…where were the glaciers? And the mammoths, cave bears, giant sloths and sabertooths? The large hooved animals that existed then? They showed homo sapiens, but not Neanderthals which also lived here at that time. There was a lot of life on this planet and conditions in the environment that would bring huge challenges to the people of Galactica, especially when they were giving up their technology. Guess they didn’t have any budget left over to show more than modern mammals on the plains.
Were you there?, doubt it, so how would you know what it was like?
Scientists are not always right;), besides, since they showed where they landed, why would they show where they didn’t:D
Don’t think there were glaciers in Equatorial Africa, but there is only so much you can do to make B.C. look like Tanzania.
Good question about the conditions, though.
Because they blew the budget on the Colony…
Also, were those things in whatever part of Africa they landed in?
Relax, this is still television, not a Scientific American documentary 
Actually at around 150,000 years ago the Ice age hadn’t yet took hold. It would be at 100,000 years that the Ice age would hit. Thus wiping out any evedence they where there.
Maybe they landed far north instead … and ended up being known as the Nivelungs from the Teutonic Ring tradition… 
Im with you on that point.
Again, this is pure theory and may not have even been close to how it really happened.
If it was a choice between Epic Space Battle vs. CGI Sloth, Admiral Ron made the correct decision, as far as I’m concerned.
Sabertooths, mammoths, giant ground sloths were native to North America. At one time before the clovis people and the end og the last great ice age we had more megafauna (big animals) than africa. Just a moment of science.
Do you know the difference between THEORY and HYPOTHESIS?
If it’s “PURE THEORY”, then it’s very reliable information. Perhaps you meant it’s just “pure HYPOTHESIS”.
See:
http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/theory_vs__hypothesis_vs__law
In any case, it’s fairly certain that 150,000 years ago the last ice age hadn’t started. It’s more around 110,000 years ago.
But if you want to fault them because the writers weren’t there and can’t know “the truth”, keep in mind that this is all science FICTION and in any case it’s just entertainment. http://forum.galacticwatercooler.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif
It was a nice way to tie all of this up, even if it wasn’t perfect. At least the ending wasn’t a let down the way, let’s say, THE L WORD ended its series.
And it looks like there’ll be another 2 hour special in the fall, telling the story from the Cylon point of view. That looks rather interesting.
I really, really hope you are completely joking in this post, JAH.
Your first line is so ignorant, so first-grade and smarmy that you must have intended it for irony. [“How do you know the earth really spins around? You’re not standing out in space watching it. Nah, nah, nah.” “How do you know germs make you sick? You can’t see them. Nah, Nah, Nah.” “How do you know the Boer War really happened? Were you there? No-one alive today was there, so there. Nah. Nah. Nah.”]
But, of course, you were being ironic.
Except: “Scientists are not always right…”
But the concept of science involved admitting errors, modifying hypotheses, gathering and testing evidence. Unlike…
… the concept of religion, which involves blind obedience to authority, non-questioning of dogma, and belittling all and any attempts by humans to better themselves by means other than that proscribed by ancient scribblings.
Of course, I’m sure you don’t mean this in your first-grader’s argument, do you, JAH?
RS! You’re back!
I don’t buy into the anti-science idea of this (we can’t know it because we didn’t see it with our very own eyes in particular), but I do like the mysticism. I disagree with your generalizations about the concept of religion (certainly there are those who do fit that bill, but not everyone does), but you already knew that
As you might guess. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the finale. ?
RS I see you are trying to make valid points. Dial down the intensity please.
When I hear about the blind obedience argument, you sound like soo many catholic friends I know. Blind Obedience in any form is bad.
Let me just give you alil background on myself. I grew up in the protestant faith. I lived 2 block from my church as kid. I did all the usual stuff S school church ect. Heck the pastor’s son was one of my best and longest friends.
Now be that as it may I can understand the difference between how the earth was made and 7 days creation. I can accept that. I can also understand and reason the dinosaurs. No big problem here.
