21 Dec 08
4 edits
Originally posted by Jigtie…I have said nothing of the sorts,.…
I have said nothing of the sorts, my overly upset little friend.
True; but what you appear to be saying is that it is not a “fact” that it isn’t true that hominids lived 65 million years ago and this is where we disagree.
When most people judge a hypothesis about reality to have a less than, say, one in a hundred billion chance of being true, when they use everyday English, they say they are “certain” that the hypothesis is false and they may also say it is a “fact” that the hypothesis is false because, for all practical purposes, it may be (depending on the reasoning or evidence). But if you insist that if there is even a less than a one in a hundred billion uncertainty in a hypothesis then it couldn’t be categorised as a “fact” then that would mean there are no “facts” about reality because, for example, ‘for all we know‘, the whole of reality is an illusion that is designed to make us think the Earth is round when in fact the Earth is shaped like a laughing monkey doing finger gestures etc and this will even apply to any hypothesis that have substantial number of observations that ‘support’ it (the observations could just be all part of the illusion).
I think one of the fundamental problem with your thinking is that you assume that if an existential hypothesis about reality is not either confirmed or disproved by any observation then there is still a ‘credible’ chance (say, more than one in a hundred billion chance) that it could be true?
-if so, taking that logic to extremes, that would mean you should think that there is a ‘credible’ chance that there is a Santa and also that there is an invisible magical elephant exactly 100 meters above your head right now because neither hypothesis could ever be “disproved” by any specific observation in practice.
Do you think that you could rationally believe that you should assign a less than, say, one in a hundred billion chance of there being an invisible magical elephant exactly 100 meters above your head right now despite the fact that there is no observation that currently disproves this?
If so, why not extend the same logic when you are judging how certain you should be that there where hominids at the time of the dinosaurs?
21 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasOh, fabian, fabian, fabian. What to do with you? I would again urge you
I don't belive in the green cheese theory, of course, I'm just using the same methodology as you are using
to think (!) before you present your arguments.
* sigh *
What you're doing is taking the colour red and claiming that it is in fact
the same as the colour blue. Let me explain: Your green cheese moon
is a physical impossibility, whereas humanoid life on planet earth 65
million years ago is not.
Now, for most people that paragraph would be enough, but I'm starting
to realise that you need to have things explained very slowly, and very
clearly, so here goes:
Fact: To make cheese, you require milk.
Fact: The milk used to make cheese comes from a female mammal.
Fact: The mammal require oxygen among a whole lot of other things.
Fact: None of the things a mammal require to survive can be
found outside earth's atmosphere.
Conclusion: A green cheese moon is a physical impossibility.
Fact: Everything required to support carbon based life existed on
planet earth 65 million years ago.
Fact: Fossilisation is a rare and incomplete process, meaning only
parts of a subset of all living things are actually fossilised.
Fact: Humans and dinosaurs have been determined to have a
common ancestor (bet you didn't realise that).
Fact: Though mammals are now believed to have begun their
development 65 million years ago after the dinosaurs went extinct,
there is still some controversy among palaeontologists with hypothesis
dating the mammal evolution as far back as a hundred and forty (140!)
million years ago (bet you didn't know that either).
Conclusion: Humanoid life on this planet 65 million years ago is
not a physical impossibility (though still unlikely - I apparently
can't stress that enough for your limited comprehension ability).
So, you see, doing a little thinking before writing is never a bad idea.
Also, red is not the same colour as blue. I just want to make that clear.
Sources:
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/11/11/hair-claw-protein.html
"Since the last common ancestor of mammals, birds and
lizards lived before the first true dinosaurs emerged, both dinosaurs and
humans appear to have inherited the genes responsible for human hair
and animal claws. In short, the structure of our hair and nails may add
to the evidence that we are distantly related to dinosaurs and many
other creatures, both extinct and living."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070621135213.htm
"The controversy is debated not just among paleontologists
who study the fossil record but among molecular systematists who study
DNA in living mammals. Yet the DNA studies do not agree on the timing
or place of placental origin, with hypotheses ranging between 140 and 80
million years ago, sometimes in the Northern Hemisphere and
sometimes in the Southern. The most recent molecular study, published
in late March in Nature, supported the emergence of the major groups of
modern placentals 100 million years ago."
Humans are part of the group placental mammals, by the way.
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOh, man! Not you too? I'm just gonna refer to my post above.
Do you think that you could rationally believe that you should assign a less than, say, one in a hundred billion chance of there being an invisible magical elephant exactly 100 meters above your head right now despite the fact that there is no observation that currently disproves this?
