Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

OK, Bilbo. I'm not sold on some aspects of evolution, for example there seems to be gaps in the timeline of man, changes from one ancestor to the next that are a little more than gradual, but yeah I do tend to believe in the timelines. Not so much that I have seriosuly scrutinized all the research, and can speak knowledgeably about different scientific dating techniques, etc., but because I tend to have faith in scientific consensus.

We can leave it at that if you want.

Yeah no problem buddy, I wouldn't presume to try and win anyone over to my way of thinking, at the end of the day your last sentence said it best.

We are all just blind men groping around looking for a wall to cling to, we cannot ever know how things started and so must ultimately believe through faith.

You're a step ahead of most however by acknowledging that believing in science, is a step of faith as well.

Ultimately we can believe that words in a book purported to be by God are true or we can believe that words of a man in a book are true.

It's faith either way.

OK I guess I'm not quite done. we differ a bit on this point. I know enough about scientific method that I consider believing in it to be a little more than an act of faith. Science to me is almost the opposite of faith. It's ironic isn't it that a belief system based a theory built upon evidence provides less certainty than a theory built on faith. But I do see your point, at some point it is faith, or else we have no knowledge/understanding at all that is outside our direct experience.

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

[CGM]

Yeah no problem buddy, I wouldn't presume to try and win anyone over to my way of thinking, at the end of the day your last sentence said it best.

We are all just blind men groping around looking for a wall to cling to, we cannot ever know how things started and so must ultimately believe through faith.

You're a step ahead of most however by acknowledging that believing in science, is a step of faith as well.

Ultimately we can believe that words in a book purported to be by God are true or we can believe that words of a man in a book are true.

It's faith either way.

OK I guess I'm not quite done. we differ a bit on this point. I know enough about scientific method that I consider believing in it to be a little more than an act of faith. Science to me is almost the opposite of faith. It's ironic isn't it that a belief system based a theory built upon evidence provides less certainty than a theory built on faith. But I do see your point, at some point it is faith, or else we have no knowledge/understanding at all that is outside our direct experience.

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

[Kev]

OK I guess I'm not quite done. we differ a bit on this point. I know enough about scientific method that I consider believing in it to be a little more than an act of faith. Science to me is almost the opposite of faith. It's ironic isn't it that a belief system based a theory built upon evidence provides less certainty than a theory built on faith. But I do see your point, at some point it is faith, or else we have no knowledge/understanding at all that is outside our direct experience.

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

Name the fossils. There isn't any fossil that demonstrates the gradual evolution of life on this planet in the way the theory surmises.

That is why Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' the idea that creatures don't evolve slowly over millions of years at all, but rather stay the same for millions of years and then evolve rapidly in an isolated population producing great changes in such a short space of time that sadly they cannot find the fossils to support it.

I.e becuase they had no evidence they invented a new theory to explain why there was no evidence and then went happily as before.

Of course the classical Darwinists argued that puncuated equilibrium was biologically impossible becuase there is no way to create via mutation so much new DNA in such a short timeframe but that doesn't seem to have put them off.

The fossil record doesn't show evolution at all, it just shows extinction.

It's interesting to note that the very earliest forms of life discovered on this planet, purple algae (called stromatolites) some 3.5 billion years old still exists in the same form today. It hasn't evolved in supposedly 4 billion years.

Crocodiles have been around and the same for 230 million years, ants 100 million, cockroaches almost 400 million, Horsehoe crabs are about 350 million years old.

I don't agree with any of the timescales of course I'm just highlighting the fact that the idea that scientists dig down into the rocks and find an entirely new and different world the deeper they go is completely false. They find many of the same animals we have today, and they still look the same as they did then, along with animals that have died out, as I said extinction not evolution.

[CGM]

Evolutionary science isn't based on scientific method. Scientific method implies observational evidence and repeatable experiments that can be tested and verified.

Regarding evolution no scientists were there to observe it happening in the past, it's too slow a process to observe happening now and no fossils have yet been found for any species, flora or fauna that provide us with any intermediary fossils that document the evolutionary process at all.

In other words, we never saw it happen, we can't find any evidence of it happening, and it's seemingly not happening now.

None of that conforms to scientific method at all. It's pseudo science or quasi religion imo.

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

Name the fossils. There isn't any fossil that demonstrates the gradual evolution of life on this planet in the way the theory surmises.

