16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieCrocs are not usually referred as dinosaurs... We don't want to redefine words here, do we?
Exactly, my point. And given the total area we've explored so far from
the given time-period, it's not very certain is it?
It's one thing to say: "Current evidence doesn't support the idea of
primates living during the same time as dinosaurs". I could go for that,
sort of. It's quite another to say, with absolute certainty: "Primates did
not exist 5yRCiaw
😛
Ok, there was a time warp involved there, but seriously: crocodiles?
I say again, we have found fossils of humanoids (I hope you know what I mean here without twisting the words) until 5 million of years in the past. We have found fossils of mammals from the era of dinosaurs, but no humanoid. Why do we find fossils from mammals but not fossils from humanoids? 65 million of years is 13 times longer time than 5 million of years. Doesn't this sound strange if you think there actually was humanoids at together with dinos?
Do you think there are humans on the moon since 65 million of years ago? No? Sure? We haven't found any fossils of humans on the moon, so we cannot know for sure, can we? So this is a proof of humans on the moon 65 million of years old?
If you actually think it's probable that there were human together with dinos, then with the same kind of reaoning it's equally reasonable to believe that moon were inhabitants with moon-people 65 million of years ago?
(Time to laugh. 😀 )
Seriously, if you knew the science of paleonthology you wouldn't suggest the theory of man/dino coexistance...
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Jigtie…It's quite another to say, with absolute certainty: "Primates did
Exactly, my point. And given the total area we've explored so far from
the given time-period, it's not very certain is it?
It's one thing to say: "Current evidence doesn't support the idea of
primates living during the same time as dinosaurs". I could go for that,
sort of. It's quite another to say, with absolute certainty: "Primates did
not exist 5yRCiaw
😛
Ok, there was a time warp involved there, but seriously: crocodiles?
not exist at the same time as dinosaurs", given the relatively tiny total
area we've covered so far. (No, not layers, area. You can dig up tons of
dirt in a 5 square meter area, and you've still just covered 5 square
meters of any given time-period, am I right?) ..…
For a start, I am sure that a lot more area has been scanned for fossil remains than just “5 square meters” and you don’t always have to “dig up” the rock strata to scan for the fossils, you can just scan the vast area of rock strata that is currently exposed to the surface.
Also, how do you account for the fact that there are a number of humanoid fossils found in rock dated within the period from as far back as 5.8 million years old to within a few thousand years of the present day but absolutely non found in ANY period before that? -I mean, if humanoids existed in earlier periods such as at the time of the dinosaurs etc then it would be a spectacular coincidence that ALL the ones found so far just happen to be those that are ONLY from within the last 5.8 million years which, in geological time, is just a blink of an eye. -so how do you account for that? -I mean, are the older humanoid fossils somehow virtually “invisible“ or what?
The simplest and most obvious hypothesis for explaining this absurd coincidence is that the reason why we haven’t found any from older periods is simply because humanoids didn’t exist then.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton5 square metres of 5000. I have no idea how large a percentage of the
[b]…It's quite another to say, with absolute certainty: "Primates did
not exist at the same time as dinosaurs", given the relatively tiny total
area we've covered so far. (No, not layers, area. You can dig up tons of
dirt in a 5 square meter area, and you've still just covered 5 square
meters of any given time-period, am I right?) ..…
...[text shortened]... why we haven’t found any from older periods is simply because humanoids didn’t exist then.[/b]
planet we've covered so far, but something tells me I actually gave us a
little more credit than is due here. Perhaps we've covered something like
a square centimetre of the five thousand square metres used as an
example.
We can't possibly have found every species of animal that roamed the
planet some 65 million years ago. How many different animals of
considerable size live today? The size of dinosaurs, I mean? How many
smaller species have they found from back then? A couple of hundred?
How many species is there on this planet today? A few million? And
that's only the species we've found so far. How many species would you
say is logical to assume existed back then?
Need I go on?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by JigtieDo you think there were humanoids at the moon 65 million of years ago too?
5 square metres of 5000. I have no idea how large a percentage of the
planet we've covered so far, but something tells me I actually gave us a
little more credit than is due here. Perhaps we've covered something like
a square centimetre of the five thousand square metres used as an
example.
We can't possibly have found every species of animal that ...[text shortened]... . How many species would you
say is logical to assume existed back then?
