Never believe what you read...?
No, it cannot be accepted that it is completely known unless it can be proven to be known. To believe otherwise is simply to take you on your word, which is putting faith in your word, which provides no real world evidence.
*To be 'completely known'...? MY notery 'provides no real world evidence'...? AND Science loses the 'Truth of the Matter', in its demands for testable evidence.
What you wrote about it is ALL we have to go on.
*Indeed.
You assume they would wrongfully summarize. You have no way of knowing this. Its just as possible they would say. Well at the time of his note, he speaks of a tree being here. It isn't here now, and there is no evidence of it ever being here, so I cannot verify his claim. It's not false persay, but the note, combined with the NOW lack of physical evidence doesn't not give me enough of anything to prove the tree was ever here, so I don't know. It doesn't make the rest of your "notes" wrong. However, if your "notes" consist entirely of this same kind of vague, unverifiable evidence and details, what do you propose we're supposed to do with it? Just believe it? I'm sorry, I can't accept that.
*So, if a tree falls in the forest, and there IS someone there to see it fall, but he didn't take a picture of it falling and the only record made was one he wrote...it STILL didn't happen because you require proof of the event other than the eyewitness account.
And herein lies Science's ultimate failure. There isn't evidence of everything that has happened, other than historical texts we have. THAT is why we wrote it down, so that YOU would know what we know. I think if ANYONE is living in a fantasy world, it is these ignorant scientists...
I can't argue with this then. You're not asking for any verification that their claim of flaming chariots is true. Hell it could have been metaphorical for all we know. You're saying what we perceive we KNOW. They say they saw flaming chariots, they perceived them, the KNEW what they saw, and you accept this. That is fine, but admit that it is based not on anything scientific, that it provides no real world proof, no real world evidence, that it is taken completely on faith.
*I prefer 'applied belief'. In that I don't just say this must be the way it happened it says so right here. Rather I say this is what the texts say, how does it 'apply' to the evidence we have? I BELIEVE this is true, let's APPLY it to the physical evidence we have and or other texts we have on the matter.
These things can be used to gain insights into our past, but not anything specific as in the nature science speaks to things. We cannot interchange them.
*You couldn't 'speak or interchange' with ME in MY example, but that doesn't mean that my note about the oak tree didn't reveal a specific detail about my scientific findings.
We cannot have a detailed and testable scientific theory of evolution right up to this "gap", and then insert a taken-on-faith ET/God hypothesis to fill the gap, its inconsistent.
*Why NOT? Your Theory doesn't provide the incrimential step by step proof, that it demands, for OUR development. It works out just fine for Neaderthal, except that he DIED out! Again, I agree that evolution DOES and HAS had a great deal to do with who we are, however the evolutionary record holds a 'gap', and it just so happens that our historical record has a lot to say about that gap.
Either you can buy into evolution entirely and that it works, or you can buy into this other ideal of being created by God.
*AGAIN, why do I have to take an either or stance!? Isn't that a false dicotomy?
It should be easy to see why scientists and those believing in Evolution would have a hard time accepting your gap theory of ET/God. It asks them to set aside their long, well documented theory of evolution, and in this one spot, in this one instance toss it aside and accept a claim that is based upon sources they can never verify. Why would we accept that?
*Because you are wrong, and your pursuit will not lead you to the 'Truth of the Matter'.
I'll double check it, but this leap forward had to do with the onset of agriculture. Our human anscenstors finally making the move to agriculture over hunter-gatherer is the beginning, it is the catalyst of the leap forward, but it still took tens of thousands of years for this to develop in comparison with hundreds of thousands, or millions of years of evolution up to that point. The leap forward didn't happen in a generation, or even at the same rate in the same places. This in itself does not support the theory of ET/God intervention because then it would have happened within a generation, it would have happened at exactly the same time, in exactly the same ways, in completely different locations. But this is not the case.
*Actually, the case, is that different people 'evolved' differently in different areas in accordance with their environment and those they encounted within it, be they terresterial or extra-teresterial. Your ignoring some people's hyper-evolution AND the texts explaining and detialing a relationship of heavenly beings 'bettering' those people... While I agree, that there ARE many differing accounts, and some show no signs what so ever of any kind of interaction with a foreign entity. Indeed, agree that the most consistant thing is god's inconsistancy.
They imply? Which is it? Do they imply? or do they KNOW? I agree with imply. Again, how can we verify this?
*Does one's inability to prove, 'disprove'?