That is why Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' the idea that creatures don't evolve slowly over millions of years at all, but rather stay the same for millions of years and then evolve rapidly in an isolated population producing great changes in such a short space of time that sadly they cannot find the fossils to support it.

I.e becuase they had no evidence they invented a new theory to explain why there was no evidence and then went happily as before.

Of course the classical Darwinists argued that puncuated equilibrium was biologically impossible becuase there is no way to create via mutation so much new DNA in such a short timeframe but that doesn't seem to have put them off.

The fossil record doesn't show evolution at all, it just shows extinction.

It's interesting to note that the very earliest forms of life discovered on this planet, purple algae (called stromatolites) some 3.5 billion years old still exists in the same form today. It hasn't evolved in supposedly 4 billion years.

Crocodiles have been around and the same for 230 million years, ants 100 million, cockroaches almost 400 million, Horsehoe crabs are about 350 million years old.

I don't agree with any of the timescales of course I'm just highlighting the fact that the idea that scientists dig down into the rocks and find an entirely new and different world the deeper they go is completely false. They find many of the same animals we have today, and they still look the same as they did then, along with animals that have died out, as I said extinction not evolution.

You have changed the requirements on me. I have merely stated that there is fossil evidence of a progression. I've already stated there are gaps. That doesn't disprove the theory. I repeat, you have already said that you don't accept scientific dating as anything but a fantasy, so you are damn sure not going to accept from me any evidence of a progression or advancement over time.

This idea of a punctuated equilibrium is worthy of exploring, I'm kind of familiar with it. It's another theory that attempts to explain the gaps.

It sounds like you are saying that if one life form evolves, then all life forms must evolve. That's a bit of a stretch that I can't disprove any more than you can prove.

Bottom line, if you don't believe the time lines, and if scientific dating is crap to you, then there is no point in me raising evidence of a progression.

Here's one for you. If man and dinosaurs co-existed, then why did man, and so many other species, survive and dinosaurs die out?

[Kev]

ok, we are getting into semantics now. If you don't like the word method, then call it something else. It is observational though. And there is some experimentation, extrapolation, and method involved. But point taken.

I don't agree with the higlighted remarks. The fact is fossils have been found that document an evolution, a progression or advancement if you will, But there are gaps and questions remaining. But if you don't believe the dating technology, then there is not much point in me trying to tell you there is evidence of an evolution, is there?

Name the fossils. There isn't any fossil that demonstrates the gradual evolution of life on this planet in the way the theory surmises.

That is why Stephen Jay Gould and his ilk proposed the idea of 'punctuated equilibrium' the idea that creatures don't evolve slowly over millions of years at all, but rather stay the same for millions of years and then evolve rapidly in an isolated population producing great changes in such a short space of time that sadly they cannot find the fossils to support it.

I.e becuase they had no evidence they invented a new theory to explain why there was no evidence and then went happily as before.

Of course the classical Darwinists argued that puncuated equilibrium was biologically impossible becuase there is no way to create via mutation so much new DNA in such a short timeframe but that doesn't seem to have put them off.

The fossil record doesn't show evolution at all, it just shows extinction.

It's interesting to note that the very earliest forms of life discovered on this planet, purple algae (called stromatolites) some 3.5 billion years old still exists in the same form today. It hasn't evolved in supposedly 4 billion years.

Crocodiles have been around and the same for 230 million years, ants 100 million, cockroaches almost 400 million, Horsehoe crabs are about 350 million years old.

I don't agree with any of the timescales of course I'm just highlighting the fact that the idea that scientists dig down into the rocks and find an entirely new and different world the deeper they go is completely false. They find many of the same animals we have today, and they still look the same as they did then, along with animals that have died out, as I said extinction not evolution.

You have changed the requirements on me. I have merely stated that there is fossil evidence of a progression. I've already stated there are gaps. That doesn't disprove the theory. I repeat, you have already said that you don't accept scientific dating as anything but a fantasy, so you are damn sure not going to accept from me any evidence of a progression or advancement over time.

This idea of a punctuated equilibrium is worthy of exploring, I'm kind of familiar with it. It's another theory that attempts to explain the gaps.

It sounds like you are saying that if one life form evolves, then all life forms must evolve. That's a bit of a stretch that I can't disprove any more than you can prove.

