Evolution

[sabrina]

Just found out about new theory about human evolution, we might be semi aquatic mammals.
When listening to the reasoning by Sir David Attenborough, it makes a lot of sense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis
http://www.aquaticape.org/bbc4_notes.html

 

[Matreya]

The first I heard of this was the parody docu about the Mermaids. I think it was Mermaids a Body found or something like that.

It was meant to be a parody, at the end stating the footage was all fake.

BUT ignoring that, everything about it was sound. They broke it all down, explaining that we as a race split after we moved closer to water. At first we began to stand upright so we could hunt the fish in the water properly. Then the docu said some went further and further into the water, coming back, but then always going back deep into water until one day that they couldn't hit the dirt anymore - they were mermaids dun dun dun.

Lol

But again, the science they explained could be understood, was easily followed, etc

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

@sabrina @Damien Daemon

Meh, they still haven't explained where the Big Bang came from.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Adson Tracyn'kemir"] that is something we will never know, but then again, somewhere down the line someone may figure it out.

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

Curious though. I find it take more faith and imagination to accept that then to accept a god as a creator. As far as I'm concerned, no one knows how the universe was created, there is no evidence, unless one wants to go into the realm of Plato. xD Or skepticism.

[member="sabrina"]

 

[sabrina]

[member="Adson Tracyn'kemir"] true, hence we will never know for sure, but one day some may discover it, if we as species survive that long without wiping ourselves out.

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

[member="sabrina"], I am quite sure the universe will be gone before we know any of its true secrets.

 

[sabrina]

[member="Adson Tracyn'kemir"] don't you mean we will be gone, before we know it's true secrets?

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

@sabriana Everything will be gone.xD

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

Hm, screwed up the tag up there. lol #HateTypos

[member="sabrina"]

 

[sabrina]

[member="Adson Tracyn'kemir"] unless of course, we find out how some jellyfish are immortal, and then splice it into our d.n.a.
Though to be honest, I think we are doom as a species as we are well surpassed our carrying capacity.

 

[Adson Tracyn'kemir]

Very true, @sabrina. However, everything in this universe is degenerative, (second law of thermodynamics?), so it will fail, perhaps life will continue in another dimension though.

Got a sign off, though I love the live chatting. XD

 

[Matreya]

Curious though. I find it take more faith and imagination to accept that then to accept a god as a creator. As far as I'm concerned, no one knows how the universe was created, there is no evidence, unless one wants to go into the realm of Plato. xD Or skepticism.

[member="sabrina"]

As a Christian born athiest, that for a time was agnostic, wiccan, Catholic, Lutheran, and a whole lot else, I can say not quite. It takes a lot to maintain faith in that which you cannot see in any fashion. Believing in a being all powerful, able to conjure entire universes on whim?

However, that being said, if you look into the sciences, there are things such as the God particle, dark matter study, and things that Humans believe explain bits and pieces, they are close enough to tangible explanation to believe in.

Then there are the particle accelerators, etc. These are likely going to show us the first few attoseconds (optimistically) after space and time came into existence. Which in and of itself, can connect (again optimistically) us to the Big Bang and what occured.

 

[Corrax Talrus]

[member="Damien Daemon"]

Believing in a being all powerful, able to conjure entire universes on whim?

When we couch the beliefs of others in frivolous, dismissive terms, it changes the entire nature of the conversation. The same can be done when it comes to naturalistic theories of origins. "Believing that eternally existing space dust one day coalesced and became something for no discernable reason, and here we are?" It's a crude rendering of an incredibly lofty idea that spans the gap from science, to philosophy, to theology.

The problem in the conversation regarding Theistic theories of origins versus naturalistic theories of origins is that both sides paint the other as simpletons with no logic or evidence to support their point of view. It's essentially an ad hominem attack that refuses to deal with the realities of nuance in the conversation.

Hi. I'm Corrax, and I'm new here. Uh, maybe I should have started with that ....

 

[Matreya]

Lol, new or not, no worries. I enjoy a good argument for either side.

Let me also add that, in no way do I ever intend to bash religion of any form, theological belief, or belief system. I simply enjoy a conversation. On multiple occasions I spoke to priests and told them:

"You change my mind, and you can have me as a speaker for your faith."

If I came off as unnecessarily harsh, or as someone attempting downsize any belief, it was not intended. I simply meant to explain that, in my personal, and so many others, views a God able to do as he wished period, was harder to grasp than otherwise.

In the end, I am not entirely against the idea of the actions perceived to be by Gods, rather that the power believed to be possessed cannot be as is perceived.

In other words...

Ancient Aliens ftw.

[member="Corrax Talrus"]

 

[Corrax Talrus]

[member="Damien Daemon"]

In the end, I am not entirely against the idea of the actions perceived to be by Gods, rather that the power believed to be possessed cannot be as is perceived.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Matreya]

[member="Corrax Talrus"]

Lighters. Jets. Cell phones.

Were I too find a time machine, travel back a thousand years, and use any of these, would I not then be called God due to a level mysticism surrounding the unknown?

Hell, Gods are said to come down upon fiery chariots. A jet is a "chariot" that is "fiery" so as to allow movement.

There are a lot of ways to explain many of the things believed to be Godlike, with current simple sciences.

I fully recommend the show, Ancient Aliens. They do not denote religion, rather explain that what is perceived as an empowered being, is rather an Alien being with technology.

Also, a note, all Gods are aliens. They are not from here, so must by default, be called extraterrestrials.

 

[Corrax Talrus]

[member="Damien Daemon"]

I think the conversation of aliens is a red herring when dealing with theories of origins, because aliens are unable to explain universal origins, of which they would be participants. The conversation of aliens as an answer to various ancient myths and legends is totally separate from a discussion of First Cause.

In that, either time and chance are essentially first cause, or there is an outside first cause. An outside first cause would, by nature, be considered deific, as its existence would be rooted externally from the universe in which we operate (and by extension, all universes). To classify a theorized deity as an 'alien' would be simplicity akin to classifying an extraterrestrial as an 'out-of-towner.'

 

[Matreya]

But is that not definition of an alien? Out of towner?

And, no, by no means did I use the Aliens route to explain the Big Bang, rather to explain the things on this planet. Mountains said to have been turned into temples by hand of human slave, in 18 years, but the amount of work needed to complete such in that time, even is impossible to date.

With all of the machinery available at hand. We would need to move thousands of pounds of stone in hours to do what they say slaves did.

This is my point about that.

On the big bang topic, as said, we have no true information simply speculation. Which could also be applied to religious belief of God said let there be light - that to would be speculation as none were there to witness, so go by word of mouth.

Until definitive evidence can be brought forth, that topic from all angles is speculation.

[member="Corrax Talrus"]

 

[Corrax Talrus]

[member="Damien Daemon"]

My apologies for misunderstanding your point. It will probably happen again, because, Internet.

However, we're now back to the original point you made, that it took more faith to believe in the God who said let their be light then to believe in a naturalistic theory of origins. If neither has definitive evidence, and both angles are speculation, then how is one more difficult to concede than the other?