This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Humans are animals

This is part 2 ( part 1 is also out there in cyberspace - but this is more relevant - at the 3.5 minute mark I extracted the jpegs below.

An Introduction to the Big Bang Theory (Part 2)

I'll post part one just for completeness :-
An Introduction to the Big Bang Theory (Part 1)
there are a lot of extraneous bits of info - not relevant imo. (especially as I haven't got a clue what he's talking about lol)

it mentions that the theory predicts peaks in the cosmic background radiation - and "observed" exactly matches "predicted" -
now I'm not gonna pretend to understand 100% what he's talking about - or where or how they measured it - I'll leave it to scientists to add any details, lol - but if it's true , then he's onto something you'd think ...

( back to Part 2 for a minute) he concludes that
"big bang theory has made predictions that have turned out to be incredibly accurate , and the evidence for it being right is , well , overwhelming .
theory may mean " guess" in everyday english, but not in science. "
I mean it's a damned site more feasible than this version which follows below .... ( to which people around here arguably want to give equal merit)

.... the bible (you need a lot of faith for this one lol) says on day 1 he made "light"

etc ... day 3 the forests were made,

then day 4 the sun moon and stars

I've never thought of this before (it's just so wierd) but - how did God light things up without the sun and the stars ??
if this isn't a "guess", then I'm a monkey's nephew
 

Attachments

  • bb1.jpg
    13.4 KB · Views: 158
  • bb2.jpg
    12.1 KB · Views: 159
FFS 2020!!

You continue to hammer the binomial, big bang vs genesis despite trying to gently point out that that is not where this discussion is at. Nobody is interested!

You are Dawkins' answer to Bullmarket.

 


Can't say I've ever wondered why "I am here"!, I know exactly why I am here
 
It is just so stupidly easy for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in creationism.


Yes mate, it is, but once upon a time it wasn't. It's easy to fault creationism today because science is the dominant discourse thus scientific evidence is the accepted form of evidence. But remember there was also a time when it was so easy for a blind man to drive a bus through the gaping holes in scientific theory. Not because one theory was right or wrong, true or false, fact or fiction, but because what counts as a gaping hole is relative to what you believe in.

The Big Bang Theory? No one is denying that the Big Bang is the accepted theory at present. It is the theory that best fits the available scientific evidence. But a major discovery in the future might change all of that. If all scientists adopted your attitude (and it would seem, the attitude of Mr I Can Reveal The Truth To You on Youtube, Everyone Else Is Lying - Here Look At My Qualifications) you can bet that Quantum Mechanics would never have been dreamed up. In the end, the cutting edge of any discipline - the people who make the biggest changes, the people who instigate the paradigm shifts, are the people who question the fundamentals that everyone else takes for granted. To do that requires a completely different outlook/attitude to the one that you seem to have adopted. If you want to set yourself apart from the creationists simply adopt a more open minded attitude, don't just say that you're right and they're wrong, no one cares about that. What creationists (and interestingly many science graduates) so desperately lack is the ability to question, to rationalise and to think 'outside the square'.

WC
 
woodchips and wayne and rafa
(and anyone else who has taken or might have taken offence at my posts trying to establish the world's - and man's - origins, so that we can understand better what we are dealing with when we compare men and animals ....)

here's a poem I just posted in poetry thread
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=199827&highlight=evolution#post199827

btw, I don't recall insisting that it’s either genesis /creationism, or Dawkins - and I personally love to think outside the square .... but I think that all of us should be able to say we are "closer to Dawkins" or "closer to a totally faith based religion". Trouble I have with the latter - and the US Bible belt (Hovind etc) in particular - is that their faith overrides evidence - i.e. their religion INSISTS that they reject (or twist) scientific evidence.

lol - As for thinking outside the square - I might be a square, but don't think I haven't been a-round as they say

As I explain there (on poetry thread)....
- once I get a theory that makes sense with the available scientific data
or I’m told it does lol
(but by people who make sense to the limit of my understanding)
then I happily “sign up the adoption papers” and take that theory on board
whether its a 'possible' or a 'probable' or a near bludy 'certainty' (in part or in full) may vary from theory to theory

- if what I’ve adopted grows with time, then that is good
- if it changes due to refinements around the edges, then that's ok as well

(supporters of Johnny Howard can think of it as "core promises" and "non-core promises" lol)

but if what I’ve adopted turns out to be just hot air,
then it can be released into the rest of the atmosphere (like a bad smell lol)
with a clear conscience (preferably not in a lift)
because it was “nothing-nil-zilch” in the first place to owe allegiance to.

I wrote some comments on Descartes back there - where he tries to argue that men are totally different to animals - a point that we were all saying was wrong , and beyond question - but that's a slightly different point - and the subject of another post .
 
We seem to have covered few aspects of the subject.