Need I go on?
Noone has search every square inch, nor qube inch, of the sand on the moon so you certainly cannot rule it out, can you? 😀
Same reasoning, same result?
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasThis could be a Swedish trait I suppose. I know I've got it in abundance,
Do you think there were humanoids at the moon 65 million of years ago too?
Noone has search every square inch, nor qube inch, of the sand on the moon so you certainly cannot rule it out, can you? 😀
Same reasoning, same result?
but just the same it truly gladdens my heart to see that you've been
blessed with so much more of it. If you think there can exist a humanoid
species like ourselves, breathing the non-breathable atmosphere of the
moon, then: hey, sure why not?
Think! Think, just a little before you type. That way you won't embarrass
yourself so much, my friend.
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieSo, of the same reason you believe in the possibility that there have been humanoids on the moon 65 million of years ago, you belive in the possibility that dinos and man coexisted 65 millions of years ago on Earth?
This could be a Swedish trait I suppose. I know I've got it in abundance,
but just the same it truly gladdens my heart to see that you've been
blessed with so much more of it. If you think there can exist a humanoid
species like ourselves, breathing the non-breathable atmosphere of the
moon, then: hey, sure why not?
Think! Think, just a little before you type. That way you won't embarrass
yourself so much, my friend.
Is this the humorous Swedish trait you're thinking of? 🙂
For a while I thought you were serious, but now we can laugh together 😀
Sometimes it is difficult to distinguish fundamentalists, lunatics and people that can appreciate a good joke!
Well, bedtime for me. Natti, natti.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnas😵
So, of the same reason you believe in the possibility that there have been humanoids on the moon 65 million of years ago, you belive in the possibility that dinos and man coexisted 65 millions of years ago on Earth?
Is this the humorous Swedish trait you're thinking of? 🙂
For a while I thought you were serious, but now we can laugh together 😀
Somet ...[text shortened]... ts, lunatics and people that can appreciate a good joke!
Well, bedtime for me. Natti, natti.
You're either a fool, yanking my chains or your reading comprehension is
next to zero. Whatever.
Yeah, sure, nighty-night.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by JigtieI suppose you're trying to demonstrate the difference between deductive reasoning (arguing from premises to a conclusion using logic) and abductive reasoning (inferring the best explanation based on the evidence). Fair enough. But remember, the truth of a deductive argument rests on the truth of the premises and the proper application of logic, neither of which can be assumed without casting doubt on the truth of the conclusion.
This could be a Swedish trait I suppose. I know I've got it in abundance,
but just the same it truly gladdens my heart to see that you've been
blessed with so much more of it. If you think there can exist a humanoid
species like ourselves, breathing the non-breathable atmosphere of the
moon, then: hey, sure why not?
Think! Think, just a little before you type. That way you won't embarrass
yourself so much, my friend.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6For the record, I never made the "conclusion" that there was
I suppose you're trying to demonstrate the difference between deductive reasoning (arguing from premises to a conclusion using logic) and abductive reasoning (inferring the best explanation based on the evidence). Fair enough. But remember, the truth of a deductive argument rests on the truth of the premises and the proper application of logic, neither of which can be assumed without casting doubt on the truth of the conclusion.
primates around 65 million years ago. In fact, it's plain to see that
despite Fabian's trip, I've gone through great lengths specifically
avoiding that "conclusion".
It seriously tickles me the wrong way to see Fabian go down on Kelly's
beliefs like they're inferior to Fabian's own sense of logic, when he's
showing a breath taking trust in mere beliefs himself. To say anything
for certain without evidence to support it is basing an opinion on belief.
Lack of evidence, is really just lack of evidence.
Nooooo? 😲
Yes, true. Nothing more, nothing less. Just like the lack of evidence for
God will prevent us from saying there is or there isn't a God, the lack of
evidence for primates 65 million years ago won't allow us to say with
certainty there was or was not any primates back then. Though it's
reasonable to hypothesise, and as we cover more ground theorise that
no primate-like species existed back then (and that our own species
began evolving after the catastrophe that caused the extinction of most
land-living species), it's certainly not a given. It's important to
understand the difference between hard evidence and lack of the same,
and place it in relation to the limits of our current knowledge.
