₦airaland Forum

Krayola:
Still waiting for a paper that links climate directly to technological advancement.

You dont need such links because that would be making a gargantuan leap across the inter-locking factors. Rather you will find that Climate is at the root of a tree of causative factors that ultimately lead to technical advancements.

Climate - - -> Habitable Environment - - - > Settlement of Populations - - - > Urban Developments - - - > Complex Society - - - > Group Needs [E.g: transported water] - - - >Inventions [E.g: Roman Aqueduct]

Climate Changes Affect Ancient Civilizations: The role of climate in the development trajectory of the Near East, Greece, and Rome is discussed here -

http://www.suite101.com/content/climate-changes-affect-ancient-civilizations-a107526

Climate change helped the Incas build civilisation

Their warfare, building and agricultural skills may have been impressive but, according to scientists in Peru, the Incas would have been nothing without good weather induced by climate change.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/5916353/Climate-change-helped-the-Incas-build-civilisation.html

A review of Huntinton's book on Climate & Civilization -


Civilization and Climate-By Ellsworth
Huntington, Research Associate in Geography,
Yale University. Third Edition Revised
and Enlarged. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1924. 453 pp. Price, $5.00.

The first edition of this book appeared in
1915. Its value and the reception accorded
to it are attested by the fact that in nine years
the first edition was reprinted three times and
two new editions found necessary. It is unquestionably
the standard authority on this
most interesting subject.
A number of changes have been made in the
third edition, the most important of which, for
the readers of this JOURNAL, are those devoted
to the relation of climate to health. In this
part of the book we find a number of statements
which will astonish the average reader,
and which are absolutely contrary to what has
been held and taught for many years. The
author gives evidence that dry climates are not
so favorable for respiratory diseases as moist
ones, and he attributes the good effects of outdoor
living to the increased moisture which one
gets outside of houses. He considers it probable
that the good reputation of dry climates
for respiratory troubles is due to the fact that
people live more out of doors in such climates.
He holds that lack of moisture does almost
as much harm in winter as the low temperature,
while in spring it does only a little less harm
than the higher temperature in summer. Unusually
dry weather is responsible for more
trouble than unusually moist weather, and conditions
are better when storminess is unusually
abundant, except in the late fall. Admitting
that there are many puzzling facts in regard
to humidity, he holds that " the same conditions
of temperature, humidity and variability which
cause people to work quickly or slowly in the
ordinary affairs of life seem also to cause their
health to be good or poor." His final conclusion
that man is more closely dependent upon
nature than we have realized is hardly open
to question, nor is there any doubt of the
truth of his statement that what we call character
in the broad sense, in all walks of life,
is closely dependent upon bodily condition.
Idleness, dishonesty, immorality, stupidity, and
weakness are caused in some peoples by the
climates in which they live, and for this reason
the world will be a better place if the ill effects
of climate can be conquered.
This last edition does not insist so strongly
as the former ones upon the supreme importance
of climate, but the author holds that
climate ranks with racial inheritance and cultural
development as one of the three main
factors in determining the distribution of
civilization.
It requires some assurance to criticize a book
which has had such cordial reception and which
is so full of evidences of an enormous amount
of research and painstaking study. The only
feature which we venture to criticise is the
apparent oversight of agencies dependent upon
climate which are injurious to the human body
and which have a corresponding ill effect on
character. It is well known that the distribution
of many diseases depends upon the fact
that certain insects can thrive in certain climates.
The tropics particularly have always
had to fight insect-borne diseases. It is easy
to point out the influence which insect-borne
diseases have had on civilization and the distribution
of population. The poor whites of
the South and some tropical countries are ill
developed morally, mentally and physically because
of hookworm infection. Malarial fever
has led more or less directly to the downfall
of several civilizations. The author does not
seem to us to give proper consideration to such
facts as these. Otherwise the conclusions drawn
seem to be entirely justified, and no one can
read this book without gaining a broader point
of view and better understanding of facts of
extreme importance.
The make-up is excellent. Figures and
charts illustrate the text.

Krayola:
hahaha. u see now u are just blowing grammar.  


The technological dominance of europe has little to nothing to do with winter or climate change.

More to do with the rise of science. . . a desire to expand and increasing pressure from the expanding Islamic empires in the north. . . forced them to have to go outwards . . . they had to go Naval. Then the competition between the states. . .a wealthy merchant class that was willing to invest and sponsor thechnological creativity. . etc etc. There are real answers to these questions. Sure climate affects people, but not to the end that they decide to go and continously invent new stuff. The idea of systematically applying our brains in an attempt to create new products to solve problems came to Europe with the birth of science, amongst many other factors (soco-economic-political-military, etc etc). Not a cold winter or anything of the sort. thats just bogus stuff IMO.

U owe me twice as much Gulder now. If u want me to give u a whole essay, na to buy me cow.

1. Did you read the link?

2. How can you say its down to "the birth of science." That addresses nothing. What I am trying to show you is that there was an impetus for "the birth of science." That impetus at its deepest root was climatic.

Krayola:
I would be an  to argue that climate has no impact on civilization. I have never made such a statement.

My position has been that any theory that isolates climate, while ignoring other drivers of social change, is IMO bogus.

The claims made earlier are pretty much this. . . winter makes people more technologically ingenious. Countries that are technologically advanced are so because of their harsher weather. Out tropical climate makes us lazy and lack creativity. This is what needs to be argued for. Not that climate impacts people. If u like make snow dey fall make u no run inside. 


Being a key driver of civilization is different from being responsible for technological ingenuity.

Climate is not just "one of" the factors that drive the development of technology. It is the principal factor. Take some time to skim through Huntington's book.

Also as I said in my last post, the development of urban civilizations is absolutely integral to technical advancements and I hope this is not something you will dispute.

Now there is no doubting the pivotal role of climate in the development of such urban civilizations, thus climate remains the root key impetus for the resultant technical advances. Again, as I said before, it is frankly starkly obvious.

Krayola:
That deals with the development of civilizations. i.e cities. Large communities of people living together.  with what caused people to need to form large communities. . This is what your source says

It has nothing to do with winter, technology, or innovation. It does not support your claims  Just explains why people accumulated around a specific kind of location.   Thanks though. . it was an interesting read.

Will you deny that such urban growth triggered by climatic conditions further drives the development of new technologies?

"The archaeologial and paleoenvironmental evidence is consistent with the notion that the development of complex societies in the Middle Holocene was largely the consequence of the responses of the precursor societies to deteriorating environmental conditions associated principally with the orbitally-driven weakening and southward retreat of the northern hempisphere monsoon belt."

http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2006/11/17/accidental_civilization

The book Civilization & Climate, by Ellsworth Huntington puts a great deal in perspective and is also very balanced and objective. Whilst it accomodates your views, you will see within the extensive study that climate is certainly a key driver of civilization.

http://books.google.nl/books?hl=nl&lr=&id=9hEagEFuhxYC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=climate+and+civilization&ots=jFD_9UfNQB&sig=kRdfJmKjdpnEtq2D4Pk5LCc6lYk#v=onepage&q&f=false

Harsh climate change was the primary driver in the development of civilization, according to new research by the University of East Anglia.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Severing-Climate-and-Civilization-35804.shtml

enjoy yasef jaare. logical construct from four accounts indeed. the others are not credible indeed. simply by your say-so abi?

Lol, enjoy yasef.

small advise, go brush up on english comprehension so you dont bring extracts that contradict your argument in future.

Krayola:
For example? 

I think your above statement is ridiculous. I want to give you guys a chance to explain yourselves so please give me something besides your opinion. I'm almost embarrassed for you. What is this relationship between needing heat and technological development? Give examples. . several.

btw fire was invented in Africa. Go figure.   anyways, I'm waiting for something i can work with.

Me sef, I dey embarrased for you. no need to give me a chance to explain nada bro, I owe nobody no explanations, cos i'm not being paid for it.

If you dont believe it, fine.

InesQor:
Deep Sight, come on, use your head and stop embarrassing your profession here. 
I already have my SIMILARITIES in the collective descriptions to substantiate the facts. If you believe there are no similarities, please show us rather than foaming at the mouth.

