Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33

Thread: The man from Earth

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239

    The man from Earth

    Watched this a while back and thought it might be worth posting for some of you if you haven't seen it....

    Probably not a good idea for EZ to watch it, he'd probably have an aneurysm.


    The film takes the perspective of a man who has lived for 14,000 years. By a quirk of mutation his cells constantly replenish and renew and so he hasn't died. He is no god, just an ordinary man and the film takes a realistic approach to the subject. He gathers his friends, who are all notable academics in different fields and decides to tell them the truth, the friends rally round the idea to question and discover if he is lying, playing a prank or actually serious? They question him deeply and you get caught up quite quickly in the chain of his life and realism's you encounter.

    The cast are fantastic and though it may seem to start slow you quickly become embroiled in the subject matter. This is a thought provoking film and though i hope many of you have seen it before it is definitely worth checking out if you haven't. It isn't long and will definitely be a highlight of your month....

    The Man From Earth[2007]DvDrip AC3[Eng]-FXG.avi | SockShare

    If any of you are unfamiliar with how to use this link...

    1. click continue as free user
    2. close any pop-ups (dont worry, they arnt dangerous )
    3. Click the play symbol
    4. Pause for a minute to allow it to buffer and then away you go...


    I hope you enjoy...

    p.s
    The reaction of the older woman is hilarious.....
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    Watched this a while back and thought it might be worth posting for some of you if you haven't seen it....

    Probably not a good idea for EZ to watch it, he'd probably have an aneurysm.

    The film takes the perspective of a man who has lived for 14,000 years. By a quirk of mutation his cells constantly replenish and renew and so he hasn't died. He is no god, just an ordinary man and the film takes a realistic approach to the subject. He gathers his friends, who are all notable academics in different fields and decides to tell them the truth, the friends rally round the idea to question and discover if he is lying, playing a prank or actually serious? They question him deeply and you get caught up quite quickly in the chain of his life and realism's you encounter.

    The cast are fantastic and though it may seem to start slow you quickly become embroiled in the subject matter. This is a thought provoking film and though i hope many of you have seen it before it is definitely worth checking out if you haven't. It isn't long and will definitely be a highlight of your month....

    The Man From Earth[2007]DvDrip AC3[Eng]-FXG.avi | SockShare

    If any of you are unfamiliar with how to use this link...

    1. click continue as free user
    2. close any pop-ups (dont worry, they arnt dangerous )
    3. Click the play symbol
    4. Pause for a minute to allow it to buffer and then away you go...


    I hope you enjoy...

    p.s
    The reaction of the older woman is hilarious.....
    I see you do love your happy-a*s fairy tales.

    Which specific hominid has been shown, via conclusive DNA evidence, to be man's direct-line ancestor?

    p.s. Don't have aneurysm trying to figure it out.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    I see you do love your happy-a*s fairy tales.

    Which specific hominid has been shown, via conclusive DNA evidence, to be man's direct-line ancestor?

    p.s. Don't have aneurysm trying to figure it out.
    Its a film EZ, and much more possible than the passion of the Christ at that... Its just a film, but its points out possibilities....


    Cro-magnon is essentially us, which hominid would you like? I imagine this will descend into... "Ah, but what was before that, and before that..."


    I did warn you this wasn't your sort of film prior... And im 90% sure you haven't watched it, just looked for a review on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes....
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    Its a film EZ, and much more possible than the passion of the Christ at that... Its just a film, but its points out possibilities....


    Cro-magnon is essentially us, which hominid would you like? I imagine this will descend into... "Ah, but what was before that, and before that..."
    Show me the one that's been proven, via conclusive DNA evidence, to be man's direct line ancestor. Show me the conclusive DNA evidence.

    Otherwise you're a man of GREAT FAITH!
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Show me the one that's been proven, via conclusive DNA evidence, to be man's direct line ancestor. Show me the conclusive DNA evidence.

    Otherwise you're a man of GREAT FAITH!
    This is not a good argument for you to continuously keep bringing up. It's the same as me demanding you show me a video of the resurrection, otherwise your story has to be false. There were no video cameras back then and DNA has not been found from such an old species as the one that homo sapiens descended from. Each assertion is equally stupid.

