geistkiesel said:
The unprecedented rise in social development of the Sumarians that cannot be explained by evolution is scientific data. The Sumarian clay texts are qualified data also.
Biological evolution as I understand it has nothing to do with social development. Texts are not "scientific data" in the sense that I meant it. Those texts had one ancient king ruling for 65,000 years. Do you believe that text just because it says so? What is written on them is not evidence of what actually happened, since they were written by human beings, and human beings are capable of creating fiction. They are simply evidence of the kind of people the Sumerians were (and the Hebrews in the case of the Bible).
geistkiesel said:
Scientists, today, are not in a position to judge past events when they theoretically reject forms and sources of data. The bible claims beings that are referenced non-biblical sources.
Scientists have to work with what will be accepted by rational people - questioning, skeptical people. That is why they deal with physical evidence that anyone can examine, and repeatable experiments. It could never become the scientific consensus that giants existed solely on textual evidence because it only takes one person to say, "What if they made it up?" and that's such a reasonable point, the case collapses completely. Science deals for the most part for what is definitely there. Science does not say that there were no giants nor long lived people, it states only that the evidence shows that primitive man was generally smaller and shorter-lived than modern man.
geistkiesel said:
Your limiting the motivations of those who conncocted the story to create religions is specious and without any attempt on your part to justify your statement. The exception is the rather smug elevation of the scientific community as the only qualified interpreters of our history.
Your outré claim of a different race of ancient beings needs more than textual reference for me to accept it. And I didn't say a single thing about concocting a story to create religions, in fact I have great admiration for the great storytellers and mythmakers of the past. The stories were frequently nothing to do with religion, and were co-opted into it at a later date.
geistkiesel said:
If you were correct regarding the age of the author of the post you responded to is also specious, even if you guessed corectly. 21 year olds have minds and reasoning powers and desires to learn the truth without qualification.
ghost specifically claimed to be in his fifties. I wasn't claiming he was too young to think or reason, I was claiming he was too young to pretend he was in his fifties. I now believe him, thank you.
geistkiesel said:
By you paring off huge volumes of unanalyzed material is criminaly without penalty. I suppose the free speech philiosophies save you this time (as I have been save by previous, and even current, hpocirisy).
Again, I stated the absence of any physical evidence for such incredible beings, and will retain my skepticism about them until something other than a mythological tale points to their existence. This is not hypocrisy, because it would be hypocritical for me to behave in any other way.
geistkiesel said:
I can guess your age. It has been approximately 55 since you were 21 biolgical year and smugly adopted the professorial pronouncements of scientific truth and history.
Wrong, though it makes no difference to me. I'm a little concerned about your
ad hominem attacks on me, but I'll leave that be. I turn 40 in May, but I would say the same if I was 21 or if indeed I was 76 as you seem to think. I'm not really sure what difference my age makes, as long as I'm reasonably experienced and educated enough.
geistkiesel said:
Yours is a lazy mind, and I insult you not, as even my "smug" charge was not insulting, well not intended as such.
But saying that I have a lazy mind is not insulting? Well, I'm really not one to hold a grudge, but I would point at the boring length my posts go to and suggest that there is at least some evidence that I think about what I write here. Please do not accuse me of having a lazy mind simply because you disagree with me. I'm sure you have good reasons for thinking the way you do, and have thought them through.
geistkiesel said:
This post is, partially, the recordation of an observation. I sob to consider that you would consider your present biological age as too advanced for serious modification, so I predict you will maintain your separation from various sections of the library and will continue to answer posts as you answered the last post, that is, with a stilted and time worn echo of academic dogma: AKA The Mental Fire of the Academic Sloth - Only My System is of Value..
Oh, no - "stilted and timeworn" - I've bored someone! I'm heartily sorry for this.
geistkiesel said:
There are the Sumarian Clay Texts which qualify as "evidence". (See zecharia sitchin and his Story of the Smarians - well documented and rational)
Oh, yes - the author of the twelve-volume epic
The Earth Chronicles. It's safe to say that he bases his conclusions upon this question he frames in the early pages of his first book (available to read at amazon.com):
The real puzzle, however, is not the backwardness of the Bushmen, but our advancement; for it is now recognized that in the normal course of evolution Man should still be typified by the Bushmen and not by us. It took Man some 2,000,000 years to advance in his "tool industries" from the use of stones as he found them to the realization that he could chip and shape stones to better suit his purposes. Why not another 2,000,000 years to learn the use of other materials, and another 10,000,000 years to master mathematics and engineering and astronomy? Yet here we are, less than 50,000 years from Neanderthal Man landing astronauts on the moon.
The obvious question, then, is this: Did we and our Mediterranean ancestors really acquire this advanced civilization on our own?
Strangely, given the absolutely exponential curve in learning, technology and achievement by humankind
only in the last century, I do not find this a convincing argument. Or were Michael Faraday, James Clark Maxwell, Max Planck and Albert Einstein aliens sent to advance us another stage? Humans speak to each other and pass knowledge on and that knowledge is built on straight away by each succeeding generation. That's why
memes work much faster than genes, and do not require millions of years to make their mark.
geistkiesel said:
You are somewhat pitiful as you are restricted in information to the simple minded denial of the accuracy of your excluded data. You cannot carry on the simplest conversation, by your admission, with anyone except to hog the conversation with smug demeaning of data of which you have absolutely no familiarity.
My rejection of nutjob theories like those of Mr. Sitchin is about as far from pitiful as you can get.
geistkiesel said:
Some more non-science: Personally I would not want to be perceived by a significant number of the public (one or more) as I perceive you. I believe (yes the religious believe type) that you do not want the same perception of yourself.
Indeed, I don't particularly want to be perceived the way that you perceive me, but unfortunately I have no control over your perceptions. I made what I thought was a reasonable point. As an atheist I did ghost the courtesy of arguing with him on his own terms, ie the Bible.
geistkiesel said:
You may avoid this crippling state of affairs (mentality) by appreciating that someone is trying to help you includinvg me) without the inferred quid pro quo. You don't have to answer to me for anything. You need not thank me or tell me to go to hell as I will treat both kinds of responses equally. I divert them to the trash barrell.
I've taken the trouble of reading your post and indeed answering it, and yet you won't extend the same courtesy to me? Because you've somehow read something in my post that paints me in your mind as a totally worthless person? I wish I could even determine what it was in what I said that produced this stream of vitriol, but it beats me.
geistkiesel said:
Why not just treat what is proposed to you on face value, not on precious, and basiclly worthless scientific constructs. I say this because you and I both know neither has a structure of scientific credibility that is impervious to slow or rapid change. Why run from the inevitable. Of all the wonders I yet have heard it seems to me most strange that one would fear, knowing that death, a necessary end, will come when it will come.
There was a point of view emerging that man used to live longer and I simply pointed out the fact that there was no evidence to suggest it. That even casual experiential evidence would suggest the exact opposite - that thanks to hygiene and advances in medical technology, humans are living far longer now than they ever have in the past. All the vitamins in the world will not make up for the fact that pharmaceutical knowledge was primitive and hygiene was zero.
geistkiesel said:
You say pax as if you haven't repeatedly denigrated my opinions and my person as worthless. I would not do the same to you.