Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
TheCosmicMind

Ice Age Civilization

696 posts in this topic

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

He's convinced that evolutionary biology actually would comment on ice age civilization somehow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see why he doesn't believe in Evolution.

After all, he was left behind by it.

Harte

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's convinced that evolutionary biology actually would comment on ice age civilization somehow...

Much like Brane Theory explains warts, right? :w00t: His apparent lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology wouldn't help him in any case, since we've (Homo sapiens) been around for the last c.200,000 years BP and the last Ice Age (actually glacial period) only started c.120,000 BP. It'd be like striking a match, blowing it out and trying to convince others it went out on its own. :rolleyes:

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

He does at that. Of course, under the circumstances, tenacity on his part isn't exactly admirable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose it is a good sign that Harsh hasn't responded to this thread in days. Maybe we finally reached him. One can always hope...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Civilizations require farming and people living together in massive amounts and close proximity. Neither of those things were true at the time. A hunting-gathering band could simply not make a civilization, because they kept themselves small and were always on the move. They might stop to build a temple that they would visit but they had no premament settlements. They couldn't, until they became farmers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Erowin,

I haven't seen you around here much lately (this section.)

Have we been too boring?

Glad to see you back here.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I propose it is a good sign that Harsh hasn't responded to this thread in days. Maybe we finally reached him. One can always hope...

You wish..............but your statement does have a undertone of 'You missed me'.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

everything that you read in talk origins has been debunked multiple times.The above links will help you to judge for yourself.

P.S.--There is lot of material supporting a young Earth in the above link,but i will clarify that i do not suscribe to it lest you call me a biblical creationist.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know what I'd like to see him do. And that's to actually post something relevant to the thread, concerning possible Ice Age civilizations, instead of continuously hi-jacking it to drone on and on about how he doesn't believe in evolution. His inability to comprehend it is his own failing and off-topic. Bet he can't do it.

cormac

I can see why he doesn't believe in Evolution.

After all, he was left behind by it.

Harte

We have to give one thing to him though: despite being proven fundamentally wrong in a number of independent scientific fields and despite having no-one around who would support any of his outlandish claims, he is still going strong. The guy has tenacity.

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wish..............but your statement does have a undertone of 'You missed me'.

http://www.trueorigin.org/

everything that you read in talk origins has been debunked multiple times.The above links will help you to judge for yourself.

P.S.--There is lot of material supporting a young Earth in the above link,but i will clarify that i do not suscribe to it lest you call me a biblical creationist.

Not only hasn't anything on Talk Origins been debunked, on the contrary, it's your silly "True Origin" that has been utterly discredited. Sorry. And don't flatter yourself; one doesn't have to "miss you" to note the fact that you've been mysteriously absent recently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

Yeah, because childishly deeming us "fans" and insulting us while claiming the victim position just makes us like you so much...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All my fans i would be pleased to inform yall that i am back..........yall can commit ad hominem and keep liking it,only demonstrates intellectual bankruptcy.

In other words, you STILL have nothing relevant to the topic to say. We figured as much.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you STILL have nothing relevant to the topic to say. We figured as much.

cormac

oh and you are so relevant aren't you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or are creationists utterly clueless about how uranium decay has been used to date the earth to around 4.5 billion years? To me the story of how scientists were able to figure this out based on isotopes is truly fascinating (even if some of it is over my head). More to the point, it's proven science. I don't understand the mindset of people who refuse to educate themselves about these things but go on insisting science is wrong anyway.

Goodness.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it just me, or are creationists utterly clueless about how uranium decay has been used to date the earth to around 4.5 billion years? To me the story of how scientists were able to figure this out based on isotopes is truly fascinating (even if some of it is over my head). More to the point, it's proven science. I don't understand the mindset of people who refuse to educate themselves about these things but go on insisting science is wrong anyway.

Goodness.

