Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Why most fringe theories exist.


  • Please log in to reply
148 replies to this topic

#61    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:01 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 04 April 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Of course it is.  After all, chances are that you are making a huge mistake, considering that the likelyhood of yourself being correct and hundreds of others being wrong is pretty low.  However, few discoveries are actually this dramatic.  Few discoveries overturn existing knowledge.  The existence of an ancient civilization with modern technology wouldn't invalidate any of the data we have on current ancient civilizations.  It would be a marvelous discovery by itself, of course, on its own merits, but unless there was something that tied it in with any other ancient civilization, there is no reason to automatically consider what we have learned to be wrong.



Where did you hear that nonsense?  The only thing Mary Schweitzer was in danger of losing was her grant money, so she published her data a bit earlier than she wanted to.  This isn't too unusual in the scientific field (the unspoken rule is "publish or die"), and in her follow-up reports, she went into all the detail she needed to.
Again appeal to numbers is a fallacy when evaluating any evidence or theory. Though there are equal number of people who do not accept mainstream views.
Also the fact that if you come up with results that go against established norms,you are under threat from interest groups who are usually your bosses or control the funds for your work.
It's like directly countering how your boss is doing buisness and expecting your boss to take it without a fight or serious consequences on your carreer.


#62    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:16 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 04 April 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

There are several ways that give us a pretty good figure, actually.  Genetics, anthropology, dispersion, just to name three off the top of my head.



You do understand that population density in reference to technological advancement isn't about the number of people, right?  It isn't that if you have X amount of people, suddenly inventions will begin to be created.  It is about how many of those people can create a surplus of resources that allow another set of people to not have to spend the entire day growing or gathering their own resources, but rather bartering for them and spending the rest of their time inventing.



Population, yes, though not at our current levels, there are time when it could have gotten relatively higher than the evidence strictly indicates.  Technology, well, there are a few rare instances where there does seem to be a tantalizing hint of unexpected advances, but few and far between, and only in environments  that could have supported them



No, but we do have skulls that the brains would have fit into, and they look pretty much like our skulls do today, as opposed to the smaller brain pans of earlier hominids.



No, that was mitochondrial check, it was done about 10 years ago, it is consistent with similar bottlenecks in other species, and is concurrent with the Toba Eruption, one of the largest volcanic eruptions in history.  It could also be wrong.



"Evolutionist"?

Harsh, don't tell me this is about Creationism?



Yes, and you really need to stop doing that.  If you are going to complain about a scientific theory, at least learn about what it actually says prior to complaining about what it doesn't.



What would such evidence look like?  How would evidence of a population not existing differ from no evidence of a civilization at all?

There is a reason why scientific theories cannot be negatives; it is unbelievably difficult to prove a negative.



Agreed.  The main reason fringe theories exist is due to a lack of knowledge on what current theories state and how the process of science works.



How would one look differently?



What's so special about our technology, that we would even assume that we have discovered everything there is to know about our planet?  Who has even made a claim like that?



Agreed.  Why people waste time on sacred mysteries as opposed to actually tackling real mysteries is baffling.



It's happened before.  All you have to do know is determine if it happened in whatever specific case you want to refer to.

Science doesn't work on possibilities.  It works on probabilities.



Not really, no.  After all, the things that allowed the face of the Earth to change so radically are also the result of technology that is strong enough to withstand the disasters that used to obliterate lesser technologies.



None.  Since the first artifact was found around the turn of the century, and consequently other finds, leading to the discovery of a "workshop" of sorts in the late 1930's, evidence of Clovis was always available.  Not everyone agreed with the findings, but as the evidence added up (Preponderance of Evidence), more and more people accepted the "Clovis First" theory.
1)Genetics anthropology or dispersion cannot give a you a population count of those times. Though people try to make head and tail of the data by using things like gene frequencies etc,but it is not a good method as the results can be interpreted in multiple ways. Anthropology cannot reveal population sizes. Dispersion itself is a interpretation based on other data hence it's like using an assumption to justify another.

