/wife/son has just died that the only certainty in life is death and that to die is a natural thing and that he also will die, sooner or later, well, i think he won't be very happy.)
That's not true. Have you ever heard of that Italian doctor who analized people affected by terrible diseases? She said that atheist accept death easier and people who believe in God continue to say "Where are you?" and/or "You forgot me!".
-
Please, no more religious debates here. It makes my brain hurt.
-
That's not true. Have you ever heard of that Italian doctor who analized people affected by terrible diseases? She said that atheist accept death easier and people who believe in God continue to say "Where are you?" and/or "You forgot me!".
no, i didn't hear anything about this doctor, it's something new and interesting for me; please give me a link or e-mail me the article (or provide a more detailed description here).
personally i know people to whom the catholic religion has given a huge help in the cases described, so the opinion in my post was based on personal experience, not on surveys.
i thought atheism associated to a scientific consideration of the world (i.e. world based on laws of mechanics and phyics) could not provide a satisfying explanation to life (and to its end), but what you said could also be true.
however, i think that the consciouseness of the world being meaningless and of life being dominated by death could be, also for some educated men, a source of despair and not of relief. next year you'll study Leopardi (famous italian poet) and you'll understand what i mean. most of his poems are cogitations upon this topic.
-
That's not true. Have you ever heard of that Italian doctor who analized people affected by terrible diseases? She said that atheist accept death easier and people who believe in God continue to say "Where are you?" and/or "You forgot me!".
no, i didn't hear anything about this doctor, it's something new and interesting for me; please give me a link or e-mail me the article (or provide a more detailed description here).
personally i know people to whom the catholic religion has given a huge help in the cases described, so the opinion in my post was based on personal experience, not on surveys.
i thought atheism associated to a scientific consideration of the world (i.e. world based on laws of mechanics and phyics) could not provide a satisfying explanation to life (and to its end), but what you said could also be true.
however, i think that the consciouseness of the world being meaningless and of life being dominated by death could be, also for some educated men, a source of despair and not of relief. next year you'll study Leopardi (famous italian poet) and you'll understand what i mean. most of his poems are cogitations upon this topic.
After a year, you still don't know me :P
I know Leopardi, I don't need a stupid school. If you want to understand as much as you can about that doctor...then you should let me write in Italian. Since it's not polite here, the only possible solution is using IT...yeah, IT... MSN The Campaign Projects KillerTM. :D
-
the doctor? do you mean Valentino Rossi or the Emergency Medical Hologram or every other person?
i think this has strayed a bit off topic..
so what about the Vasudans and Terrans?
-
Vasudans use to be terran until they rebelled against the mormon god. So the god of the mormons turned them into ugly fish mouthed people as the mormon god turned it's back on vasuda prime. And that's how vasudans stopped getting door stops at their residences from mormons.
-
After a year, you still don't know me :P
I know Leopardi, I don't need a stupid school. If you want to understand as much as you can about that doctor...then you should let me write in Italian. Since it's not polite here, the only possible solution is using IT...yeah, IT... MSN The Campaign Projects KillerTM. :D
glad to know you have some culture. then you understand perfectly what i said. (btw, did you read Leopardi's poems/proses alone? :yes:)
i prefer if you e-mail me the doctor-related infos (1st, because i'll not be often on msn, 2nd because MSN KILLS STEADFAST).
-
After a year, you still don't know me :P
I know Leopardi, I don't need a stupid school. If you want to understand as much as you can about that doctor...then you should let me write in Italian. Since it's not polite here, the only possible solution is using IT...yeah, IT... MSN The Campaign Projects KillerTM. :D
glad to know you have some culture. then you understand perfectly what i said. (btw, did you read Leopardi's poems/proses alone? :yes:)
i prefer if you e-mail me the doctor-related infos (1st, because i'll not be often on msn, 2nd because MSN KILLS STEADFAST).
I read some poems all by myself :)
And I can talk about that subject only on MSN :P
Vasudans use to be terran until they rebelled against the mormon god. So the god of the mormons turned them into ugly fish mouthed people as the mormon god turned it's back on vasuda prime. And that's how vasudans stopped getting door stops at their residences from mormons.
Interesting theory :nod:
Should someone split this thread and move the part related to Darwin & Co. in the Meeting Hall?
-
Vasudans use to be terran until they rebelled against the mormon god. So the god of the mormons turned them into ugly fish mouthed people as the mormon god turned it's back on vasuda prime. And that's how vasudans stopped getting door stops at their residences from mormons.
:lol:
-
Lucky them, shame they worship at the temple of Jahovas witness.
-
After vasuda made a the mormon god leave. The mormon god left for a little mostly water covered backwater planet called earth. And there he found terrans, and there he also found other gods abondoned by their species from other worlds. Mormon found buddha who tricked terrans with reincarnation, jehova who was insane, and allah who suffered from mass paranoya calling everything else "infidel". Now terrans suffer from ideals like reincarnation, door to door stops, infidels, and insanity.
No wonder the vasudans consider terrans confused if not stupid.