Bottom line, if you don't believe the time lines, and if scientific dating is crap to you, then there is no point in me raising evidence of a progression.

Here's one for you. If man and dinosaurs co-existed, then why did man, and so many other species, survive and dinosaurs die out?

What evidence of advancement? When a species first appears in the fossil record it appears fully formed and complete with no signs of more primitive ancestory.

When we look back at the age of the dinosaurs, we now know that far from primitive they were intelligent, fast, mobile and well adapted to their enviroments, to suggest they were in any way more 'primitive' or less advanced than life today is completely false.

The story of life beginning in the sea with some single celled organism which somehow replicated itself and over time became more complex is just that a story, there is no fossil record of this time period to support it.

The true starting point for the fossil record is the Pre Cambrian explosion, when scientists are admiteddly baffled by the fact that complex vertabrate species of abundant variety just appear out of nowhere in the geological record. Just an abundence of complex, fully adapted life instantly appearing the fossil record with no trace of ancestary.

They 'hypothize' that their nice molecule to multi molecule to simple animals and fish all occurred of course, but that it sadly just wasn't recorded in the fossil record.

As to what happened to the dinosaurs, I believe that after the flood the envioroment changed drastically.

The Bible makes it clear that prior to the flood there was no rainfall, and that the earth was watered by a mist that went up from the ground. The atmosphere was much more water rich and saturated with oxygen. The climate was sub tropical with an abundence of vegetations and the better atmosphere and food supply meant that huge animals could be supported. The Bible even says there were giants on the earth in this time, and indeed science has found gigantism for every major animal group at this time.

In our present world it's biologically impossible for things to get as big as they did back then because the atmosphere doesn't support it.

So after the flood, and the resulting ice age that it brought about many species of creature simply died out.

Before you dismiss the idea of a worldwide catastrophe like a flood you should know that science also claims a worldwide catastophe that wiped out all of as much as 97% of life. They call it the Permian extinction or 'The Great Dying' and place it around 250,000,000 years ago.

Interestingly recently they have been saying it was caused by massive undersea volcanic eruptions all over the world.

Most people erronously think the Bible says rain caused the flood. It doesn't it says 'The foundations of the great deep were broken up', which pretty much describes what the scientists have found.

[CGM]

What evidence of advancement? When a species first appears in the fossil record it appears fully formed and complete with no signs of more primitive ancestory.

That's questionable. There is plenty of evidence of advancement of "man". There are gaps, and there are dead ends. Evolution is not fully defined. You know what is out there, and you know where to find it. If I show it to you, you will still disbelieve it. Again, so much boils down to timelines. You don't accept them, I doubt my ability to convince you otherwise. Timelines are critical. End of. move on.

When we look back at the age of the dinosaurs, we now know that far from primitive they were intelligent, fast, mobile and well adapted to their enviroments, to suggest they were in any way more 'primitive' or less advanced than life today is completely false.

Are you shitting me? Do we know it? Or did someone come up with a new theory to that effect? I've heard that theory. Bilbo you have already derided science for continually changing its theories, you can't suddenly pick one of them and decide to call it truth.

The story of life beginning in the sea with some single celled organism which somehow replicated itself and over time became more complex is just that a story, there is no fossil record of this time period to support it.

It is a theory. An explanation. And I suppose it was so long ago that the fossils have dried up? Oh yeah, the earth is less than 100,000 years old. ok.

The true starting point for the fossil record is the Pre Cambrian explosion,
[

I'm getting a little puzzled. Are you saying this period exists? If so, when? Or are you just reconstructing the scientific theory to facilitate debunking it?

when scientists are admiteddly baffled by the fact that complex vertabrate species of abundant variety just appear out of nowhere in the geological record. Just an abundence of complex, fully adapted life instantly appearing the fossil record with no trace of ancestary.

They 'hypothize' that their nice molecule to multi molecule to simple animals and fish all occurred of course, but that it sadly just wasn't recorded in the fossil record.

again their are holes in the theory, seing as how no-one was there to observe it.

As to what happened to the dinosaurs, I believe that after the flood the envioroment changed drastically.

ok, now things get interesting. How does the ark fit into all of this?

The Bible makes it clear that prior to the flood there was no rainfall, and that the earth was watered by a mist that went up from the ground. The atmosphere was much more water rich and saturated with oxygen. The climate was sub tropical with an abundence of vegetations and the better atmosphere and food supply meant that huge animals could be supported. The Bible even says there were giants on the earth in this time, and indeed science has found gigantism for every major animal group at this time.