2)What makes you think that our ancestors couldn't create surplus resources? See how we have progressed from 6000 B.C. when they started creating surplus resources and in a matter of just 8000 years we are here.....1,92,000 years is ample time for them to create resources and develop technology and also to have considerably decent population sizes.

3)I like the part where you say that theories cannot be in the negative and i agree. You cannot say that there were no lost ancient civilizations just because we have not found enough evidence for the same.

4)I also like to commend you on the comment where you say science works on probabilities and not possibilities....as that is exactly what i am trying to establish. i.e. If we humans can become civilized and advance at such a fast rate in a matter of 5000 years then it highly probable that we would have done so in period of 1,95,000 years. You see thats exactly where i am going with this topic.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 05 April 2013 - 06:58 AM.


#63    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:19 AM

View Postsk8tan71, on 04 April 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

I'd quote the rest, but it is just a regurgitation of these first two points you bring up.

Can we agree with the premise that man is an animal?  That is the first thing you have to accept before you can really answer any questions.  As an animal, the Homo genus has two primary functions, obtain food and procreate.  Just like any other animal.  Now this genus doesn't have excessive speed, poison glands, rapid reflexes, or any other tools you would expect an apex predator to have.  That leaves a developing brain.

The acquisition of knowledge is a geometric progression for the Homo genus.  Homo habills developed stone tools 2.3 million years ago. ejovj . Homo erectus developed controlled fire 400,000 years ago.  Homo sapiens show up 200,000 years later taking those two previous major inventions of stone tools and controlled fire to make rather amazing jumps in terms of hunting and gathering for 190,000 years.  10,000 years ago with the overall improvement in developing stone implements, giving neolithic humans more time they made the connection to seeds and plants which created the ground work for the first neolithic villages which would be the first societies.  A big part of the story of mankind is the increased efficiency in obtaining food, creating more time leading to more and more discoveries.  So this isn't a case of the Homo genus just sitting on its collective ass for 2.3 million years, it is just proof of how long and hard the slog is.


Well you could say what took so long for the Industrial Revolution to happen, the Romans had the aeolipile and pistons in the 1st century AD.  But the pieces weren't put together until the 18th century.  So you could say that mankind was busy sitting on its collective ass for 1700 years.

I foresee a time in the next thousand years or so that you will see a diversion in the evolutionary path of Homo sapiens with the advent of interplanetary colonization.  You will see Homo sapiens terran, Homo sapiens aries among other sub-species that will develop and they will return to their biological imperatives of obtaining food and propagating the species which will lead to more and more impressive accomplishments on faster and fast time scales.

So you are suggesting that modern homo sapien took 1,95,000 years to develop stone tools and after that civilization developed in a matter of 5000 years.
I don't accept this premise as it goes against all my logic.
Rest of your examples deal with very small periods of time and are in the ambit of last 5000 years, which is a considerably smaller period of time compared to 1,95,000 years.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 05 April 2013 - 06:22 AM.


#64    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:27 AM

View Postcladking, on 04 April 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

There's no evidence that people suddenly grew new eyeballs.  There is ample
evidence that humans didn't act like humans until they suddenly did.  If language
drives development of humans rather than intelligence than it must have been our
speech center that drove language.  Since every indication is human behavior be-
gan suddenly then it was likely a mutation that led to it all.

I believe one of the biggest flaws in Darwin's highly flawed theory is that most changes
in species is probably caused by near extinction rather evolution.  When a species'
biological niche suddenly changes than most individuals will die leaving a subset that
is fundamentally different than the original and this subset will originate a new species.
It's possible that the human speech center grew up in series of localized near extinc-
tions but the fact is the change was very sudden suggesting more a mutationthan an
extinction.  There's little reason to suppose that the human habitat changed everywhere
40,000 years ago reinforcing the concept of mutation.
As you emphasize on language being the tool of advancement,i would like to know when do believe language originated?
Not only language but the capability of abstract thought is also responsible for advancement and progress.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 05 April 2013 - 06:59 AM.


#65    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:30 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 04 April 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

The devil is in the details 'the L'. While Y Chromosome A00 appears to date to c.338,000 BP you apparently didn't pay attention to what the article said, to whit:



Which means that the root of the male DNA line originated BEFORE anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens).

cormac
Why does this have to be so? why do you feel that Male DNA line originated before HSS when in all probabilities it diverged afterwards.


