Senior-Lazarus_Long wrote:
Modern Humans began 2 million years ago. Homo Erectus was just as smart as you or me,maybe smarter.
No disputing Erectus was "smarter" than you. But the rest of us? LOL
The Science of Biological Evolution (no politics or religion)
Sort:
May as well say Modern Man began 13.8 billion years ago at the big bang. If that's not to your liking, say a few billion with the 1st amoebas, or with the 1st fish before they grew legs and started crawling.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#3684
Nothing's happened like the scientist says.....isn't that hilarious !
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Nothing's happened like the scientist says.....isn't that hilarious !
Don't give up on the scientists just yet. There is always a new discovery just around the bend, waiting to be found, that will dramatically change our perception, shed new light on what heretofore was known to be the final truth, and that's a fact, Jack.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#3686
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Nothing's happened like the scientist says.....isn't that hilarious !
Can you think of something they got worng? something we might not be aware of?
Sep 12, 2016
0
#3687
The_Ghostess_Lola wrote:
Nothing's happened like the scientist says.....isn't that hilarious !
How am I reading this again? On my computer? From thousands of miles away? This wasn't made possible by feelings.
Have you ever taken medicine for any reason? If so, it seems you trust that biologists get something right...
The_Ghostess_Lola hat geschrieben:
Nothing's happened like the scientist says.....isn't that hilarious !
I think we have a hot candidate for the "Most stupid and ignorant post of the year award 2016". Of course scientists get things wrong a lot. The whole scientific method is about falsification, about erring forward. Contrary to a certain world view of a certain bigot quoted above that says: "We have the ultimate truth, and if we are proven wrong, what's been said had just been been misinterpreted, because we have the ultimate truth." Duh.
Sep 12, 2016
0
#3689
The wise person says "I don't know, but I'll try to find out"
An idiot who says they know it all should not criticize this!
s23bog wrote:
A day is roughly the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis. A month is roughly the time it takes the moon to orbit the earth. A year is about the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun.
Anyone have a clue as to what the reasoning for the length of a week is?
1/4 of the 28 day lunar cycle.
s23bog wrote:
A day is roughly the time it takes the earth to rotate on its axis. A month is roughly the time it takes the moon to orbit the earth. A year is about the time it takes the earth to orbit the sun.
Anyone have a clue as to what the reasoning for the length of a week is?
It could be related to man's biological clock.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3692
I don't understand this critique at all. First of all, I've never encountered a scientist yet who claims that a theoretical model constitutes "the final truth" - that would be a law, not a model, and research scientists don't find laws particularly interesting.
The whole point of science is that scientists ask interesting questions then seek answers to them. Inevitably, this involves making guesses, that's what hypotheses are.
But even a bad guess is useful in that it serves as a pointer to everyone else working in that particular field. Once established that it's flawed, everyone turns their focus elsewhere. This is an essential part of the process - so it goes on, until someone scores a direct hit and the model undergoes further refinement. The whole history of science is peppered with episodes that follow this theme.
This is how knowledge advances.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3693
You are confused. Show me somebody who's afraid of making a mistake and I'll show you a loser. This axiom holds true in every sphere of human activity, whether it be science, business, music, sport... chess.
Botvinnik once famously said of one of his 12 year-old students: "This boy has zero talent and won't achieve anything in chess."
The boy's name was Anatoly Karpov.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3696
I think you're conflating two different schemes here. I've never felt that the use of nuclear weapons at the end of the second world war was an indictment of science so much as an indictment of governance.
This thread has been running for a long time and I'm not going to discuss political questions, which is expressly forbidden now in the Off-Topic forum.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3698
....and BTW FM Rumor....does your little village have lights ?
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3699
It's not all or nothing. Humans can gain real knoweldge, solve real problems, and also make mistakes.
Sep 13, 2016
0
#3700
s23bog wrote:
I didn't really see my comment as being an indictment on science, or government, per se, but rather an indictment on humankind.
Whether bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were mistakes, and by who is culpable for them, is a matter for discussion, but I think they clearly point out the failures of humankind to solve problems.
I agree but we're not discussing it here. What part of "(no politics or religion)" don't you understand?
The first writing
Writing has its origins in the strip of fertile land stretching from the Nile up into the area often referred to as the Fertile Crescent. This name was given, in the early 20th century, to the inverted U-shape of territory that stretches up the east Mediterranean coast and then curves east through northern Syria and down the Euphrates and the Tigris to the Persian Gulf.
The first known writing derives from the lower reaches of the two greatest rivers in this extended region, the Nile and the Tigris. So the two civilizations separately responsible for this totally transforming human development are the Egyptian and the Sumerian (in what is now Iraq). It has been conventional to give priority, by a short margin, to Sumer – dating the Sumerian script to about 3100 BC and the Egyptian version a century or so later.
However, in 1988 a German archaeologist, Günter Dreyer, unearths at Abydos, on the Nile in central Egypt, small bone and ivory tablets recording in early hieroglyphic form the items delivered to a temple – mainly linen and oil.
These fragments have been carbon-dated to between 3300 and 3200 BC. Meanwhile the dating of the earliest cuneiform tablets from Sumeria has been pushed further back, also to around 3200 BC. So any claim to priority by either side is at present too speculative to carry conviction.