Scientists didn't "get it wrong"

First topic message reminder :

Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

i do hope that is not directed at me..

It certainly is.

I don't have to remind you of your own rules again do I, you will have to ban yourself at this rate... :D 

I do not troll and stand up for my beliefs and i stand against things I do not believe..

Also, you and few others here accuse me of breaking some rule that I established. Before you do that, I want you to quote the rule back to me in its entirety. Mmkay?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

I don't have to remind you of your own rules again do I, you will have to ban yourself at this rate... :D 

I do not troll and stand up for my beliefs and i stand against things I do not believe..

Also, you and few others here accuse me of breaking some rule that I established. Before you do that, I want you to quote the rule back to me in its entirety. Mmkay?

i'll have to go find it...

STOP ABUSING OTHER MEMBERS
Post by Ben_Reilly on 3rd February 2014, 5:22 pm

Effective immediately. This goes for all posters.

I don't care what's been said before now. I care about what happens from this point on.

AGAIN -- this goes for everyone. If you post something attacking the person who created the post instead of addressing the content of the post, you will be subject to administrative action.

so that's strike two so far..

heavenly father wrote:so that's strike two so far..

I wasn't attacking you, I was just pointing out that you've been trolling.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so that's strike two so far..

I wasn't attacking you, I was just pointing out that you've been trolling.

you were attacking/ being abusive, while making no attempt to address the post...

what is trolling by the way??

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:so that's strike two so far..

I wasn't attacking you, I was just pointing out that you've been trolling.

you were attacking/ being abusive, while making no attempt to address the post...

what is trolling by the way??

You can look up the definition of trolling, seeing as you can reach the same websites as I can.

But I'll take your hand and try to walk you through a lesson yet again:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you were attacking/ being abusive, while making no attempt to address the post...

what is trolling by the way??

You can look up the definition of trolling, seeing as you can reach the same websites as I can.

But I'll take your hand and try to walk you through a lesson yet again:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people.

so basically troll is a term for someone who does not agree with what others say but won't back down, is that nearer the truth.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

you were attacking/ being abusive, while making no attempt to address the post...

what is trolling by the way??

You can look up the definition of trolling, seeing as you can reach the same websites as I can.

But I'll take your hand and try to walk you through a lesson yet again:

In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people.

so basically troll is a term for someone who does not agree with what others say but won't back down, is that nearer the truth.

If you're not going to read for comprehension there's nothing I can do to help you. Maybe you should pray about it.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

so basically troll is a term for someone who does not agree with what others say but won't back down, is that nearer the truth.

If you're not going to read for comprehension there's nothing I can do to help you. Maybe you should pray about it.

a little to near the truth eh...I prayed God said i'm right, there, no trolling. :D 

I bet god always tells you that.

Ben_Reilly wrote:I bet god always tells you that.

Oddly enough no he doesn't..

I have to confess, I talk with Jesus practically every day ...

@Ben

Do you have a Mexican Friend named that?

veya_victaous wrote:@Ben

Do you have a Mexican Friend named that?

Why do you leap to that conclusion? He's Guatemalan.

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:
You can look up the definition of trolling, seeing as you can reach the same websites as I can.

But I'll take your hand and try to walk you through a lesson yet again...............

so basically troll is a term for someone who does not agree with what others say but won't back down, is that nearer the truth.

  

YOU really do have no idea about the internet, do you, heavenly_father ?!?

DON'T yet realise what a Troll actually is; probably no idea about hacking, spamming or phishing, either?

NO WONDER you're so willing to claim the internet as a major reference for yourself-directed "studies" and research efforts, in that case !  

Beekeeper wrote:

heavenly father wrote:

so basically troll is a term for someone who does not agree with what others say but won't back down, is that nearer the truth.

  

YOU really do have no idea about the internet, do you, heavenly_father ?!?

DON'T yet realise what a Troll actually is; probably no idea about hacking, spamming or phishing, either?

NO WONDER you claim the internet as a major reference for yourself-directed "studies" and research efforts, in that case !   

Of course I know what a troll is but the ones that usually get labelled trolls are just posters that will not be beaten down when they know they are right regardless of how many other posters try to bully them.

:D 

THOSE people who mislabel anyone as a "troll", "hacker" or "spammer" simply because they can't continue the argument otherwise ~ well, they're just as ignorant as the rest of you !!!

BUT in your case, h_f' ~ the very fact that you seem to believe  "... when they know they are right regardless of how many other posters try to bully them."  ~ when you're so often so wrong..  

THAT just says so much about you !   

Beekeeper wrote::D 

THOSE people who mislabel anyone as a "troll", "hacker" or "spammer" simply because they can't continue the argument otherwise ~ well, they're just as ignorant as the rest of you !!!