My collective description is fine with 4 people, because THOSE [/b]four have [b]ENOUGH evidence to prove my points here. I don't need to call in a thousand others because it is sufficient. As far as I am concerned, the other witnesses are not credible, but whatever truth they have to present is already contained in these 4 gospels.

The BURDEN OF PROOF is on you to present one of the other witnesses if they have CONTRARY evidence.

Indeed, I have chosen 4 witnesses of the man Jesus, howbeit two are eyewitnesses and two are second-eye witnesses. I KNOW (by study) that they do not have contrary views to the ones I didn't [/b]choose as to the [b]existence [/i]of a man called Jesus, and as to [i]significant events in his life as recorded in the four Gospels.

[size=18pt]IF you think any of the other witnesses (non-canonical books) has information AGAINST the logic presented here, just present it already and stop dancing around !!!.[/size]

What you are saying here is like saying a murder happens on a street and four people witness it (two first-hand, two others as reported by their siblings who didn't go to the police themselves) and they report it to the police but some dude on the street claims [/i]he saw it too, and presents [i]the same significant evidence that the other four presented PLUS some other information that is considered irrelevant to the case. How does his extra witness detract from the four witnesses' accounts?

The problem with you is that you think this thread is about the Deity of Christ or any other such thing and so you are already shivering like a demon. [b]Think again[/b]. We are discussing his existence and whatever significant physical events that made him renown.

Lol, you dont even have the grace to admit that what you extracted made a case in favour of my comments. Enjoy your "logical" construct that selects its logic only from the books christians chose. Abeg Jaare.

". . . look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions. . ."

I thought this was English and not Greek.

nuclearboy:
So here's a science major (Inesqor) trouncing you at "law" just because you see red at the mention of Christ and thus refuse to use truth backed by your thinking cap?

Lol, sir, don't  make me laugh! Did you see the funny chap even produced an extract that argued my point for me, and could not even read the extract to see what it was saying. If that's what you call trouncing, be my guest and trounce me everyday!

POOF!

InesQor:
Still waiting for Deep Sight to come and clean up his fraudulent mess. 

Do you think I have the time for such. Y'all are making absolutely no sense and even the blind can see that.

You attempt to draw a logical construct proving the accuracy of the accounts of Jesus. It is simply fraudulent to derive any such construct whilst ignoring the vast majority of the accounts of Jesus' life.

More-so because you limit yourself to the four accounts chosen by Christians! That is more than biased. Any truly logical construct would not commit such brazen bias: the logical thing to do will be to derive a construct based on all accounts of his life. That is simple and fair.

Like i said before, it's called corroborative evidence: and Enigma should know that all too well, if he were not so biased in favour of his Jewish inspired and European - delivered mythical fantasies.

Your post is frankly embarrassing because you could not even read the extract you sourced yourself in order to see that it actually argues my point and not yours.

Eyewitness testimony is generally presumed to be more reliable than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown, however, that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed, and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of flaws in Eyewitness identification (such as faulty observation and recollection, or bias), or because a witness is lying. If several people witness a crime, it is probative to look for similarities [size=16pt]in their collective descriptions[/size] to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts between individual descriptions.

If you do not have a problem with English language please read the bolded in red and recognise that it makes an exact case in favour of what I am saying and not in favour of your exclusionary attempt! Abi you no sabi read oyinbo again? ? ?

It says 'collective descriptions' - why are you then looking at the four selected by christians only? ? ?

And you call that logical!

Poof!

Krayola:
Let's say only countries in the "temperate" parts of the globe contributed significantly to tech advancement. I'll even go a step further and grant you that ONLY countries in temperate regions have EVER EVER contributed anything to tech advancement of mankind. . . So what?

It doesn't follow that they contributed the most BECAUSE of the climate. You still need to demonstrate how this occurs and you have not.

Your theory sounds very superficial to me. You have made a direct link between climate and ingenuity, at least as far as technology goes, with total disregard for all the other factors that can cause, or affect, social change.

. . . imo, misguided it is to say climate difference is responsible for one world region being developed and another not. I swear I still think you are joking.

The relationship between climate and the development of technology is elementary. It is a well established and also painfully obvious fact.

I am frankly astonished that you do not know of this.