I can also see God (or whatever you want to call the lifeforce of the universe) sending guides ect. to help show us the way to a better life.
There are just too many things we don’t know or understand to say with a closed mind that this is it nothing else.
I have had so many things happen in my life that it can not just be coincidence.
If you want to say it’s a bunch of bull fine. Just accept it for what it was and get on with life. As it is from your point of view we don’t have all the much time here anyway.
Peaceout.
I do infact know the supposed difference between theory and hypothesis, although I dont buy into the slight of hand power given to word “theory” in latter years. As it was, it still is to me. A theory is unproven and is often “tested” and “proven” by proposed, speculated, guessed and conjured ideas and evidences. It can lead to interesting guesses about things, but theories are at their core in no way proven.
RS I would encourage you to be very careful with the way you just generalized and then belittled “religion”. Your opinion on the matter might work for you, but might have a very different affect on others here in the forum.
I for one agree with what JohnAndersonHenry said. Infact from my perspective I can see “science” used (even on this forum) in the exact same way as the very “religion” you just described. “Blind obedience to authority, non-questioning of dogma, and belittling all and any attempts by humans to better themselves by means other than that proscribed by ancient (or at least older) scribblings” is something I have seen in “science” as well.
Just a couple of thoughts…
Hi Cas! I know you are one of the more… rational… mystical ones - to coin a phrase.
but I do like the mysticism. I disagree with your generalizations about the concept of religion (certainly there are those who do fit that bill, but not everyone does), but you already knew that
As you might guess. I’d love to hear your thoughts on the finale. ?
You’ve probably seen most of them by now!
I started off reasonably ambivalent about the finale, but the longer I thought, the more I wrote, the less satisfied I became.
You see, all these years the mystical elements which you like, and I loathe, have been subtle, understated, in the background, important true, but not explicit. Bang! There’s a resolution. God did it. End of story. Hmmmm.
Yes, funny how religious people get so upset when their faiths are questioned with the same intensity used on politics, or football, or science. In some countries I could have a fatwa called on me just for asking questions. Of course, people would never get violent over religion in a civilised country, would they?
Infact from my perspective I can see “science” used (even on this forum) in the exact same way as the very “religion” you just described. “Blind obedience to authority, non-questioning of dogma, and belittling all and any attempts by humans to better themselves by means other than that proscribed by ancient (or at least older) scribblings” is something I have seen in “science” as well.
Just a couple of thoughts…
Sadly, both your basic understanding of the principles of science, as well as your openness to reasonable persuasion that you may be incorrect in your assertion regarding science’s ‘dogmatism’ make any refutation of mine pointless.
That said, an examination of my posts over the last year will indicate a large number of fair and reasoned arguments on many aspects of BSG (and science and religion!). Further, I have often admitted my mistakes, modified my views, changed my theories. (Hmmmm… sounds a lot like… er… religion? Nah, not really. Science literally has millions of examples of modification, amendment, downright overthrow of ideas.)
Glaciers leaves a geological evidence. whether an area had glacier is pretty clear by the glacial features of the area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_glacial_period
Africa did have glaciers, but during the last ice-age period it did not span over the entire continent as it did in North America or Europe. Even at the height of the ice-age, African glaciers were limited to the mountains of Tanzania or Kenya. Since both are located around the equator, it was difficult for the ice sheet to extend far on to the plains.
In fact part of Africa still has glaciers, but they are fast receding due to global warming. When the African Glaciers disappear that’s when all hell breaks lose in Africa. If you think things are tough in Africa now, imagine an Africa when glacieral melt no longer fills the streams and river. And, it will happen around 2012. Which frankly is like less than 5 years in the future.
Uh oh, well, time’s up I guess, time to go looking for another Earth. Now where did we put those spaceships? Wait, the Sun? Shit, why the hell did we do that?
shrugs It seemed like a good idea at the time. Anders was creeping everyone out anyway.