I would like to point out some artificial differences.
I am quick to acknowledge; that I probably benefited and will most likely benefit in the future from our man made rights.

Few rights are down right dangerous to long term survival of our race.

We seem to use antibiotics as there is no consequence and as if there is something else after we become resistant to vancomycine.

We can make indiscriminate choice of partner, which if we look at the consequences might be one of the reasons for our demise.

Let’s say that this has no bearing on future of the human race. But if this is so good, why animals breeding is selective? Why animals are culled if they do not satisfy certain criteria?
Why there is such an outrage because Belgium has 26 weeks cut off point for premature babies.


I can be wrong but we promote weaker and weaker genetic material to slip though natural selection process.


Probably enough to get bashed, hope will not cause bull-thing resurrection.
 
I converted to become a Humanist.



hey rocky watch me pull a hat out of my hat

Just an animal with some special talents

...

Are we any more special than just being an 'animal'?

link below to some recent stories in der spiegel:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,504423,00.html


linking to the study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/317/5843/1402

note: sub reqd


further,


linking to:


as if that was not bad enough for us humanists:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504508,00.html


kinda get the feeling we are gonna be learnin' from them and about them for years to come but wonder whether they already know all they need too about us

having said that it will be a stellar day for planet earth when we truly learn how to communicate with our fellow animals

cheers
 
FFS 2020!!

You continue to hammer the binomial, big bang vs genesis despite trying to gently point out that that is not where this discussion is at. Nobody is interested!

You are Dawkins' answer to Bullmarket.


Yep. And we all know what eventually happened to Bullmarket!
A little reasoned conciseness would be wonderful, 2020.
 
I can be wrong but we promote weaker and weaker genetic material to slip though natural selection process.

this thread leads to a long and slippery slope that ends at eugenics. i happen to agree with it and would support eugenic programs if humans could be trusted to manage it the right way, however the likelihood of this occurring is zero.
 
Currently on
question is ..
Are chimps Humans ??? lol
 
Currently on
question is ..
Are chimps Humans ??? lol

He visits a sanctuary where chimps are studied and experiments are carried out to work on their problem-solving ability, and they pass with flying colours.

Saw a little of it 2020. The high gene similarity to humans has got to say something eh!

I have had an affinity for animals all my life and am not at all surprised by what they can do. I definetly think some people have more of a natural talent for communating with animals though. Most people who have pets have probably seen little examples of problem solving.

One of my pet cats, the smallest female, worked out for herself that she could get more to eat if she put her paw in the feed dish and pulled it away from the others.

A male worked out by himself that the new bags of dry feed are always tastier than the opened one and promptly bites a hole in the side of the new plastic bag and claws out the little biscuits to eat.

And of course they talk to me, and I back to them.
 
Saw a little of it

... I have had an affinity for animals all my life and am not at all surprised by what they can do.
Hey whiskers what did you think of the problem solving ...

like they put a chimp in a cage where he has the ability to unlock the door for a second chimp to join him IF he needs help with a problem.

Then they give him a problem where a plank in yet another neighbouring cage has bananas on it - and a rope tied to each end, and those ropes accessible to him in his cage. (too wide apart for him to pull on both concurrently) .

Now the problem is that only with both ropes (one at each end) being pulled towards him can be get the bananas - he needs his friend's help.
So ALMOST IMMEDIATELY he twigs to this ( faster than I would have lol) - and goes to the latch of the second chimps cage and lets him in - they both immediately solve the puzzle ( I suspect they'd done t before sheesh) .

THEN, lol - just to prove how human they really are -
they give him a problem where he can solve it alone, and he has the option of letting his friend in to help finish off fthe bananas - lol - Friend? - what friend ?!! he polishes them off himself, with the other chimp rattling at his prison gate - locked out of the "kitchen"

a Jack man ?
or a Jack Chimp ?
(PS I get the feeling that different chimps would behave differently btw)
 
Hey whiskers what did you think of the problem solving ...

(PS I get the feeling that different chimps would behave differently btw)

Yeah, me too. I think some of these sorts of tests are a bit arbitrary. Some humans grow up to be not very good problem solvers either. Let an animal interact with humans like a child does, to learn the strings a bit over time and the communicative interaction, intelligence and problem solving becomes more apparent, I reckon. Guide dogs for the blind for e.g. never cease to amaze me.
 
Speaking of problem solving ...
This could be on the "all creatures great and small" thread - except equally it shows that animals are almost human dog scratching its back down a hill

ok here's a light hearted ad for some roofing material (flexibond?) - even lizards can (attempt to ) solve problems
 
LOL: say this to someone who doesn't connect with animals and they will regard you as certifiable!

Yeah funny thing that, and animals can generally pick them out and let you know pretty quickly.
 
Adam Smith may be onto something

 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...