The requirement for heat was the impetus for most technological innovations. Virtually everything springs from heat-related innovations.

nonsense. U dont select four witnesses out of fifty and insist that the fifty must not be heard. If he calls the four as his witnesses i can call the fifty as mine. Bullshit reasoning.

YOU ARE A FRAUDSTER AND INSHA ALLAH, LO RU KO JESU, YOU WILL SOON BE ARRESTED.

Jeez, check out his historical posts, full of 419 scam attempts.

Mod: ban this guy!

OP: You are a fraudster and I am setting you to be arrested shortly. 419 ti poju. Fraudster.

aletheia:
@DeepSight: please do not derail this promising thread (It seems Jesus as God invokes a visceral Pavlovian reflex in you to argue otherwise---especially if it is InesQor involved). Or at least wait until InesQor's done before setting out your counter argument.

@InesQor: carry on, please.

Sir please do not amuse me this morning.

Put on your thinking cap. There is no derailment but a precise articulation of the relevant logical issue.

The OP attempts to draw a logical tree inferring the veracity of scriptural gospel accounts. In so doing the OP makes a point regarding the accuracy of the gospel as conveyed by the apostles. It is surely topical to remind the OP that it would be disingenious to assess the veracity of those accounts without considering the fact that there were a great many written gospels also creditted to some other apostles: and that such gospels were deliberately excised from the canon that we have today: and that the totality of these writings give a direct lie to the summation that the OP seeks to derive from that logical construct.

This, sir: is NO derailment.

The inescapable fact remains that those gospels were selected from a LARGE POOL of writings and it is and remains fraudulent to derive a logical construct as to their veracity by ignoring the larger pool of writings.

In no court of law would such an approach be permitted: for those writings all constitute corroborative evidence as to the truth and veracity of the compound claims.

In short what Inesqor is attempting to do is exactly like a prosecutor attempting to select four witnesses from a murder scene, and insisting that in arriving at the truth, the other 50 witnesses present at the scene of the crime must not be allowed to speak.

That is nothing but plain and blatant fraud: an eminent travesty the like of which I am yet to come across anywhere in eternity.

Thank you sincerely justcool for taking the time to explain. I suppose all the notions of 'unsubstantiate core' etc were problematic for me. I sincerely appreciate your elucidations.

What is "bla bla bla, yada yada yada?"

Seems you are getting so terribly defensive? ? ?

You might want to reflect that any closed-circle logical process that fails to take cognisance of the fact that the material contained within it (the 4 NT Gospels) was excised from a larger pool of material that gives a lie to the allusions of perfection and divinity is simply a fraudulent logical process which relies on a lie to make its premises and misfooted conclusion.

Gotta run. xmas dinner.

InesQor:
Finally, if you and your associates decided to concoct a hoax, focusing on a person claiming one-ness with God, would you agree to the fabrication of details that made this person seem susceptible to the same human frailties as you and I? If you personally were going to play the part of an apostle in this hoax, would you tolerate the fabrication of details that made you look selfish and petty? Such details were incorporated into the New Testament autographs:

Yes, you would when the focus is on shewing the worshipped one to be holier and greater than you all.

This has severally been the case in thousands of both ancient and modern personality cults.

Secondly my initial question does nothing to deny that they may have been writing sincerely.

I rather asked about a mistake such as the spiritual identity of the leader being worshipped.

Because frankly Inesqor, you must doubtless be aware of the fact that there have been gazillion personality cults in which the followers had similar ideas about the divine identity of their leader. You know this, do you not?

How does your logical tree address is patent fact?

If you were fabricating events for a text which you planned to stuff down the throats of gullible people, would you include these nine items?

As said above, the apostles may have been sincere in their writings. That does not make the writtings infallible.

Just as surely as I may in sincereity include true details of my failings in any writings that I may make. That does not make the writings infallible.

I contend that statements (1), (3) and (4) on our logic tree must be viewed as false based on all available evidence.

Surely, you are also aware that there were a great many gospels and writings about the life of Jesus. Many of them contained acts that will by today's standards be considered corrupt. All these gospels were ditched by the august assemblage that determined the books to form the modern biblios.

This singular fact throws your entire surmise to the marines, you know.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight: The above post answers your question. Being a liar might be deliberate or it might be a case of being mistaken.