Though i don't believe that the world is just 6000 years old,i also believe that the dating methods are not accurate.The link below gives a list of assumptions:

http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/Radiometric%20Dating,%20and%20The%20Age%20of%20the%20Earth.htm

Though Hindus believe that the world and civilization is billions of years old approx 4.5/4.32 billion years old according to Vedic scriptures,way before modern radiometric techniques.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_cosmology

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though i don't believe that the world is just 6000 years old,i also believe that the dating methods are not accurate.The link below gives a list of assumptions:

http://www.earthage....f the Earth.htm

Though Hindus believe that the world and civilization is billions of years old approx 4.5/4.32 billion years old according to Vedic scriptures,way before modern radiometric techniques.

http://en.wikipedia....Hindu_cosmology

Don't act like you represent all Hindus; I'm a Hindu, but I don't believe what you do, or anything similar. And the "assumptions" you like are bogus; you need to learn, just giving a link that subscribes to a certain view doesn't make it's claims true, it's the facts that ultimately win out. That's why your creationist sites are wrong; they don't have any facts; though they do appear to hold a monopoly in bull****.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't act like you represent all Hindus; I'm a Hindu, but I don't believe what you do, or anything similar. And the "assumptions" you like are bogus; you need to learn, just giving a link that subscribes to a certain view doesn't make it's claims true, it's the facts that ultimately win out. That's why your creationist sites are wrong; they don't have any facts; though they do appear to hold a monopoly in bull****.

Why do you think you are a Hindu? It's not a race if thats what you are thinking.

Scriptures and their interpretions that you don't like are not bogus,they are interpretations by credible vedic scholars endorsed by wikipedia.You being a Hindu seems like a Bogus claim based on your birth into a Hindu family probably in the Indian subcontinent.

Thats why your evolutionist sites are bull**** as they think they have a monopoly and they can supress free rational,logical and empirical thought.

Luckily we Hindus are tolerant in all aspects of life and thought so we can tolerate intolerant people like you as well.Our tolerance allows you to claim that you are also a Hindu.Even atheists have a place in Hinduism,it is very inclusive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol at "endorsed by wikipedia", a site that anyone can edit. It is one level above "endorsed by the crazy naked homeless guy on the sidewalk". Your "credible vedic scholars", based on the links you tout, are just random people with Comic Sans-typed websites and not actual researchers that publish in credible journals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you think you are a Hindu? It's not a race if thats what you are thinking.

Why do I think I'm a Hindu... I am well aware it isn't race. It's a culture; an ideology. One which I subscribe to; ergo, I'm a Hindu.

Scriptures and their interpretions that you don't like are not bogus,they are interpretations by credible vedic scholars endorsed by wikipedia.You being a Hindu seems like a Bogus claim based on your birth into a Hindu family probably in the Indian subcontinent.

If you're referring to Cremo, he isn't a "credible Vedic scholar". And incidentally, I was born into a Christian family, and not in India. Your talent at making unfounded assumptions is nothing short of remarkable.

Thats why your evolutionist sites are bull**** as they think they have a monopoly and they can supress free rational,logical and empirical thought.

Wow, so science isn't scientific enough for you now? Pity...

Then again, you've made it overwhelmingly clear you don't understand science in the first place; so I'm not terribly surprised.

Luckily we Hindus are tolerant in all aspects of life and thought so we can tolerate intolerant people like you as well.Our tolerance allows you to claim that you are also a Hindu.Even atheists have a place in Hinduism,it is very inclusive.

Yes, science is intolerant; not all ideas are created equal, my fellow Hindu. And yes, atheists can be Hindu; I am both, incidentally: an atheistic Hindu. I also consider myself a Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist, Confucianist, etc.... Though Hindu is my technical grouping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um so I just read that radiometric dating thing, I just got few questions so my head doesn't pop.

Isn't that the exact reason why we have different ways of dating things to begin with? I'm not a scientist but it seems pretty simple of an idea that rocks(magma, or whatever materials) that were here before the formation of some area would in fact be a crap ton older then whatever it made(Like a mountain or volcano).

Wouldn't a straight up comparison be pointless because of factors like that? Which is exactly the reason why Scientists with half a brain developed more then one way to age something to take this stuff in to account in the first place? Wouldn't this be more of a common sense thing then an education thing?

Mental note never reading a creationist site ever again. At least the naked crazy homeless guy never made my head hurt when I listened to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Um so I just read that radiometric dating thing, I just got few questions so my head doesn't pop.

Isn't that the exact reason why we have different ways of dating things to begin with? I'm not a scientist but it seems pretty simple of an idea that rocks(magma, or whatever materials) that were here before the formation of some area would in fact be a crap ton older then whatever it made(Like a mountain or volcano).

Wouldn't a straight up comparison be pointless because of factors like that? Which is exactly the reason why Scientists with half a brain developed more then one way to age something to take this stuff in to account in the first place? Wouldn't this be more of a common sense thing then an education thing?

Mental note never reading a creationist site ever again. At least the naked crazy homeless guy never made my head hurt when I listened to him.