    I would like to add, however, and I know for a fact that you are aware of this, the entire Neandertal genome has been sequenced and it has been shown that we are carriers of Neandertal genes within our DNA. That being said, we are not descended from them and no one ever thought that we were - in fact, most anthropologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists believed that there was some interbreeding between the two species. What this finding does is not only confirm what scientists already suspected was the case, it does wonders to confirm that the science of anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology is sound enough without even needed DNA evidence to support them. We can put pieces together into neat little ideas and explanations of how things came to be - these are called theories and they don't come from literature, fables, legends, or scripture. We are smarter than to fall for man telling us that God told them this is how it is and how it is going to be. If God expects us to be fools or else suffer eternal damnation, then so be it. I believe God would be smarter and more reasonable than that.

    EDIT:
    I just re-read what I wrote about being carriers of Neandertal genes in our DNA and realized it was a misleading statement. Not all humans carry Neandertal DNA. I removed the 100% term from my post because if you are black of African or Aboriginal descent, you likely do not carry the Neandertal genes. I never meant to assert that all humans do carry it, only that some do, as in absolutely do, or definitely do, not 100% do (as in all do).
    Last edited by Databed; 07-18-2013 at 03:43 PM. Reason: Updating

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    This is not a good argument for you to continuously keep bringing up. It's the same as me demanding you show me a video of the resurrection, otherwise your story has to be false. There were no video cameras back then and DNA has not been found from such an old species as the one that homo sapiens descended from. Each assertion is equally stupid.

    I would like to add, however, and I know for a fact that you are aware of this, the entire Neandertal genome has been sequenced and it has been shown that we are carriers of Neandertal genes within our DNA. That being said, we are not descended from them and no one ever thought that we were - in fact, most anthropologists, archaeologists, and paleontologists believed that there was some interbreeding between the two species. What this finding does is not only confirm what scientists already suspected was the case, it does wonders to confirm that the science of anthropology, archaeology, and paleontology is sound enough without even needed DNA evidence to support them. We can put pieces together into neat little ideas and explanations of how things came to be - these are called theories and they don't come from literature, fables, legends, or scripture. We are smarter than to fall for man telling us that God told them this is how it is and how it is going to be. If God expects us to be fools or else suffer eternal damnation, then so be it. I believe God would be smarter and more reasonable than that.

    EDIT:
    I just re-read what I wrote about being carriers of Neandertal genes in our DNA and realized it was a misleading statement. Not all humans carry Neandertal DNA. I removed the 100% term from my post because if you are black of African or Aboriginal descent, you likely do not carry the Neandertal genes. I never meant to assert that all humans do carry it, only that some do, as in absolutely do, or definitely do, not 100% do (as in all do).
    My point all along was that you guys nevertheless believe man descended from other hominids.

    Oh ye of GREAT FAITH!

    At least I have multiple, independent, historical confirmations of the resurrection.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    My point all along was that you guys nevertheless believe man descended from other hominids.

    Oh ye of GREAT FAITH!

    At least I have multiple, independent, historical confirmations of the resurrection.
    All found in one book...

    As opposed to the literally millions of examples of evolution, scientific papers, modern analysis and actual physical comparative evidence... Evolution is not a belief EZ, it is more of a fact than many things we take for granted everyday. You simply ignore it because it contradicts you and your belief system.


    If the odds of a man coming back to life after 3 days are 24 billion to 1... And the only source is a single book written by Iron age peasants, who knew nothing about Biology, or much at all for that matter... whats the most likely analysis?
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    6,669
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    All found in one book...

    As opposed to the literally millions of examples of evolution, scientific papers, modern analysis and actual physical comparative evidence... Evolution is not a belief EZ, it is more of a fact than many things we take for granted everyday. You simply ignore it because it contradicts you and your belief system.