No it doesn't.

I spoke, for example, about a mistake about Jesus' spiritual identity.

No amount of eye-witnesses can either corroborate or debunk such a mistake.

Secondly the writings were indeed done many decades after his death. In such circumstances just how likely is it that eye witnesses would be popping out of the wood work to deny this or affirm that.

What are you getting at?

In your analysis of the writers being truthful/ not truthful/ insane, you have missed out one option.

What if they were genuinely mistaken?

Such that they are truthfull, not insane, and yet carry a genuine mistake or misperception about what they wrote?

Such as perhaps a mistake regarding the spiritual idenity of the man the wrote about.

Many humans habour deep convictions that other humans are God, or incarnations of gods, you know.

It will neither be falsehood nor necessarily insanity for such men to write about such convictions.

It could simply be a genuine misapprehension.

Pastor AIO:
What is mind? Is it consciousness? What if the world was created by non-sentient principles? ( if such a thing can exist).

Very carefully, I may state -

A Mind is an element that posesses notions.

This means that it can receive impressions, have perceptions, originate and apprehend concepts and ideas, and align all these in terms of purpose.

Consciousness is the awareness of being.

Mind and consciousness are intimately bound: but in my perception they are not the same thing to the extent that it is possible (using humans as an example) to have unconscious notions.

Notions that the mind is not consciously aware of.

What if the world was created by non-sentient principles? ( if such a thing can exist).

Already I said that in my perception is that God is the sum of self-existent laws/ principles. There are two possibilities that I have toyed with in the past - (x) that God itself is not conscious but experiences consciousness through creation and (y) that God itself is conscious. The former seemed appealing for a long time, but I am now inclined towards the latter because the nature of creation evinces not only a mind at work, but a conscious mind at work. Everything in existence is so heavily laden with poignant and profound meaning that I am not able to dissuade myself from this.

mazaje:
I don't know if there is a creator or not, but I personally believe that the universe was created and NOT a result of blind chance,

Mazaje's statement is most heartwarming especially coming from him.

Kudo's to you Mazaje for your honesty and for not balking at stating things the way you directly feel without any grandstanding whatsoever.

Thank you Mazaje. Many compliments of the season to you.

mazaje:
Basically the purpose of this thread is to show that some God or what ever creator created the universe, right?

Yes, because the design apparent in living things is too intricate and detailed and fits specific functionalities.

OK, lets agree that a creator created the universe, so deepsight, its now your turn to tell us how we can know this creator,

We can know the creator by reading the book of life. The book of life consists of everything around us in the world and the universe. Inasmuch as a work of art says something about the mind of the artist, the creation says alot about the nature of the creator.

what it is, its nature,

It is simply that pre-existent mind that is the compound of all self-existent laws.

why it created the universe

It cannot but radiate outwards and such radiation is what creation is. It is not possible for the sun not to emit light and in this same way it is not possiblefor the creator not to radiate outwards, thereby giving rise to an eternity of forms.

and for what purpose it created the universe.

It is simply the natural expression of the mind of the intangible creator. So if you ask for a purpose, i Might say that the purpose is "expression."

It is expressing itself.

Or the marvels of cognition through the human brain.

[flash=200,200]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKj9i1qS08M[/flash]

What exactly does the universe need these things for? Why does an evolutionary process even produce these things?

What process originating in meaningless chance could contrive such an advanced super-computer such as this?

Any elementary study of the workings of the human brain is enough for thr rational person to discountenance any notion denying a profound level of intelligent design in the living world.

"Harvard University selected XVIVO to develop an animation that would take their cellular biology students on a journey through the microscopic world of a cell, illustrating mechanisms that allow a white blood cell to sense its surroundings and respond to an external stimulus. This award winning piece was the first topic in a series of animations XVIVO is creating for Harvard’s educational website BioVisions at Harvard."

http://www.xvivo.net/the-inner-life-of-the-cell/

Anybody who can watch this scientific expose on the workings of a cell and insists that he sees no clear and wondruous, sensational design therein is just kidding himself. Such a person is more far gone in delusion that the proverbial Ostrich burying its head in the sand.