Next time some one wants to tell you evolution isn't real

[_honorentheos]

Boy does this bring back memories.

When our daughter was around middle school age she watched a "documentary" on Animal Planet her friends were anxious about that showed there was a species of primates-like creatures that had evolved to live underwater that were the basis for the mermaid myth. It took a bit of work to explain to her why this supposed TV documentary was a crock of dog feces in a way that was helping her become a better critical thinker rather than just rely on, "That's stupid because I said it is" though it seems to have worked out. That and the entire 2012 Mayan calendar thing were very real to her. Thank Goddess she is a smart kid, and Neal Degras Tyson can speak at a level even an 11 year old can follow.

If SPG believes in mermaids based on the same "documentary"...uh, wow.

ETA: Wiki for the "documentary": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaids:_The_Body_Found

I quickly identified the "Cave of Swimmers" as the location of SPG's cave paintings. But when I looked at photos, it was really weird. Some had mostly faded and kind of worn paintings. There were two different images of three swimmers in a row, with the third having legs close together. But there were other pages with vidvid and dazzling paintings of many humanoid figures with obvious tales. They damn sure looked like mermaids. But both sets of pictures were often not very clearly identified.

Then I found an article on the fake documentary. It included a picture of the vivid, mermaid-like drawings and identified them as CGI created for the documentary. And then I finally understood what I was seeing. Pages from the British Museum and other institutions had only the two sets of three figures. Photos dated before the documentary had only the two sets of three figures. But there were many, many postings by regular folks of the vivid mermaid figures that represented them as the actual cave paintings.

Had I seen your post before I looked, I'd have saved lots of time.

It's crazy how this bit of fakery (the faked cave painting) is proliferating rather than getting stamped out. That came from an undisputed fictionalized source that pretended to be a real documentary and look how much traction it got. It's easy to see how fakery gets fed to the gullible when it's being presented without the hard to find but existent disclaimers.

Anyway, if SPG is using the Animal Plant fake documentary as evidence for the suppression of science of a wild claim, he's in trouble.

[_SPG]

It's crazy how this bit of fakery (the faked cave painting) is proliferating rather than getting stamped out. That came from an undisputed fictionalized source that pretended to be a real documentary and look how much traction it got. It's easy to see how fakery gets fed to the gullible when it's being presented without the hard to find but existent disclaimers.

Anyway, if SPG is using the Animal Plant fake documentary as evidence for the suppression of science of a wild claim, he's in trouble.

So, I admit, the idea that mermaids were painted on the wall of an ancient had a pretty big impact on my opinion. You said they were fake, but then said they weren't very clear.

So I go do a little digging. The Cave of Swimmers (didn't know it by that name until now) was discovered the Hungarian explorer László Almásy in 1933. Supposedly, this was a series of caves, most having similar paintings. The swimmers image were not in doubt at the time of discovery, but over the years the caves have been vandalized, basically destroying images. Even if until, like spraying the images with water for contrast, has ruined them. So, that if you go the caves today, saying the images show mermaids might be a stretch. But, 80s ago it wasn't in question. Maybe the "faked" images were repaired or reconstructed.

[_SPG]

As honorable as this sounds, BS.

Science is like a religion. You have your general authorities that dictate what is said in the name of science. Then your NOM types that don't quite buy it. So they go out and start looking at stuff themselves. Even though they are "scientists" what they find is buried.

Sorry but no. There is no prophet of science who tells other scientists what to think or believe. Scientists speak their minds all the time. Lots of bad science and pseudo science is out there, so if something you want to believe in is not accepted by the scientific community you think they are purposely burying it. Merpeople should be an obvious pseudo science, but you clearly do not understand what constitutes good evidence. Vague pictures, videos, etc do not qualify as good evidence. We have maybe millions of pictures and videos of Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster. Should they be good evidence they really exist? And how many of them are faked?

I concur with Bigfoot and Loch Ness, not to say I'm close minded that something of legend is valid. I don't believe in Bigfoot, and I sort of disbelieve in Bigfoot, but some of it could true. But, as you know, just because I see a big shadow and call it Bigfoot, doesn't actually make it Bigfoot, but I did see a big shadow.

There are aspects of the stories that spark the imagination. That effect, sort of like Santa, has real influence on the world. Some here would caution me to say, "the Legend of Bigfoot is real" without confusing the phrase "Bigfoot is real." But, I don't spend time looking for Santa or Bigfoot, but I believe in the power of Santa, I use it every year.