#66    conspiracy buff

conspiracy buff

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:37 AM

It is good to have a healthy skepticism when dealing with fringe theories.  Especially if there isn't much evidence to support the claims being given.  Yes, it is possible that DNA didn't originate on Earth and that the "ancient astronaut" theory could be true.  However, there isn't much factual evidence to support that right now.  Do I believe there are aliens?  Most likely.  Especially given the vast amount of the universe that has not been explored.  It's most likely a question of if and not when we discover extraterrestrial life.  That does not mean that they created us, however.  It just means God created other life elsewhere and that we are cosmically related.  I like a good story like anyone else, but most of these ancient astronaut theories are just that, theories.  Until we have proof directly linking aliens to us, I remain a firm believer that God created us and that's where man came from.

There is a grain of truth in every conspiracy known to man, you just have to be intelligent enough to find it.

#67    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 06:55 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 05 April 2013 - 02:53 AM, said:

All along I have been and am now still simply trying to understand you and your motivations, which is something I do with almost everyone at UM. The age of the earth aside, you're something of a puzzle to me. I can only assume you're from India and are perhaps a Hindu due to your Indic nationalistic bent, and in other cases you provide links to creationist websites. You're arguments are staunchly anti-evolution and contrary to scientific precepts, and in another thread your passionately defending Zecharia Sitchin.

LOL I think others can understand my puzzlement, even if you don't see it.



And the empirical evidence for this is...what, exactly? That's my point, and the gist of my previous post. The sum total of two centuries of archaeological evidence flatly refutes your claim, so how do you support it?



I am in agreement with this, to a point. Homo sapiens from 200,000 years ago shared the same brains we have today, but that's considerably different from saying Homo sapiens established complicated and socio-politically advanced civilizations tens of thousands of years ago. Again—evidence. How do you support your claim?

As far as Homo sapiens having evolved farther back than 200,000 years ago, yes, it is possible. But as of this point in time, there is no certain evidence to support the theory. That's just it: due to evidence, it must remain merely theoretical.



I already addressed this in my previous post. It's not really a mystery.



No, it doesn't. Nor is it sound reasoning. This is one of the primary problems with fringe themes: in the absence of supportive evidence, the fringe proponent will turn to loose imagination and idle speculation. How many times at UM have we heard "believers" state the tired old line: "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? It's a favorite mantra of fringe proponents, but it too is not sound reasoning.



The mainstream is not really "insisting" this: it's, again, what the extant evidence confirms for us. But like I said in my previous post, even though Sumer continues to be recognized as the world's first true civilization, it didn't happen overnight. "Sumer" is our modern word to describe these ancient people in southern Iraq, and even that term can be misleading in implied simplicity. Sumer was but the culmination of a long and gradual social evolution in Mesopotamia.

So if people should prefer to ascribe this phenomenon in southern Iraq to God or aliens, they have the right to do so. They would be wrong, of course.* No evidence tells us this. The abundance of evidence in southern Iraq paints a much clearer and more reasonable picture.



What evidence, exactly? Generalities and platitudes are not sufficient. I think you know me well enough by now to anticipate that I will always ask for evidence, and this is perfectly reasonable of me to do.

So, let's be specific. Using the correct archaeological and anthropological application of the term "civilization," what properly analyzed and peer-reviewed evidence in the archaeological record shows an actual existing civilization thousands of years prior to Sumer?



I am in full agreement. Further study is always required—and it has never stopped. It has only slowed due to the recent wars and unrest in the Middle East.

Why do you think prestigious establishments like the Oriental Institute exist?



Patently incorrect. See my preceding comment.



This does happen, but usually only when the person making the suggesting is positing something considerably beyond the bounds of extant evidence and, in many cases, something simply divorced from reality (Stichin, von Däniken, Dunn, et al).

In plenty of other cases, people outside the bounds of specialized academic study (e.g., Egyptology, Assyriology) have made significant contributions to academic pursuits. Why do you think specialized academic fields regularly employ such a wide variety and mixture of other academic disciplines?



That would account for only some degree of ancient textual sources, which in reality does not constitute anything approaching a majority of our understanding. While textual evidence certainly is an important part of historical research, so are geology, physics, paleobotony, paleopathology, computer sciences, and many other fields.

*Editing to add belatedly: I'm quite aware that evidence for God is not so simple and is a matter of faith, so I didn't state that clearly enough. Faith and science are by necessity two different things. Aliens, on the other hand, are the stuff of sci-fi films and TV shows—but not reality.
Answer is simple Sesh. I don't have a predecided ideology...i have not been in doctrined. I evaluate evidence according to my abilities and form an opinion of my own,i don't blindly acknowledge a person or institution to be entirely correct or entirely wrong. I move where my reasoning leads me and i have no other vested interests for discussing or thinking about these topics and i do it purely for the joy of learning and expression.

Sesh regarding empirical evidence, i have highlighted this before that most of the history we know is not based on empirical evidence. And just because we have not found or maybe we have not looked properly, evidence for ancient civilizations doesn't mean they didn't exist. Lack of evidence doesn't refute the proposition. We have not explored the Earth in it's entirety and until we do that we cannot deny this possibility. Secondly if we interpret all known evidence that we have currently based on a predecided notion then we can be in error regarding the actual meaning of the evidence. Basically i am talking about the frame of interpretation of evidence is pre decided.

You associate aliens with TV shows and pop fringe etc,doesn't make the possibility of them existing any less scientific or probable. If someone talks about aliens it doesn't mean that he is an idiot. Extra-terrestrials hold a lot of appeal to regular people and academics alike, the premise of them existing is again based on Probability i.e if there are countless star- planet systems in the universe then it is very probable that many of them harbour intelligent life.

Regarding lost ancient civilizations, we have a lot of documentary evidence which are often dismissed as myths speaking of these glorius civilizations. Also i spoke about the underwater archaeological studies not being conducted at sites like dwarka,yonaguni,mahabalipuram,cuba etc. We know that the sea-waters rose by almost 400 feet after the last ice age so there might be a lot of evidence underwater. But if we don't look closely and try to interpret evidence based on logic alone rather then a predecided frame of refference then we might bring to light a lot of new evidence.

DO you think the translation of Egyptian Heiroglyphs are disconnected from reality since they talk of Gods and Soul and Magical occurrences?

P.S.-I am a big fan of Empirical Science and i refuse to believe that anyone in their right mind can deny Empirical Science but at the same time i do not believe in Pseudo sciences like Evolution which are based more on assumption. On the contrary i find many Historians who are not aware of empirical science and get fooled by conmen holding degrees and using scientific language to propound lies.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 05 April 2013 - 07:02 AM.


#68    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,430 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:23 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

Why does this have to be so? why do you feel that Male DNA line originated before HSS when in all probabilities it diverged afterwards.

Because that's what Mendez, et al. have concluded in their study. And their conclusions/opinions/whatever carry more weight than yours.


Quote

We report the discovery of an African American Y chromosome that carries the ancestral state of all SNPs that defined the basal portion of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree.We sequenced ~240 kb of this chromosome to identify private, derived mutations on this lineage, which we named A00.We then estimated the time to the most recent common ancestor (TMRCA) for the Y tree as 338 thousand years ago (kya) (95% confidence interval 237-581 kya). Remarkably, this exceeds current estimates of the mtDNA TMRCA, as well as those of the age of the oldest anatomically modern human fossils. The extremely ancient age combined with the rarity of the A00 lineage, which we also find at very low frequency in central Africa, point to the importance of considering more complex models for the origin of Y chromosome diversity. These models include ancient population structure and the possibility of archaic introgression of Y chromosomes into anatomically modern humans. TheA00 lineage was discovered in a large database of consumer samples of African Americans and has not been identified in traditional hunter-gatherer populations from sub-Saharan Africa. This underscores how the stochastic nature of the genealogical process can affect inference from a single locus and warrants caution during the interpretation of the geographic location of divergent branches of the Y chromosome phylogenetic tree for the elucidation of human origins.

http://www.ucl.ac.uk...JHG13_DeepY.pdf

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#69    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,712 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:54 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 06:55 AM, said:


P.S.-I am a big fan of Empirical Science and i refuse to believe that anyone in their right mind can deny Empirical Science but at the same time i do not believe in Pseudo sciences like Evolution which are based more on assumption. On the contrary i find many Historians who are not aware of empirical science and get fooled by conmen holding degrees and using scientific language to propound lies.