Dating process and radiometric curve pretty much seem like circular reasoning.You should look more deeply into the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do I think I'm a Hindu... I am well aware it isn't race. It's a culture; an ideology. One which I subscribe to; ergo, I'm a Hindu.

If you're referring to Cremo, he isn't a "credible Vedic scholar". And incidentally, I was born into a Christian family, and not in India. Your talent at making unfounded assumptions is nothing short of remarkable.

Wow, so science isn't scientific enough for you now? Pity...

Then again, you've made it overwhelmingly clear you don't understand science in the first place; so I'm not terribly surprised.

Yes, science is intolerant; not all ideas are created equal, my fellow Hindu. And yes, atheists can be Hindu; I am both, incidentally: an atheistic Hindu. I also consider myself a Buddhist, Taoist, Shintoist, Confucianist, etc.... Though Hindu is my technical grouping.

Science is intolerant?? probably real science is intolerant to unempirical assumptions like macroevolution.

Never refered to Cremo as a vedic scholar.The link i gave was Wikipedia.

Let me get this clearly you were born in a Christian family and not in India and you do not ascribe to Vedic mythology or to Vedic scripture and their interpretations by Hindu Vedic scholars and you do not beleive in god i.e you are an atheist.

I am wondering what makes you a Hindu,since the vedic culture and values are based on Vedic mythology and scripture and you clearly do not ascribe to it.

The only conclusion that i can reach is that you are a hippy atheist evolutionist who claims he is a Hindu.

Are you a hindu because you like to celebrate Hindu festivals or are you a Hindu because you like to do Yoga?I don't get you.Though you can be a Hindu without ascribing to anything but i have a doubt that you are a atheist trying to disguise it by calling yourself a Hindu.

The religions you named are mostly based on transcdental meditation and being enlightened/aware of your consciousness...........but empirical science can't prove that there is a 'consciousness' seperate from the self,so are you being unscientific?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science is intolerant?? probably real science is intolerant to unempirical assumptions like macroevolution.

Yes, science is intolerant to unsubstantiated claims; evolutionary biology is the antithesis of an unsubstantiated claim. It is, in point of fact, the single most-substantiated scientific theory in history.

Never refered to Cremo as a vedic scholar.The link i gave was Wikipedia.

You didn't give any link at all. And yes, in the past, you have referred to Cremo as a Vedic scholar. What, you're going to backpedal now?

Let me get this clearly you were born in a Christian family and not in India and you do not ascribe to Vedic mythology or to Vedic scripture and their interpretations by Hindu Vedic scholars and you do not beleive in god i.e you are an atheist.

Yes, I am an atheist; you've previously said, and I agreed with you, that an atheist can be a Hindu. Where is your quarrel?

And incidentally, I do subscribe to Vedic texts and culture; just because my interpretations do not match yours do not make them wrong. Now who is being intolerant, hmm?

I am wondering what makes you a Hindu,since the vedic culture and values are based on Vedic mythology and scripture and you clearly do not ascribe to it.

Again, I do subscribe to it.

The only conclusion that i can reach is that you are a hippy atheist evolutionist who claims he is a Hindu.

Are you a hindu because you like to celebrate Hindu festivals or are you a Hindu because you like to do Yoga?I don't get you.Though you can be a Hindu without ascribing to anything but i have a doubt that you are a atheist trying to disguise it by calling yourself a Hindu.

And what makes you a Hindu, exactly? Believing guys like Cremo, who claim to represent the be-all-end-all of Hinduism? I'm a Hindu because I subscribe to Vedic culture and texts; I was a Hindu before I was an atheist, incidentally. I do practice yoga, although I've never much been one for the festivals; they seem rather impractical to me.

The religions you named are mostly based on transcdental meditation and being enlightened/aware of your consciousness...........but empirical science can't prove that there is a 'consciousness' seperate from the self,so are you being unscientific?

You clearly haven't read any of the scientific literature that's been published on the matter of the mind-body problem; there's a great deal of it. In any case, we're extremely off-topic now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

check post number 642 where i have given a wiki link on hindu cosmology.

Please go through the link and then provide us your perspective of vedic texts and mythology.

Cremo might not be a vedic scholar but he actually adheres to vedic mythology in his thought process and approach.

Mind-Body problems....lol but then if you bleive in a seperate consciousness then i wil repeat a question i asked you way before in our conversation that how did the Mind/Consciousness evolve? (you dismissed it last time hope you will give it more thought this time around).

Science finds it difficult toi accept the concept of consciousness seperate from the Body,accepting an entitiy like consciousness or soul etc opens a whole pandoras box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.