To me, the universe is more then just 3 dimensional. The stories add influence and dimension thus are part of the universe. I have experienced incredible connection to nature and Mother Earth just from being in the woods and living things. Nothing in our science would come close to explaining it. It was experienced, it is a memory, not to be faked or called unreal. But it isn't something I can share.

So, did someone actually see Bigfoot? Maybe. Mostly, I don't care, but I don't have to disbelieve it.

[_SPG]

I know there are people who can almost live off the just energy of the sun, as you suggested, eating almost nothing.

This is the kind of nonsense that gets people killed. Yet you claim to "know" people can do it.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/breatharians/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... -anythings

Well, Snopes isn't a valid reference for me.

I guess I'm referring to people called Sun Gazers. There are several different cults that do this, some are known to eat less then 300 calories. My sister has joined a group, but isn't a hardcore practitioner. But typically, eats little compared to most of us.

One documented case is an Indian man that went to a hospital so he could be observed. He went 30 days before the hospital forced an end to the experiment. Same guy claimed that he had basically NOT eaten for almost 30 years, with a few exception here or there. Obviously, no one believed him and when he tried to prove it, the hospital shut down the observation.

But I'm sure that more people have died from eating to much sugar then have starved themselves to death. I'm not imply that people cannot starve, but I think there is something to this. But personally, I'm pretty sure I will never try it myself.

[_Lemmie]

It's crazy how this bit of fakery (the faked cave painting) is proliferating rather than getting stamped out. That came from an undisputed fictionalized source that pretended to be a real documentary and look how much traction it got. It's easy to see how fakery gets fed to the gullible when it's being presented without the hard to find but existent disclaimers.

Anyway, if SPG is using the Animal Plant fake documentary as evidence for the suppression of science of a wild claim, he's in trouble.

So, I admit, the idea that mermaids were painted on the wall of an ancient had a pretty big impact on my opinion. You said they were fake, but then said they weren't very clear.

So I go do a little digging. The Cave of Swimmers (didn't know it by that name until now) was discovered the Hungarian explorer László Almásy in 1933. Supposedly, this was a series of caves, most having similar paintings. The swimmers image were not in doubt at the time of discovery, but over the years the caves have been vandalized, basically destroying images. Even if until, like spraying the images with water for contrast, has ruined them. So, that if you go the caves today, saying the images show mermaids might be a stretch. But, 80s ago it wasn't in question. Maybe the "faked" images were repaired or reconstructed.

Are you implying that in 1933, people thought the cave of swimmers paintings depicted mermaids?

[_Res Ipsa]

It's crazy how this bit of fakery (the faked cave painting) is proliferating rather than getting stamped out. That came from an undisputed fictionalized source that pretended to be a real documentary and look how much traction it got. It's easy to see how fakery gets fed to the gullible when it's being presented without the hard to find but existent disclaimers.

Anyway, if SPG is using the Animal Plant fake documentary as evidence for the suppression of science of a wild claim, he's in trouble.

So, I admit, the idea that mermaids were painted on the wall of an ancient had a pretty big impact on my opinion. You said they were fake, but then said they weren't very clear.

So I go do a little digging. The Cave of Swimmers (didn't know it by that name until now) was discovered the Hungarian explorer László Almásy in 1933. Supposedly, this was a series of caves, most having similar paintings. The swimmers image were not in doubt at the time of discovery, but over the years the caves have been vandalized, basically destroying images. Even if until, like spraying the images with water for contrast, has ruined them. So, that if you go the caves today, saying the images show mermaids might be a stretch. But, 80s ago it wasn't in question. Maybe the "faked" images were repaired or reconstructed.

You are misrepresenting the evidence. Some portions of the paintings have been degraded to the point that they are difficult to make out. But not the "swimmers." The line of three "swimmers" appears twice in the paintings and is quite clear. But they were referred to as swimmers. I found no evidence that they were referred to as "mermaids" until the fake documentary came out. I could find no photos of the CGI paintings created for the documentary dated before the release of the documentary. Promotional material for the documentary admits it is "science fiction." The folks that made the show have never claim that their CGI images are reconstructions of the paintings.

Can you find any evidence that anyone described the swimmers as mermaids before the documentary?
Can you find any photos that show what the CGI image shows before the documentary?

You got fooled by a hoax. Big deal. To be hoaxed is human. But if you're interested in the truth about life, the universe, and everything, don't you think it would be a good practice to check out evidence that sounds too good to be true? The hoax was exposed right after the documentary was shown in 2012. It took me about 30 minutes to figure out what had gone on. So, maybe, instead of making claims like you "know" that people can exist almost entirely on sunlight, don't you think you should actually check out the claims?