Please give us some examples of your So called "Empirical Sciences"??

Is Natural science consisting of Biology & Zoology Empirical sciences?
If majority of scientists can attest Evolution as classified under Natural sciences, a lone voice objecting, can very well be ignored, because that voice is of ignorance.
If you want to make a stance against evolution, have something to back yourself up. We all saw how you were drowning in an debate against a properly trained biologist (i suppose) arbitran.

You are vouching for Sitchin, when it has been established by proper sumerologists that he doesn't know scratch from Sumerian. when many linguists arrive at similar translations of the Sumerian clay tablets and seals, Sitchin makes up translation of fantastic science fiction tales.

It is a fashion/fad to associate with anything that goes against the accepted.
Thinking out of the box is a good tool for analysis and reasoning. But, thinking far out of the box, rejecting basic scientific principles, is just fantastical. just whimsical.

And then there are those, who are delusional, like David Icke, who honestly want to believe in whatever stuff they preach.
And then there are those, like Con Von Dainken, Childress, Hancock, and the late Sitchin, who though misinformed, creating their theories (fringe of course) and found that there are gullible fools who would gobble up anything that they give them. This is a font of money for these cons. Books, Lectures, all bring in money to them. Some even fabricate evidence to back their theories. Now, what would you  say on their ilk?

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#70    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 07:59 AM

View Postcormac mac airt, on 05 April 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

Because that's what Mendez, et al. have concluded in their study. And their conclusions/opinions/whatever carry more weight than yours.




http://www.ucl.ac.uk...JHG13_DeepY.pdf

cormac
Why do their opinions carry more weight then mine? when you say it is their conclusions means that they by default support it,in this scenario it is the opinion of the neutral party that counts.....you can't be the judge jury and the hangman.
They concluded that the divergence happened in our ancestor and not HSS because the mainstream says that HSS didn't exist before 200,000 years. Circular reasoning.


#71    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:16 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 05 April 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

Please give us some examples of your So called "Empirical Sciences"??

Is Natural science consisting of Biology & Zoology Empirical sciences?
If majority of scientists can attest Evolution as classified under Natural sciences, a lone voice objecting, can very well be ignored, because that voice is of ignorance.
If you want to make a stance against evolution, have something to back yourself up. We all saw how you were drowning in an debate against a properly trained biologist (i suppose) arbitran.

You are vouching for Sitchin, when it has been established by proper sumerologists that he doesn't know scratch from Sumerian. when many linguists arrive at similar translations of the Sumerian clay tablets and seals, Sitchin makes up translation of fantastic science fiction tales.

It is a fashion/fad to associate with anything that goes against the accepted.
Thinking out of the box is a good tool for analysis and reasoning. But, thinking far out of the box, rejecting basic scientific principles, is just fantastical. just whimsical.

