Why call him a God?

[psyche101 36,742]

9 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Isn’t that fluke basically our brains grew, specifically the prefrontal cortex due to high amounts of protein? 
 

That's pretty much how I understand it.

[cormac mac airt 13,764]

12 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Isn’t that fluke basically our brains grew, specifically the prefrontal cortex due to high amounts of protein? 

The origins of hominid/human bipedalism significantly predate the comparatively more recent development of the human brain as evidenced by Australopithecine bipedalism circa 4 million years BP and possibly Sahelanthropus circa 6 Mya. The use and creation of stone age tools as well as possibly the first use of controlled fire also predate the brains more comparatively recent development. All that to show that much preceded the cranio-morphologically and behaviorally modern human brain, which itself only dates from circa 35,000 BP - 100,0000 BP, so I don't think we are as unique as some may, other than on a genetic level we won out against our sister lineages. 

cormac

[Sherapy 27,596]

7 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The origins of hominid/human bipedalism significantly predate the comparatively more recent development of the human brain as evidenced by Australopithecine bipedalism circa 4 million years BP and possibly Sahelanthropus circa 6 Mya. The use and creation of stone age tools as well as possibly the first use of controlled fire also predate the brains more comparatively recent development. All that to show that much preceded the cranio-morphologically and behaviorally modern human brain, which itself only dates from circa 35,000 BP - 100,0000 BP, so I don't think we are as unique as some may, other than on a genetic level we won out against our sister lineages. 

cormac

Cormac!!!!! Welcome back. 
Why thank you for your comprehensive and articulate post, always a joy to read your posts. 

[Hammerclaw 25,997]

39 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Isn’t that fluke basically our brains grew, specifically the prefrontal cortex due to high amounts of protein? 
 

That's an old idea that doesn't hold much water. Heard it from Dr. Bass in Anthropology One back in '72 and even he was bemused by it. You'd think there'd have been genius theropods.

[Hammerclaw 25,997]

34 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Sure, we don't agree and that's fine. With so many species fighting to get to where we are, I just don't think we are special at all. Just the one that won this particular race. Other hominids were taking the same path we did with superstition, hunter gatherer traits and social skills like art. I really don't see why one of them would not be in our place had history been a little different. I don't see us as unique at all, just one of many.

There's no survival benefit from the purely animal perspective, to be able to compose symphonies, paint masterpieces, develop mathematics an a myriad other non survival abilities we have, not to mention our advanced communication skills. Oh yes, we are quite unique and nothing exists or ever existed like us. 

[cormac mac airt 13,764]

8 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Cormac!!!!! Welcome back. 
Why thank you for your comprehensive and articulate post, always a joy to read your posts. 

Just saw something that caught my interest. While the latest introgression of genetic material into Homo sapiens sapiens occurred circa 40,000+ years BP there were several such points of introgression predating even that timeframe but significantly post-dating many hominid/human developments that we currently take for granted as defining humanity. 

cormac

[Sherapy 27,596]

2 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Just saw something that caught my interest. While the latest introgression of genetic material into Homo sapiens sapiens occurred circa 40,000+ years BP there were several such points of introgression predating even that timeframe but significantly post-dating many hominid/human developments that we currently take for granted as defining humanity. 

cormac

Now can you explain that in Layman’s terms,  Lol 

[cormac mac airt 13,764]

10 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Now can you explain that in Layman’s terms,  Lol 

While most are aware that, generally speaking, non-Sub-Saharan modern humans carry a percentage of Neanderthal, as well as some carrying Denisovan, DNA within their genetics such introgression (i.e. inclusion of genetic material) WAS NOT the first time such material was ever introduced to our specific lineage nor even amongst or between our sister lineages. It would be my contention that without such introgression occurring we would not necessarily have arisen as the 'victor' in the race to modern humanity. 

cormac

Edited December 5, 2019 by cormac mac airt

[Sherapy 27,596]

Just now, cormac mac airt said:

While most are aware that, generally speaking, non-Sub-Saharan modern humans carry a percentage of Neanderthal, as well as Denisovan, DNA within their genetics such introgression (i.e. inclusion of genetic material) WAS NOT the first time such material was ever introduced to our specific lineage nor even amongst or between our sister lineages. It would be my contention that without such introgression occurring we would not necessarily have arisen as the 'victor' in the race to represent modern humanity. 

cormac

Awww gotcha, very interesting. 

[Habitat 8,565]

The domestication of fire would have been the great turning point. You are just an animal running around in the bush without it.

[Alchopwn 2,551]

On 12/4/2019 at 2:42 AM, OverSword said:

If it’s logical you should be able to step by step explain your reasoning then. 

Well I certainly can.  But I only will if you can present the original comment from which your question arises, as I can't be bothered looking for it.