In our present world it's biologically impossible for things to get as big as they did back then because the atmosphere doesn't support it.

Some very small dinosaurs were wiped out.

So after the flood, and the resulting ice age that it brought about many species of creature simply died out.

Before you dismiss the idea of a worldwide catastrophe like a flood you should know that science also claims a worldwide catastophe that wiped out all of as much as 97% of life. They call it the Permian extinction or 'The Great Dying' and place it around 250,000,000 years ago.

Interestingly recently they have been saying it was caused by massive undersea volcanic eruptions all over the world.

Most people erronously think the Bible says rain caused the flood. It doesn't it says 'The foundations of the great deep were broken up', which pretty much describes what the scientists have found.

You mean it didn't rain for forty days and forty nights?

Anyways, I really hadn't intended to argue the truth or lack thereof of the Bible, which is a nice little story itself. But I had an idea it was behind all of this.

Scientists have devoted their lives to this, as have biblical scholars. I couldn't hope to do a better job than the scientists of explaining things. The info is all out there. You know how to find it. I could fill up Saddo's hard drive and you wouldn't believe me.

Let's leave it. Conclude if you want, but try to avoid summarizing my perspective, cause you kinda screwed that up that last time we tried to call it a day.

[Kev]

What evidence of advancement? When a species first appears in the fossil record it appears fully formed and complete with no signs of more primitive ancestory.

That's questionable. There is plenty of evidence of advancement of "man". There are gaps, and there are dead ends. Evolution is not fully defined. You know what is out there, and you know where to find it. If I show it to you, you will still disbelieve it. Again, so much boils down to timelines. You don't accept them, I doubt my ability to convince you otherwise. Timelines are critical. End of. move on.

Show what to me, examples of human evolution? Believe me I know all of the fossils that are out there. I studied the debate for years and there is not a single example of a humoid ancestor that has stood the test of time. Java Man, The Lucy skeleton, Neanderthal Man,The Tuang Skull, Homo Florensis, they have all been rejected by large number of the evolutionary community themselves.

As for signs we are advancing, how so? The Neanderthals had a higher cranial capacity (bigger brains) than we did. Homo erectus is now believed to have been building boats and sailing the seas as long as 800,000 years ago. Of course I believe the dates are rubbish and that both Neanderthals and Erectus were just completely human with slightly different morphologies from races living today but I'm just using them to highlight the fact that even evolutionists no longer believe they were primitive. Neanderthals according to current science were just as smart as modern humans but they died out becuase they couldn't tolerate heat, erm ok.

When we look back at the age of the dinosaurs, we now know that far from primitive they were intelligent, fast, mobile and well adapted to their enviroments, to suggest they were in any way more 'primitive' or less advanced than life today is completely false.

Are you shitting me? Do we know it? Or did someone come up with a new theory to that effect? I've heard that theory. Bilbo you have already derided science for continually changing its theories, you can't suddenly pick one of them and decide to call it truth.

We know that because unlike the imaginery missing link and transitional fossils we havn't yet found, dinosaur bones have been found in volume and have been subjected to heavy analysis. Measuring footprint strides can help calculate speed, analysing food sources and the enviroment of that time can help us determine their likley behaviours and examination of their bones and in some cases even muscle tissue can show us how these creatures moved, grew and behaved. We know for a fact that dinosaurs must have warm blooded else they wouldn't have been able to power their bodies. The larger dinosaurs, for example the Aptasaurs (Brontosaurus to you) must have had highly advanced lung systems to supply the massive volumes of air needed to breath for example. We know beyond doubt, from the actual physical tangible evidence that can be dug up and analysed that they were highly evolved, advanced creatures. Theories don't come into it.



It is a theory. An explanation. And I suppose it was so long ago that the fossils have dried up? Oh yeah, the earth is less than 100,000 years old. ok.



I'm getting a little puzzled. Are you saying this period exists? If so, when? Or are you just reconstructing the scientific theory to facilitate debunking it?

No I don't believe this period exists, I'm just highlighting that even according to the evolutionists and their own dating methods that advance life just appeared as if from nowhere in the fossil record. This idea that life gradually evolved from a single celled self replicating organism is not an idea borne out of the fossil record. Darwin himself acknowledged that the Pre Cambrian explosion was evidence against his theory but concluded that the fossils would eventually be found. They still havn't.



again their are holes in the theory, seing as how no-one was there to observe it.



ok, now things get interesting. How does the ark fit into all of this?

I have nothing to say about the ark. Like the evolutionary tree it is something that has no tangible evidence to support it. I can point to the fact that every ancient culture around the world shares the flood myth story, and most include an ark or boat of some sort as corrobatarive evidence that it indeed represented a shared early human experience. I could also mention that population charts clearly demonstrate that the human race according to rate of population growth dates back to a few families only around 6,0000 - 8,000 years ago but this is not factual evidence for an ark and so I offer nothing more.

The Bible makes it clear that prior to the flood there was no rainfall, and that the earth was watered by a mist that went up from the ground. The atmosphere was much more water rich and saturated with oxygen. The climate was sub tropical with an abundence of vegetations and the better atmosphere and food supply meant that huge animals could be supported. The Bible even says there were giants on the earth in this time, and indeed science has found gigantism for every major animal group at this time.

In our present world it's biologically impossible for things to get as big as they did back then because the atmosphere doesn't support it.

Some very small dinosaurs were wiped out.

Yep and some small animals are being wiped out as we speak. Is that evolution or extinciton?

So after the flood, and the resulting ice age that it brought about many species of creature simply died out.

Before you dismiss the idea of a worldwide catastrophe like a flood you should know that science also claims a worldwide catastophe that wiped out all of as much as 97% of life. They call it the Permian extinction or 'The Great Dying' and place it around 250,000,000 years ago.

Interestingly recently they have been saying it was caused by massive undersea volcanic eruptions all over the world.

Most people erronously think the Bible says rain caused the flood. It doesn't it says 'The foundations of the great deep were broken up', which pretty much describes what the scientists have found.

You mean it didn't rain for forty days and forty nights?

Yes it did rain for 40 days and 40 nights but that's not what flooded the world. And the flood didn't last for 40 days, it last for one year. Again however I cannot offer specific evidence for this as I have none. All I can do is point to the overwhelming evidence of flooding all over the world. You do realise fossils are formed in sedimentary rock, which means rock laid down by water right?

It's also interesting that scientists do believe there was a worldwide global flood on Mars, this despite their being no liquid water on the planet that we can see.

Anyways, I really hadn't intended to argue the truth or lack thereof of the Bible, which is a nice little story itself. But I had an idea it was behind all of this.

Scientists have devoted their lives to this, as have biblical scholars. I couldn't hope to do a better job than the scientists of explaining things. The info is all out there. You know how to find it. I could fill up Saddo's hard drive and you wouldn't believe me.

There is no evidence for evolution that conforms to the scientific methodologies and would hence pass as true science.

It it is all guess work and hypothesis. If in Darwin's day scientists were aware of molecular biology the theory would never have got off the ground as it's impossible at a molecular level for new information to be added to the DNA. There is not a shred of evidence to support mutation as being a sufficient driving factor in shaping evolution, it is purely a theory devoid of any factual evidence to support it.

I believe in science, but I'm also intelligent enough to be able to seperate true science from the religious theories of scientists.

Anyway I do not hope to convince you, I simply cannot. We both view the world and our place in it in diametrically opposing ways. I reject most if not all of your presuppositions on how to interperet the evidence in the first place, just as you reject mine.



Let's leave it. Conclude if you want, but try to avoid summarizing my perspective, cause you kinda screwed that up that last time we tried to call it a day.

Ok I've tried to add my bits in bold above, not sure how to seperate in quotes.

[Andre]

[quote=Bilbo;664470][quote=CGM;664455]

Look at dinosaurs and how they are supposed to have died out.

Since the 60's we've been told they died out due to temperature, deadly gases, infertility, constipation, a meteorite, or that they didn't die out at all and simply became birds.

Which theory of theirs is correct? It's the meteor that is the current de facto explantion but I'm sure that will change within another decade or so.

Dont think they look any further mate; They have core sampled the arctic ice at the depth that relates to the bone age; their northern hemishphere extinction and they found traces of substances that can only be made from a star going supernova near by to us.
Ice being pure each side of the approximate date.

[CGM]

Bilbo, still trying to close thinsg down..

A few final issues, for me anyways...

