Escape from Elba

Science and Technology => Science => Topic started by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:12:51 PM



Title: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: Admin on April 16, 2007, 09:12:51 PM
Discuss the origins of humans.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on March 05, 2008, 02:18:56 PM
I hear you want an EV O LU TION
For uum You Knooow
We all want to spread the word.

Yur lookin for some Rev o Lu tion
yeah but you knoooow
this here punchbowl needs a turd.

Cause when we are talkin about the  Chicken egg
your going to tell us to play nice anyway

And you know it's gonna take
all night
before a bit of the bait
we bite!

YEEEEAAAAHHHHH, no.

So there's a chicken and an egg in bed and the chicken is lighting up a cigarette and the egg says "I guess that answers THAT question!"

What of the origins of man?

Well, I'm originally from New York. Does that help?

I do however like trying to understand the Adam and Eve myth. I think that Eve is the Evil one because she was the one that said, "Why don't we just stay here and plant a garden?"


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 05, 2008, 03:03:22 PM
Ober,

What is it about you that you must be judgemental. I can go all day without needing to decide who was evil, but for you, it is the first thing you choose to post.



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: Donotremove on March 05, 2008, 04:36:14 PM
Humans were purely accidental. From primordal soup.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on March 05, 2008, 04:47:42 PM
Ober,

What is it about you that you must be judgemental. I can go all day without needing to decide who was evil, but for you, it is the first thing you choose to post.



Weezo,

 But once you've decided!

You do recognize Adam and Eve right Weezo? You have heard of them, right? I don't want to make assumptions about what you know (and couldn't begin to comprehend all that you don't). It's not just me who thinks that she is who brought evil into the human experience. She's very Pandora. You might say that she is the pan Dora.

You do know about the serpent, and the fruit of knowledge, right? Garden of Eden, cast out, Cain kills Abel, original sin you've heard of these things right? It's a fascination story, please let me know if you've never heard of them, you'll be the first person I have ever met (that was able to communicate in English) who didn't and by that you would be a fascinating study.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 05, 2008, 05:31:10 PM
Ober,

Of course I've read and studied the allegories about the Garden of Eden. Do I accept them as literal, no. Do I think they represent the beginning of mankind, no. Mankind existed, and was spreading out from its beginning in Africa for a long time between the emergence of the first "human being" and the alleged dating of the Garden of Eden which is supposed to have taken place in what is now Iran.

Now that you know of my knowledge of your little story, tell me how much you know about the emergence of human beings beginning with Australopithecus Africanus through the Cro-Magnon man?




Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on March 05, 2008, 06:05:37 PM
Well the rest of the species developed a sense of humor, but apparently it didn't take in some .

Tell me now that it isn't usual that when someone opens a forum about origins of man that it doesn't usually devolve into an Evolution v. Creationism stupid fest.

Meanwhile, the mythology of Adam and Eve is very interesting and was a part of Jared Diamonds' Guns Germs and Steel .  In any case, for you to hop on me because I called Eve Evil is pretty funny, except that it has become very old very fast.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 05, 2008, 06:16:26 PM
Yeah, it was like your assertion that Utley was a liar. That got old even faster than your prediliction for assigning "evilness" in opening a discussion.

As to you having a sense of humor, it has not yet been apparent, so it would be really, really helpful if you would mark your humor with smileys or some other indication that you are making a funny.




Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on March 05, 2008, 07:45:57 PM
No, what would be realy helpful is if you just put me on your ignore list.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 05, 2008, 08:03:29 PM
Ober,

I don't maintain an "ignore" list, and you aren't important enough to any of the discussions to make me change my way of enjoying these forums. If you want, you can ignore me, but then you would not get to enjoy my pearls of wisdom except as quoted by others. Your loss.


Title: Feel Short? Blame Your Ancestors
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 09, 2008, 08:55:34 PM
...each society illustrates a distinctive body size (http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/20/height-evolution-ancestor.html)

... despite variances even within single families

Quote
"So your average Agta (an indigenous Philippine group) is much smaller than your average Inuit (an indigenous Arctic dwelling group)."