    If the odds of a man coming back to life after 3 days are 24 billion to 1... And the only source is a single book written by Iron age peasants, who knew nothing about Biology, or much at all for that matter... whats the most likely analysis?
    Actually it i 1*10^24000000000
    ‎"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." — Isaac Asimov

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Actually it i 1*10^24000000000
    Thats more than the total number of atoms from all 400 billion galaxies in the entire visible universe... Sounds about right....
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by trebor View Post
    Actually it i 1*10^24000000000
    In your dreams. However,

    Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at At-Home.com). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero.

    cs.unc.edu/

    OH YE OF GREAT FAITH!

    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Phuket, Thailand
    Posts
    239
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    In your dreams. However,

    Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. (See Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 93, Number 19, pp. 10268-10273 at At-Home.com). A gene is typically 1000 or more base pairs long, and there is some space in between, so 256 genes would amount to about 300,000 bases of DNA. The deoxyribose in the DNA ``backbone'' determines the direction in which it will spiral. Since organic molecules can be generated in both forms, the chance of obtaining all one form or another in 300,000 bases is one in two to the 300,000 power. This is about one in 10 to the 90,000 power. It seems to be necessary for life that all of these bases spiral in the same direction. Now, if we imagine many, many DNA molecules being formed in the early history of the earth, we might have say 10 100 molecules altogether (which is really much too high). But even this would make the probability of getting one DNA molecule right about one in 10 to the 89,900 power, still essentially zero.

    cs.unc.edu/

    OH YE OF GREAT FAITH!

    The problem is EZ you dont understand the science you quote....

    Yes the smallest forms of life we know NOW are of that size... But firstly the first forms of primitive life would not have required a double helix... Their are many different types of helical structure... Single/Double/triple etc... And the known attractive force between the bonding sites of the phophorus-nucleotide backbone mean that these structures form all the time... If you have a billion years to play with, abundant organic elements and liquid water the odds are quite strongly in favour of Abiogenesis.

    No-one is suggesting that the first form of life was something as complicated as extremophiles which are some of the oldest, simplest and hardiest bacteria on the planet. Mitochondria are long suspected and have been shown to have been a separate free living organism that was incorporated into other organisms symbiotically. Mitichondria only have 37 genes, and these would have been a complicated life form in comparison to their fore-runners.
    "Truly I was born to be an example of misfortune, and a target at which the arrows of adversary are aimed"

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    679
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post

    Biologists currently estimate that the smallest life form as we know it would have needed about 256 genes. :
    "As we know it," as in, what is around now. This is simply wrong - no geneticist with any kind of a brain would ever say this, yet, you plod along saying "biologists" as if this nonsense is the consensus. Theoretically, you need ONE gene to get life. That's because the definition of life in the eyes of evolution is ANYTHING that makes copies of itself. You know what you need for that? You need one sequence of DNA or RNA (no one knows for sure) that codes for a replicating protein. It builds the protein which then replicates the code. That's it! What's even crazier, the less efficient that protein is at making exact copies, the better. The mistakes are what drives evolution. So, whatever site you got that nonsense about 256 as being the baseline minimum is clearly either lying to you to promote the impossibility of evolution or abiogenesis or is composed of dimwitted scientists with no common sense.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    The problem is EZ you dont understand the science you quote....
    As we have already proven, EZ didn't even get as far as Mitosis and here he is trying to screw abiogenesis.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,657
    Quote Originally Posted by Hdreams View Post
    The problem is EZ you dont understand the science you quote....

    Yes the smallest forms of life we know NOW are of that size... But firstly the first forms of primitive life would not have required a double helix...
    Even if you're right, it doesn't matter. The odds in favor of abiogenesis are still astronomical.
    “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” - Robert Jastrow

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Valencia. Spain.
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Easyrider View Post
    Even if you're right, it doesn't matter. The odds in favor of abiogenesis are still astronomical.
    Not as astronomical as the odds in favour of omnipotent, supernatural entities, people coming back to life after being 'dead' for three days, talking snakes, talking trees, talking donkeys, global floods and two of every species fitting into a small boat, along with their food for nearly a year.... but you're daft enough to believe in those things.
    How to make yourself look a fool in one sentence....

    (P.S. worshiping only has 1 p not 2.)
    --johnson--.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •