Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
MrPepper11
Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago
in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
Researchers determined that the specimens are around 195,000 years old.
Previously, the oldest known fossils of Homo sapiens were Ethiopian
skulls dated to about 160,000 years ago.
Genetic studies estimate that Homo sapiens arose about 200,000 years
ago, so the new research brings the fossil record more in line with
that, said John Fleagle of Stony Brook University in New York, an
author of the study.
The fossils were found in 1967 near the Omo River in southwestern
Ethiopia. One location yielded Omo I, which includes part of a skull
plus skeletal bones. Another site produced Omo II, which has more of a
skull but no skeletal bones. Neither specimen has a complete face.
Although Omo II shows more primitive characteristics than Omo I,
scientists called both specimens Homo sapiens and assigned a tentative
age of 130,000 years.
Now, after visiting the discovery sites, analyzing their geology and
testing rock samples with more modern dating techniques, Fleagle and
colleagues report in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature that both
specimens are 195,000 years old, give or take 5,000 years.
Fleagle said the more primitive traits of Omo II may mean the two
specimens came from different but overlapping Homo sapiens populations,
or that they just represent natural variation within a single
population.
To find the age of the skulls, the researchers determined that volcanic
rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about
196,000 years old. They then found evidence that the fossil-bearing
sediment was deposited soon after that time.
Paul Renne, director of the Berkeley Geochronology Center, which
specializes in dating rocks, said the researchers made "a reasonably
good argument" to support their dating of the fossils.
"It's more likely than not," he said, calling the work "very exciting
and important."
Rick Potts, director of the Human Origins Program at the Smithsonian
Institution's National Museum of Natural History, said he considered
the case for the new fossil ages "very strong." The work suggests that
"we're right on the cusp of where the genetic evidence says the origin
of modern humans ... should be," he said.
G. Philip Rightmire, a paleoanthropologist at Binghamton University in
New York, said he believes the Omo fossils show Homo sapiens plus a
more primitive ancestor. The find appears to represent the aftermath of
the birth of Homo sapiens, when it was still living alongside its
ancestral species, he said.
kathryn
"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
news:1108581666.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> February 16, 2005
> Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago
> in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
> nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
Thats wrong
the earth is only 6000 years old
so they're just wrong!
Kathryn
wildbl...@hotmail.com
MrPepper11 wrote:
> NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years
ago
> in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
> nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
>
> ago,
BULLSHIT atheist LIES the earth is only 6000 yrs old and God created Us
in the garden of Eden, it all started with adam and eve, Jesus told me
so, it's in the bible, you fucking atheist liars, you cant lie to me
and get away with it, bhaaaaaahahahahahahaha praise the lord Jesus!
Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, halleluhjah! Bhaaaaaa hahahahaha
hahhahahbahahahba *cough* *cough*
Jim Ledford
> MrPepper11 wrote:
> > February 16, 2005
> > Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> >
> > NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago
> > in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
> > nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
>
> Thats wrong
> the earth is only 6000 years old
> so they're just wrong!
>
> Kathryn
Kathryn, this earth, the one here we both live on,
the one God Himself created, it is over a trillion
years old, actually more like 30 trillion years old.
earth was around a long time before God created adam.
peace & love,
Jim
Raymond Griffith
jim...@bellsouth.net wrote on 02/16/05 5:09 PM:
Hmmm. Not even by the wildest notion of cosmology (unless you are a
steady-stater, and then you can't put an age on the universe). Most of our
measures put the age of the universe at between 13-15 billion years and the
age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. You are off by about 3 orders
of magnitude.
Regards,
Raymond E. Griffith
Jim Ledford
ok.
Chris Devol
news:4213C484...@bellsouth.net...
Actually, more like 150 trillion years, and we're only halfway through the
lifetime of the current Brahma.
Chris Devol
news:BE393590.C3BF%tiffirg...@ctc.net...
There are other ways of acquiring knowledge than to put one's faith in
modern cosmological speculations.
John Baker
I certainly hope you're joking....
>
>Kathryn
>
666
so dinosaurs are only 200,000 y/o then!
cactus
cactus
philosophers to determine whether dogma constitutes "knowledge."
Marvin
<wildbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108586846.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
LOL! Kathryn's was amusing too, but I really did laugh out
loud reading yours.
--
Marvin
To reply, burn off fog.
chibiabos
MrPepper11 <MrPep...@go.com> wrote:
> February 16, 2005
> Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
(email: change out to in)
wildbl...@hotmail.com
You shouldn't be laughing, you should be praying, its the fucking
truth, you should be praying to Jesus, jesus is truth, God made us in
the HIS image, in the garden of eden, and God made Pot plants so we
could get stoned in the garden of eden and seek out and eat the
forbiden fruit from the tree of good and evil, just watch out for that
fucking snake though, its suppose to be lucifer in disguise, if you see
it, throw a stone at it, praise the Lord! bwahahahhahhahha *cough*
*cough*
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC.
"cactus" <baldemar...@ubadlands.edu> wrote in message
news:lIQQd.1894$kU3....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not knowledge.
Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John Stuart Mill and
most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
Jim Ledford
ok.
Good Ole Days
Michelle Malkin
"kathryn" <b...@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote in message
news:cv0ah2$fo0$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Any fundies want to add to this nonsense by saying that
the Earth is only 10,000 years old? I with you guys would
make up what you call your minds. You can't even agree
on how ridiculously young you want the Earth to be.
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
alt.atheism atheist/agnostic list name collector
BAAWA Knight & EAC Bible thumper thumper
http://questioner.www2.50megs.com
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
ganschow@nothx.net t. ganschow
>The fossils were found in 1967
Q. for the pros: Why did it take so long to get a date on the bones
themselves?
ian
> rock lying just below the sediment that contained the fossils was about
> 196,000 years old.
All this is asuming the bones or even the sediment did not move for
190 000 years. Sounds very unscientific conclusions determining age.
John Baker
Fossils are rarely studied in detail as soon as they're found. Many
research departments are overworked and understaffed, and once the
bones get back to the museum or university, it isn't unusual for them
to remain in storage for years before they're finally examined. I
can't say whether that's the case in this particular instance, but it
isn't unlikely.
>
>
>
Lee Olsen
I thought the same thing when I read the first article, but a search of
more articles gets a little more information.
http://tinyurl.com/4jr74
"They also unearthed another part of a femur bone for Omo I that fits
together with the original remains.
The researchers then analyzed the volcanic ash layers above and below
the river sediment that contained the fossils using argon dating. They
determined that the rock just below the fossils dated to 196,000 years
ago. Because the layers of the Kibish Formation formed quickly during
wet seasons that inundated the area with organic matter, the team
posits that the bones are only slightly younger than this underlying
layer. In addition, a layer of ash more than 150 feet above the burial
sites dates to 104,000 years old, putting a limit on their age. Using
other evidence, which drained from the Nile and the Omo rivers onto the
Mediterranean seafloor, the researchers attest that the Omo fossils are
most likely no younger than 190,000 years old."
Generally movement can be determined by the amount of abrasion on the
bones. Other reports show pictures of the in situ bones fit together.
This means that if they had moved (which is certainly a possibility),
they hadn't moved far.
A hundred and fifty feet of flood-plain sediments in 86,000 thousand
years, to the next dated level, doesn't seem that unreasonable. Also,
news articles are limited by space constraints and not the same as a
site report, so there is really no way to determine what other
evidence they used to arrive at their conclusion.
Marvin
<wildbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108598700.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
All righty, then! What you said! ;-p
Chris Devol
in message news:YtTQd.10167$tl3.2652@attbi_s02...
Another way is to perform rigorous experiments, like the ones described in
the Vedas, in order to test hypotheses, like the ones stated in the Vedas,
and to compare the results with those of others who performed the same
experiments, as is done in the Vedas, and, when it is seen that the results
are uniform, to formulate a theory based on the results, as the Vedas do.
This is called the scientific method.
> Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not knowledge.
> Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John Stuart Mill and
> most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance. Therefore,
calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say very much.
the Danimal
If you believe you weigh 100 pounds, and every scale you step
on reads somewhere around 200 pounds, is every scale just wrong?
Maybe. Who knows? Maybe all those scales really are wrong.
But if they seem to give reliable weights for other objects, that
is troubling. It's hard to explain how they could be correct for
everything else and wrong for just you.
It's hard to make sense of the world when your world
view often requires you to reject the plain evidence of your
senses.
Believing the world is only 6000 years old creates a lot of
difficulties,
such as explaining why the ice layers in Antarctica clearly go back a
lot more years than that. You would have to believe that the mechanism
that formed the recent ice layers, which people could observe directly,
is not the same mechanism that formed so many apparently older layers.
Similar problems crop up all over geology, and that is why geologists
had to abandon the notion of a young earth about two centuries ago.
Since then, vastly more evidence for an old earth has accumulated,
making it even harder for sane people to doubt all that evidence.
Calling the earth young is like declaring to your best friend
that he does not really exist. Maybe your best friend does not
really exist; maybe you are only imagining him. Maybe there is
no reality as we perceive it; maybe you are just a brain floating
in a nutrient bath in a lab somewhere being fed an elaborate
computer simulation.
But in everyday life, nobody operates as if that's what they believe.
> >>>>>>Kathryn
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Kathryn, this earth, the one here we both live on,
> >>>>>the one God Himself created, it is over a trillion
> >>>>>years old, actually more like 30 trillion years old.
> >>>>>earth was around a long time before God created adam.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>peace & love,
> >>>>>Jim
> >>>>
> >>>>Hmmm. Not even by the wildest notion of cosmology (unless you are
a
> >>>>steady-stater, and then you can't put an age on the universe).
Most of
> >>>>our
> >>>>measures put the age of the universe at between 13-15 billion
years and
> >>>>the
> >>>>age of the earth at about 4.5 billion years. You are off by about
3
> >>>>orders
> >>>>of magnitude.
That's pretty good for Jim.
> >>>>Regards,
> >>>>
> >>>>Raymond E. Griffith
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> There are other ways of acquiring knowledge than to put one's
faith in
> >>> modern cosmological speculations.
>
> >> Right. One of them is following religious dogma. I'll leave it to
the
> >> philosophers to determine whether dogma constitutes "knowledge."
>
> Another way is to perform rigorous experiments, like the ones
described in
> the Vedas, in order to test hypotheses, like the ones stated in the
Vedas,
> and to compare the results with those of others who performed the
same
> experiments, as is done in the Vedas, and, when it is seen that the
results
> are uniform, to formulate a theory based on the results, as the Vedas
do.
>
> This is called the scientific method.
Is that what the Vedas call it?
Did the scientific revolution in Europe begin when medieval scholars
found old copies of the Vedas sitting in some library?
Did the scientific revolution actually occur first in India?
> > Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
knowledge.
> > Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John Stuart
Mill and
> > most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
I wonder what they would say if they were alive today? I can imagine
if I came back to life 500 years from now, after getting up to speed
I might revise a few of my present opinions.
Knowledge of religious beliefs is just that: knowledge of religious
beliefs. It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of poker, or music is
"knowledge."
As to whether religious knowledge is a productive way to obtain
knowledge about how nature works, well---one only has to look around
one's house and see how many of those clever artifacts came from
any religion.
> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance.
Therefore,
> calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say very
much.
Belief is an emotion; therefore, the sky is the limit. With enough
effort (or perhaps laziness) a person can believe almost anything.
Knowledge, on the other hand, must exhibit some sort of orderliness.
If I claim to have knowledge of poker rules, for example, I should be
able to answer questions about which of several poker hands wins.
If my knowledge of poker is "wrong," I won't be much fun to play with.
Poker is a made-up game which does not claim to reflect any external
reality.
Religion is a made-up game which does claim to reflect an external
reality. And, in fact, the religions I am familiar with each claim
exclusivity on this type of knowledge.
-- the Danimal
Chris Devol
news:1108679009.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Chris Devol wrote:
<snip reply to other post from YEC'er - not mine>
>> >>> There are other ways of acquiring knowledge than to put one's
> faith in
>> >>> modern cosmological speculations.
>>
>> >> Right. One of them is following religious dogma. I'll leave it to
> the
>> >> philosophers to determine whether dogma constitutes "knowledge."
>>
>> Another way is to perform rigorous experiments, like the ones
> described in
>> the Vedas, in order to test hypotheses, like the ones stated in the
> Vedas,
>> and to compare the results with those of others who performed the
> same
>> experiments, as is done in the Vedas, and, when it is seen that the
> results
>> are uniform, to formulate a theory based on the results, as the Vedas
> do.
>>
>> This is called the scientific method.
>
> Is that what the Vedas call it?
Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the scientific method as
"sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
> Did the scientific revolution in Europe begin when medieval scholars
> found old copies of the Vedas sitting in some library?
No. It began when Brahma, the creator of this universe, attended a lecture
by the Supreme Scientist, Lord Sri Krishna, some 150 trillion years ago.
> Did the scientific revolution actually occur first in India?
No, but India has retained the knowledge in a more complete form than any
other culture.
>> > Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
> knowledge.
>> > Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John Stuart
> Mill and
>> > most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
>
> I wonder what they would say if they were alive today? I can imagine
> if I came back to life 500 years from now, after getting up to speed
> I might revise a few of my present opinions.
>
> Knowledge of religious beliefs is just that: knowledge of religious
> beliefs. It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of poker, or music is
> "knowledge."
Knowledge of how matter works is just that, knowledge of how matter works.
It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of football, or oil painting is
"knowledge".
> As to whether religious knowledge is a productive way to obtain
> knowledge about how nature works, well---one only has to look around
> one's house and see how many of those clever artifacts came from
> any religion.
You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies, smog, toxic
waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever artifacts"
produced by the religion of scientolatry?
>> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance.
> Therefore,
>> calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say very
> much.
>
> Belief is an emotion; therefore, the sky is the limit. With enough
> effort (or perhaps laziness) a person can believe almost anything.
That is your belief. My guess is, you arrived at it through laziness rather
than effort.
> Knowledge, on the other hand, must exhibit some sort of orderliness.
> If I claim to have knowledge of poker rules, for example, I should be
> able to answer questions about which of several poker hands wins.
> If my knowledge of poker is "wrong," I won't be much fun to play with.
And if your knowledge of religion is wrong, as it is, you won't be much help
in assessing its value.
> Poker is a made-up game which does not claim to reflect any external
> reality.
>
> Religion is a made-up game which does claim to reflect an external
> reality. And, in fact, the religions I am familiar with each claim
> exclusivity on this type of knowledge.
That is a made up statement which reflects only your own ignorance of
external reality.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC.
"Chris Devol" <e...@joes.pub> wrote in message
news:sf8Rd.2716$IU....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Not really. Perhaps it's time for YOU to read J.S.Mill's treatise on the
scientific method and how it is to be followed.
>
>> Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
>> knowledge. Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John
>> Stuart Mill and most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
>
> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief.
It does? Please prove that claim.
Aardvark J. Bandersnatch, MP, LP, BLT, ETC.
> You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies, smog,
> toxic
> waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever artifacts"
> produced by the religion of scientolatry?
>
Thanks Chris! Now I think I understand-- science is religion and religion is
science. But if that's the case, then it's rather a circular argument you've
got going. Then again, you clearly don't know what argumentation is, so it's
time you hit the old killfile.
TTFN!
the Danimal
> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
> news:1108679009.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Chris Devol wrote:
> >> This is called the scientific method.
> >
> > Is that what the Vedas call it?
>
> Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the scientific method
as
> "sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
What do they call the inverse-square principle? Tensors?
Differential equations? Quarks? Etc.? I would like to know
the Vedic words for all these things. What does the Vedic
version of the Periodic Table look like?
Too bad Asimov did not live long enough to write a Guide
to Vedic Science.
> > Did the scientific revolution in Europe begin when medieval
scholars
> > found old copies of the Vedas sitting in some library?
>
> No. It began when Brahma, the creator of this universe, attended a
lecture
> by the Supreme Scientist, Lord Sri Krishna, some 150 trillion years
ago.
"Some" 150 trillion years ago? Have Brahma or Krishna had
difficulty keeping track of time?
A trillion years here, a trillion years there; pretty soon you're
talking real time.
I'm also curious about how stable the "year" has been for the
past 150 trillion years. It's possible for astronomers to
measure very slight changes in orbital periods. 150 trillion
years is a long time; long enough for the Sun to have orbited the
galactic core many times, and for other star systems to have
passed nearby (in astronomical terms) and perturb the planetary
orbits in our solar system.
> > Did the scientific revolution actually occur first in India?
>
> No, but India has retained the knowledge in a more complete form than
any
> other culture.
Explain why India was several decades late to join the
nuclear club, then.
> >> > Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
> > knowledge.
> >> > Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John
Stuart
> > Mill and
> >> > most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
> >
> > I wonder what they would say if they were alive today? I can
imagine
> > if I came back to life 500 years from now, after getting up to
speed
> > I might revise a few of my present opinions.
> >
> > Knowledge of religious beliefs is just that: knowledge of religious
> > beliefs. It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of poker, or music is
> > "knowledge."
>
> Knowledge of how matter works is just that, knowledge of how matter
works.
> It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of football, or oil painting is
> "knowledge".
Yes, except that it's possible to change what is knowledge of
football, oil painting, or poker and still be just as correct
as always. You just persuade all the footballers, painters, and
card sharks to change their rules. Nature seems less amenable
to persuasion.
> > As to whether religious knowledge is a productive way to obtain
> > knowledge about how nature works, well---one only has to look
around
> > one's house and see how many of those clever artifacts came from
> > any religion.
>
> You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies,
smog, toxic
> waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever
artifacts"
> produced by the religion of scientolatry?
That depends. Can one look around one's house and see those
things?
I don't have many of them in my house, although each morning
I do deposit a pretty toxic waste dump.
And speaking of world destroying artifacts, why are you reading
my words on one just now?
> >> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance.
> > Therefore,
> >> calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say
very
> > much.
> >
> > Belief is an emotion; therefore, the sky is the limit. With enough
> > effort (or perhaps laziness) a person can believe almost anything.
>
> That is your belief. My guess is, you arrived at it through laziness
rather
> than effort.
Actually I arrived at it by noting the diversity of the world's
religions and other popular beliefs. It's hard to think of anything
that would really be unbelievable to everyone.
Some laziness would have been at work there, because of course
I did not actually go out and interview everyone in detail about
their beliefs. But it seems clear enough that lots of people
believe lots of very different things. Do you doubt this?
Belief is clearly an emotion. We "feel" that things are true.
Who is not aware of such feelings?
When you hear someone saying things you know to be true, you
probably feel different emotions than when you hear someone
saying things you think are wildly untrue. You probably
experience different emotions while reading my articles than
you feel while reading the Vedas.
Sometimes our feelings turn out to be correct, and sometimes
they turn out to be wrong. Ask any gambler.
> > Knowledge, on the other hand, must exhibit some sort of
orderliness.
> > If I claim to have knowledge of poker rules, for example, I should
be
> > able to answer questions about which of several poker hands wins.
> > If my knowledge of poker is "wrong," I won't be much fun to play
with.
>
> And if your knowledge of religion is wrong, as it is, you won't be
much help
> in assessing its value.
No, I would be of no help in answering questions about the doctrinal
details of a religion, which is quite distinct from assessing
its value.
You don't have to know anything much about how automobiles work,
for example, to decide whether you think a particular automobile
is worth its asking price. You can determine the value of things
without much knowledge about them. You only have to be able to
sense how they seem to be impacting your emotional state.
Most people have even less knowledge of how people work, but
we can all perceive more value in some people than in others.
Assessing the value of things to other people is trickier, but
not out of the question.
> > Poker is a made-up game which does not claim to reflect any
external
> > reality.
> >
> > Religion is a made-up game which does claim to reflect an external
> > reality. And, in fact, the religions I am familiar with each claim
> > exclusivity on this type of knowledge.
>
> That is a made up statement which reflects only your own ignorance of
> external reality.
I am aware of one religion which tried to claim all other religions
were correct, but I think that is an exception. Judging from the
Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning Hindu temples in
India, I'd say each side believes the other has a few things wrong.
-- the Danimal
P. Chartier
<wildbl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108598700.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Chris Devol
> Chris Devol wrote:
>> "the Danimal" <dmo...@mfm.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108679009.0...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > Chris Devol wrote:
>> >> This is called the scientific method.
>> >
>> > Is that what the Vedas call it?
>>
>> Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the scientific method
> as
>> "sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
>
> What do they call the inverse-square principle? Tensors?
> Differential equations? Quarks? Etc.? I would like to know
> the Vedic words for all these things. What does the Vedic
> version of the Periodic Table look like?
No, you don't want to "know" anything about the Vedas. If you did, you would
spend your time reading them. Unfortunately, you are too lazy.
> Too bad Asimov did not live long enough to write a Guide
> to Vedic Science.
If Asimov is where your knowledge of religion comes from, that explains your
ignorance. But here's a tip on how you might find him so you can ask him
about things: just go to your local slaughterhouse and check the cows
waiting in line to be killed. You'll probably find him there, lazily chewing
his cud, oblivious to what awaits him behind the red door.
>> > Did the scientific revolution in Europe begin when medieval
> scholars
>> > found old copies of the Vedas sitting in some library?
>>
>> No. It began when Brahma, the creator of this universe, attended a
> lecture
>> by the Supreme Scientist, Lord Sri Krishna, some 150 trillion years
> ago.
>
> "Some" 150 trillion years ago? Have Brahma or Krishna had
> difficulty keeping track of time?
No, but modern scientists do.
> A trillion years here, a trillion years there; pretty soon you're
> talking real time.
>
> I'm also curious about how stable the "year" has been for the
> past 150 trillion years. It's possible for astronomers to
> measure very slight changes in orbital periods. 150 trillion
> years is a long time; long enough for the Sun to have orbited the
> galactic core many times, and for other star systems to have
> passed nearby (in astronomical terms) and perturb the planetary
> orbits in our solar system.
I'm curious to know how such an intelligent person as yourself thinks that
there were star systems and orbiting bodies in continuous motion for 150
trillion years.
>> > Did the scientific revolution actually occur first in India?
>>
>> No, but India has retained the knowledge in a more complete form than
> any
>> other culture.
>
> Explain why India was several decades late to join the
> nuclear club, then.
Same reason they have fewer meth addicts and crack babies. But don't worry,
your "scientists" are working to correct the situation.
>> >> > Plato would have said it constitutes opinion or belief, but not
>> > knowledge.
>> >> > Kant would have agreed. Come to think of it, so would John
> Stuart
>> > Mill and
>> >> > most of the rest. That excludes Descartes.
>> >
>> > I wonder what they would say if they were alive today? I can
> imagine
>> > if I came back to life 500 years from now, after getting up to
> speed
>> > I might revise a few of my present opinions.
>> >
>> > Knowledge of religious beliefs is just that: knowledge of religious
>> > beliefs. It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of poker, or music is
>> > "knowledge."
>>
>> Knowledge of how matter works is just that, knowledge of how matter
> works.
>> It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of football, or oil painting is
>> "knowledge".
>
> Yes, except that it's possible to change what is knowledge of
> football, oil painting, or poker and still be just as correct
> as always. You just persuade all the footballers, painters, and
> card sharks to change their rules. Nature seems less amenable
> to persuasion.
Nature seems inflexible and hostile to you because you are her enemy. She
doesn't like your "scientific" atom bombs, toxic waste, and
methamphetamines.
>> > As to whether religious knowledge is a productive way to obtain
>> > knowledge about how nature works, well---one only has to look
> around
>> > one's house and see how many of those clever artifacts came from
>> > any religion.
