1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Early Man in Philippines 700000 Years Ago

Discussion in 'News from The Philippines' started by Sanders, May 9, 2018.

  1. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    Last edited: May 9, 2018
    • Like Like x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    I hope the clergy in the Philippines don't follow "Young Earth creationism" which teaches that:
    The Book of Genesis is literally true and that the Earth and all forms of life were created by God in 6 days, around 10,000 years ago.

    Christianity already has so many different versions of creationism though, and presumably will invent even more as science sheds more light on evolution.

    I'd prefer to believe the scientific view that the Earth is around 4 billion years old, which is 400,000 times greater than 10,000 years.
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    Yeah, the 700000 years has been dated using 3 differing methods.
  4. Drunken Max
    Offline

    Drunken Max Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    To be fair, creationsim predates christianity and is the tanakh which is the source material for the Old testament, New Testament, the Koran and was of course the original jewish texts. I think the Talmud covers Adam'd story
  5. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    But the whole thing just goes to show that immigration is not a new phenomenom. These guys just sauntered into the Philippine Archipelago from the Asian landmass, either by surf board or hopped across by stepping stones and breezed past Immigration Control with ease. :D
    Last edited: May 11, 2018
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    It must have been very easy to get into countries in the days of early exploration, then came letters and even later, passports:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passport
  7. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

    The first use of the term "creationist" to describe a proponent of creationism is found in an 1856 letter of Charles Darwin describing those who objected on religious grounds to the then emerging science of evolution.
    More: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    I just picked up on the various forms of creationism. There seems to be a number of them.

    We seem to be gathering more and more bits of the big jigsaw together as time goes by. And as we go the picture is becoming clearer and clearer.
    Last edited: May 12, 2018
  9. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    We know pretty much everything from the first second of the Universe onwards, there are lots of bits missing but the main plan and predictions hold true.

    The Plank era is the really interesting time, the first moment of Plank time, up to the first 10 to the power -43 seconds, you need to understand how short a period of time that is basically all the really interesting things happened in that period of time, we think that during that period gravity was as strong as all the other forces, this was the period of grand unification when everything was one, one force a bit like the Lord of the Rings one ring to rule them all and all that.

    After that time the forces fractured and the universe emerged, gravity is the weakest force, the strong force (nuclear force) is the strongest, electromagnetism is next then the weak force.

    They vary by distance, gravity and electromagnetism are long range forces, the strong and the weak act over very small distances and are responsible for holding the stuff we are made of together.

    People do not realise just how much we actually know about reality nor do they realise how incredibly fascinating it is, far beyond any fiction.
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Drunken Max
    Offline

    Drunken Max Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Very true I am sure, and not surprising.
  11. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    Agreed. Or only know of or can see one part or a small section of the jigsaw. I just had to look up Planck time. There seems to be so much evidence stacked up in favour now that it becomes difficult to dismiss it all as just a theory.

    It will be interesting to see what information the seismometers send us back from Mars.
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
  12. aposhark
    Offline

    aposhark Well-Known Member Lifetime Member

  13. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    When I first posted on this thread I was looking at the topic as recent news from the Philippines in terms of it being newsworthy and it being news from the Philippines. From a personal point of view I have never really looked very deeply into Creationism as a whole and did not realise there are so many variants on that theme, largely I suppose as my leaning is towards non creationist thinking.

    My partner on the other hand and her family too are strongly religious, which I respect. Though only a few days ago she asked me where all that red hot stuff was from that was flowing across the land surface in Hawaii and consuming houses and cars. I explained and then she accused me of being “old”. :D

    I suppose though that news like that might be particularly controversial in the Philippines?
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
  14. Drunken Max
    Offline

    Drunken Max Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    I think there is room for science and religion. Religion just needs to accept that some of its theories were created to explain the unexplained. It was not disputable at the time but now we know more. If you have a faith then there is still room for it in the modern room and modern science. The theory and principle of the soul and independant life is yet really to be explained. How do elements evolve into having a nervous system? I do not have a faith but I see things that we still do not know.
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    You mean the biblical approach just needs recalibrating?
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
  16. Drunken Max
    Offline

    Drunken Max Well-Known Member Trusted Member

    Updating based on things we know now. I assume that if you believe in creationsim then you also believe in Noah. As my daughter once said, it was kind of Noah to drop those tortoises back off at the Galapagos Islands
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    And the finches off at each of the islands.