Now, only when Fabian suggested man evolving on the moon did I
realise my folly trying to explain my thinking. I can certainly see how
Kelly would ignore him. He looks like the Red Night of science right now;
completely unable to absorb the very simplest of arguments. We simply
don't have enough knowledge to draw any but the most generalised
conclusions. We're talking 65 million (!) years ago with only a tiny bit of
the entire puzzle at our hands, for crying out loud. We can't even say for
certain all the species that existed a hundred thousand years ago.
We can't even find the "missing link" with any real certainty.
I really don't think it's unreasonable to hypothesise the existence of
primate or primate-like ancestors existing 65 million years ago. It's
unlikely given the evidence collected so far, but the interesting thing
about science is that it's constantly proven wrong and revised in light of
new evidence. Fabian would do well to remember that the next time he
says anything with certainty about what was and more importantly was
not around 65 million years ago.
17 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieAs I said, you're trying to demonstrate the difference between deductive reasoning (arguing from premises to a conclusion using logic) and abductive reasoning (inferring the best explanation based on the evidence). 😕
For the record, I never made the "conclusion" that there [b]was
primates around 65 million years ago. In fact, it's plain to see that
despite Fabian's trip, I've gone through great lengths specifically
avoiding that "conclusion".
It seriously tickles me the wrong way to see Fabian go down on Kelly's
beliefs like they're inferior to Fabian's own t what was and more importantly was
not around 65 million years ago.[/b]
However, you missed the important point in my post. Any deductive argument relies on premises. Deductive arguments are always valid provided the logic is valid, but the truth of the conclusion relies on the truth of the premises. Outside of a definition, how precisely do you establish the truth of the premises in any argument that describes the observed universe? The only tool we have is an examination of the available evidence, in other words an abductive argument, an argument which by definition is a logical fallacy, and is therefore incapable of demonstrating the truth of any conclusion.
I think you are singling out FabianFnas unfairly, especially when your retort "We're talking 65 million (!) years ago with only a tiny bit of the entire puzzle at our hands, for crying out loud" belies a desire for an abductively derived conclusion, the very thing you're accusing FabianFnas of relying too much upon. Your point about absolute certainty is valid, but not exactly earth-shaking.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by PBE6Fabian says without doubt that there was no primate species around 65
I think you are singling out FabianFnas unfairly
million years ago. I simply pointed out that we don't know, and can't
know that so certainly, though I'm fully aware that the current consensus
is that there "most likely" were no primates around then. And I'm
singling him out? I'm merely calling the bluff. He wanted to look so sure
of himself, which is fine by me, but kept harassing Kelly on his beliefs
with that argument. I don't think it's unfair of me, but maybe so. Maybe
this whole discussion belonged in the...
* drumroll
...WHINGING FORUM!
Coming soon (or not so soon) to a menu item near you!
[yet another (bad) memory joke]I will stop whinging now and let the
thread return to the subject of... what's the subject of this thread
again?[/yet another (bad) memory joke] Har, har!
18 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonBefore they found those bones in the Ethiopian desert, Lucy was the
Jigtie
Just curious to know what is you answer to my question in the last paragraph of my last post at the top of this page?
oldest evidence of a humanoid species (I think). How come they hadn't
found anything older than that? Was the remains of a humanoid species
some two million years older than Lucy somehow virtually "invisible"?
The thing about science is that theories always change in the light of
constantly new-found evidence, and so I really don't think it's wise to put
too much faith in anything but hard facts. Everything else is (qualified)
speculation and often subject to later corrections. That's what we like
about science. The uncertainty of it all, as opposed to a religious
world-view where everything is supposedly already figured out. You can't
be dead-certain that no primate ancestors existed before 6 million years
ago. You have no idea how far back our humanoid lineage stretch. I'm
sure 6 million seemed an awful many years to imagine at one time, and
now palaeoanthropologists consider it the blink of an eye.
I'm sure we have many startling discoveries to make about human
evolution still. Some that will throw current theories over board. Take the
latest on Neanderthals for instance. They were quite intelligent and
cultivated apparently. And still, it's been the general consensus all these
years that they went extinct because they were not as adaptable (hence
intelligent) as our own species.
And the short version of this post would be:
The fact that we've found no evidence of a humanoid species older than
6 million years, means nothing other than that we've not found any
evidence of a humanoid species older than 6 million years.