Things That Are on Your Mind

[Ragnarokio]

Not lying, but misinformed. The site that Ragnarokio linked is part of a great organization that really lays out how science backs up the Biblical accounts, but it's been a while since I've studied their stuff so I can't pull anything off the top of my head atm.

There are a wide variety of beliefs both within scientific and theological communities. Some theological beliefs are compatible with certain scientific findings. I would be surprised if young earth creationism was ever compatible with geology or astronomy or a number of more fundamental studies but old earth creationism exists as an interpretation which attempts to not contradict those things. If there was a theory which attempted to marry geology with young earth creationism I'd definitely be interested in reading it. Theology is interesting to me because the meaning of a verse can change a lot when you read it in the original hebrew/greek, or when you put it into a different (reasonable) context, and a lot of different beliefs are possible while adhering to scripture. Even outside of attempts to marry christianity with science theologians often debate the meaning of a specific verse in context, and the implications of the varying meanings. It seems a very deep world and it contradicts the idea that christianity is a religion of blind unqestioning dogma. Many people question their religion and their faith in an attempt to gain a better understanding of god's designs, and I think thats a good thing.

When it comes to understanding a topic where two sides prevent contradicting perspectives, i think its helpful to read deconstructions of those prespectives, or even listen to a debate on the topic. When both sides are allowed to expose the weak points in the other side, and then to respond to those attacks, it becomes easier to gain a full picture on the strong and weak aspects of both the perspectives. Reading from a variety of sources is also useful.

 

[Morbid Minish]

I don't think that correcting the idea of the earth being 6,000 years old is irrelevant to the statement. Because that assumes that evolution didn't happen, and that humans didn't evolve to be smarter over time. Which is what led to more and more advanced in fields such as technology. Saying we survived 6,000 years without AI assumes that we've been the same intelligence throughout that time and have also only endured several thousands of years of life vs the actual millions of years between the first humans and now. A lot less happens in thousands vs millions of years. Millions of years is a long time for people to recognize issues that happened in history and to try to fix them with AI/technology.

Someone isn't necessarily problematic for holding beliefs they do. But that also doesn't mean that you can't find their beliefs misguided and want to question them. Creationism denies a lot of science which in general can be problematic, even if an individual isn't.

There are people I love who hold beliefs that have evidence to the contrary, and I will point that out to them sometimes if the topic is brought up. That doesn't make me like them less. I don't think it's being mean necessarily to point out logic that is flawed when Chevy made a specific statement bringing up his beliefs, rather than using generalized language. If someone purports a belief like that it is still spreading that idea even if that wasn't the main point of their statement. Chevy and others have brought up their religious beliefs in other ways that were solely about just faith and no one took issue those times. So it's not about faith as much as it is challenging a certain viewpoint that is inconsistent with tons of evidence. If someone thought the earth was 6,000 years old because of a book they read that wasn't the Bible, and they didn't believe in god, I would still see questioning their belief as a non-issue. In this instance it just so happens that religion ties into history/geology/archeology/etc.

 

[Ragnarokio]

I don't think that correcting the idea of the earth being 6,000 years old is irrelevant to the statement. Because that assumes that evolution didn't happen, and that humans didn't evolve to be smarter over time. Which is what led to more and more advanced in fields such as technology. Saying we survived 6,000 years without AI assumes that we've been the same intelligence throughout that time and have also only endured several thousands of years of life vs the actual millions of years between the first humans and now.

i don't think there's any strong evidence that the first humans were neurologically distinct from us in a way that would have a big impact on cognitive benchmarks. Its theorized that at some point before the evolution of humans some abberant change to the brain resulted in the ability for us to use language, though thats also contested. the origins of language are one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in human history. The reason humans are so successful technologically speaking is also a mystery, though language is one of the premier theories. In any case, a vast majority of human technological development only occured within the past 10,000 years or so. Before then, there probably wasn't a big gap between us and other technologically successful animals.

 

[Morbid Minish]

i don't think there's any strong evidence that the first humans were neurologically distinct from us in a way that would have a big impact on cognitive benchmarks. Its theorized that at some point before the evolution of humans some abberant change to the brain resulted in the ability for us to use language, though thats also contested. the origins of language are one of the biggest unsolved mysteries in human history. The reason humans are so successful technologically speaking is also a mystery, though language is one of the premier theories. In any case, a vast majority of human technological development only occured within the past 10,000 years or so. Before then, there probably wasn't a big gap between us and other technologically successful animals.