>>
>> You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies,
> smog, toxic
>> waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever
> artifacts"
>> produced by the religion of scientolatry?
>
> That depends. Can one look around one's house and see those
> things?
>
> I don't have many of them in my house, although each morning
> I do deposit a pretty toxic waste dump.
>
> And speaking of world destroying artifacts, why are you reading
> my words on one just now?
I don't really care about your words. They are poisonous. But if anyone
reads my words, and checks out the Vedic science of life, he can become
livberated from all the problems of material existence. Unfortunately,
taking your words seriously will have the opposite effect. Therefore, I am
making the best use of a bad bargain, using technology to propagate
gracious, true words which direct people to an eternal life of bliss and
knowledge. You, on the other hand, are simply piling up more and more toxic
waste, which is the inevitable effect of destitute philosophies like
scientism, materialism, positivism, naturalism, humanism, etc.
>> >> Knowledge always becomes opinion and belief. So does ignorance.
>> > Therefore,
>> >> calling something "opinion" or "belief" or "dogma" does not say
> very
>> > much.
>> >
>> > Belief is an emotion; therefore, the sky is the limit. With enough
>> > effort (or perhaps laziness) a person can believe almost anything.
>>
>> That is your belief. My guess is, you arrived at it through laziness
> rather
>> than effort.
>
> Actually I arrived at it by noting the diversity of the world's
> religions and other popular beliefs. It's hard to think of anything
> that would really be unbelievable to everyone.
>
> Some laziness would have been at work there, because of course
> I did not actually go out and interview everyone in detail about
> their beliefs. But it seems clear enough that lots of people
> believe lots of very different things. Do you doubt this?
Obviously people believe lots of different things.
> Belief is clearly an emotion. We "feel" that things are true.
> Who is not aware of such feelings?
If you're trying to say that "mere" belief is no guarantee that what one
believes is true, so what? I'm not talking about "mere" belief. I'm talking
about experimentally verifiable knowledge of reality, such as that found in
the Vedas. Such knowledge is also "belief". One "feels" that it is true,
because one has realized it by undergoing the rigorous experimental process
of acquiring the knowledge.
That is the scientific method.
> When you hear someone saying things you know to be true, you
> probably feel different emotions than when you hear someone
> saying things you think are wildly untrue. You probably
> experience different emotions while reading my articles than
> you feel while reading the Vedas.
So what? Your motive is to ridicule what you don't know, to mock knowledge
that you're to lazy to acquire. That is malignant and psychopathic.
The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering. That is benign
and healthy.
You bet I react differently to you than to the Vedas.
> Sometimes our feelings turn out to be correct, and sometimes
> they turn out to be wrong. Ask any gambler.
Yeah, right, I'm going to ask an emotionally sick person about the
reliability of emotional responses. Good one.
>> > Knowledge, on the other hand, must exhibit some sort of
> orderliness.
>> > If I claim to have knowledge of poker rules, for example, I should
> be
>> > able to answer questions about which of several poker hands wins.
>> > If my knowledge of poker is "wrong," I won't be much fun to play
> with.
>>
>> And if your knowledge of religion is wrong, as it is, you won't be
> much help
>> in assessing its value.
>
> No, I would be of no help in answering questions about the doctrinal
> details of a religion, which is quite distinct from assessing
> its value.
That statement itself is ignorant. The doctrinal details of a religion are
simply a codification of its values. If you don't know the one you don't
know the other.
> You don't have to know anything much about how automobiles work,
> for example, to decide whether you think a particular automobile
> is worth its asking price. You can determine the value of things
> without much knowledge about them. You only have to be able to
> sense how they seem to be impacting your emotional state.
To determine the actual value of an automobile, one must know all about it.
The less one knows about it, the less credibility one's assessment of its
value will be accorded.
> Most people have even less knowledge of how people work, but
> we can all perceive more value in some people than in others.
Now that's an example of "mere" belief. To "feel" that someone else is "more
valuable" without knowing all about them.
> Assessing the value of things to other people is trickier, but
> not out of the question.
>
>> > Poker is a made-up game which does not claim to reflect any
> external
>> > reality.
>> >
>> > Religion is a made-up game which does claim to reflect an external
>> > reality. And, in fact, the religions I am familiar with each claim
>> > exclusivity on this type of knowledge.
>>
>> That is a made up statement which reflects only your own ignorance of
>
>> external reality.
>
> I am aware of one religion which tried to claim all other religions
> were correct, but I think that is an exception.
A religion which tries to claim that all other religions are correct is even
more of a waste of time than a religion which is simply not correct.
> Judging from the
> Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning Hindu temples in
> India, I'd say each side believes the other has a few things wrong.
Non sequitur. If a man beats his wife, it is not the fault of "marriage". If
a bank teller embezzles money, it is not the fault of "banking". If a high
school student opens fire on his classmates, it is not the fault of
"education".
Science is not determined by what it studies, but by its methodology. The
Vedas are science books, because they use the same methodology as all
science, axioms, reason, hypotheses, repeatable experiments, confirmation or
rejection of hypotheses, and theory. Their subject matter is broader than
that of modern materialistic naturalism, because their goal is far greater:
liberation from all suffering. Modern Western mechanistic science will never
accomplish this, but Vedic knowledge has and will.
Mike Given
>"the Danimal" wrote:
>>Chris Devol wrote:
>>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>> This is called the scientific method.
>>>> Is that what the Vedas call it?
>>> Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the
>>>scientific method as "sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
Crock o' shit, swami. Not to mention you seem to be missing about
thirteen other "methods".
>>What do they call the inverse-square principle? Tensors?
>>Differential equations? Quarks? Etc.? I would like to know
>>the Vedic words for all these things. What does the Vedic
>>version of the Periodic Table look like?
>No, you don't want to "know" anything about the Vedas.
What little I know is enough to establish that the Vedas is just one
of many religious hoaxes perpetrated on man by other men.
>If you did, you would spend your time reading them.
I wasted some time perusing the Vedas and various other religious
tomes way-back-when in college.
>Unfortunately, you are too lazy.
So, when's the last time the demon Rahu has captured the moon? Or
perhaps the Vedic philosophy can explain when it is that Swarbhanu
will next stop the chariot of the sun in its path?
The Vedas never even gets "scientific" enough to push a Ptolomeic
system in favor of the Copernican, and as such doesn't even have the
basic maths to understand lunar and solar eclipses.
>>Too bad Asimov did not live long enough to write a Guide
>>to Vedic Science.
At least Asimov was a bit more entertaining.
>If Asimov is where your knowledge of religion comes from, that
>explains your ignorance. But here's a tip on how you might find
>him so you can ask him about things: just go to your local
>slaughterhouse and check the cows waiting in line to be killed.
Moo.
[...]
>>And speaking of world destroying artifacts, why are you reading
>>my words on one just now?
>I don't really care about your words. They are poisonous. But if
>anyone reads my words, and checks out the Vedic science of life,
..they'll find out you're nothing more than just another fakir
trying to pull the Indian rope trick on some unsuspecting rubes.
[...]
>>Belief is clearly an emotion. We "feel" that things are true.
>>Who is not aware of such feelings?
>If you're trying to say that "mere" belief is no guarantee that
>what one believes is true, so what? I'm not talking about "mere"
>belief. I'm talking about experimentally verifiable knowledge of
>reality, such as that found in the Vedas.
Experimentally verify Rahu capturing the moon and get back to us.
>Such knowledge is also "belief". One "feels" that it is true,
>because one has realized it by undergoing the rigorous experimental
>process of acquiring the knowledge.
>That is the scientific method.
That, of course, is an outright lie. There is no rigorous
experimental process detailed in the Vedas. There are means of
obtaining "spiritual truths", but absolutely nothing even *vaguely*
relating to physical science.
>>When you hear someone saying things you know to be true, you
>>probably feel different emotions than when you hear someone
>>saying things you think are wildly untrue. You probably
>>experience different emotions while reading my articles than
>>you feel while reading the Vedas.
>So what? Your motive is to ridicule what you don't know,
Actually, what I see Dan ridiculing is your flawed interpretation of
a pretty unscientific philosophy.
>to mock knowledge that you're to lazy to acquire. That is
>malignant and psychopathic.
What seems psychopathic to me is that some people are unable to
separate their faith from real science and then go on to concoct
ludicrous interpretations to reconcile the two.
Like you're trying to do here. And failing quite miserably, I might
add.
>The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering.
Ahh, yes: Rapture. Utopia. The promise of freedom from suffering
for all mankind.
Science has a word for that too: Extinction.
Dan has an even better word: Sexbots.
>That is benign and healthy.
It's a pipe dream that insecure people need to justify their
existence. Suffering is a part of the human experience and cannot be
separated from it any more than joy can.
>>Judging from the Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning
>>Hindu temples in India, I'd say each side believes the other has
>>a few things wrong.
>Non sequitur. If a man beats his wife, it is not the fault of
>"marriage". If a bank teller embezzles money, it is not the fault
>of "banking". If a high school student opens fire on his classmates,
>it is not the fault of "education".
Cause and effect, old son. Even the Vedas doesn't deny the validity
of observation.
>Science is not determined by what it studies, but by its
>methodology.
Which, of course, brings us back to Harit's seven horses lugging the
sun around on its daily course. I wonder what methodology was used to
arrive at that particular conclusion.
>The Vedas are science books,
No, they're not. They're an outline of a spiritual philosphy and
nothing more than that.
[...]
>Their subject matter is broader than that of modern materialistic
>naturalism, because their goal is far greater: liberation from all
>suffering.
So, when is this "liberation" going to occur?
And why, pray tell, haven't you personally used this accumulated
knowlege to liberate yourself from all suffering? The Vedas have
existed for thousands of years, and yet it seems that no one has seen
fit to actually apply them. You claim to espouse the beliefs therein,
but I'm not seeing a lick of evidence to that regard.
>Modern Western mechanistic science will never accomplish this,
That is a mere belief.
>but Vedic knowledge has and will.
Again, a big-ass (and completely transparent) lie. It's quite
obvious from the state of the world that Vedic knowlege is relatively
poweless to end the suffering of humanity.
You know what the Vedas has to say about perpetrating lies,
dontchya?
Western science, OTOH, has the capability to end all human suffering
with a few good missile launches.
Contemplate that and re-evaluate.
Mikey (..nihilism is only one of many cures for "religion".)
Lady Chatterly
Chris Devol <e...@joes.pub> wrote:
>
><snip reply to other post from YEC'er - not mine>
This was not a logician?
>Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the scientific method as
>"sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
Good luck.
>No. It began when Brahma, the creator of this universe, attended a lecture
>by the Supreme Scientist, Lord Sri Krishna, some 150 trillion years ago.
Why do you know?
>No, but India has retained the knowledge in a more complete form than any
>other culture.
Jewish, you are a fart?
>Knowledge of how matter works is just that, knowledge of how matter works.
>It is "knowledge" just as knowledge of football, or oil painting is
>"knowledge".
How can you help yourself?
>You mean atomic bombs, sarin gas, methamphetamine, crack babies, smog, toxic
>waste dumps, and in general all the world destroying "clever artifacts"
>produced by the religion of scientolatry?
Oh nooo! Those &*%$ aliens are at it again!
>That is your belief. My guess is, you arrived at it through laziness rather
>than effort.
2.
>And if your knowledge of religion is wrong, as it is, you won't be much help
>in assessing its value.
20.
>That is a made up statement which reflects only your own ignorance of
>external reality.
She likes it, it is not just against the sum of any computer
pingingattacking their computer.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I think maybe Lady Chatterly is a haiku. Or maybe a koan. Or possibly
a troll." -- tenjets
Chris Devol
news:9mnb111ohdni92q67...@4ax.com...
> Chris Devol wrote:
>>"the Danimal" wrote:
>>>Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>"the Danimal" wrote: in message
>>>>> Chris Devol wrote:
>>>>>> This is called the scientific method.
>>>>> Is that what the Vedas call it?
>>>> Yes. They refer to science as "vijnana", and to the
>>>>scientific method as "sambandha, abhideya, prayojana"
>
> Crock o' shit, swami. Not to mention you seem to be missing about
> thirteen other "methods".
Missing from what?
>>>What do they call the inverse-square principle? Tensors?
>>>Differential equations? Quarks? Etc.? I would like to know
>>>the Vedic words for all these things. What does the Vedic
>>>version of the Periodic Table look like?
>>No, you don't want to "know" anything about the Vedas.
>
> What little I know is enough to establish that the Vedas is just one
> of many religious hoaxes perpetrated on man by other men.
What little you know indeed....
>>If you did, you would spend your time reading them.
>
> I wasted some time perusing the Vedas and various other religious
> tomes way-back-when in college.
If you wasted time, that is your own fault. It's not your time to waste.
>>Unfortunately, you are too lazy.
>
> So, when's the last time the demon Rahu has captured the moon? Or
> perhaps the Vedic philosophy can explain when it is that Swarbhanu
> will next stop the chariot of the sun in its path?
When was the last eclipse? Didn't you see it? I did.
> The Vedas never even gets "scientific" enough to push a Ptolomeic
> system in favor of the Copernican, and as such doesn't even have the
> basic maths to understand lunar and solar eclipses.
Right. They were just "guessing" when they accurately predicted them.
>>>Too bad Asimov did not live long enough to write a Guide
>>>to Vedic Science.
>
> At least Asimov was a bit more entertaining.
Well, there's no accounting for taste.
>>If Asimov is where your knowledge of religion comes from, that
>>explains your ignorance. But here's a tip on how you might find
>>him so you can ask him about things: just go to your local
>>slaughterhouse and check the cows waiting in line to be killed.
>
> Moo.
Whatever.
> [...]
>>>And speaking of world destroying artifacts, why are you reading
>>>my words on one just now?
>>I don't really care about your words. They are poisonous. But if
>>anyone reads my words, and checks out the Vedic science of life,
>
> ..they'll find out you're nothing more than just another fakir
> trying to pull the Indian rope trick on some unsuspecting rubes.
Right. Everybody's trying to cheat you, except the "scientists" who supply
your suicide/heart attack/internal-bleeding inducing antidepressants. Go to,
O brave new animal, trust them.
> [...]
>>>Belief is clearly an emotion. We "feel" that things are true.
>>>Who is not aware of such feelings?
>>If you're trying to say that "mere" belief is no guarantee that
>>what one believes is true, so what? I'm not talking about "mere"
>>belief. I'm talking about experimentally verifiable knowledge of
>>reality, such as that found in the Vedas.
>
> Experimentally verify Rahu capturing the moon and get back to us.
When was the last eclipse? Didn;t you see it? I did.
>>Such knowledge is also "belief". One "feels" that it is true,
>>because one has realized it by undergoing the rigorous experimental
>>process of acquiring the knowledge.
>>That is the scientific method.
>
> That, of course, is an outright lie. There is no rigorous
> experimental process detailed in the Vedas. There are means of
> obtaining "spiritual truths", but absolutely nothing even *vaguely*
> relating to physical science.
You wouldn't know a lie if you were one.
>>>When you hear someone saying things you know to be true, you
>>>probably feel different emotions than when you hear someone
>>>saying things you think are wildly untrue. You probably
>>>experience different emotions while reading my articles than
>>>you feel while reading the Vedas.
>>So what? Your motive is to ridicule what you don't know,
>
> Actually, what I see Dan ridiculing is your flawed interpretation of
> a pretty unscientific philosophy.
Irrelevant. You have already admitted that you are visually impaired.
>>to mock knowledge that you're to lazy to acquire. That is
>>malignant and psychopathic.
>
> What seems psychopathic to me is that some people are unable to
> separate their faith from real science and then go on to concoct
> ludicrous interpretations to reconcile the two.
> Like you're trying to do here. And failing quite miserably, I might
> add.
Irrelevant. You have already admitted that you have not undergone any
process of self-realization. So whenever you use the word "I", it follows
that you do not know what you are talking about.
>>The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering.
>
> Ahh, yes: Rapture. Utopia. The promise of freedom from suffering
> for all mankind.
> Science has a word for that too: Extinction.
> Dan has an even better word: Sexbots.
Yes, I know all about your bitterness and despair. Almost as much has been
written about your pneuma-pathology as has been written about the
spiritually healthy.
>>That is benign and healthy.
>
> It's a pipe dream that insecure people need to justify their
> existence. Suffering is a part of the human experience and cannot be
> separated from it any more than joy can.
You don't know who you are. Therefore, you suffer. You suffer more and more
every day, because every day you push the memory of who you are deeper into
oblivion. With lots of help from your "scientists".
>>>Judging from the Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning
>>>Hindu temples in India, I'd say each side believes the other has
>>>a few things wrong.
>>Non sequitur. If a man beats his wife, it is not the fault of
>>"marriage". If a bank teller embezzles money, it is not the fault
>>of "banking". If a high school student opens fire on his classmates,
>>it is not the fault of "education".
>
> Cause and effect, old son. Even the Vedas doesn't deny the validity
> of observation.
Irrelevant, since you have admitted that you are visually impaired. So,
whenever you use the word "observation", it follows that you do not know
what you are talking about.
>>Science is not determined by what it studies, but by its
>>methodology.
>
> Which, of course, brings us back to Harit's seven horses lugging the
> sun around on its daily course. I wonder what methodology was used to
> arrive at that particular conclusion.
Repeated observation by people who weren't visually impaired.
>>The Vedas are science books,
>
> No, they're not. They're an outline of a spiritual philosphy and
> nothing more than that.
Distinction without difference.
> [...]
>>Their subject matter is broader than that of modern materialistic
>>naturalism, because their goal is far greater: liberation from all
>>suffering.
>
> So, when is this "liberation" going to occur?
For you, it will be many lifetimes.
> And why, pray tell, haven't you personally used this accumulated
> knowlege to liberate yourself from all suffering?
When you remember who "I" is, you will have your answer.
The Vedas have
> existed for thousands of years, and yet it seems that no one has seen
> fit to actually apply them.
That is only your faulty powers of observation and visual impairment at
work.
> You claim to espouse the beliefs therein,
> but I'm not seeing a lick of evidence to that regard.
ibid.
>>Modern Western mechanistic science will never accomplish this,
>
> That is a mere belief.
Your blind faith in Western mechanistic science is touching, in a morbid,
pathetic sort of way.
>>but Vedic knowledge has and will.
>
> Again, a big-ass (and completely transparent) lie. It's quite
> obvious from the state of the world that Vedic knowlege is relatively
> poweless to end the suffering of humanity.
If you don't follow the doctor's instructions, you don't get well.
> You know what the Vedas has to say about perpetrating lies,
> dontchya?
Yes, and eventually, so will you.
> Western science, OTOH, has the capability to end all human suffering
> with a few good missile launches.
Incorrect. Western science will never have the power to exterminate the
human form of life. Why don't you try it and see?
> Contemplate that and re-evaluate.
>
> Mikey (..nihilism is only one of many cures for "religion".)
Kalki - "go fuck yourself with your atom bomb" - Dasa
the Danimal
> Chris Devol wrote:
> >The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering.
And the motive of the Grand Inquisitor was to free people from
an eternity of suffering in hell.
What was Hitler's motive when he ordered the construction
of the first autobahn?
Does the Nazi past of the U.S. Interstate Highway System make
it more or less appealing to people today?
People with motives other people consider "good" sometimes do
things other people consider "bad." And sometimes vice versa.
> Ahh, yes: Rapture. Utopia. The promise of freedom from
> suffering for all mankind.
> Science has a word for that too: Extinction.
> Dan has an even better word: Sexbots.
Technology has reduced suffering, at least until fossil fuels
run out. Anyone who doubts this, and who also lives at least
a mid-latitude distance from the equator and has a decent winter
going on outside, can try living exclusively out-of-doors.
Or go join that guy who lives in the backwoods of North Carolina
using *only* technology that was available to the first English
pioneers in the area. His cabin is a popular destination for
school field trips, and he's been featured on at least one
television documentary; yet despite his high profile he
has been unable to find one woman willing to take up his
offer to marry him and live her life as a pioneer woman.
What, no tampons? No birth control? No obstetrics? No
central heat? No air conditioning? No bug spray? No
refrigerator? No shopping malls? No automobile? No wonderbra?
No disposable razors? No packaged soap? No hand lotions? No
flush toilets? No indoor plumbing? Not even the promise of life
in bucolic splendor free from modern annoyances is enough to
persuade a modern woman to leave her bathroom forever.
What sort of culture did Vedic "science" produce? Did it feature
hospitals that could reliably cure all the dreadful diseases?
Are the streets in Vedic-inspired cities free from beggars?
Did Vedic cultures produce the most popular bathrooms?
> >That is benign and healthy.
>
> It's a pipe dream that insecure people need to justify their
> existence. Suffering is a part of the human experience and cannot be
> separated from it any more than joy can.
Well, yes and no. Certainly it has been historically true that
everyone has suffered, to some extent, but there's a lot of
variability. Brad Pitt has probably "suffered" over his breakup
with Jen, but I'd guess quite a number of attractive women would
eagerly volunteer to help Brad process his anguish. Perhaps the
suffering of Brad Pitt is not in the same class as the suffering
of those refugees from Darfur. Like the woman who watched all
her family members being murdered one by one, her house and all
her possessions burned, and then she was repeatedly gang-raped
and beaten by platoons of Janjaweed militiamen. After which they
tired of her, dumped her in the desert to die, but she managed
to crawl away, find a few other survivors, and get across the
border to a squalid fly-blown refugee camp (a virtual paradise
in comparison to what she escaped).
The fact that some people suffer less than other people
demonstrates that suffering on any particular scale is far
from inevitable. If we determine exactly what makes Brad Pitt
different from the Darfur refugees, for example, we might
find some ways to alleviate some suffering.
> >>Judging from the Hindus burning mosques and the Muslims burning
> >>Hindu temples in India, I'd say each side believes the other has
> >>a few things wrong.
> >Non sequitur. If a man beats his wife, it is not the fault of
> >"marriage". If a bank teller embezzles money, it is not the fault
> >of "banking". If a high school student opens fire on his classmates,
> >it is not the fault of "education".
Does this also mean Vedic philosophy can take no credit for the
good it produces?
Christians make similarly selective arguments. We can credit
Christianity for the compassion of Mother Teresa; for the
abolishment of slavery; for building hospitals to help the
savages in primitive lands; etc. But all the bad things
Christians do (the Crusades; the Inquisitions; the pedophile
priests; using the Bible to justify slavery; etc.)---those are
the works of "men" and not reflective of "true" Christianity.
A rational evaluation of things like "marriage," "banking,"
and "education" must account for everything they produce. If
the good outweighs the bad, according to whoever is keeping
score, we keep them. If there are ways to correct some of the
bad effects, we introduce reforms and so on.
There is a whole history of attempts to patch up the problems
resulting from marriage, banking, and education.
Does any religion seriously attempt to correct its mistakes?
Or like most other institutions, do religions also require
outside monitoring?
> >The Vedas are science books,
>
> No, they're not. They're an outline of a spiritual philosphy and
> nothing more than that.
The writings of Nostradamus are vague enough to allow for all
sorts of retrospective reinterpretation.
A real science book, in contrast, must be specific enough in its
claims to rule out retrospective reinterpretation as far as possible.
There cannot be a serious question, for example, about what Darwin
really meant to say.
In stunning contrast, the major religions have these
questions routinely. See the Sunni/Shia schism in Islam. The
Orthodox/Protestant/Catholic schism in Christianity. The
dizzying array of Hindu sects, not to mention the offshoot
of Buddhism. Etc.
Science does not schism (longer than temporarily) because it
is far more specific in its claims than any religion. And
because science is based on something definite: physical
reality, whereas religion is based on something indefinite:
human imagination.