My initial reaction is "duh!" The Inuit would benefit from a smaller surface area/volume ratio while a society that lives mainly off the sea would select for classic swimmer-type morphology. Maybe that's not the case, though...

Quote
Analysis of average adult heights across the world places Croatian and Dutch individuals towards the top of the height spectrum. Pastoralist groups that have long been involved in nomadic tending of livestock also tend to be tall.

So... why would the Dutch and Croats top the charts? There are obvious reasons why the Masai would be tall, but the selective reasons behind the stereotype Croatian "Hulk" eludes me.

Quote
across all hunter-gatherer groups, body size directly relates to population density. The bigger the population, especially within island or island-like communities, the smaller the people will be.

Hasn't Holland been densely populated for a long time? So long, in fact, that they've forced themselves into what used to be the sea?


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: GrannyM on March 09, 2008, 09:25:27 PM
Hi there.  Hope this works.

My Dad was the descendant of Dutchmen, and was 5 foot 3.  I'm a bit shorter than that.  My Mom, however, was the descendant of Brits, and was 4 ft  5 or so. 

Testing . . . .


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 09, 2008, 09:31:17 PM
As you know GM, a single data point doth not a study make... and they tracked only females:

Quote
"We focused on female adult body mass because we wanted to relate the variation back to female reproduction,"

I have to wonder about their speculations on causality.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: GrannyM on March 11, 2008, 11:42:21 AM
As you know GM, a single data point doth not a study make... and they tracked only females:

I have to wonder about their speculations on causality.

They are speculations.  Speculations are fun; you don't have to worry about pesky old facts. 


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 11, 2008, 11:50:33 AM
Yeah, there's that, and the fact that if you speculate enough, you might live long enough to see one of your speculations validated!


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: GrannyM on March 11, 2008, 12:00:00 PM
Yeah, there's that, and the fact that if you speculate enough, you might live long enough to see one of your speculations validated!

Well, validating speculations means work:  Actually gathering facts; arranging them in such a way that they make some sense; making up some prediction that would test whether the "sense" you saw holds in the face of new facts; all that.  That is, I suppose, why folks like those at the Discovery Institute stick to speculating, and that, in areas where facts aren't thick on the ground. 


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 11, 2008, 12:14:42 PM
Yeah, there's that, and the fact that if you speculate enough, you might live long enough to see one of your speculations validated!

Well, validating speculations means work:  Actually gathering facts; arranging them in such a way that they make some sense; making up some prediction that would test whether the "sense" you saw holds in the face of new facts; all that.  That is, I suppose, why folks like those at the Discovery Institute stick to speculating, and that, in areas where facts aren't thick on the ground. 

Ain't THAT the truth! More to the beauty of speculation - just await someone else's heavy lifting then say "I told you so" if you should happen to be vindicated. IMO the Creation...er... Discovery Institute is sort of a different animal, with a real antipathy for the scientific method. They avoid actual science and even speculation based on actual science, in favor of donning a mantle of scientific inquiry by invoking the name. Pity is that some people actually buy the notion that they're doing[ something scientific.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 11, 2008, 12:27:38 PM
I'm curious of the views of those here on when men and woman originated:

Australopethecine Africanus - first to walk upright

Homo Habilis - worked with tools.

Homo Erectus - Wandered, walked upright, worked with tools,  more human skull

Neanderthal Man - European - heavy skull, heavy facial features

Cro-Magnun Man - European and Asian, wandered a lot, worked with tools, skull most like human.

Links available on: http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/mrsp/science/Biology/Humans/Hominids.html



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: Donotremove on March 11, 2008, 12:39:14 PM
Man and woman were around long before talk about their properties.  First you had to have written language.  Then the intellectual capacity for comprehension, etc,.  Of course, this same intellectual development also invented the God concept.