Humans probably wasn't the best choice of word there. I meant what evolved into humans, like neanderthals. Brain size has changed with evolution which changed intelligence as well.

 

[Ragnarokio]

Humans probably wasn't the best choice of word there. I meant what evolved into humans, like neanderthals. Brain size has changed with evolution which changed intelligence as well.

cranium size has increased compared to in protohumans and this may have played a role in our technological development, although its still theory. There are animals with much larger brains than us and there are animals with higher brain to body ratios than us. while evidence shows cranium size has probably grown a lot as proto humans evolved into humans, that doesn't necessarily correspond to higher cognitive abilities.

 

[ExLight]

now we're entering semantics territory we gotchu dw

 

[Morbid Minish]

cranium size has increased compared to in protohumans and this may have played a role in our technological development, although its still theory. There are animals with much larger brains than us and there are animals with higher brain to body ratios than us. while evidence shows cranium size has probably grown a lot as proto humans evolved into humans, that doesn't necessarily correspond to higher cognitive abilities.

From what I've seen before, research seems to indicate that the growing size of the brain has corresponded to intelligence throughout our evolutionary history. This site talks about it, but it's rather lengthy and has a lot of scientific jargon.

Evolution of the human brain: when bigger is better

Comparative studies of the brain in mammals suggest that there are general architectural principles governing its growth and evolutionary development. We are beginning to understand the geometric, biophysical and energy constraints that have governed the evolution and functional organization of...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[Link&Midna]

I'm not reading all this

 

[ExLight]

what if we put it in the uwu translator

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

I thought I clicked on the long form shoutbox thread not whatever this is

 

[Mikey the Moblin]

Wait this kind of thing happens in shoutbox all the time

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

I think it was on this thread I mentioned before that I kept accidently forgetting to eat meals. I've been trying my best to be more consistent with that, but I'm having a really hard time.
My basic problem is I've come to the realization lately that I'm actually dangerously underweight. You know how the Body Mass Index takes your height weight age etc and measures it on a scale of 1-100 with 95% being dangerously overweight? I'm at 1%. That's... not good. And no matter how much I eat and try to gain weight, I just... can't. I've been the same weight for like 5 years. And I know some people are like "hrm de hrm wish I had THAT problem" but it really is a problem. My doctors wanted me at 90lbs by the end on 2018. I'm 78lbs. I can see my ribcage. That's not healthy. I just realized I accidently ate barely any food again today and I think I'm going to have to seriously try and focus on fixing my diet. Wish me luck.

 

[Fraxinus]

i had problems like that in elementary school to the point my homework weighed more than me

despite all the efforts from my parents with like weight gaining supplements and stuff nothing really worked until a side effect for some anxiety drug i was on inadvertently increased my appetite when i was in the eighth grade. not saying drugs are the answer but if you have stamina to exercise or do something that could naturally increase your appetite, i think that may be a vital step.

just keep in mind that when youre a chronic undereater, your stomach capacity is actually quite small so it doesnt take much to feel full. small snacks throughout the day may help you more than a massive dinner.

 

[Uwu_Oocoo2]

i had problems like that in elementary school to the point my homework weighed more than me

despite all the efforts from my parents with like weight gaining supplements and stuff nothing really worked until a side effect for some anxiety drug i was on inadvertently increased my appetite when i was in the eighth grade. not saying drugs are the answer but if you have stamina to exercise or do something that could naturally increase your appetite, i think that may be a vital step.

just keep in mind that when youre a chronic undereater, your stomach capacity is actually quite small so it doesnt take much to feel full. small snacks throughout the day may help you more than a massive dinner.

When I was younger they wanted to put me on steroids because I was so small, luckily they didn't.
You actually make a good point with having several small meals. Everywhere I go I get a kids meal and I can never even finish, lol. Since I can't eat a lot at once it's probably a good idea to eat a little... a lot.

 

[The Nahobino]

I am thinking about self publishing some old stories of mine.