BUT in your case, h_f' ~ the very fact that you seem to believe  "... when they know they are right regardless of how many other posters try to bully them."  ~ when you're so often so wrong..  

THAT just says so much about you !   

so a troll is measured simply by how many poeple disagree with them so it is a majority rule, cool that must mean homosexuality is not normal and anyone who says otherwise must be a troll..

heavenly father wrote:

Beekeeper wrote::D 

THOSE people who mislabel anyone as a "troll", "hacker" or "spammer" simply because they can't continue the argument otherwise ~ well, they're just as ignorant as the rest of you !!!

BUT in your case, h_f' ~ the very fact that you seem to believe  "... when they know they are right regardless of how many other posters try to bully them."  ~ when you're so often so wrong..  

THAT just says so much about you !   

so a troll is measured simply by how many poeple disagree with them so it is a majority rule, cool that must mean homosexuality is not normal and anyone who says otherwise must be a troll..

No, the facts aren't determined democratically, thankfully. Your problem is that you demand certainty in an uncertain world -- all you can do is ensure that you've done everything you can to be as right or accurate as possible, and bleating the same talking points as millions of other religious fundamentalists is not the way to go.

@ben, you best take it up with bee, they seem to think it is all about numbers, so as i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of nearly everyone being wrong.

heavenly father wrote:@ben, you best take it up with bee, they seem to think it is all about numbers, so as i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of  nearly everyone being wrong.

Which, of course, you say with all confidence that "normal" somehow means "good" or "preferable." If you were right, though, it would be bad to be a red-head (only 1-2 percent of all humanity) and many other things that aren't actually "bad" -- like homosexuality.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:@ben, you best take it up with bee, they seem to think it is all about numbers, so as i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of  nearly everyone being wrong.

Which, of course, you say with all confidence that "normal" somehow means "good" or "preferable." If you were right, though, it would be bad to be a red-head (only 1-2 percent of all humanity) and many other things that aren't actually "bad" -- like homosexuality.

hey i didn't say a thing ask bee, they set up the idea that a troll was someone who stood against the majority not me..

heavenly father wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:@ben, you best take it up with bee, they seem to think it is all about numbers, so as i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of  nearly everyone being wrong.

Which, of course, you say with all confidence that "normal" somehow means "good" or "preferable." If you were right, though, it would be bad to be a red-head (only 1-2 percent of all humanity) and many other things that aren't actually "bad" -- like homosexuality.

hey i didn't say a thing ask bee, they set up the idea that a troll was someone who stood against the majority not me..

i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of  nearly everyone being wrong.

hey i didn't say a thing ask bee, they set up the idea that a troll was someone who stood against the majority not me..

i said homosexuality cannot be normal as the numbers far out way the possibility of  nearly everyone being wrong.

See? Religion really does make you crazy  ::roglol:: ::roglol:: ::roglol:: 

oh i see changes posts is ok on this forum thats ok, do the rules apply to EVERYONE...lol

I suppose if you cannot make your point intellectually ben you have to change the rules,...

heavenly father wrote:oh i see changes posts is ok on this forum thats ok, do the rules apply to EVERYONE...lol

I suppose if you cannot make your point intellectually ben you have to change the rules,...

What?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenly father wrote:oh i see changes posts is ok on this forum thats ok, do the rules apply to EVERYONE...lol

I suppose if you cannot make your point intellectually ben you have to change the rules,...

What?

you changed the posts..

For HF's education, here we have a transitional mammal. Inside the flippers of the Baleen whale, and other species, are the remains of legs and feet, left over from when they were land animals.

Here's a good link with several pictures if any of you want to take a look:

australianmuseum.net.au/Chinese-​dinosaurs

Two days later and still no response. Can't say I'm surprised for there is no answer to proof and fact.

stardesk wrote:Two days later and still no response. Can't say I'm surprised for there is no answer to proof and fact.

Absolutely, it's telling. Creationists worry so much about "transitional fossils" without realizing that we're all transitional fossils in the making; species aren't set-in-stone categories in reality. We just study them that way. If humanity makes it another quarter-million years or more, scientists then will likely come upon some of our remains and comment on features we have that show we were in the process of turning into them.

Hi Ben, sorry but I've got to pack up now, but I'll get back to this probably in the morning.

And for those interested, here we have an early humanoid in transition.