Just to confirm, you are saying that all possible cases of humanoid ancestors have been rejected as false by the scientific community.

Sedimentary rock is not just that which is formed by deposits layed down by water. It can also be particles or materials of just about any kind, laid down over time by any method, and over time turned into rock. In other words yes, the bones that we find are mostly buried. Those exposed to the elements would have vanished by now.

It's not so much that we differ in our presuppositions. We also differ in our opinions of what constitutes evidence. We also differ in our definitions of what constitutes fact and theory.

Disagreeement on time is obviously a big issue. I would say that a dating method should not be rejected out of hand because it is known to sometimes produce innacurate results. I'd say we differ there. People often mistakenly reject things in this way, rejecting the whole concept on the basis of a few examples.

I'll tell you another issue I am willing to bet we differ fundamentally on. What comes first, the evidence or the theory? (story, explanation, whatever).

[Scrap]

I am told I am very open to information. Watched a Program on N G, the question asked, Was Darwin wrong. all I can say is watch the program if given the chance, interesting to say the leased.

[Kev]

Bilbo, still trying to close thinsg down..

A few final issues, for me anyways...

Just to confirm, you are saying that all possible cases of humanoid ancestors have been rejected as false by the scientific community.

Sedimentary rock is not just that which is formed by deposits layed down by water. It can also be particles or materials of just about any kind, laid down over time by any method, and over time turned into rock. In other words yes, the bones that we find are mostly buried. Those exposed to the elements would have vanished by now.

It's not so much that we differ in our presuppositions. We also differ in our opinions of what constitutes evidence. We also differ in our definitions of what constitutes fact and theory.

Disagreeement on time is obviously a big issue. I would say that a dating method should not be rejected out of hand because it is known to sometimes produce innacurate results. I'd say we differ there. People often mistakenly reject things in this way, rejecting the whole concept on the basis of a few examples.

I'll tell you another issue I am willing to bet we differ fundamentally on. What comes first, the evidence or the theory? (story, explanation, whatever).

Well clearly the story came first. Evolutionary belief has been around since the days of the ancient Greeks and Anaximander. Prior to Darwin Lamark was already postulating on it and Charles own grandfather Erasmus was part of some cult think tank called the Lunar Society that tried to create an evolutionary explantion for our origins.

Of course Alfred Russell Wallace simultaneously along with ~Darwin was working on the theory as well, although he got it after going into some kind of weird self induced spiritual trance and it was told it by a spirit, his words not mine.

The idea that Darwin just came to his belief soley as a result of his research on the Galapagos Islands is completely innacurrate, he was philosophically bent on finding an evolutionary explanation that could explain the origins of life without God, following in the beliefs of his grandfather.

What you seem not to understand is that scientists who are committed to humanism are no less biased and religiously motivated than are fundamentalist religious believers.

They subscribe to a very specific set of beliefs and attempt to promote these beliefs at all costs. Richard Dawkins for example is more 'religious' and fundamentalist than pretty much any religious leader in the world. He has a very definite agenda that involves actively opposing belief in God, creating tv shows to highlight religious faith is inherantly evil, raising money for an anti God campaign on buses where they put full size banners on buses saying 'God probably doesn't exist' and actively seeking to oppose any talk of creation, intelligent design etc in schools and our education system.

If you actually research into prominent members of American society especially, educators, leading thinkers etc, most of them are fundamentalist humanists with a scarily extreme plan to implement and promote the spread of humanism and huminist values worldwide.

They seek to ban the teaching of anything counter to evolutionary indoctrination at all costs. Make no mistake, it is nothing more than indoctrination, with deliberate misinformation fed to the public by way of false television programs, walking with caveman, Was Darwin Wrong (that Scrap mentioned) for example that simply promote untruths to deceived the public.

I'm not saying these scientists don't believe in evolution themselves, (most worship at its alter) but the idea that it is purely a scientific theory is naive to say the least. It's an entire philosophy and religion, linked to humanism, whose members are among the most fundamentalist of any religous group and who have a very definite and clear agende relating to values, morality, population control etc.

[Kev]

Bilbo, still trying to close thinsg down..

A few final issues, for me anyways...

Just to confirm, you are saying that all possible cases of humanoid ancestors have been rejected as false by the scientific community.