And then there are those, who are delusional, like David Icke, who honestly want to believe in whatever stuff they preach.
And then there are those, like Con Von Dainken, Childress, Hancock, and the late Sitchin, who though misinformed, creating their theories (fringe of course) and found that there are gullible fools who would gobble up anything that they give them. This is a font of money for these cons. Books, Lectures, all bring in money to them. Some even fabricate evidence to back their theories. Now, what would you  say on their ilk?
Empirical science is any part of science which is backed by theoretical and experimental proof which can be repeated and demonstrated n number of times. And that is the only sort of science i believe is above doubt or suspicion. Now there are many new streams of science which are not empirical in nature for eg-theory of evolution,which is not based on empirical experimental truth, i.e.- you cannot observe evolution happening in front of your eyes,you do not see a monkey evolve into a man. The issues i have are usually with these types of so called sciences.
I was drowning in a debate with Arbitran? maybe that is how you perceived it, i was debating  Arbitran and a whole lot of his supporters and i didn't see myself as drowning anywhere. All they achieved was trying to convince themselves or others that i am a Biblical Creationist....lol.
I do not pander to opinions of others alone before i judged Sitchin's theory, get into the details yourself and see what objections they have against Sitchin's translations and judge for yourself.Don't deny Sitchin just because they said so.Compare the word meanings used by Sitchin and those used by trained Summerologists (as if they have been trained by the Summerians themselves) and reach your own conclusions.I am not vouching for Sitchin but all i am saying is that in my opinion his version is as legitimate as the other version.
Which basic scientific principles have i objected too (mind you i don't consider darwinistic or neo-darwinistic principles of evolution as a basic scientific principle because it is not,it is simply a inference)
And it is interesting to see how you decide who is a gullible fool...i.e if you read von daniken etc,you become a gullible fool......whats your opinion of people who blindly gobble up everything thrown at them by the mainstream.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 05 April 2013 - 08:38 AM.


#72    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,186 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:17 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

I acknowledge the points you are making but i don't agree with a few.

That's fine.  What don't you agree with?

Quote

Again appeal to numbers is a fallacy when evaluating any evidence or theory.

Yes, it is.  However, when determining the credibility of a theory, as opposed to whether the theory itself is correct or not, the probability of it being a valid explanation is very much a significant factor.

Quote

Though there are equal number of people who do not accept mainstream views.

I won't bother asking you to support this.  I will simply let it stand that a postulate on your part does not translate into a fact in reality.

Quote

Also the fact that if you come up with results that go against established norms,you are under threat from interest groups who are usually your bosses or control the funds for your work.

Incorrect.  In fact, it is the exact opposite.  Assuming, of course, that you have followed proper scientific protocol.

The purpose of research is to discover new things, not to confirm old ones.

Quote

It's like directly countering how your boss is doing buisness and expecting your boss to take it without a fight or serious consequences on your carreer.

Yes, it is very much like that.  If you start talking about taking the business in a new direction, but don't bother with a business plan, or benchmarking, or even make an attempt to understand the current business model, then the boss would definitely be well advised to remove you from any position which might make you a threat to the company.  Alternatively, if you have the credibility, the knowledge, and the supported business plan, along with projections as well as benchmarks supporting your proposal, and your plan indicates a significant increase in profits on completion, you are going to be pretty well regarded, as well as rewarded with promotion, benefits, and/or money, as appropriate.


#73    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,186 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:29 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 06:16 AM, said:

1)Genetics anthropology or dispersion cannot give a you a population count of those times. Though people try to make head and tail of the data by using things like gene frequencies etc,but it is not a good method as the results can be interpreted in multiple ways. Anthropology cannot reveal population sizes. Dispersion itself is a interpretation based on other data hence it's like using an assumption to justify another.

Yes, genetics can give a pretty good idea of a population count of a given time period.  Now that I have repeated myself without adding anything other than my personal assurance on the matter, in your next reply you can either repeat yourself as well, or offer some sort of reason as to why the point made is invalid.  Similarly, I will need more than your assurance that the processes used by universities and private corporations around the world are not reliable enough, considering the billions of dollars riding on the results of R&D.

Quote

2)What makes you think that our ancestors couldn't create surplus resources?

You really need to stop responding to what you think is being said and pay more attention to what is actually being said.

Quote

See how we have progressed from 6000 B.C. when they started creating surplus resources and in a matter of just 8000 years we are here.....1,92,000 years is ample time for them to create resources and develop technology and also to have considerably decent population sizes.

Please stop repeating the same thing and attempt to explain your position from a diferent angle or perspective.

Quote

3)I like the part where you say that theories cannot be in the negative and i agree. You cannot say that there were no lost ancient civilizations just because we have not found enough evidence for the same.

Agreed.  What we can say is that nothing has been found that necessitates the existance of an ancient civilization with anachronistic technology to explain it.  We can also say that the existence of an ancient civilization would have left behind certain technological debris, as well as required certain levels of resources prior to achieving a given level of technological development.  Absence of these elements in a given area or time period would be an argument against that level of technology being reached.