Australopithecus sediba

Where Lived: Southern Africa (South Africa)
When Lived: Between 1.977 and 1.98 million years ago
 Australopithecus sediba Topics:
OverviewEvolutionary TreeFirst DiscoveredKey FossilsHeight and WeightHow They SurvivedThe UnknownBibliography.Overview
The fossil skeletons of Au. sediba from Malapa cave are so complete that scientists can see what entire skeletons looked like near the time when Homo evolved. Details of the teeth, the length of the arms and legs, and the narrow upper chest resemble earlier Australopithecus, while other tooth traits and the broad lower chest resemble humans. These links indicate that Au. sediba may reveal information about the origins and ancestor of the genus Homo. Functional changes in the pelvis of Au. sediba point to the evolution of upright walking, while other parts of the skeleton retain features found in other australopithecines. Measurements of the strength of the humerus and femur show that Au. sediba had a more human-like pattern of locomotion than a fossil attributed to Homo habilis. These features suggest that Au. sediba walked upright on a regular basis and that changes in the pelvis occurred before other changes in the body that are found in later specimens of Homo. The Australopithecus sediba skull has several derived features, such as relatively small premolars and molars, and facial features that are more similar to those in Homo. However, despite these changes in the pelvis and skull, other parts of Au. sediba skeleton shows a body similar to that of other australopithecines with long upper limbs and a small cranial capacity. The fossils also show that changes in the pelvis and the dentition occurred before changes in limb proportions or cranial capacity.  

The combination of primitive and derived traits in Australopithecus sediba shows part of the transition from a form adapted to partial arboreality to one primarily adapted to bipedal walking. but the legs and feet point to a previously unknown way of walking upright. With each step, Australopithecus sediba turned its foot inward with its weight focused on the outer edge of the foot. This odd way of striding may mean that upright walking evolved on more than one path during human evolution.'

Other species of Homo:
Ardipithecus kadabba  
Ardipithecus ramidus  
Australopithecus afarensis  
Australopithecus africanus  
Australopithecus anamensis  
Australopithecus garhi  
Australopithecus sediba  
Homo erectus  
Homo floresiensis  
Homo habilis  
Homo heidelbergensis  
Homo neanderthalensis  
Homo rudolfensis  
Homo sapiens  
Orrorin tugenensis  
Paranthropus aethiopicus  
Paranthropus boisei  
Paranthropus robustus  
Sahelanthropus tchadensis

did they find any traces of mutations, good ones of course... :D 

Mutations HF? Indeed I did, both good and bad, which I posted in another topic in a different forum some time ago. BTW HF, you can't get away with constantly claiming God did this and that, it's a lame excuse with no foundation whatsoever. To my mind it's a getout clause by Creationists because there is no logical answer to evolution.

I was sitting in the porch this morning having a puff on my favourite pipe, and thinking about these discussions re religion v. evolution, when I suddenly remembered something said to me a couple of years ago by a Witness at my door. I put to them the same Noah/Flood impossibility that I've mentioned here. The answer I got was that new life, animals and birds etc, came from those animals on the Ark! Yep, from the survivors on the Ark. Which of course is again impossible and even if by some weird remote chance that did happen, then what have we got? EVOLUTION.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just thinking about the comments you sometimes see -- "Scientists once thought the Sun revolves around the Earth." "Scientists once thought we think with our hearts." "Scientists once though leeches could cure you of illnesses."

No, no and no. None of the people who thought those things were scientists in the modern sense of the word; none of them used the scientific method to reach their conclusions.

In fact, most "science" before the mid-1800s was quite haphazard and prone to guessing and overall shoddy work. Leonardo DaVinci was the rare exception before the advent of modern science who put it quite poetically:

"Many think that they can with reason blame me, alleging that my proofs are contrary to the authority of certain men held in great reverence by their inexperienced judgments, not considering that my works are the issue of simple and plain experience which is the true mistress.

These rules enable you to know the true from the false – and this induces men to look only for things that are possible and with due moderation – and they forbid you to use a cloak of ignorance, which will bring about that you attain to no result and despair abandon yourself to melancholy."

I think it would be fair to say that comparing the "scientists" who came before the widespread use of the scientific method to today's scientists would be like comparing witch doctors to modern physicians.

... um, discuss.

Actually we do think with our heart - and science has finally caught up with ancient wisdom. That includes Islam and the actions of the heart and the Chakra system in Hinduism.

It's called the Nervous System - which apart from the brain, also includes other nerve plexuses such as the heart and the even the groin (yes, men do really think with their dicks).

Theses plexus carry out many functions and motivate ourselves into certain actions, without even consulting the brain.

http://www.macquarieinstitute.com/company/proom/archive/head_heart_connect.html

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.macquarieinstitute.com/company/proom/archive/head_heart_connect.html

Total quackery. Yes, the brain communicates with the rest of the body, but the brain is the organ doing the information processing -- there is nothing resembling thought going on in any other organ.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.macquarieinstitute.com/company/proom/archive/head_heart_connect.html

Total quackery. Yes, the brain communicates with the rest of the body, but the brain is the organ doing the information processing -- there is nothing resembling thought going on in any other organ.

Not quackery but science. The nerve plexus of the heart carries out many functions without consulting the brain, as the communication link is not quick enough for the heart to wait before acting.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:http://www.macquarieinstitute.com/company/proom/archive/head_heart_connect.html

Total quackery. Yes, the brain communicates with the rest of the body, but the brain is the organ doing the information processing -- there is nothing resembling thought going on in any other organ.

