Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="createdtoworship" data-source="post: 74020293" data-attributes="member: 29008"><p>so far you haven't made any argument at all regarding the legitimacy of lucy's humanship. You have posted text walls of information. But if you read it you should be able to find the facts and quote them for others to read fairly easy right because they are scientific journals (although not peer review, but ultimately you should find facts in there somewhere). By facts I mean pictures of fossils, undisturbed. What I typically see is pictures of lucy walking upright. Notice that you don't see that in the actual bones. Her ilium, is flat and facing toward the front of her body. A human ilium is curved to support an upright walking and 360 degree motion. So that basically refutes with logic, and direct pictures, 90% of the scientific articles, right? I mean I don't want to jump the gun here, but am I right? So I am curious as to what the articles actually say about her having human characteristics, and I didn't see any peer reviews. So if you want this debate to go farther, you may want to find some. I trust peer review more than scientific journals, but I believe all of them are biased. But if you can solve the ilium issue with photographs of her intact hip, I wouldn't even need to see peer review. Pictures to me are of more scientific value that biased scientists. I hope they are to you too, pictures can make any of us an authority. As it's easy to see what they are saying. The problem is that many pictures have bone reconstruction in them, that is greyed out, and that is where an anthropologist interjected their best opinion as to what the hip looked like, and unfortunately most of the ideas of lucy walking came from such fictitious reconstructions. Lastly, Saying that the "scientists believe it in unison, therefore it's true." has two problems, for one it's the bandwagon fallacy. I won't quote it to you, but it's basically saying that truth is based on popular opinion not on facts. Secondly, I could quote over 20 scientists that disagree that lucy is a transition. So it boils down to what do the facts actually say. Are we agreed on this issue?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="createdtoworship, post: 74020293, member: 29008"] so far you haven't made any argument at all regarding the legitimacy of lucy's humanship. You have posted text walls of information. But if you read it you should be able to find the facts and quote them for others to read fairly easy right because they are scientific journals (although not peer review, but ultimately you should find facts in there somewhere). By facts I mean pictures of fossils, undisturbed. What I typically see is pictures of lucy walking upright. Notice that you don't see that in the actual bones. Her ilium, is flat and facing toward the front of her body. A human ilium is curved to support an upright walking and 360 degree motion. So that basically refutes with logic, and direct pictures, 90% of the scientific articles, right? I mean I don't want to jump the gun here, but am I right? So I am curious as to what the articles actually say about her having human characteristics, and I didn't see any peer reviews. So if you want this debate to go farther, you may want to find some. I trust peer review more than scientific journals, but I believe all of them are biased. But if you can solve the ilium issue with photographs of her intact hip, I wouldn't even need to see peer review. Pictures to me are of more scientific value that biased scientists. I hope they are to you too, pictures can make any of us an authority. As it's easy to see what they are saying. The problem is that many pictures have bone reconstruction in them, that is greyed out, and that is where an anthropologist interjected their best opinion as to what the hip looked like, and unfortunately most of the ideas of lucy walking came from such fictitious reconstructions. Lastly, Saying that the "scientists believe it in unison, therefore it's true." has two problems, for one it's the bandwagon fallacy. I won't quote it to you, but it's basically saying that truth is based on popular opinion not on facts. Secondly, I could quote over 20 scientists that disagree that lucy is a transition. So it boils down to what do the facts actually say. Are we agreed on this issue? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom