Moxie Posted October 25, 2007 Report Share Posted October 25, 2007 Yep apparently this mystery has been been solved, redheads were the first neaderthal man. What about us lasses? I have no idea what this means to the scientific community though. Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 As the article mentions, pale skin and the recessive red hair gene were probably as a result of adaptation to the northern environment. Vitamin D is more readily made in an individual with pale skin. Red haired Neanderthals were still fairly rare as in our modern population...about 1-2 in a 100. Mendel's Box in action. So the image of the dark haired 'cave man' still holds for the most part. What amazes me is how religion manages to continue on in the modern scientific world when there's proof of past hominids, dinosaurs, distant quazars far older than our Earth/Sun/Milky Way, et al. State of denial...on a global scale. ----------------------------------------------- The history of astronomy is a history of receding horizons. ---Dr Edwin Hubble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted October 26, 2007 Report Share Posted October 26, 2007 What amazes me is how religion manages to continue on in the modern scientific world when there's proof of past hominids, dinosaurs, distant quazars far older than our Earth/Sun/Milky Way, et al. State of denial...on a global scale.----------------------------------------------- The history of astronomy is a history of receding horizons. ---Dr Edwin Hubble I think the categories of religion and science are not mutually exclusive. For some reason atheists have managed to portray them as such, but they're not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Yep apparently this mystery has been been solved, redheads were the first neaderthal man. What about us lasses? I have no idea what this means to the scientific community though.Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811 Does this explain why my mother, myself and my older son are or have been redheads? (Mine changed between when I was 11 and 15, gradually). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shakeyhands Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 I think the categories of religion and science are not mutually exclusive. For some reason atheists have managed to portray them as such, but they're not. How so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Yep apparently this mystery has been been solved, redheads were the first neaderthal man. What about us lasses? I have no idea what this means to the scientific community though.Story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1811 I am of the red haired people and in my case I have always known I am a Neanderthal especially in the morning. (I thought all men were anyways) You may want to hold off telling Lindsay Lohan this. She's been sober 46 days. Give her a break. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 How so? How not? Why is God at odds with science? Scientific discovery is a subset of religion, not in opposition to it. Sure, there's a great wall of snow thrown up by some religious folks and some of the atheistic set, but there's no real argument on most things, or at least there doesn't need to be. I strongly believe in God, and while I'm only nominally Christian I believe that on balance Christianity has been an enormous and defining boon to the western world. I also am a believer in any science proven to be factual, including to a large degree evolution. As well as certain creation ideas, but they are often not at odds with science either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 (edited) Why is God at odds with science? Every object in this photo (except 2-3 local stars...the objects with 'spikes') is a galaxy full of 100s of millions of stars. http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0406a.jpg Do you think there's life out there besides us? If no...what does that say about 'God'? If yes...what does that say about religion? ---------------------------------------------------------------- For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. ---Dr Carl Sagan Edited October 27, 2007 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted October 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 Does this explain why my mother, myself and my older son are or have been redheads? (Mine changed between when I was 11 and 15, gradually). LOL at least you know for sure you aren't a "Butter Box Baby". Google it. I come from along line of blondes with blue eyes, the redhead recessive gene only appeared in me. I am the familie's redsheep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 27, 2007 Report Share Posted October 27, 2007 LOL at least you know for sure you aren't a "Butter Box Baby". Google it.I come from along line of blondes with blue eyes, the redhead recessive gene only appeared in me. I am the familie's redsheep. When my older son was born the nurse in the hospital asked "where did the red come from". I told her to ask the FedEx man, and then showed her that my arms were still red. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 (edited) Every object in this photo (except 2-3 local stars...the objects with 'spikes') is a galaxy full of 100s of millions of stars.http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/screen/heic0406a.jpg Do you think there's life out there besides us? If no...what does that say about 'God'? If yes...what does that say about religion? ---------------------------------------------------------------- For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. ---Dr Carl Sagan Nothing and nothing at all. In that order. My understanding of the spiritual realm is that it exists quite apart from us, but not quite so apart that science and philosophy (two fields that are also not mutually exclusive) don't catch a glimpse of them from time to time, in the rather more esoteric and fog enshrouded corners of subfields of physics and alternate states. My understanding of religions, excluding 7th century barbaric religions, is that they are imperfect attempts to explain those elements of very real phenomena whose evidence lies deep in our racial subconsciousness (and no, for the rabid lefties, that's not a "racist" statement, it's a Jungian statement...look it up). But I believe in God, so strongly that I'd bet my life on it, which of course someday I will, and I think correctly, recognize that religions are not TRVTH, but rather imperfect attempts to fathom and describe God and ethereal existence. Just as science is an often imperfect attempt to discover rules and laws that govern our physical existence. Instead of gazing at the stars and imagining that it somehow negates God, gaze at the stars and ask yourself if all of that is just an accident without reason. That would be true craziness. Edited October 28, 2007 by ScottSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 (edited) Instead of gazing at the stars and imagining that it somehow negates God, gaze at the stars and ask yourself if all of that is just an accident without reason. That would be true craziness. You see...to me...it is the exact opposite. Religion is human kind's vanity, placing us ALONE at the centre of the Universe. Any good existentialist knows that this is pure...craziness. The mathematical probability alone of inteligent life in a single galaxy alone approaches absolute certainty...especially knowing what we do now about exoplanets and the prescence of water on places like the Moon and Mars. An accident with reason. I take comfort knowing we're nothing special and are extremely unlikely to be alone in the Universe. This, I think is a far more positive outlook...even if I don't get a special prize (or punishment) when I die. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ---Albert Einstein Edited October 28, 2007 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottSA Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 (edited) You see...to me...it is the exact opposite.Religion is human kind's vanity, placing us ALONE at the centre of the Universe. Any good existentialist knows that this is pure...craziness. The mathematical probability alone of inteligent life in a single galaxy alone approaches absolute certainty...especially knowing what we do now about exoplanets and the prescence of water on places like the Moon and Mars. An accident with reason. I take comfort knowing we're nothing special and are extremely unlikely to be alone in the Universe. This, I think is a far more positive outlook...even if I don't get a special prize (or punishment) when I die. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind. ---Albert Einstein Well, it don't think most religions have an explicit position on man being alone in the universe, although I suppose I could be wrong. Simply because Christianity, for example, claims we are made in the image of God, doesn't imply that we are the only image He made. But your assumptions are unproven. The same arguments can be used against your supposition that other life exists as against the existence of God. One of our lesser thinkers calls God a "sky-pixie" - a description that might as easily describe the 'life-out-there' thesis. I happen to agree with you on the probability that life exists elswhere, but can no more provide proof of my belief than I can of God. The probability arguiment works both ways too, and to my mind makes a better case for God than for alien life. I'm not sure what you mean by "an accident with reason." You seem to be at once presupposing and denying God with that statement. I think the root of this issue is attribution. I don't think "religion," per se, claims what you're attributing to it. Certainly Buddhists could happily be in accord with both our beliefs. Edited October 28, 2007 by ScottSA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 28, 2007 Report Share Posted October 28, 2007 I'm not sure what you mean by "an accident with reason." You seem to be at once presupposing and denying God with that statement. Ugh...Sunday morning responses...more coffee... Let's see if I can get this out... I suppose I'm refering to mathematics...specifically, probability and statistics, as you too mention. Take a billion stars...there's a going to be a good chance that there will be several thousand nice G2 Yellow stars like ours with 'Earth-like' planets around them. The pickle is that life has to exist in the same time as us in order to spotted at a distance (as per "Contact")...another exo-civilization rising to interstellar travel at the same time in the same neck of the woods is unlikely according to P&S. So, if God to you is mathematics...heheh...then God and the Universe are one (the Watchmaker Analogy). But if you ask me if 'God' is a being that actually cares about what a pack of clever primates do in our day-to-day lives...forget it. But your assumptions are unproven. Unlike religion, science has a shot a proving its theories. But I hate to compare the two, really, as it is easy to understand why religion came into being...a cold indifferent planet needs explaining. My 15 year old cat died the other day...part of me screams WHY??? and wails in pain and loss. My wife is equally upset...but reassures herself, and me, that he's gone to a far better place. I, myself, am not so sure on the inside...but I take note that she's much happier. Religion at work... I don't blame anyone for believing in a 'God'...it's sure to be a warm, comfortable feeling, and in the end it really doesn't affect my beliefs (or lack of them), at all. The obvious thing I can point out is that the Bible, Koran, et al were written at a time when we knew very very little about our physical Universe and evolution. Perhaps we shouldn't take them too, too literally. ----------------------------------------------------------------- An optimist may see a light where there is none, but why must the pessimist always run to blow it out? ---Rene Descartes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 DogonPorch, you've been blinded by the Dawkins' of the world. Your arguments are blatantly hypocritical and wouldn't last a minute in a philosophical arena. But they pass in literature because of scientists, largely uneducated in logic or proper argument, cheer it on. Because you can't disprove the God hypothesis doesn't make it false. It can be proven, just like aliens. Aliens can never be disproven either. Extraterrestrial life and and God are one in the same to science. You affix a probability to ET's, but it's tough to nail one to God (hmm). There are good arguments against the existance of God. I haven't heard one from you yet. ScottSA, we are in nearly 100% agreement on our views on the topic... though I side a little more towards science, I've really fallen away from my Christian beliefs in alot of ways, perhaps more of a deist than anything. -- For both of you, I really recommend reading the God Delusion by Dawkins himself. You'll see in it a few good arguments against the existance of God, but a whole pile of logical falisies and terrible arguments. For the self-proclaimed great debater Dawkins is, I'd love to tear him to shit in a formal debate. I bet you he resorts to a personal attack or some weak personal experience argument within 5 minutes. It will enpower DogonPorch and anger Scott (it angered me that this guy can be regarded while writting such drivel). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 Whether we believe in God, or life on Mars or wherever else, it is better to believe in something than nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 30, 2007 Report Share Posted October 30, 2007 DogonPorch, you've been blinded by the Dawkins' of the world. Your arguments are blatantly hypocritical and wouldn't last a minute in a philosophical arena. But they pass in literature because of scientists, largely uneducated in logic or proper argument, cheer it on. You seem rather sure of yourself...good on you. Any idea what happened to my cat? Because you can't disprove the God hypothesis doesn't make it false. It can be proven, just like aliens. Aliens can never be disproven either. Extraterrestrial life and and God are one in the same to science. You affix a probability to ET's, but it's tough to nail one to God (hmm). I assume you mean "can't be proven". As far as the probability of God(s) as described by our various religious books existing: I'd give that less than 0.0001%. Thinner than Mars's atmosphere, anyways. There are good arguments against the existance of God. I haven't heard one from you yet. I couldn't help but notice you didn't bother to include any of these 'good arguments'. As well, I never said there wasn't some sort of creator of the Universe, just that it was very unlikely to care about individual primates on a backwater planet going 'round an average star in a non-descript galaxy. This I believe. For both of you, I really recommend reading the God Delusion by Dawkins himself. You'll see in it a few good arguments against the existance of God, but a whole pile of logical falisies and terrible arguments. For the self-proclaimed great debater Dawkins is, I'd love to tear him to shit in a formal debate. I bet you he resorts to a personal attack or some weak personal experience argument within 5 minutes. It will enpower DogonPorch and anger Scott (it angered me that this guy can be regarded while writting such drivel). I wonder what the probability of any given society forming a pantheon of gods as opposed to a single omnipotent god is? Let's take a look at the factors involved... Meanwhile, do you really mean to have me read a book you regard as 'drivel'? Perhaps you could stear me to one you agree with. Thanks. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God not only plays dice, He also sometimes throws the dice where they cannot be seen. ---Stephen Hawking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Take a billion stars...there's a going to be a good chance that there will be several thousand nice G2 Yellow stars like ours with 'Earth-like' planets around them. Case in point: a 5th planet now found orbiting binary star system P. 55 Cancri...a "mere" 41 light years away...fairly close in Star Trek terms. http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleId...13BF41351A7B653 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For it is the duty of an astronomer to compose the history of the celestial motions through careful and expert study. ---Nicolaus Copernicus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Nothing and nothing at all. In that order. My understanding of the spiritual realm is that it exists quite apart from us, but not quite so apart that science and philosophy (two fields that are also not mutually exclusive) don't catch a glimpse of them from time to time, in the rather more esoteric and fog enshrouded corners of subfields of physics and alternate states. My understanding of religions, excluding 7th century barbaric religions, is that they are imperfect attempts to explain those elements of very real phenomena whose evidence lies deep in our racial subconsciousness (and no, for the rabid lefties, that's not a "racist" statement, it's a Jungian statement...look it up). But I believe in God, so strongly that I'd bet my life on it, which of course someday I will, and I think correctly, recognize that religions are not TRVTH, but rather imperfect attempts to fathom and describe God and ethereal existence. Just as science is an often imperfect attempt to discover rules and laws that govern our physical existence. Instead of gazing at the stars and imagining that it somehow negates God, gaze at the stars and ask yourself if all of that is just an accident without reason. That would be true craziness. You see Scott, you are an eloquent man when you aren't chasing down bearded Koranic quoting fundamentalists. Wonderful words. You are starting to sound like a Bentham Liberal. Be careful. Next thing you know you will be driving a hybrid and voting for the Green Party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted November 7, 2007 Report Share Posted November 7, 2007 Whether we believe in God, or life on Mars or wherever else, it is better to believe in something than nothing at all. Quaint as hell but for me, dead on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 9, 2007 Report Share Posted November 9, 2007 Quaint as hell but for me, dead on. Sure...but if you believe in supernatural beings, why would, say, the Greek Gods be any less valid an explanation for the Universe as the so-called major religions? The old 'what is myth and what is religion' deal... Hindus still have multiple Gods if I'm not mistaken...are they simply fooling themselves? Just curious. Are other beliefs simply wrong? If they're wrong, is religion not a very subjective thing afterall? Might as well brush off the ol' math n' science texts at that point as they are as close to "God" as we're ever going to get. ----------------------------------------------------- If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent. ---Sir Isaac Newton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 bump...so what's a myth and what's religion? Myth = Lack of believers? Meanwhile...what's your favorite? M 63 M 65 M 74 M 81 M 109 So many to choose from... http://seds.org/messier/galaxy.html I wonder if someone is looking back at our own spiral galaxy..... As a side note: the entire "The Day the Universe Changed" + "Connections" series is @ YouTube...a viewpoint I subscribe to 'religiously'. Anyone familiar with them? -------------------------------------------------------- The key to why things change is the key to everything. ---James E. Burke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 I'm a big fan of connections mainly because I believe that history/humanity/science is a series of seemingly unconnected events linked by a gossamer thread. Myths are stories that can either explain an event (ie spring, the nile floods) or the rise of a people (romulus reamus + rome) or even creation itself....while religion is more all encompassing. For instance, the judeo relegions to be sure have myths.....creation myth, languages etc....but the raison d'etre of the religion are the core beliefs and not the myths themselves. In other words in judaism the central tenants of righteousness, justice ...mitzvahs are what make it a religion and are in essence of grater importance than the career choices of Noah's grandchildren. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 So you'd concider the Greco-Roman pantheon to be a legitimate religion while the various stories that make it up are myths? If so I tend to agree. Yet nobody believes in Zeus anymore...or do they? I am very pro-science. For me, "God" exists beyond the edge of the Universe...where our understanding stops. Beyond that moment when the Big Bang exploded our reality into existance...which still is visible in infra-red as a 2 degree Kelvin background temperature...what's left of the 'fireball'. In this sense, "God" is irrelevant to daily life. Humans I think have a hard time wrapping their collective heads around the Universe. Too big...too vast. Also...everything we see is affected by the speed of light. When we view M 31 Andromeda (our galactic neighbor), we see it as it was 2,000,000 some odd years ago (2,000k light years distant). Our Sun is what is known as a Population I star (younger stars containing heavy elements) and was formed as a result of gas condensation resulting from a 'near-by' supernova. Far older stars exist in our galaxy alone...especially Poulation II stars (those made up mostly of Hydrogen and Helium). Some are in the order of 10+ Billion years of age. Religions cop-out somewhat by claiming the Universe is the result of some being that actually cares what Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians etc do in their daily lives. We give ourselves far too much credit in regards to the Universe and our place in it. Just a backwater star in a typical spiral galaxy...of which there are 100s of billions visible right out to where we run into Quazars. What makes us so special other than what we claim makes us special? Nothing. Where's My Silver Space Suit??? If you have a fairly powerful computer with at least a 32MB video card, an excellent free program is available that will allow those interested to explore our region of the Universe in detail. Easy install...no spyware etc. Try it out if you'd like...you won't be disappointed. Celestia http://www.shatters.net/celestia/ Celestia Motherload (lots of goodies to add to Celestia). http://www.celestiamotherlode.net/ I suggest getting the 2 million star database as well as the local galaxies...each have their sections. But there's tons of other great addons. Better textures for the planets etc... If you're good at math and have a grasp of orbital mechanics, Orbiter Space Flight Simulator (also free) will allow you to navigate anywhere in our Solar System Using both historical and near-future spacecraft. A powerful video card is also suggested as the planets and their moons are rendered in beautiful high detail. Not for kids...lol. Kids at heart welcome. http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html (note screenshots) ------------------------------------------------------------------ Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science. ---Edwin Hubble Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted November 14, 2007 Report Share Posted November 14, 2007 So you'd concider the Greco-Roman pantheon to be a legitimate religion while the various stories that make it up are myths? If so I tend to agree. Yet nobody believes in Zeus anymore...or do they? Ummm.....not to get too side tracked....but there really was no Greco Roman religion as such. They had no canon other than how the poets interpreted the gods and often the poets were at odd with each other. While most in the Mediterranian would easily accept that Zeus/Jupiter was the father of the Gods, his worship was not universal. The local Gods were the ones most likely to be worshipped as it was seen that the Gods had particular affiliations with certain places, ie Athena-Athens , appollo- delphi, aphoditi-cyprus....And it would have neen believed that those gods had more power in their home territory than say, Zeus. And of course, the process of almagamation can't be underestimated. Zeus might be called Libyan Zeus or Attican Zeus or Egyptian Zeus simply because the chronicaller indentifies the leading Diety of another nation with the Greek/roman, and by doing so the cosmology and atrributes of the Gods grow. They absorb the religious culture of others. But where an organized religion might have a uniform structure or a uniform belief system, the anciant greco roman world had a mosaic, a collection of regional cults/sects which for the most part existed harmoniously with each other. (until they ran afoul with the state) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.