Not quackery but science. The nerve plexus of the heart carries out many functions without consulting the brain, as the communication link is not quick enough for the heart to wait before acting.

But it's carrying out autonomic processes, you can't call a nerve cluster telling your heart, "beat ... beat ... okay, beat again ..." thinking. It's not going to help you solve a physics equation or analyze poetry.

 

FUZZY is a complete dill when it comes to the sciences, Ben...

I learnt that about him from a couple of forums ago, three or so years back..

  

Creationists are sanctimonious trolls. That's the worst ones.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Not quackery but science. The nerve plexus of the heart carries out many functions without consulting the brain, as the communication link is not quick enough for the heart to wait before acting.

But it's carrying out autonomic processes, you can't call a nerve cluster telling your heart, "beat ... beat ... okay, beat again ..." thinking. It's not going to help you solve a physics equation or analyze poetry.

Yes and those actions can literally make you think and motivate you into action - for example, you do and think things differently when you're stressed.

And FYI - as a guy, you'll also know that men think with their groin. That's because the groin literally has it's own brain or nerve plexus.

Of course these plexus and the brain work together, but there are processes that occur within these plexus that occur independently of the brain and send those messages back to the brain. In otherwords, these plexus tell the brain what to think.

Beekeeper wrote: 

FUZZY is a complete dill when it comes to the sciences, Ben...

I learnt that about him from a couple of forums ago, three or so years back..

  

You sound bitter and battered. Cheer up, I didn't wipe the floor with you that hard.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

But it's carrying out autonomic processes, you can't call a nerve cluster telling your heart, "beat ... beat ... okay, beat again ..." thinking. It's not going to help you solve a physics equation or analyze poetry.

Yes and those actions can literally make you think and motivate you into action - for example, you do and think things differently when you're stressed.

And FYI - as a guy, you'll also know that men think with their groin. That's because the groin literally has it's own brain or nerve plexus.  

Of course these plexus and the brain work together, but there are processes that occur within these plexus that occur independently of the brain and send those messages back to the brain. In otherwords, these plexus tell the brain what to think.

Zack all this talk about groins & nerve plexus...is it all really necessary because you how I don't like dirty talk?

Shady wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Yes and those actions can literally make you think and motivate you into action - for example, you do and think things differently when you're stressed.

And FYI - as a guy, you'll also know that men think with their groin. That's because the groin literally has it's own brain or nerve plexus.  

Of course these plexus and the brain work together, but there are processes that occur within these plexus that occur independently of the brain and send those messages back to the brain. In otherwords, these plexus tell the brain what to think.

Zack all this talk about groins & nerve plexus...is it all really necessary because you how I don't like dirty talk?

Oh please. You're always thinking with your lumbar plexus.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Shady wrote:

Zack all this talk about groins & nerve plexus...is it all really necessary because you how I don't like dirty talk?

Oh please.  You're always thinking with your lumbar plexus.

I'm not sure if I've got one of them.

Lurker wrote:Creationists are sanctimonious trolls. That's the worst ones.

I can't stand the arrogance of bro-scientists who think they know it all.

Maybe be a troll but Muslims are not creationists. The Quran clearly states the universe has been created in stages and continues to evolve by the creative and destructive processes 'put in place' by God.

There's a difference between that and an instant creation event.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Not quackery but science. The nerve plexus of the heart carries out many functions without consulting the brain, as the communication link is not quick enough for the heart to wait before acting.

But it's carrying out autonomic processes, you can't call a nerve cluster telling your heart, "beat ... beat ... okay, beat again ..." thinking. It's not going to help you solve a physics equation or analyze poetry.

Yes and those actions can literally make you think and motivate you into action - for example, you do and think things differently when you're stressed.

And FYI - as a guy, you'll also know that men think with their groin. That's because the groin literally has it's own brain or nerve plexus.  

Of course these plexus and the brain work together, but there are processes that occur within these plexus that occur independently of the brain and send those messages back to the brain. In otherwords, these plexus tell the brain what to think.

I'm pretty sure if my dick had a brain, it would agree that this is bullshit.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Beekeeper wrote: 

FUZZY is a complete dill when it comes to the sciences, Ben...

I learnt that about him from a couple of forums ago, three or so years back..

  

You sound bitter and battered. Cheer up, I didn't wipe the floor with you that hard.

  

AS YOU HAVE never "wiped the floor" with me in any discussions at any time, on any forums anywhere ~ I simply have no idea of just what you are talking about there, Fuzzy !!!

YOU are as delusional as you are ignorant and stupid..

So, remind me ~ when did you have this deranged dream in which you ever imagined that you somehow bested me, FuzzyBrains ?