But not only did you fail to check out claimed evidence that provided support for something you already wanted to believe was true, after being shown you were hoaxed, you've responded by making up crap to try and shore up the hoaxed evidence. Why? Is a world without mermaids really such a horrible place that you can't bear to live in it?I kinda think narwhals and belugas and dolphins and whales and orcas are pretty cool.

[Guest]

Why isn't Earth a big round lump of moss? Because there are patterns in the nature of consciousness that lead us to where are.

Wrong. Would you care to try again?

Oh, I cannot quote the exact process of which life form come first, but I'm guessing moss is somewhere in the middle. Moss basically eats stuff not alive. It eats sunlight and CO2. Obviously, it's not the first live form.

So where does the predators come from? I mean, like did one moss decide that it was extra hungry and eat its brother moss? Something is written into the code of life that supports this stuff. What motivates life? Not just biological life, but spiritual entities such concepts of self? Why does a musician want to be better? What is a musician in terms of nature? Why does a king want to grow his kingdom, to strength it, or protect it.

The theory of evolution implies this stuff comes in later. Like how can anyone want a protect a kingdom unless we already experience a kingdom. My point, even spiritual things were written into the first forms of life, now it is just a matter of manifesting it.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, Snopes isn't a valid reference for me.

I guess I'm referring to people called Sun Gazers. There are several different cults that do this, some are known to eat less then 300 calories. My sister has joined a group, but isn't a hardcore practitioner. But typically, eats little compared to most of us.

One documented case is an Indian man that went to a hospital so he could be observed. He went 30 days before the hospital forced an end to the experiment. Same guy claimed that he had basically NOT eaten for almost 30 years, with a few exception here or there. Obviously, no one believed him and when he tried to prove it, the hospital shut down the observation.

But I'm sure that more people have died from eating to much sugar then have starved themselves to death. I'm not imply that people cannot starve, but I think there is something to this. But personally, I'm pretty sure I will never try it myself.

What? Snopes is not a valid reference for you? What happened to "all perspectives are true." Snopes's perspective is as true as yours, right?

I know who you're talking about. They're generally referred to as "breathairians."

Existing on a low calorie diet is certainly possible. People have sustained themself on very low calorie diets to try and increase their lifespans. That's entirely different from a claim that people can extract what they need to live directly from sunlight. From the accounts I've looked it, these folks in America first claimed no food. Then they claimed water. Then they claimed a little food. Then it became clear they weren't really keeping track of everything they ate.

The notion is pure, unadulterated bunk. And it has and will continue to kill people. It doesn't matter that more people may die from sugar overconsumption. If you believed in logical fallacies, that's a red herring. It is a completely false claim. Asserting something that is false and deadly is exactly the type of thing when I was talking about treating false ideas as true.

Can you link to the documentation of the single case in India? If your facts are correct, I'm pretty sure why the hospital stopped the experiment: the dude was dangerously close to death. Do you really have to watch someone die to be convinced that sunlight is not a substitute for food?

[_Res Ipsa]

Oh, I cannot quote the exact process of which live form come first, but I'm guessing moss is somewhere in the middle. Moss basically eats stuff not alive. It eats sunlight and CO2. Obviously, it's not the first live form.

So where does the predators come from? I mean, like did one moss decide that it was extra hungry and eat its brother moss? Something is written into the code of life that supports this stuff. What motivates life? Not just biological life, but spiritual entities such concepts of self? Why does a musician want to be better? What is a musician in terms of nature? Why does a king want to grow his kingdom, to strength it, or protect it.

The theory of evolution implies this stuff comes in later. Like how can anyone want a protect a kingdom unless we already experience a kingdom. My point, even spiritual things were written into the first forms of life, now it is just a matter of manifesting it.

Go read a book or two on evolution written by evolutionary biologists. I'm not your tutor.

[_SPG]

Oh, I cannot quote the exact process of which live form come first, but I'm guessing moss is somewhere in the middle. Moss basically eats stuff not alive. It eats sunlight and CO2. Obviously, it's not the first live form.

So where does the predators come from? I mean, like did one moss decide that it was extra hungry and eat its brother moss? Something is written into the code of life that supports this stuff. What motivates life? Not just biological life, but spiritual entities such concepts of self? Why does a musician want to be better? What is a musician in terms of nature? Why does a king want to grow his kingdom, to strength it, or protect it.

The theory of evolution implies this stuff comes in later. Like how can anyone want a protect a kingdom unless we already experience a kingdom. My point, even spiritual things were written into the first forms of life, now it is just a matter of manifesting it.

Go read a book or two on evolution written by evolutionary biologists. I'm not your tutor.

Was never in doubt of that. I've read more then a book or two.