Quote

4)I also like to commend you on the comment where you say science works on probabilities and not possibilities....as that is exactly what i am trying to establish. i.e. If we humans can become civilized and advance at such a fast rate in a matter of 5000 years then it highly probable that we would have done so in period of 1,95,000 years. You see thats exactly where i am going with this topic.

Yes, I know.  Again, your use of a linear timeline of advancement does not correlate to the behaviour humans express.  Human technology progresses exponentially, not linearly.


#74    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:43 AM

View Postaquatus1, on 05 April 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Yes, genetics can give a pretty good idea of a population count of a given time period.  Now that I have repeated myself without adding anything other than my personal assurance on the matter, in your next reply you can either repeat yourself as well, or offer some sort of reason as to why the point made is invalid.  Similarly, I will need more than your assurance that the processes used by universities and private corporations around the world are not reliable enough, considering the billions of dollars riding on the results of R&D.



You really need to stop responding to what you think is being said and pay more attention to what is actually being said.



Please stop repeating the same thing and attempt to explain your position from a diferent angle or perspective.



Agreed.  What we can say is that nothing has been found that necessitates the existance of an ancient civilization with anachronistic technology to explain it.  We can also say that the existence of an ancient civilization would have left behind certain technological debris, as well as required certain levels of resources prior to achieving a given level of technological development.  Absence of these elements in a given area or time period would be an argument against that level of technology being reached.



Yes, I know.  Again, your use of a linear timeline of advancement does not correlate to the behaviour humans express.  Human technology progresses exponentially, not linearly.
Billions of dollars are spent by corporations to do RnD that is actually useful in our life as of now.
Since you made the claim that genetic data can be used to figure out population numbers in the past,why don't you back it up with a case study or proof,i can then answer your assertions other then denying them outright.
I and do agree that these ancient civilizations if they existed would have left some debris, i am saying we are not looking for it in all sincerity because we have predecided notions of when civilization began.
I cannot change or explain what i am saying from a different angle,because i am spelling out what i think in a most direct fashion.


#75    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,186 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 April 2013 - 08:45 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 05 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Empirical science is any part of science which is backed by theoretical and experimental proof which can be repeated and demonstrated n number of times.

Not really, no.  At least, this is such a simplification that it comes close to being a misdirection, albeit an unintentional one.

Quote

And that is the only sort of science i believe is above doubt or suspicion.

That is a curious, and somewhat precarious, position to hold.  Why are you limiting yourself so much?

Quote

Now there are many new streams of science which are not empirical in nature for eg-theory of evolution,which is not based on empirical experimental truth,

Yes, it is.  To the point that doing the empirical experiments is an Honors high school project.  It's the biological equivalent of a paper-mache volcano.

Quote

i.e.- you cannot observe evolution happening in front of your eyes,

Sure you can.

Quote

you do not see a monkey evolve into a man.

Nor would you expect to, according to evolution.

Quote

The issues i have are usually with these types of so called sciences.
I was drowning in a debate with Arbitran?

It didn't look too good, no.

Quote

All they achieved was trying to convince themselves or others that i am a Biblical Creationist....lol.

Maybe not a biblical creationist, but yeah, a creationist of some stripe.

Quote

maybe that is how you perceived it, i was debating  Arbitran and a whole lot of his supporters and i didn't see myself as drowning anywhere.

You also don't see any errors in your concept of what science is or what evolution is.  Perhaps the problem is indeed in your perception.

Quote

Which basic scientific principles have i objected too (mind you i don't consider darwinistic or neo-darwinistic principles of evolution as a basic scientific principle because it is not,it is simply a inference)

Well, for starters, you seem to be under the impression that "Darwinistic" principles of evolution are some sort of scientific theory.  This would be incorrect.  Also, you don't seem to be familiar with the pre-requisites of scientific methodology, as you seem to believe there is only one valid type of science.  Lastly, I am not convinced you understand the general scientific culture in academia, considering some of the statements you have made regarding behaviour of scientist.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users