Male, female.  Seems as if nature was of two minds about how to produce "increase".  Some increase does not require male, female.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on March 11, 2008, 01:57:59 PM
A lot of our intellectual abilities are a kind of spinoff in terms of natural selection -- i.e. they happen to be a side effect of some particular cognitive ability that had a particular selective advantage -- e.g. tossing a spear and having the spatial skills to plan where it will land in the side of an animal  in motion (this takes a huge amount of processing, lots of extra neurons).  Having syntax and grammar might happen to develop as a result of specific mental skills that allow you order certain events in your memory, say of having found edible roots while out on a walk, etc.   Pattern recognition skills are generally good in humans because of an evolutionary past in very harsh African savannah country -- dangerous predators, extreme droughts, sudden shifts in availability of certain foods, etc.  We're smart because surviving as a primate is a tough proposition and you needs lots of tools in your mental toolkit.





Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 11, 2008, 03:05:53 PM
Quote
A lot of our intellectual abilities are a kind of spinoff in terms of natural selection -- i.e. they happen to be a side effect of some particular cognitive ability that had a particular selective advantage

I think that's probably real close to the mark.

Quote
Having syntax and grammar might happen to develop as a result of specific mental skills that allow you order certain events in your memory

Check THIS out: Monkey chat sheds light on evolution of syntax  (http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/)

Quote
But how did syntax evolve? One standard explanation is that syntax arises when the vocabulary of signals gets so large that it becomes easier to combine signals in new ways than to make new signals.

But now it appears that syntax can arise from the other end of the signal-complexity spectrum, as well.

Very interesting IMO. And the added bonus of recorded monkey calls - can't beat that!

Quote
Pattern recognition skills are generally good in humans because of an evolutionary past in very harsh African savannah country

Fits well with the OOA hypothesis, but it also fits well with its comptetitors. I happen to lean toward OOA, but nobody's listening to me, let alone taking my word for it...


Edit: "also wits well".... sheesh, wits, fits... I'm losing my wits and it's giving me fits.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: GrannyM on March 11, 2008, 06:03:25 PM
I'm curious of the views of those here on when men and woman originated:

Australopethecine Africanus - first to walk upright

Homo Habilis - worked with tools.

Homo Erectus - Wandered, walked upright, worked with tools,  more human skull

Neanderthal Man - European - heavy skull, heavy facial features

Cro-Magnun Man - European and Asian, wandered a lot, worked with tools, skull most like human.



I am not an expert.  Anybody who has better info is welcome to jump in here; I'm not proud. 

All of these are homo, and so are our relations.  We are not sure whether Australopiticeans, homo habilis, or homo erectus are ancestral to us, or are just creatures with a common ancestor, making them cousins.   They have managed to extract some DNA from Neanderthals, and as I understand it, it indicates that Neanderthals are NOT ancestral to us; we and they have a common ancestor about half way between the common ancestor of us and chimpanzees.

Cro Magnon IS us.  They were early anatomically modern humans. 


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 11, 2008, 06:08:38 PM
Here's a phylogenic chart of the usual uncertainty, seems to be the best current guess (won't let me post a good-sized copy so here's a link):

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

You can click on any critter and get a synopsis of the current state of debate (or as current as the chart is).



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 11, 2008, 09:38:15 PM
Thanks, NOTA

I will add that link to the set of webpages I am making both for history and for science. It is a better chart than the one I printed from another site which does not show the movement from group to group. There is a possibility that traits of Neaderthal man entered our gene pool perhaps residing in people in Europe who have lived in the ancestral homes the longest. If you've an interest, I can look up links for these, or you may want to prove it to yourself.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 11, 2008, 10:05:07 PM
Thank YOU weezo - I'd love to look at those links when you have the time. I've read a bunch of heated debate on that question, and personally can't see how some interbreeding wouldn't have happened at some point... whether the progenic line continued seems to be the issue.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 11, 2008, 10:20:40 PM
NOTA,

Here is a list of links I have on the Australopithecines page:

Fossil Hominids: The Evidance for Human Evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Recent Developments in Anthropaleology: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/recent.html#mille

Hominid Species : http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html

Hominid Timeline: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

Prominant Hominid Fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html#er1470

Island of the Lost Hominids: http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/026745.html

Hominid Species: http://www.snowcrest.net/goehring/a2/primates/fossils.htm#species

A Catalog of Hominid Species: http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/Paleontology/Paleozoology/FossilHominids/Humankind/Humankind.htm

What did early hominids eat? http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/images/did_early_african_hominids_eat_m.htm

Diet of early hominids: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Paleoanthropology_Hominids_Early_Behavior

And, you may want to check out the rest of the inks on the links from: http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/mrsp/science/Biology/Humans/Hominids.html

Not sure of my source, perhaps Mark Kurlansky in "The Basque History of the World, that mention was made of the unusual DNA in Basque people which MAY trace back to Neanderthal. It would be a good part of Europe for a remnant to separate off into the mountains and keep their own DNA, language, and other aspects of their culture through the ages.




 



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on March 12, 2008, 11:48:09 AM
None, thanks for the monkey chat link.  I'm glad we've evolved so that when we want to say, "Let's get out of here" we don't have to say "jaguar eagle!" and hope everyone gets the drift.   I'm still hoping that language software in computers will evolve, too, so that a transcription program will clearly understand that you said "new direction" and not "nude erection."

 


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 12, 2008, 11:51:58 AM
 I'm still hoping that language software in computers will evolve, too, so that a transcription program will clearly understand that you said "new direction" and not "nude erection."

 

Meanwhile, maybe it does pay to hold your breath!

Weezo,

Talkorigins is a great resource. Some of those other links I've not seen before. Started reading them... not bad so far! Want to thank you for that. Still, if you stumble across anything new in the N/CM interbreeding debate, please let us know! Here is the last thing I've read on it, with some fairly substantial support for the "Basque" argument:

http://www.aoi.com.au/bcw/neanderbasque.htm

I find the language facet of the argument most interesting! Oh - and a bit of a reach IMO, but this is worth pondering too:

Quote
It has been suggested [5] that the Basques were the original inhabitants of Europe, and the architects of Stonehenge and similar megalithic structures. These constructions apparently used a unique system of measurement based on the number 7 (instead of 10, 12, or 60), representing a separate origin of a mathematical system.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 12, 2008, 11:04:06 PM
NOTA.

It is very interesting, but as yet far from certain. But, it may be without question in years to come. Kurlansky's Basque history is an interesting read.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on March 13, 2008, 06:04:13 PM
Weezo,

Has Kurlanski written anything about it since The Basque History of the World in 2001?

Guess I have to put that book on my burgeoning book-wish list.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on March 13, 2008, 07:47:02 PM
NOTA,

I've read almost all of Kurlansky's books and see other references to the Basques, but I'd have to look back in "Cod" to see what is mentioned there.


Title: Flying penguins?
Post by: ponderosa on April 01, 2008, 08:07:03 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/arts.jhtml?bcpid=1358314062&bclid=1363192294&bctid=1482436596

Warning: Video of the world's heaviest man follows immediately. Not a pretty sight. Close the window fast.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on April 01, 2008, 09:34:39 AM
Holy moly! Thanks, Ponder - whoda thunkit?


Title: Re: Flying penguins?
Post by: obertray on April 01, 2008, 11:53:49 AM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/ttv/arts.jhtml?bcpid=1358314062&bclid=1363192294&bctid=1482436596

Warning: Video of the world's heaviest man follows immediately. Not a pretty sight. Close the window fast.

Isn't that... Well I'm pretty sure (as in I'm positive) that the guy in the Antarctica bit is This guy, who is also famous as the world's heaviest man http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/)

I think there is intelligent design in that evolution!


Title: Re: Flying penguins?
Post by: ponderosa on April 01, 2008, 03:02:23 PM

Isn't that... Well I'm pretty sure (as in I'm positive) that the guy in the Antarctica bit is This guy, who is also famous as the world's heaviest man http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/)


I didn't look close nor long enough. That stuff grosses me out.


I think there is intelligent design in that evolution!


Certainly produced creatively.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: ponderosa on April 01, 2008, 03:03:52 PM
Holy moly!

That would be guacamole with Swiss cheese according to Fred Sanford.


