Quote:
Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Historians created the titles Pre-History and History, not me.
How do you excavate both verbal and written evidence from a archeological site?[/b] |
Ever been to Egypt?
Quote:
| I mean the verbal part, do they listen to hear what the stones are saying? |
After the age of recorded sound they can excavate spoken words, but before that they cannot. All the same, people leave a trace. And sometimes just the presence of a trace of humans in a certain place can support or disconfirm a purported historical account. There are all sorts of ways to do history other than relying on written accounts. Historians do it all the time. You should take the time to learn about what historians do before you jump to conclusions and swallow hook line and sinker a line of bullshit on a website. What historians know about history is changing all the time.
Quote:
| Historians have indeed appionted dates to historical events and have dated when a certain culture and they have come to a basic agreement as to when happened during what dated age. They even appointed a date for the Big Bang and other such events they have made a theory about. To the best of their abilty they have dated undocumented parts of pre-history such as when a certain dinosaur was around. Without those dates the whold concept of history would fall apart as well as any science about evolution. If you did not know that came before what it would just be a blur of timeless happenings. And a number of different sources of research have confirmed the data about the dates we now have used for our latest history books. You might not wish to agree with those dates buy you stand somewhat alone in your personal opinion. |
History is being revised all the time due to new discovery. There is still argument over the sequence of Egyptian rulers. There is still argument over Troy. Historians are very much like scientists in that they explore and explain reality only it is past reality and they have no god's eye view of past reality. They use what is at their disposal, try to make the explanations consistent with the evidence and as new discovery comes to light may have to go back and revisit their previous historical explanations.
Quote:
| They are still speculating about why we have different races of people, no absolute explaination has been estabished, just guesswork at this stage of the game. To suggest what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race, that this would mean one race is better then another one, the KKK would like that interpretation. If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another the where is the "evolution"? How can having red hair and not black hair be explained as evolving? How are modern humans any different the people who lived 2000 years ago relative to their physical shape or apperance? |
You really need to learn about evolution. Adaptation to an environment is what evolution is all about but using it to claim that one race of men is superior to another is like trying to argue that robins are better than bluebirds. It is just stupid and is yet another indication that when it comes to science you are a moron.
Quote:
| Been there and done that, took a class in evolution at UCLA and worked a dig at the Irvine Ranch. |
You must have been a spectator because you didn't learn much.
Quote:
I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments. |
I have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]
Go back and read what I wrote earlier in this thread about the science that would have to be done for any scientist to take the claims about novelty predicting the future. I wrote it earlier in this thread. The thing about science is you do not have to believe or even understand the explanation of the person making the claims. If the person can demonstrate future predicting abilities before the fact then it now becomes a point of further investigations. The world is filled with people who think that they can predict the future before the fact by one way or another and they are no better at it than random chance. What they do is convince weak minds that they can predict the future when all they are doing is predicting the known past. Any moron can do this. They convince stupid people by dressing it up in some pseudo scientific clap trap to divert the attention of those idiots that all they are doing is spouting what is already known. And of course predicting the future that no one knows is easy as long as no one is willing to wait around to see if it actually happens. This brings up a good point. Another way that these novelists could provide experimental evidence is to predict the past. Where lost treasures are located, where the Holy Grail is. The exact location of lost cities. It would be a shortcut for them. Instead of waiting for the future they could mine the past. And if they could locate lost treasures make some money at it as well. The historians would eat it up and they would have provided evidence of their claims.
Quote:
| according to you the scientific explaination is "no one knows yet". The persepctive of science is they must do more research before they can claim any answer. That is your opinion about science. But the fact is they do know things, and are not totally in the dark, and they do not claim all their research is useless because there is more to learn. Science is also about taking what they know and making a useful applicaiton of it via some invention or whatever. If the microwave oven works then that is proof enough that the theory was correct. Not withstanding that another theory might lead to yet a better type of cooking appliance. |
I didn't ask you to tell me what you thought my concept of science was. I asked you for your concept of science. You have provided so many instances of how oblivious you are to what you claim to have studied that I am beginning to detect an explanation. You appear to have a severe comprehension problem. Did you do well in school? Do you have trouble scoring well on written tests? Do you need help with contracts and taxes?
Quote:
| Not everything is "up in the air" and just pure speculation. Without the certainty of some sort of proof you are left with a choice between faith or just nothingness. Science cannot construct a theory without assuming they are building it on other known facts. |
Everything is up in the air for scientists. That is not to say that there are not explainations that they find very convincing because they have worked so well at predicting the future before the fact. But unlike mystics like you, scientists do not claim to have a godlike perspective on reality. They will not say that a mystical experience is the "truth" of reality. And they will not take someone's word on something and label it the "truth" just because someone said is was so. Even the most celebrated Nobel winning scientists in the world will be challenged by other scientists. That is how science is done [---Techno]soul. This is why your argument from authority that you tried to foist off earlier on this thread met with the scientific raspberry. Even though scientists are people they try their hardest not to turn science into the cult of the personality. It is all about the evidence.
Do not confuse knowledge with knowing. At least not the kind of knowing you are talking about. That mystical all knowing feeling that is often mistaken for knowledge.
Starboy