No. God loves Kona. He is just here to help what you love most. Spell checking.

For some reason, I thought of this thread when I saw this:

 http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/09/19/guinea.pig.ap/index.html

That is some guinea pig! If you were keeping pets around 3000000 years ago you would have needed a big cage for that one...

Gah, Jeez. A few people here are really matter-of-fact. Might need to go look up the definition of 'fact'.

Like I said the last time, unless anyone here has done the work themselves *everyone* here is working on faith. Some people have faith in God, others in what Scientists of various fields assert. Anthropologists have a hard job, I don't suppose any of us would imagine ourselves schooled enough to check over their work for mistakes, so we take them on-faith. Not dissing either side, but don't lay too harsh a line on Kona for believing what a book tells him when almost certainly everyone else here gets *all* of their information about evolution from books as well. Heck, i just recently learned from Jafo that Australia was a hoax, itself.


**

My real reason for posting is in response to pictoratus's post a couple of pages back:

"Actually, the Cherokee had a language with written symbols long before white men came to America. Not exactly writing as we know it but, then again, neither is Chinese."

Unfortunately, that's untrue to the best of my knowledge. Sequoyah devised the written cherokee alphabet in 1809. Previous to this Native Americans only recorded their history in representative art, all of which were only cues for people who knew the stories. I am unaware of any form of writing that allowed the reader to read a story in detail without someone witness to the oral tradition being there to for interpretation. So we have little or no recorded history from pre-columbian times. Dad was a digger, and I wandered toward Native American history several times in college. Sad thing.

Cheers, back to the grunting and bashing.
[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

BakerStreet, the difference is that for science, it can be verified.
The Scientific Method requires that it can be verified and reproduced by anybody.  By anybody of course, I mean somebody who has enough knowledge to understand how the heck it works.  But if you have a friend who knows a lot about a specific science, you can ask him to verify.

The same can't be said about the Bible.

About the American Indians, indeed I had learned in Anthropology class that they didn't have writting. Thus the notion that Pre-History relates to before coming of writting would mean that American Indians were prehistoric, which of course is ridiculous. So that's why Anthropologists don't define Pre-History that way anymore.

Paxx: no, sorry. You don't have the expertise to second guess anthropologists. You don't have the equipment needed to do C14 tests, you don't have the background in primate physiology to come to a comparative conclusion about our relationship with them. If you did, you wouldn't have the time in a single lifetime to do all the work needed to verify all the previous work. You simply have *faith* that those who *do* claim to have such expertise do so in an objective and professional way, and interpret their findings correctly. You, like me and everyone else here, got their understanding of evolution from a book.

It is odd to hear you assume you *know* something when you, yourself have rattled at me constantly not to state that I *know* that what I read in the press is Fact (capital 'F'). Published science is just as biased and self-serving as the press, if not worse. People die all the time because Medical Science is mistaken about something or other, most of which was well-researched. You think prehistoric anthropology is held to the same tolerance as medical research?

SO, it isn't much different for kona than you, he simply places his faith in a different book. Many people who read Hitler's rhetoric had a different view of the world than both of you, and they *knew* it to be true just as much as you two. Most of Hitler's ideas were backed up by scientists. It is intellectually perilous to be so vehement based on what someone tells you. Kona is practically roasting on the stake in this conversation based upon little more than educational hearsay. Why not let him believe and stfu? I think you have handled yourself well Paxx, but a couple of people here seem to have learned debate from the spanish inquisition. Odd how we emulate what we hate.

**

As far as pre-history, i don't know what you mean. Didn't know it had been brought up. "History" generally refers to the entire body of human history, so saying Native Americans as a whole were pre-historic is false, though some obviously were here during what we think of as pre-history.


[Message Edited]
[Message Edited]

I am pretty sure when it comes to relious text it is more about a guide and stories then provability.

As far as God is concerned proof depends o who you ask.



I say that anyone who claims to exist in this Universe, whether created or evolved, falls under the rules and laws of this Universe.

Therefor the Universe is our God. Now, was this God self creating or did it just happen? Is it intellegent or a non-life form as we know of so far?

Creation or Evolution... Chicken before the egg... who knows if all this was created to be evolution?

I don't really believe in God. But a friend of mine argued with me using this sort of thing him and his uncle found out about. Now, it's something like...God created the Earth in 6 days was it? 7? Well apparently, scientists have found plutonium halos (rings) deep within the Earth's crust. So I was like "What's that got to do with anything?" So then he starts saying "Well Plutonium is highly explosive, the Earth was molten lava when this stuff was settled, The Earth would have exploded collosively, the only way this could've happened, is if the Earth was cooled down instantly. This would be a process within those 6/7 days of creation." Now, I must admit, even though this still doesn't convince me, I still think it's quite valid.

This is how I see it. One cannot of course know everything science came up with. It helps if a software engineer knows a little about hardware, but he doesn't have to be a hardware engineer to do the job. But if he wanted he could verify it by studying that part of computer science. That's important. It is different from religion. It cannot be verified. Although there seems to be a scientist around (Frank Tipler) who claims that the answers to "Does God exist?", "Do we as human beings have free will?" and "Is there life after death?" are probably "yes". As far as I know his underlying theory (the Omega Point Theory) hasn't been proved yet. And after he or others have done so it can be verified. But now it is merely speculation.

Kona is practically roasting on the stake in this conversation

hence the reason i quit trying to prove my point.

Sequoyah devised the written cherokee alphabet in 1809. Previous to this Native Americans only recorded their history in representative art, all of which were only cues for people who knew the stories. I am unaware of any form of writing that allowed the reader to read a story in detail without someone witness to the oral tradition being there to for interpretation.

Thanks, bakerstreet.
I had been under the impression, since I was a kid, that the Cherokee had symbols that stood for specific things, events, families, etc. There was an old man I knew that hunted Indian artifacts and he used to show me the things he found ... arrowheads, tools, pottery. He said he could recognize the symbols on a lot of the pottery as belonging to certain groups or tribes as they used symbols and patterns to designate different things.
I suppose that's not really what could be considered a written language, though.

So, Bakerstreet, are you in all honesty saying that, say Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, have the same truthfull value as any scientific article?

I know Descartes said we should do Tabula Raza (clear table), ie: forget everything we know, take nothing, nothing at all for granted and start thinking from scratch with no preconceived ideas... But there is a limit.
So the earth may not be round after all? I've never been in space to verify.
You mean maybe Middle Earth actually exists, and there actually could be orcs somewhere down around Mordor, and Elves in Riverdale?  I've only really visited a few places on the planet, so I couldn't say for sure that having been everywhere they don't exist.

Hum, maybe next time I take a walk in the woods I should be careful not to step on a Smurf or two...

And about prehistory.  When I was a kid, in elementary school, we learned that the line between pre-history and history is the written records. History is recorded by writting, while prehistory predates writting. Hense, it was simply said that History begins (and Pre-History ends) when writting started to be used.
But in College, in an introduction to Anthropology class, the teacher told us that this could not be described that way, since the American natives did not know writting.  Saying that everything that isn't written is prehistoric is basically saying that American indians are prehistoric. Which is nonsense, of course. That's all I was saying.
I'm not sure how they make the difference between prehistory and history now, but it's not related to the ability to read and write.

paxx,

I'm an orc

The concept of proof is different on a practical or scientific level and on a philosophical level.

There may be a valid philosophical point about the categorical existence of proof as an absolute quality, but that isn't necessary to establish a reasonable level of effective proof.

While one can make the argument that if I have not duplicated the entire effort of some other person, then my acceptance of the results they reach constitutes a matter of faith. This may be literally true, in that I have confidence in the system under which the results were obtained. From a practical basis, whether I have actually undertaken the effort to duplicate the process leading up to the results, the important point is that I could do so, and that others *have* done so. That is the value of the system in which those results are obtained.

There is an immense practical value in the concept of proof. There is nothing about the concept of proof that, in and of itself, is invalidated by the idea that it can be philosophically categorized as ephemeral.

Often, the veracity of the concept of proof is challenged by those who cannot produce proof for their particular worldview or desire, and who therefore attempt to hold the whole concept of proof in question as a means of obtaining some validity for their ideas.

For example, I can prove that electromagnetic fields exist, both from a logical analysis of the phenomena, and from the fact that those fields are applied to objects that have a very real, everyday existence.

The avenue of proof does become somewhat more arguable when applied to events where there is some evidence to examine, but little or no other context in which to examine that evidence, except the suppositions based on other knowledge of similar context.

Evolution and anthropology *do* fall into that category, in that we have a body of evidence, but the determination of what that evidence means is subject to speculation and extrapolation of our current understanding of the context in which they exist (and are found). The thing is, no reputable scientist will categorize that framework as 'proof'. I can, as a scientist, prove that a computer, for example, exists, and that it is made possible due to an underlying framework of electromagnetic physics and logic. And therefore, by extension, we can 'prove' that the framework itself exists.

I cannot, however, prove that natural selection is the mechanism that fully explains the evidence that supports the concept of evolution. That's why it's a theory, rather than an axiom or a proof.

However, from a scientific standpoint, the evidence for the above is sufficiently strong to provide a functional framework for study, and a meaningful explanation for the course of events. It may not be declarative proof, but in the same fashion that the existence of computers (for example) establishes the correctness of our framework for electromagnetic theory, the benefits that we accrue in terms of genetic study and understanding of life establishes that the scientific theory of evolution is a useful theory that can be applied with concrete results. That may not be philosophical proof, but it is practical proof.

If it turns out that our framework is incomplete, we will adapt it to suit. But that doesn't mean that the framework is useless, even if we adapt it later.

To provide another example, Einstein's theories of special and general relativity subsume Newton's laws of motion and gravitation. That does not mean that Newton's laws are useless, as they are quite accurate in the vast majority of cases that we examine, it is only in the extreme reaches of motion and gravitation that Newton fails and Einstein is then needed.