Title: Re: Flying penguins?
Post by: ponderosa on April 01, 2008, 03:22:52 PM

Isn't that... Well I'm pretty sure (as in I'm positive) that the guy in the Antarctica bit is This guy, who is also famous as the world's heaviest man http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001402/)


Sorry. Read too fast. Thought you wuz referencing the heaviest man in the original vid. I believe you are correct, sir.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 01, 2008, 04:37:05 PM
Terry Jones did a great Mini-series on "ancient" scientific "inventions" (I particularly liked the one about the birth control pill in ancient Egypt IIRC it was based on crocodile poop). Actually, now that I look he did quite a few documentaries, I've added a few to my "Q" at netflix


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 14, 2008, 01:11:05 PM
I can well believe that eating crocodile poop would greatly reduce your chances of getting pregnant.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 14, 2008, 01:31:17 PM
Not sure anybody said anything about "eating"

http://www.greenguide.co.uk/files/Pure06.pdf (http://www.greenguide.co.uk/files/Pure06.pdf) page 22

Suppositories, supposedly.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: ponderosa on April 14, 2008, 01:47:45 PM
Pomegranate pulp would be sweet.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 15, 2008, 12:29:14 PM
Obertray -- you did suggest an oral route with this....

"(I particularly liked the one about the birth control PILL in ancient Egypt IIRC it was based on crocodile poop)."



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 15, 2008, 07:48:04 PM
Fair 'nuff.

I didn't mean to deceive.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 18, 2008, 01:28:36 PM
I take everything with a grain of salt....or croc poop, as the case may be.  Actually, your original phrasing served me as a delightful springboard for launching my joke about girls that eat poop don't get dates and such.

Getting back to the topic, has anyone seen the Ben Stein atrocity?  some sort of fake-docu film that makes fun of evolution and, I gather, tries to make the creationists feel better about themselves while all those nasty ol' acadmic types are laughing at them.   I haven't seen it, but am wondering if this thing is getting wide distribution.  Not to indulge in positive stereotyping, but is Ben Stein really smart enough to be a Jew?


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 18, 2008, 01:48:52 PM
Ben Stein is a smart guy. He's very knowledgeable about a broad range of subjects and he has been savvy enough to make himself a nationally recognizable figure, that's not as easy as one might think.

I just saw the first ad for the movie in the NY metro region... I'm thinking I saw it during The Daily Show, I know I saw the Algore ad with Rev Al and Rev Pat on the couch on the beach (?) during TDS but it could have been elsewhere. I don't know that I'll spend actual money to see the movie but I would like to see it, it should be tedium broken up with laughable snarkiness. the subject matter is likely to be beyond me (they're supposed to be delving into the DNA chain) but that's ok, I figure it's supposed to be beyond most people just so that Evolution "me too"ers (of which I would have to admit, I'm one of. I don't believe in Anthropomorphic God so I am somewhat forced into an "Evolution" mode. ) don't get the free pass that they (we) would like.

Is there a middle ground (or some other location) between Spaghetti god and random turn of events? I don't really even know. I can imagine a list of several other reasons that We Are That We Are (including the I Am that I Am one) but each of them try to stretch Occam's Razor.

My biggest problem with Fundies  is that they seem to more often than not be all about Funding. Like look at these Polygamists, how much is about God and how much is about the Social Security checks?


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: NoneoftheAbove on April 18, 2008, 03:00:31 PM
Hi Barton,

I hope everyone had a chance to see the hilarious thread at Pharyngula "Expelled from Expelled", where PZ Meyers (who actually appears in the movie after being coerced to do so under false pretext) got kicked out of line for being recognized. The thugs who kicked him out somehow missed the fact that Richard Dawkins was standing right next to him.

Here's a link to "Expelled Exposed" : http://www.expelledexposed.com/


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: Donotremove on April 19, 2008, 10:14:39 AM
What Social Security checks?


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 19, 2008, 11:19:42 AM
It probably would be amusing to watch them dress up creationism in its stylish new Intelligent Design suit and pretend that it makes more sense.  The best joke to me is Stein's theme that public schools are somehow stifling creative thinking by not teaching creation "science" -- when were schools ever the torchbearer for creative thinking, Ben?   



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 20, 2008, 02:28:23 PM
What Social Security checks?

Truth is Donotremove, that I'm not interested enough to read about the Polygamist brouhaha in West Texas, but in the past it has turned out in other cases that the polygamist economics depended on the women collecting some sort of Government assistance checks (welfare queens?).