Sedimentary rock is not just that which is formed by deposits layed down by water. It can also be particles or materials of just about any kind, laid down over time by any method, and over time turned into rock. In other words yes, the bones that we find are mostly buried. Those exposed to the elements would have vanished by now.

It's not so much that we differ in our presuppositions. We also differ in our opinions of what constitutes evidence. We also differ in our definitions of what constitutes fact and theory.

Disagreeement on time is obviously a big issue. I would say that a dating method should not be rejected out of hand because it is known to sometimes produce innacurate results. I'd say we differ there. People often mistakenly reject things in this way, rejecting the whole concept on the basis of a few examples.

I'll tell you another issue I am willing to bet we differ fundamentally on. What comes first, the evidence or the theory? (story, explanation, whatever).

There isn't a single speciman that isn't rejected by parts of the evolutionary community. Basically in a nutshell, the finder and his team will attempt to promote and elavate their own discovery to being that of a true missing link, others in the scientific community will reject outright the notion and provide evidence against such classification.

There are few discoveries in science that could be more prestigious to its discovery than finding the mythical missing link between apes and man, it's the Holy Grail of evolutionary research and every paleontologist attempts (and undoubtably believes) that their find is THE missing link.

Eugene Dubios, Don Johannson, Mary and Richard Leakey, Raymod Dart for example are all world famous paelontologists who have insisted their finds were the missing links against the agreement of the rest of the evolutionary community.


I should say I hold no religious agenda either. Yes I believe in God, but I'm not a practicing Christian. As a teen growing up I wanted to be an evolutionist and paleontologist and help discover proof's of evolution and how we evolved from apes.

I loved the theory but wanted to know all about it and find the evidence for it rather than just know the story. For a couple of years I researched it intently and simply could not find any evidence to support the theory at all that couldn't explained in a completely different way, nearly always in a way that seemed to better fit the actual evidence.


If you believe in evolution that's fine for you, I have no interest in trying to 'convert' or dissuade you. I will just maintain however that as someone who has studied the debates on both sides for the last 15 years or so that evolutionary belief is the biggest myth of modern times with not a single piece of real evidence to support it.

[Andre]

I am told I am very open to information. Watched a Program on N G, the question asked, Was Darwin wrong. all I can say is watch the program if given the chance, interesting to say the leased.

I thought it was great too specially how his devote although I must say stupid religious sheep wife, was just kept in the dark over his future findings, Proved he was a compassionate good man at heart who didnt want to destroy her lifes faith she had built up, false or not.
Darwin; Good Man.

At the end of the day its all just names given to a dimensional process.To look into any side of it and live by one side alone is avoiding the real issue of why we chose to penatrate down here in the first place and it will keep those who choose sides continually seperate and alone as does any religion that has its people judge people or deeds,which automatically block unconditional love which is what you need to get out of this 3rd dimension.

I firmly belive in the fact that we have been allowed to evolve on many levels not just physically through the natuaral process of what we were raised up out of: the ground.

I belive in the evolutionary process and alot more than just that is behind it all, but also in a God,And I chooce God first above the study of its tools or processes; the type of God the religious would have you see in their old fashioned paintings etc does not exist as the highest form.

The highest form Of Godhead is the pure original energy before it expanded out and split into two ; before going further and further outward in its own evolution process through out all the dimensions of the void which we are all a part of.

We, I belive are within
God and God is also within us.
Eternity goes in all directions.

Unceasing electric light seperated from and out of unceasing love and became dual points that created the first relationship for God as his choice of experience. Physically ....BANG! As in fukking big Bang.It wasnt just by chance nothing is.

The One became two points which became three and formed once more in a trinity like a Son or a Sun . What brings us life? The Sun. The Son.

The two original points were like two dots like eyes the third point made the first platonic solid known as the triangle this happened not only on a flat plane but interdimensionally.
So bright with so much radiant love and unceasing light that you cant look upon it or them; (until your own energies or love frequency gets back to equal them).

God just doesnt fit into a white cloth dress and sandels with white flowing hair,although part of it can and does take on any form it so wishes depending on which dimesion you view it from and what the job is at hand.

We are in the 3rd dimension by our own choice because here is the most dense most filtered out area and we do this for the depth our own experience because that is what life is it is experience.

[Scrap]

Excel lance is the Godhead of all creativity

[Andre]

Excel lance is the Godhead of all creativity

Excel Lance My GoD ! And all along I thought it was Abba Elohim.