Not fiction. But vague, mis-translated, mis-interpreted, more-than-likely metephorical written histories. I'll ask again. Show us a valid way to use the Bible objectively, or any of these myths or histories in such a way that science can verify how they work and what their saying, and hey, I'm sure they'll be happy to take another look at them.
*Well, I don't know what the hell you are talking about now... You want me to tell you how to interpret historical data? Well, you look at it, you read it, and you try to imagine the world in which it was created. Then you ask yourself questions like, "What could the author have beeing looking at, from what perspective to arrive at this outcome?" I THINK that would be more productive than ignoring them because someone told yu they were fiction.
This is getting ridiculous. Evolutions aren't precise time units. How long do 2 evolutions take if I might ask?
*Long enough for distinct diffference to be drawn between two fossil remains... My point is that it took quite a while AND there IS evidence of this, for Working Man to 'become' Neanderthal. While Homo Sapian BECAME such much faster, with no record of where... The time period is not as telling as the fossilless gap filling it, well it is significant in that we came a LONG ways in a very short time, with no evidence as to how we did it...well other than our fictious historical texts.
How long a period of time is this gap? At the very least 100,000's of years correct. How is it you will believe every other time gap, every other leap in evolution but the last one? Why believe in any? 1 evolution makes a siginificant physical change in skull appearance, For example like in this link:
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humano...d_sap_comp.html
The top shows a comparison between Sapien and Neanderthal, which yes is not the likely direct relative of Sapien, but one of the divergent cousin species has to be and would be similiar. You would not accept this evolution as possible. However, the bottom of the page shows the difference between Habilis and Neanderthal. This one you would be ok with. Why?
*I am not sure what you mean. Neaderthal LOOKS a lot like he'd BE one of the missing links in our ancesterial line...but he isn't. In fact, tere were 2 consins removed from the 'common' ancestor Homo Sapian is supposed to share (working man).
It looked blue in the sun. But over time it just became that it was blue. Ok...so what? What does this help us understand? We can go look at an Ox now and get its hide to shine with a hue of blue if its wet, or it catches the sun off its coat in the right angle. So the Ox's hide hasn't changed since the time of Paul Bunyan. When was Paul Bunyan living, what period. No idea, conjecture. How do we know it was the sun shining off the coat making it appear blue rather than being blue? Guessing...conjecture.
*Conjecture...? I don't take someone's written account as 'guesswork'. 'I' write what I know and see, especially when I do so for purpose of posterity.
You say he's as tall as 3 men....ahhh but its not men! Its children! Again who cares, so he was tall. No one here actually believed he was as tall as 3 grown men, we take it as a myth/legend and know their embellishing. Its not like anyone is going, "Oh ◊◊◊◊!! And all this time I actually thought he was three men tall!". It takes a little bit of free license to say, Paul Bunyan's stories is just trying to tell us that Paul was taller, and because he used an Ox his sled times per load weight were faster than other people, and that is why he's so famous. But even then, who cares. This is a far cry from describing how we went from Ergaster or Erectus or some cousin, to Sapien.
You say the truth turned into myth. I say an unverifiable real world scenario turned into a metaphysical myth.
*Then you lost the Truth of the Matter.
what's the difference between supernatural and metaphysical again? They'd have to be supernatural/metaphysical to create the world in the first place. IMO it has gone like this. We didn't understand how we became to be on this earth, so after agriculture began our myths and legends turned into complex religious explanations, with God creating the world metaphysically. Then overtime that supernatural/metaphysical description has been somewhat mis-interpreted and mis-translated from what it originally was. You take it as a fact turning into meta-physical myth. I take it to be initially a metaphysical myth, and now its just a more muddled metaphysical myth. Or more complex perhaps as now you're trying to retrofit your metaphysical myth into a scientific gap, and the 2 just do not work together.
*I write about a big tree, and that it inspired great dreams while I slept under it. I am the first to see the tree which is a willow. Later other re-write my tale and add a 'sad' nature tot eh tree and it gets known as a weeping willow.
Much later, an asteriod hits the earth and burns everything assunder. Man struggles to rebecome himself, and finds a vault of writings of a 'crying tree'. With no evidence, they summize that such a supernatural thing could never have existed.
, but nope, its Atlantis. Ok, even if we take these to be true, what can they show us? What do they explain clearly? Even you must admit that even if you think its all bollocks, that the theory of evolution is more consistent and more descriptive and more comprehensive in its explanation than say, the story of Atlantis, or the Bible. Will you give me that much at least?
BRAVO!