> [...]
> >Their subject matter is broader than that of modern materialistic
> >naturalism, because their goal is far greater: liberation from all
> >suffering.
Essentially every technology has a similar goal, at least
as far as reducing the suffering of the person who wields it---
perhaps at the expense of some other thing or person---
although there may be a few people who employ technology
specifically to increase their own suffering.
Of course Darwinism has a few things to teach us about the
nature of suffering, why we experience it, why we perceive
it, and why we generally do not like it.
Basically, humans are survival machines for their genes.
We can understand our physical and behavioral traits
as things that generally increased our ancestors' odds
of surviving and passing on their genes.
Our emotions of suffering quite clearly motivate us to
avoid situations that generally decreased our ancestors'
odds of survival and reproduction. For example, passively
allowing a hungry lion to feed on oneself is usually
not the best way to get your genes into the next generation.
Accordingly, most people react with horror to the
prospect of being devoured by a predator, and seek to
avoid that fate. Our ancestors evolved under the constant
threat of predation by big cats. This selective pressure
over millions of years gradually increased the surviving
hominids' abilities to avoid getting eaten. In our case,
the defensive strategy happened to be growing larger brains
and inventing highly effective weapons and group tactics.
Other animals evolved differently---porcupines, for example,
had their hairs modified by mutation and selection into
spines sharp enough to deter even hungry lions.
In the ancestral environment, a hominid who was really
suffering was more likely to be headed toward personal
extinction than a hominid who was feeling great.
If Vedic science were real science, it would properly describe
suffering not as something evil in itself, but rather as a
behavior-altering signal our emotional brains construct by
interpreting our relationship with our environment, moment
by moment, and evaluating the probable threats posed to
our prospects for getting our genes into the next generation.
If Vedic science had properly deduced the nature of suffering---
why it exists---it would have anticipated Darwin by thousands
of years. Excuse me, by TRILLIONS of years---for we know that
nothing is older than the Vedas.
> So, when is this "liberation" going to occur?
> And why, pray tell, haven't you personally used this accumulated
> knowlege to liberate yourself from all suffering? The Vedas have
> existed for thousands of years, and yet it seems that no one has seen
> fit to actually apply them. You claim to espouse the beliefs
therein,
> but I'm not seeing a lick of evidence to that regard.
Every religion has a long list of waterproofing excuses for
its failures.
> >Modern Western mechanistic science will never accomplish this,
>
> That is a mere belief.
Well, there are evolutionary arguments in favor of the claim that
there will always be problems. Problems result from competition,
and competition results from exponentiating replicators competing
for finite resources. Do the math.
As long as there are things which can replicate exponentially,
and which require resources that other exponentially replicating
things would like to have, it's going to be tough to eliminate
all suffering.
But certainly, science can shift the suffering around quite a
bit in our favor. For example, seen any lions stalking your
neighborhood lately? North America used to have lots of lions,
and by an amazing coincidence they died out shortly after the
first humans arrived with their atl-atls and innovative
group hunting tactics. Unlike African and Asian megafauna, which
had a few million years to co-evolve with increasingly lethal
hominids, American megafauna had less time to adapt to the
sudden change in game rules, and a lot of them didn't survive
the new kids on the block.
> >but Vedic knowledge has and will.
>
> Again, a big-ass (and completely transparent) lie. It's quite
> obvious from the state of the world that Vedic knowlege is relatively
> poweless to end the suffering of humanity.
The State Department is also Powell-less today.
> You know what the Vedas has to say about perpetrating lies,
> dontchya?
> Western science, OTOH, has the capability to end all human
suffering
> with a few good missile launches.
> Contemplate that and re-evaluate.
>
> Mikey (..nihilism is only one of many cures for "religion".)
The cure that would work would be to provide something that
sustainably and consistently feels better.
The appeal of the Vedas has been the promise of the end of
suffering, to people who had little ability to control how
much suffering they experienced. In a primitive culture, the
rate of change is extremely slow. Most people had about the
same prospects in life as their grandparents. No wonder they
needed pie-in-the-sky promises of religion to help them face
their lives of grinding poverty with no realistic prospect
of improvement.
Today, in the modern world at least, the explosion of technology
(fueled mostly by the unsustainable expenditure of fossil fuels)
has created a very different regime. Now the world is DRASTICALLY
different than the world our grandparents inhabited, and the
pace of change is accelerating. Life expectancies have increased.
The causes of death are different, because many of the big killers
of the past have been corralled, and people are living long
enough to fall prey to diseases and such that strike later.
It's realistic now to think about solutions to just about everything
we consider a "problem." Of course there will always be unintended
consequences of our solutions---nobody is contemplating the
end of problems---but science has given humans, for the first time
in history, real hope of improvement. Now there are millions of
people who go to work every day trying to build things that never
existed before, and are really different than the old stuff.
Most of technology is about the stuff around us, but increasingly
it will reach into us, reshaping us, improving us. There will be
mistakes and disasters, of course, with any technology. Airliners
full of happy tourists returning from tropical vacations sometimes
crash into the ocean and so on.
Modern science is like the Siberian hunters with their atl-atls
sneaking into North America and seeing endless herds of lumbering
slabs of mammoth meat comfortable in their dominance. Mammoths,
like religions, evolved under different game rules. Can religions
adapt quickly enough to survive the onslaught of science?
-- the Danimal
Rebus
old bones as "human " and "homo sapiens" bones? I thought homo sapiens
sapiens came around a mere 40,000 years ago, so in what sense are these
"human:" or "homo sapiens" ? Does the pstr mean they are 'in the human
line'
or in the 'HS lines' ? Sorry to be so stupid.
Thanks.
dave
LONG before that, ie c.200kya.
they didnt just evolve 40kya and then suddenly populate the globe!
Jim Ledford
>
[....]
>
> they didnt just evolve 40kya and then suddenly populate the globe!
at a quick glance the words "populate" and "pollution"
look just similar enough to remind me that humans do both.
so what's in your drinking water?
stoney
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:30:28 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
><b...@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>>news:1108581666.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> February 16, 2005
>>> Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>
>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago
>>> in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
>>> nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
>>
>>
>>Thats wrong
>>the earth is only 6000 years old
>>so they're just wrong!
>
>I certainly hope you're joking....
She is. She's mocking the Cretinists and the Young Earthers.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
Chris Devol
> Mike Given wrote:
>> Chris Devol wrote:
>> >The Vedas motive is pure, to free people from all suffering.
>
> And the motive of the Grand Inquisitor was to free people from
> an eternity of suffering in hell.
Irrelevant.
> What was Hitler's motive when he ordered the construction
> of the first autobahn?
Irrelevant.
> Does the Nazi past of the U.S. Interstate Highway System make
> it more or less appealing to people today?
Irrelevant.
> People with motives other people consider "good" sometimes do
> things other people consider "bad." And sometimes vice versa.
Irrelevant.
>> Ahh, yes: Rapture. Utopia. The promise of freedom from
>> suffering for all mankind.
>> Science has a word for that too: Extinction.
>> Dan has an even better word: Sexbots.
>
> Technology has reduced suffering,
False. Suffering is greater than it has been in the last 5000 years.
at least until fossil fuels
> run out. Anyone who doubts this, and who also lives at least
> a mid-latitude distance from the equator and has a decent winter
> going on outside, can try living exclusively out-of-doors.
False. Been there, done that. Suffering decreases with high thinking and
simple living.
> Or go join that guy who lives in the backwoods of North Carolina
> using *only* technology that was available to the first English
> pioneers in the area. His cabin is a popular destination for
> school field trips, and he's been featured on at least one
> television documentary; yet despite his high profile he
> has been unable to find one woman willing to take up his
> offer to marry him and live her life as a pioneer woman.
Irrelevant.
> What, no tampons? No birth control? No obstetrics? No
> central heat? No air conditioning? No bug spray? No
> refrigerator? No shopping malls? No automobile? No wonderbra?
