Now back to evolution when an infant human is born it does not automatically know how to do much of anything, it has to be taught, but if one were to measure the intellectual level of a 1 year old say 200 years ago and measure that of one the same age born recently you will find many behavioral differences. Now one may say these differences are due to parental intervention the way infants are handled and treated today as opposed to 200 years ago. To that I say possibly but that would not explain why by 12 months of age most infants are now walking many even already possessing certain motor skills which were not the norm back say 200 years ago and almost certainly by age 4 or 5 children have a much faster capacity for learning new things. I'm not discounting the availability to modern technology has not in all likelihood contributed to this. I believe the human brain has evolved and may be evolving at an exponential rate
Be honest now for those of you who are old enough to remember when hand held calculators came on the scene and the very first one you ever tried to use. How long did it take you to master all of the complex functions of the simple 10 key machine which only did four basic functions adding subtracting multiplying and division. I'll tell you if you were 10 years old it took you as long as a week to become comfortable with one hand a 5 year old your smart phone today and in an hour it will have hacked your personal information found all of your stored photos and probably read your emails and texts as well.
SO if my theory of a universal consciousness has any merit what so ever what will the minds of 5 year old's be like in another 100 200 or 300 years. Will a 20 year old prodigy be able to wake up one morning with no prior knowledge decide it wants to learn everything there is about mixing amalgamated metals then right after breakfast go out and be able to combine 5 to 15 of the primary periodical elements with a few secondary elements and come up with a previously unknown synthetic metal structure that me might call unobtainium today l.
I just DON"T KNOW LOL
All my life has been spent trying to understand human behavior(starting with my parents)and the most baffling of this is to have such inflexible "belief" that you are impervious to any kind of logic.
A book I found facinating was "A First Rate Madness" by Nassir Ghaemi. He studied presidents and generals and found those he called homoclite that were supposedly "normal" were ok when things were going good. But horrible in a crisis, basically deer in a headlight and more likely to double down than to understand they are not responding creatively. And would never admit they were wrong nor change course.
On the other side Lincoln, Churchill, Kennedy etc each had mental problems and not particularly good when things were just going along. But excelled when in a crisis. I blame homoclite majority for Nixon's landslide in '72 despite Watergate and I'll leave it at that with that one of many blunders.
My old neighbor was a really "regular guy", would give you the shirt off his back. But evangelical that KNEW humans were the only people in exsistence, the Earth was 14,000 years old(because there's no way carbon dating works) etc. His belief was real and anything to the contrary was not, period, end of story.
Carl Sagan explains how Eratosthenes, the chief librarian at the Library of Alexandria and the inventor of geometry, became the first person to calculate the circumference of the Earth over 2,000 years ago.
If you accept that the earth revolves around the sun and the moon revolves around the earth (yeah, there are lots of people who don't), then the earth must cast a shadow on the moon.
The shadow so cast is always circular; there's never a line image of a flat earth. For the shadow to be circular, the presumed circular and flat earth must have its axis of symmetry always pointed at the moon.
Thus the sun must always be on the side opposite ours of the flat earth to cast the shadow. But this means there would be no daylight for the side we live on. If the sun is on the side to illuminate us, it can't cast an earth shadow on the moon. Or alternately, the moon is always on the dark side, in which case we can't see the moon.
Whenever you encounter a flat-earther, get him to explain the phases of the moon; fun for hours.
Incidentally, it was the persistent circular shadow on the moon that led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, since only that shape would always cast a circular shadow.
Home Shop Freeware
Like mklotz said fun for hours
It's always amusing to hear a globehead make their claims that the earth is a ball, and they always do so by making numerous assumptions that prove they are flawed. In this video, Carl Sagan makes the assumption, which is the same assumption that Eratosthenes made (at 1:01), that the sun is "so far away that it's rays are parallel". First of all, no one KNOWS just how far the sun is away, scientists change the distance all the time. Is it a million miles away, or is it just 1,000 miles? Every claim is nothing more than an "educated" guess, a theory! Flat earthers understand that the earth is flat and that the sun is only a few thousand miles away, which not only means that it would cast different length shadows on those two obelisks but also means that it is NOT as huge as "scientists" IMAGINE it to be. Do you think it is just a coincidence that the moon and sun are the SAME SIZE in the sky? So considering the smaller size and the closer location, it is EASY to show how the phases of the moon are made on a flat earth. And, by the way, if the persistent circular shadow on the moon is what led the early Greeks to hypothesize a spherical earth, then they were NOT as intelligent as everyone thinks, because it is NOT the only way that would always cast a circular shadow-- shine a flashlight on a ball and you'll see that the light conforms to the shape of the ball -- no straight line.
Last edited by Rattlerjake; 09-16-2019 at 08:22 PM. Reason: spelling mistake
If you shine a flashlight on a ball, the light conforms to the surface of the ball, hence a "circular" shadow -- a flat earth doesn't have to be a disk! Besides, on a flat earth, neither the sun nor the moon ever go behind the earth, so the earth is NOT the shadow. The size of the shadow is entirely dependent on the distance between the two.
Post your reply!
Join 41,949 of us and get our 173 Must Read Homemade Tools eBook free.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)