[Alchopwn 2,551]

On 12/3/2019 at 11:56 PM, Will Due said:

That's the spirit.  

Wow, so clever to quote someone out of context. Exactly the sort of shameful behavior you jewish zombie cultists get all bent out of shape about, and yet you hypocritically do it to me now.  Clear evidence your morals are skin deep at best and the only half-legitimate claim you can make about your cult (it teaches ethics) is garbage. Thanks for refuting your religion.

Edited December 5, 2019 by Alchopwn

[psyche101 36,742]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

There's no survival benefit from the purely animal perspective, to be able to compose symphonies, paint masterpieces, develop mathematics an a myriad other non survival abilities we have, not to mention our advanced communication skills. Oh yes, we are quite unique and nothing exists or ever existed like us. 

Neanderthal mam had art and music too, over 30 thousand years ago though. 

[White Crane Feather 5,607]

7 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Not if "the spirit of science" is denial of science. 
 

Agreed. Yes there is a lot of denial of the process in favor of particular biases. 

[White Crane Feather 5,607]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Simulation theory was first proposed academically in 2003 by philosopher Nick Bostrom. Musings have existed for a long time, but a philosopher proposed the current model being discussed.

Many well known physicists take it very seriously because it predicts and explains very fundamental issues in nature. A couple being wave particle duality as well as time dilation. It may even predict dark matter which could actually give us information about the memory and processing power of the simulator that has the potential of being tested in a number of ways to advance (or tear down) the theory. 

Edited December 5, 2019 by White Crane Feather

[Liquid Gardens 10,942]

9 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

As a science lover myself , I am disappointed in the misuse of the term because it breeds a sort of fundamentallism that is counter to the process it was founded upon. 

Science is both limited and unlimited. It’s limited by the information we can prove, and unlimited in the imagination of things we can try to prove.

The term isn't really being misused though, and the only fundamentalism I see is concerning what science supports and what it does not.  The imagination of things we can try to prove isn't really science, it's imagination, it give you something on which to apply science.  You can use science to try and study insects and you can use science to try and study Nessie, but entomology is scientific whereas the existence of Nessie is not.  I think that is a reasonable fundamentalism.

[Will do 5,800]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

The imagination of things we can try to prove isn't really science

 

That's why trying to prove the imagination that God doesn't exist and that there isn't an afterlife, isn't really science too.

However fundamental one believes it to be otherwise.

 

 

[cormac mac airt 13,764]

8 hours ago, Habitat said:

The domestication of fire would have been the great turning point. You are just an animal running around in the bush without it.

Well if that’s true then our genus Homo, and therefore considered human, spent the first 1.8 million years of its 2.8 million year existence as nothing more than animals and an argument can be made that anyone who goes into the wild now of days unprepared is ALSO nothing more than an animal. There’s a lot more to our advancement than fire. 
 

cormac

[Hammerclaw 25,997]

7 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Neanderthal mam had art and music too, over 30 thousand years ago though. 

As far as I'm concerned, we've been human from at least Homo Erectus and we have Neanderthal DNA, anyway, so he was us, too. 

[OverSword 48,636]

8 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

Well I certainly can.  But I only will if you can present the original comment from which your question arises, as I can't be bothered looking for it.

And yet you commented on it.  Just click the arrow in the upper right corner of a quote to take you back to the original.  In a few clicks you'll see what I said.  But if memory serves what I said was Jesus didn't speak the words attributed to him they were a verse about Jesus in John.  Lead me logically how me pointing that out is the equivalent of me saying God is malevolent and is on the side of the devil or whatever you accused me of.

[OverSword 48,636]

13 hours ago, psyche101 said:

The computational power to run a simulation of this magnitude and complexity would comprise far more than currently exists in all the universe.

As such, that probability is exceedingly slim.

I'm not sure why it's fun. As had been mentioned many times it's just a computer god idea.

No.  You assume that God is the universe, I assume the universe is a creation, real or simulated. 

There are several good scifi books which tackle the computational power issue.  My favorite is a pocket universe style book by Walter Jon Williams titled implied spaces in which the creation of ordered pocket universes results in life because the existence of ordered realities inevitably leads to life developing in them.  At the end of the book the creator of the pocket universes discovers that we ourselves are a pocket universe and he leaves in search of our creator.

[OverSword 48,636]

11 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But if it's wasn't us here today, it would be Neanderthal Man, if not Neanderthal Man, then it would have been Denisovians, if not then, another of the many hominid species. I don't think we are unique, I think we are a natural progression that was always going to happen no matter what or who.

So we are "implied"? 

[OverSword 48,636]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I just don't think we are special at all.

Couldn't disagree more.

[onlookerofmayhem 3,171]

55 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Couldn't disagree more.

 

[Will do 5,800]

2 minutes ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

 

 

And just think, there are still some who refuse to believe in miracles.