> No disposable razors? No packaged soap? No hand lotions? No
> flush toilets? No indoor plumbing? Not even the promise of life
> in bucolic splendor free from modern annoyances is enough to
> persuade a modern woman to leave her bathroom forever.
Irrelevant.
> What sort of culture did Vedic "science" produce? Did it feature
> hospitals that could reliably cure all the dreadful diseases?
It featured no diseases.
> Are the streets in Vedic-inspired cities free from beggars?
Yes.
> Did Vedic cultures produce the most popular bathrooms?
Their shit didn't stink nearly as much as ours does.
Abstractions are produced by concretes. The concretes get the "credit".
People who murder others or destroy their property were not the concretes
that produced the Vedas. People who value all life were. They get the
"credit", although they are not interested in it.
> Christians make similarly selective arguments. We can credit
> Christianity for the compassion of Mother Teresa; for the
> abolishment of slavery; for building hospitals to help the
> savages in primitive lands; etc. But all the bad things
> Christians do (the Crusades; the Inquisitions; the pedophile
> priests; using the Bible to justify slavery; etc.)---those are
> the works of "men" and not reflective of "true" Christianity.
Irrelevant. The conversation is not about "Christianity".
> A rational evaluation of things like "marriage," "banking,"
> and "education" must account for everything they produce. If
> the good outweighs the bad, according to whoever is keeping
> score, we keep them. If there are ways to correct some of the
> bad effects, we introduce reforms and so on.
Abstractions do not "produce" anything. They are themselves produced by
concretes. The abstraction of "marriage" is not the product of woman
beaters, but of men who honor and protect women.
> There is a whole history of attempts to patch up the problems
> resulting from marriage, banking, and education.
Non sequitur.
> Does any religion seriously attempt to correct its mistakes?
> Or like most other institutions, do religions also require
> outside monitoring?
Irrelevant. The conversation is not about "any religion". Nor do
abstractions make "mistakes". Only concretes can make mistakes. The Vedas
were not produced by errant concretes.
>> >The Vedas are science books,
>>
>> No, they're not. They're an outline of a spiritual philosphy and
>> nothing more than that.
>
> The writings of Nostradamus are vague enough to allow for all
> sorts of retrospective reinterpretation.
>
> A real science book, in contrast, must be specific enough in its
> claims to rule out retrospective reinterpretation as far as possible.
> There cannot be a serious question, for example, about what Darwin
> really meant to say.
Correct. The Vedas meet this standard.
> In stunning contrast, the major religions have these
> questions routinely. See the Sunni/Shia schism in Islam. The
> Orthodox/Protestant/Catholic schism in Christianity. The
> dizzying array of Hindu sects, not to mention the offshoot
> of Buddhism. Etc.
Irrelevant. The conversation is not about "religions", "major" or otherwise.
> Science does not schism (longer than temporarily) because it
> is far more specific in its claims than any religion. And
> because science is based on something definite: physical
> reality, whereas religion is based on something indefinite:
> human imagination.
Irrelevant and false. The conversation is not about "religion". Nor is
"science" defined by what it studies, but about how it studies it. The Vedas
are science books. They use the same methodology as Western mechanistic
science, and unlike Western mechanistic science, they apply it to all of
reality, rather than a particular subset of it.
>> [...]
>> >Their subject matter is broader than that of modern materialistic
>> >naturalism, because their goal is far greater: liberation from all
>> >suffering.
>
> Essentially every technology has a similar goal, at least
> as far as reducing the suffering of the person who wields it---
> perhaps at the expense of some other thing or person---
> although there may be a few people who employ technology
> specifically to increase their own suffering.
A collection of molecules can, at best, cause temporary alleviation of
selected gross physical symptoms. But the body will still have to be born,
get sick, get old, and die. That is the abstraction known as "suffering". It
will exist as long as there is a single concrete sufferer to produce it. No
collection of molecules will ever solve this problem.
> Of course Darwinism has a few things to teach us about the
> nature of suffering, why we experience it, why we perceive
> it, and why we generally do not like it.
False. Darwinism has no explanation at all for the "nature" of suffering.
"Darwinism" does not even mention what it is that suffers.
> Basically, humans are survival machines for their genes.
> We can understand our physical and behavioral traits
> as things that generally increased our ancestors' odds
> of surviving and passing on their genes.
False. Machines cannot "understand" anything. They are not conscious.
<snip more irrrelevant self-indulgent babbling>
You're pretty much clueless. Have a nice kali-yuga.
John Baker
>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 23:02:27 GMT, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:30:28 +0000 (UTC), "kathryn"
>><b...@bobbybobbobthebobster.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"MrPepper11" <MrPep...@go.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1108581666.3...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>> February 16, 2005
>>>> Oldest Remains of Modern Humans Are Identified
>>>> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>>>>
>>>> NEW YORK (AP) -- A new analysis of bones unearthed nearly 40 years ago
>>>> in Ethiopia has pushed the fossil record of modern humans back to
>>>> nearly 200,000 years ago -- perhaps close to the dawn of the species.
>>>
>>>
>>>Thats wrong
>>>the earth is only 6000 years old
>>>so they're just wrong!
>>
>>I certainly hope you're joking....
>
>She is. She's mocking the Cretinists and the Young Earthers.
I thought so, but so many people post here, I'm just not familiar with
all of them.
stoney
I know.
Seppo Pietikainen
>
Assuming, of course, that "ian's" posting was to the point, and sticking to the
facts. Perhaps "ian's" assumptions were "not exactly" all there was to to
the observations :)
Seppo P.
666
cactus
en bloc rather than separately, so that the relative positions remain
constant. So even if there is folding (the ground looks like a sine
wave), the stratas' sequence is preserved. Just drive on a highway that
has been cut through some sedimentary rock area with folding and you
will see that.
skyeyes
>Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
Don't fret, chib. I'm finding that geezerhood has its own rewards.
Now, if I could just remember what they are....
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
John Baker
wrote:
>chibiabos wrote:
>
>>Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
>
>Don't fret, chib. I'm finding that geezerhood has its own rewards.
>
>Now, if I could just remember what they are....
I'm trying to figure that one out myself. <G>
John Wilkins
> On 21 Feb 2005 09:45:31 -0800, "skyeyes" <sky...@dakotacom.net>
> wrote:
>
> >chibiabos wrote:
> >
> >>Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
> >
> >Don't fret, chib. I'm finding that geezerhood has its own rewards.
> >
> >Now, if I could just remember what they are....
>
> I'm trying to figure that one out myself. <G>
If you act arthritic, someone will give you a seat on the bus 9 times
out of 10.
>
> >
> >Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> >EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
--
John S. Wilkins jo...@wilkins.id.au AA#2207
web: www.wilkins.id.au blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
Fiat lunch!
stoney
wrote:
>chibiabos wrote:
>
>>Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
>
>Don't fret, chib. I'm finding that geezerhood has its own rewards.
>
>Now, if I could just remember what they are....
Umm....remember what what is?..........
Al Klein
in alt.atheism:
>chibiabos wrote:
>>Aw jeez. I thought this was gonna be another nasty joke about my age.
>Don't fret, chib. I'm finding that geezerhood has its own rewards.
>Now, if I could just remember what they are....
That's one!
--
rukbat at verizon dot net
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
Curious
well now I am confused. I just read at an Israeli site about "homo sapiens"
occurpying a site in northern Israel (Hula Valley yad'qov gesher ?) a mere
800,000 years ago ..... one of the earliest "fire-hearth" sites attributed to:
"Homo Sapiens" ???
TIA
Rebus
dave
i would not class isreal as europe per se, its part of the middle east
corridor really.
plus, what your dealing with there is not homo Sapiens! Omo Kibish is
deffinatly the earliest firmly dated sapien and that is a robust, late
archaic. 800kya! you are simply mistaken i assure you.
80kya i could buy, albeit proto-cro magnans, but 800! please tell me where
you got this information from?
Elmer Bataitis
"666" <son...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108996811.1...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
This is normally accounted for in any scientific investigation.
Anthropos
In fact the spread was 790,000 in some reports to a full 800,000.
I will get the urls and be back ....
jw