Cheese! What the hell is wrong with you two?
😞
21 Dec 08
Originally posted by JigtieAh, so you have changed your opinion now? Now that was good. Congratulations!
Oh, fabian, fabian, fabian. What to do with you? I would again urge you
to think (!) before you present your arguments.
* sigh *
What you're doing is taking the colour red and claiming that it is in fact
the same as the colour blue. Let me explain: Your green cheese moon
is a physical impossibility, whereas humanoid life on planet earth 65 ...[text shortened]... years ago."[/i][/quote]
Humans are part of the group placental mammals, by the way.
But I knew for the beginning that you argue for the argues sake. It was not really about humans living at the same time as dinos, was it?
Now we only have to convince Kelly Jay to take reason. But on the other hand, he *is* anti-science, and religious fundamentalist at the top.
Kelly? Are you there? Or are you just hiding? Where are your proofs that there are cave drawings of dinos? Hello...? Have you forgotten?
The title of this thread is "Are we helpless without memory?", and yes, Kelly Jay has first hand experience of it.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasLMFAO! You are a most delusional individual, Fabian.
Ah, so you have changed your opinion now? Now that was good. Congratulations!
But I knew for the beginning that you argue for the argues sake. It was not really about humans living at the same time as dinos, was it?
Now we only have to convince Kelly Jay to take reason. But on the other hand, he *is* anti-science, and religious fundamentalist at th ...[text shortened]... read is "Are we helpless without memory?", and yes, Kelly Jay has first hand experience of it.
22 Dec 08
Originally posted by JigtieIf this is your religion, go argue for your 'humans at dino-time' idea of yours to Spiritual Forum. Because this is not science.
LMFAO! You are a most delusional individual, Fabian.
Not even Kelly Jay agrees with you.
I feel embarrassed to even have this discussion with you, with anyone with this strange ideas. So I quit here. Continue if you want...
23 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnasLike I said: delusional. Fine. We'll leave it at this.
If this is your religion, go argue for your 'humans at dino-time' idea of yours to Spiritual Forum. Because this is not science.
Not even Kelly Jay agrees with you.
I feel embarrassed to even have this discussion with you, with anyone with this strange ideas. So I quit here. Continue if you want...
Oh, and a happy new year to you. 🙂
24 Dec 08
Originally posted by joe shmoInteresting point. I'd say the answer to your main question is NO however. We're not helpless without memory. Take political leaders for example, they can't seem to recall any of there past mistakes and/or misdeeds, but they have a great deal more power, and wealth than most people!! 😀
Hypothesis:
It is impossible to show that one cubic centimeter, is equal to one mililiter, without using memory.
04 Jan 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasHave not agreed or disagreed with anyone for a while now been busy.
If this is your religion, go argue for your 'humans at dino-time' idea of yours to Spiritual Forum. Because this is not science.
Not even Kelly Jay agrees with you.
I feel embarrassed to even have this discussion with you, with anyone with this strange ideas. So I quit here. Continue if you want...
Kelly
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by FabianFnasSpent a little time looking for it, only place I have seen so far are creation web sites, not one I think you'd accept. I'm having little doubts about finding one you will find trustworthy.
Many, it shows that he doesn't want to sgow that he doesn't know what he is discussing.
His retorics are here and now "If I don't answer, perhaps they forget the question..."
By the way, Kelly Jay, I'm still waiting of your answer: "Just, let's not forget the links about dinos/Noah, and dino drawings in caves..." remember?
And don't bring up the li ...[text shortened]... beliving the 'obvious' facts that you present, or non-present, as is the cas here.)
Kelly
04 Feb 09
Originally posted by KellyJaySo your proof wasn't so easy to find after all...
Spent a little time looking for it, only place I have seen so far are creation web sites, not one I think you'd accept. I'm having little doubts about finding one you will find trustworthy.
Kelly
Perhaps you have to invent one of your own? 😉
...or just admit that you were wrong.
05 Feb 09
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, you used the word 'evidence'. (February 15, 2008. You really are stubborn, aren't you? 🙂 )
I've never used the word "proof", if you believe I did please present it.
Kelly
Evidence of that man and dinos lives together is a Flintstone Family product. Not a real one. But if you see Flintstone as a Gospel of Truth, then it is religion, and does not belong to the Science Forum.
Let's go back to the original thread in the Spiritual Forum: Thread 87310 where you brought up (thought up?) your insightsful thought of dino/man synchronicity.