Then I look at the compound that the church owns, and the idea that there are 400+ children mouths to feed and granted they're not spending a lot on the latest fashions from JCPenny but, still, there is a heck of a high cost of doing business in that set up.

Now, it's one thing if you are an Assemblies Of God sort of a cult where everybody works and lives outside the church and then pools resources to help grow the church but in this case once you're in you're not going out (IIUC) especially if you're wearing a vagina.

It's not like the Shakers, who didn't procreate at all but they at least made furniture that would eventually show up on the Antiques Roadshow. These folks procreate like rabbits, are they quilting all day to make ends meet?

But I don't know for a fact one way or the other in this particular case.

I don't really even wonder if the same people who are against Gay Marriage are against Polygamy for the same basic reason (defense of marriage")? Such is the depth of my interest in any of the three.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on April 20, 2008, 07:47:01 PM
Robert,

First of all, Assemblies of God is NOT a cult. Secondly, if you don't know where the polygamists money is coming from, why assume it's social security. He may be growing and selling weed, or writing video games, or whatever.

As usual, when you don't know something, you take a flyer into stupidity!


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: ponderosa on April 20, 2008, 09:48:20 PM

... are they quilting all day to make ends meet?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/12/polygamist-sect-gets-mill_n_96394.html

American taxpayers have unwittingly helped finance a polygamist sect that is now the focus of a massive child abuse investigation in West Texas, with a business tied to the group receiving a nearly $1 million loan from the federal government and $1.2 million in military contracts.

Apparently "we" da peoplez are in bidness with 'em.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 20, 2008, 09:55:11 PM
Weezo,

Because, as I said, it was the case in the past with smaller polygamist "families".

From what I know of AOG, yeah, they are. Of course, they wouldn't say so. Moonies don't think they're in a cult either.

Interestingly though, some Moonies see Amway as a cult.Having once been an Amway distributor, I found it hard to disagree with that sentiment.

When something demands total commitment to it, it's a cult. AOG demands Total Church Lifestyle with a heavy tithe and a devotion to the local Pastor who is unquestionable.

It's not Heaven's Gate, it's more Christianity/Scientology/franchized religion but net effect is about the same.

Ponderosa,

You mean they're getting Corporate welfare? Well that's very different then! ;)


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on April 20, 2008, 11:06:18 PM
Robert,

You are putting your big foot square in your mouth over the Assemblies of God. They are not a cult, they are no different from other protestant churches. I know this for a fact inasmuch as I had connections to the denomination in my life. You, sir, have been caught in another lie!


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: Donotremove on April 21, 2008, 02:51:33 AM
I was raised in Assemblies of God Church, both in Dallas, TX and Loveland, Colorado.  There is not the slightest comparison of the Assemblies of God and any cult that I know of.  The church advocated "clean, plain living" in that dress was modest for both women and men, and card playing, dancing, and jewlery were heavily discouraged.  Interpetation of the Bible was literal and congregations tended to associate with one another rather than with "sinners" (my father's mother believed the Assemblies was the only true religion) but that was, generally, because such association was easier since everyone agreed about everything regarding life choices.  There were lots of children's activities and group church activities, to keep, I suspect, members focused on the Godly rather than the Devil's mischief.  There were several "power fights" among the hiarchy on the national level, and several scandels, IIRC.

My immediate family (on my father's side, my mother's side were all Presbyterians) drifted away during the 80s and went to Baptist, Methodist, Church of Christ, etc, with some just giving up on "religion" period, me included, although I did wander for several years trying out first this denomination then that denomination.  Those among you that have "gone agnostic" know the routine prior to just giving up.

No, the Assemblies of God is just an ordinary Christian fundementalist denomination.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: weezo on April 21, 2008, 06:45:40 AM
Donot,

Thanks for your input. You pretty much outlined the church as I remember it. I became involved when I married my first husband. The fact that I came from the Catholic church which I grew up with, made me suspect as not quite good enough. When we could not find a good AOG church after moving to Virginia, we gave up, went the other churches route, then gave up. I had a brief return to Catholicism until the local bishop said something I couldn't stomach, and that was the end of all churching for me. AOG is no more a "cult" than the Baptists.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 21, 2008, 08:10:29 AM
Well I admit and apologize for being aggressive in my definition of cult and my inclusion of AOG as one.