    Yeah a kind of recalibration of the creationist’s dating yardstick / timeline. :D

    The whole thing is such a massive topic Max, it would take a few pages of A4 just to summarise the main headings, starting with Oss’s Planck time.
    Last edited: May 14, 2018
  18. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    Yes, the jigsaw isn’t totally complete. But we seem to see large areas of the picture now.
  19. oss
    Offline

    oss Somewhere Staff Member

    For me the problem with human religions is that the "creator" actor in them is, in 99% of them, modelled as an infinitely powerful entity that resembles a human, I have no problem with the term god or creator if you strip it of all the human qualities and concerns.

    To me it is preposterous that there exists an entity that presumably exists both outside and inside the observable universe and that possesses an intellect that cares what you had for breakfast last week or that cares about one human killing another human.

    All of the "creators" that we have dreamt up seem to possess omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience, the creator myths where the entity or entities do not possess these attributes really don't cut it as they might as well be technologically advanced spacemen.

    When you look at human religions where the creator possesses all three of the big "omni" attributes you run into logical contradictions with the rest of the theology immediately, an easy one is omniscience means that the creator knows absolutely everything about everything, this runs into the free will problem instantly just from a logical point of view, if the creator knows everything then at the point of creating you it knows every detail of your entire existence, so you can't have free will.

    Just think about what this kind of omniscience would actually mean in physical terms, an average human body consist of 7x10^27 atoms, never mind the subatomic particle count, lets just think about the atoms, so this means that for say a 7 score year and ten lifespan this creator thing would have to know and be able to track every subatomic interaction of every one of those atoms and all the atoms outside of the body like the air and the ground, now that timespan is about 2.2 billion seconds, every one of those atoms undergoes billions of interactions per second, just do the math the numbers are utterly huge beyond the mind of any human, the sheer amount of information that would have to be known for just one human is in the realm that any ordinary human would start to think of as the infinite, in reality compared to the infinite these are in fact tiny numbers but just ask yourself what kind of consciousness could be aware of all that information, that is what omniscience means.

    To be omniscient would require omnipresence as this creator would have to be everywhere at all times to make all the independent measurements in order to know and or record all of that information and we are only talking about one human so far, also to exercise such power in order to have omnipresence this creator would have to be omnipotent, when you start to put all this together an entity that possessed all of those attributes does not look at lot like the human notion of a creator.

    But you know what it does look like, I'll tell you, it looks a lot like a universe, all the information in a universe is recorded in the world lines of every particle and every interaction of every particle (Omniscience), the universe as such contains all the energy that exists (Omnipotence) and every particle and interaction has a bearing on every other particle and interaction (Omnipresence).

    And still a universe like ours does not look like it is infinite, these attributes would only apply inside the confines of this instance of a universe.

    As Sanders says it is a huge topic and it would in fact require much more than four or five pages to even touch on it but the above points are what made me leave the catholic faith at the age of 14 as the absurdity of all the religions and their creators was self evident to me even then, for me it is easier to believe that it is all just happening as the emergent behaviour of a set of fundamental rules, even if we don't know all the rules.

    Yes consciousness is hard to explain but it is quite clear that to own one (a conscious mind) you need a pretty complex hardware runtime environment called a brain and as far as we can see that brain is an emergent property of the universe it finds itself in.

    I do not believe in the magical fairy land with no rules in which some essence of me called a soul is supposed to be able to reside, I do believe that a particle based universe is able to support and generate the experience that I observe that I call awareness but I won't go further than that.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Sanders
    Offline

    Sanders Banned

    You ought to write a book, Oss.

    I know you are not too keen on the guy, Oss, but I have found some of Brian Cox’s more recent programmes very useful in providing me personally with some chunks of the big jigsaw. (I think he was eluding to Planck time in one of his programmes without naming it, when I was watching a rerun of his last night).

Share This Page