ClearblueSky wrote:I thought you were implying bigger= longer lifespan, I'm sorry if I misunderstood you on that part. What were you implying if not that, relating to the whole Kasyapa Buddha/human lifespan thing?
The point, was that if conditions allowed an organism to be larger in scale, it isn't far fetched to theorize that conditions can allow for a lengthened life span. I'm not suggesting lifespans of thousands of years is or ever was possible.
ClearblueSky wrote:And you are bringing up these things about secret 3 million year old human skeletons in coal
Well, they surely aren't secret, you can read about them if you have the interest.
ClearblueSky wrote:"blindly following darwin", "Forbidden Archeology" conspiracies, and talk about humans walking around 2 billion years ago. There's not much need to even point out that there's no even remotely accepted scientific basis to any of that
Well of course, welcome to science, the fraternity of paradigms. The reigning paradigm is what flies, all else is rejected. Very much like a belief system.
ClearblueSky wrote:and taking those things and saying "Darwin's is just another theory too" is the same reason I don't really bother engaging creationists that believe the earth is 6,000 years old in a debate.
Yes, god forbid systems of belief are peddled and promulgated. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
ClearblueSky wrote:They are not both just theories, one is largely accepted science with heaps of evidence, the other is fringe belief/ or ancient belief.
Largely accepted science yes, heaps of evidence is another thing though... sparse evidence to piece together a theory with holes in it, is more like it. Even today scientists are unsure how the leap to modern man took place, various theories are posited in that regard. Even that hallucinogens may have played a role; 'the stoned ape theory', for example. You would be hard pressed to declare that there is any unassailable evidence to back up the reigning theory regarding the origins of mankind. All you have is a paradigm you have been presented, and you ate it up hook, line and sinker.
Year by year there are various discoveries which challenge the accepted paradigm, yet due to peer pressure, many scientists do not want to speak out in favor of the 'fringe' evidence for fear they will lose their credibility, labeled quacks and charlatans by people just like you, who merely tow the party line and regurgitate shit you've been force fed.
Göbekli Tepe for example, surely challenges the extant paradigm in regards to what man was capable of during that era [epipaleolithic]. Scientists know today that there has been major earth events which have drastically changed the topography and climates of the planet. There is strong evidence that Antartica used to be a rainforest, and there have even been one or two maps discovered which show Antartica as a dry and/or tropical climate. Pole shifts being the explanation for how the drastic climate changes came about. So no, our history is far from certain. If you find certainty in the model you precribe to, then you are choosing to believe that a model and theory is correct, and are therefore no better than the Creationists you ignorantly cast aspersions at.
ClearblueSky wrote:It's not just updated science. Ancient beliefs, beautiful as many are, just weren't evidence-based in the way we'd consider "science" today, and it's not really an accurate comparison.
And likewise, the models of reality being uncovered with quantum mechanics and so on is something which would have been considered equally non-evidence based, not too long ago. Science is a constant shift in paradigm, yet the reigning paradigm will always linger, the fact that children are still taught in school that everything is made of atoms being a prime example. It has been said, and it's undoubtably true, that you can measure scientific progress funeral by funeral.
ClearblueSky wrote:Regardless, it would at least be helpful if you could provide the source to that quote, so we can see what you are quoting from.
That quote is from Michael Cremo, but there are numerous individuals like him with intersting theories and discoveries. I enjoy Graham Hancock and others of that ilk as well. Unfortunately nothing it appears you would be interested in, after all, we wouldn't want to pry and question things now would we?