I do think that anytime you give over decisions for your own life over to another person you are exhibiting cult member behaviors. I think that whenever you give up independent reasoning in favor of a fanatical devotion to another, you are exhibiting cult member behaviors. And I think that any organization that aims to take advantage of those behaviors is a cult(ic) organization.

I would think that my definition is somewhat legitimized by the concept of "the cult of personality." But then it can also be delegitimized by the concept of "cultural norms" through which we develop laws etc which essentially compell us to have given over decisions to the will of the community, or face condemnation for disobedience.

I will say that my closest experience with AOG in this area was a group with a VERY strong centralized leader, IIRC the chapter broke off from the the mother church and went semi Jonestown before it fell off my radar. It still exists I just went to look at their website.

So if I offended you , I'm sorry, it wasn't my intent to offend you personally; even though it was my intent to slam AOG given their (at least local) practice of a heavy tithe so that the pastor can drive the biggest Caddy in town. Which was the point that I was making about Fundies being about the funds. I might have made the same point using the Rev Ike.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 21, 2008, 10:11:09 AM
"I do think that anytime you give over decisions for your own life over to another person you are exhibiting cult member behaviors. I think that whenever you give up independent reasoning in favor of a fanatical devotion to another, you are exhibiting cult member behaviors...."

You've just described at least half the population of the U.S.

 :D


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: obertray on April 21, 2008, 10:24:18 AM
"I do think that anytime you give over decisions for your own life over to another person you are exhibiting cult member behaviors. I think that whenever you give up independent reasoning in favor of a fanatical devotion to another, you are exhibiting cult member behaviors...."

You've just described at least half the population of the U.S.

 :D

I love it when someone gets the effin jokes!


Title: Re: Origins of Man
Post by: caclark on April 21, 2008, 12:05:47 PM
Cult has become a trite, unhelpful term because of the casual manner in which it is glibly invoked to demean small groups with aberrational beliefs. Some ultra-fanatical evangelicals frequently condemn the Catholic Church as being a cult. The term cult may not illuminate anymore, but it is a handy cudgel when you want to delegitimize or belittle someone else’s beliefs.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 21, 2008, 12:38:24 PM
My favorite cudgel is the phrase, "I'm not ready to drink the koolaid yet."

As for "cult," I sort of like the way it can be glibly invoked to demean small groups with aberrational beliefs.  I mean, how much time and attention do I really want to devote to fanatics and loonies and those generally wearing tight corsets on their minds?  "Cult" is quick and dismissive and thus allows me to move quickly on to more important matters such as the contemplation of lunch or proper butt wiping.



Title: Re: Origins of Man
Post by: caclark on April 21, 2008, 12:55:00 PM
barton, your skull is of such construction that it can’t have thinking going on inside without the overload causing a meltdown or some kind of structural damage. When the thinking turns into ideas, they stick to the inner lining of your skull as you try to figure out how to get in there with a putty knife to pry them loose.

Your skull was never built to be a showcase for the thinking process. Your skull was designed to provide juvenile delinquents with something to throw rocks at.


Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: barton on April 22, 2008, 10:49:37 AM
I'm glad you were able to detect the tongue-in-cheek tone of my above posting.  I do try to use words accurately and will do my best not to join the rampant cult of fuzzy usage that is taking over our nation.



Title: Re: Origins of Man (and Woman)
Post by: josh on October 19, 2017, 10:34:36 PM
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/australia-ends-insurance-subsidies-for-naturopathy-homeopathy-and-more/ (https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/australia-ends-insurance-subsidies-for-naturopathy-homeopathy-and-more/)


Title: Stunning shots of Jupiter
Post by: josh on January 07, 2018, 09:25:48 PM
http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-1-billion-probe-just-sent-back-mind-meltingly-gorgeous-new-images-of-jupiter (http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-1-billion-probe-just-sent-back-mind-meltingly-gorgeous-new-images-of-jupiter)