Chronological order of the bible

[Doug1029]

Any presently scientifically inexplicable phenomena is either presently paranormal or supernatural by definition.

Walter Cassels ("Supernatural Religion," available online) has written six chapters on the relationship of miracles to the Bible. In essence, Christianity cannot survive without miracles because a lack of them would mean that whatever knowledge is laid out in the Bible is accessible to rational thought - and that is not a miracle.

If you are going to claim that "miracles" are the product of an advanced technology, then science would require you to present some evidence supporting the conclusion that such a technology actually exists (or has existed). Your beliefs have been arrived at through "faith" and may be valid for you, but because they can't be verified by impartial observation, have no validity outside of yourself. We all have beliefs that we arrived at through "faith" (even us "scientists") that are valid only to us. This is an important issue whether we believe in god or not - because god is in your mind does not imply that you are in god's mind.

Doug

[cormac mac airt]

There is nothing magical about an advanced degree. Anybody with average intelligence can do it. It takes opportunity and a high level of persistence. But one does not have to be particularly brilliant. All an advanced degree does is indicate that a (presumably) impartial entity is willing to certify that the holder of the degree knows what he is doing in a certain field. Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) are in demand because they certify that the bearers are competent in a certain type of problem solving. That's all scientific work is - problem solving.

Science is not a set of findings or discoveries; it is a process for looking at nature. Those finds you listed are not science; it is the process of examining them that is (or isn't) science. More than anything else, research involves running down and tying up all the loose ends. And that is the one thing the posted articles didn't do. Perhaps in 1852 there were loose ends that couldn't be checked out, or perhaps the people who made the finds disturbed them so that the data was no longer available, or perhaps the people who made the finds didn't know what to check out or how to do it. At any rate, it wasn't done, so you (and we) are left with nothing but speculation and some useless artifacts.

People who disagree with scientific findings are not ignorant hicks - scientists do it all the time (Send a paper through peer review if you'd like to find out how nasty things can get. Even if you're right, you'll likely get your ears pinned back.). But people who do not know that they do not know the techniques of rational thinking and research and persist in putting out unsupported drivel instead of reliable work - those people ARE ignorant hicks.

Doug

I just want to point out that this is not entirely true. Later information which was not available to the original discoverers has, in many cases, shown that the original presentation was in error. This does not mean that the original discoverers were fabricating anything, just that their information was incomplete and therefore wrong, which happens quite often. Subsequent presentations, such as we've seen above (to which, in part, I posted a reply about earlier) that either don't know or purposely ignore that later information ARE both ignorant and fabricating their own "truth". The first of which can be cured through research, the latter of which shouldn't be taken seriously by any means.

cormac

[Jor-el]

That is indeed an odd definition. I think you constructed it so as to be able to feel persecuted.

I cannot feel persecuted by something that doesn't have the power to do so... and words don't make me feel persecuted... frustrated by others ignorance on certain subjects, yes that is a definite problem

[Jor-el]

There is nothing magical about an advanced degree. Anybody with average intelligence can do it. It takes opportunity and a high level of persistence. But one does not have to be particularly brilliant. All an advanced degree does is indicate that a (presumably) impartial entity is willing to certify that the holder of the degree knows what he is doing in a certain field. Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) are in demand because they certify that the bearers are competent in a certain type of problem solving. That's all scientific work is - problem solving.

Science is not a set of findings or discoveries; it is a process for looking at nature. Those finds you listed are not science; it is the process of examining them that is (or isn't) science. More than anything else, research involves running down and tying up all the loose ends. And that is the one thing the posted articles didn't do. Perhaps in 1852 there were loose ends that couldn't be checked out, or perhaps the people who made the finds disturbed them so that the data was no longer available, or perhaps the people who made the finds didn't know what to check out or how to do it. At any rate, it wasn't done, so you (and we) are left with nothing but speculation and some useless artifacts.

People who disagree with scientific findings are not ignorant hicks - scientists do it all the time (Send a paper through peer review if you'd like to find out how nasty things can get. Even if you're right, you'll likely get your ears pinned back.). But people who do not know that they do not know the techniques of rational thinking and research and persist in putting out unsupported drivel instead of reliable work - those people ARE ignorant hicks.

Doug

I have a degree, thank you in comparative religion, I also minored in a number of different fields that I was interested in, archaeology being one of them.

Science is a process of determining the fundamental laws and influences of nature, as such there can be no doubt that it is always an area in constant mutation, but there is such a thing as obstructionism in the field, not by the science itself, but by the scientists that populate it.

In the field of archaeology the loose ends as you call them are consistently ignored and relegated to the dark corner of the room and only become an issue when those findings threaten entire careers of many decades...

Influence, power and politics play as much a role in science as outside it, something many people are ignorant of and by some of the responses here, they don't even know the facts. But it is much easier to state that an error has been made than to accept the cold numbers those facts proclaim...

Leaky was blackmailed into backing down, or get his funding cut off. There were NO red pebbles of a higher strata buried at the level of the skeleton, both Reck and Leaky checked in painstaking detail, it is there in his notes.

The red pebbles and limestone chips were found in the crate after it was unpacked in Germany, they are not original to the burial site and this is even admitted in the Louis Leaky article on Wikipedia...

While he was gone, the opposition worked up some "evidence" of the intrusion of Olduvai Man into an earlier layer, evidence that seemed convincing at the time, but is missing and unverifiable now.

Numerous Archaeologists, Paleontologists, Geologists and other professionals have lost their jobs because of their insistence of the facts...

And you guys seem to just eat it all up as if it were gospel.

[Jor-el]

I just want to point out that this is not entirely true. Later information which was not available to the original discoverers has, in many cases, shown that the original presentation was in error. This does not mean that the original discoverers were fabricating anything, just that their information was incomplete and therefore wrong, which happens quite often. Subsequent presentations, such as we've seen above (to which, in part, I posted a reply about earlier) that either don't know or purposely ignore that later information ARE both ignorant and fabricating their own "truth". The first of which can be cured through research, the latter of which shouldn't be taken seriously by any means.

cormac

You neglect one or two points, purposeful manipulation of data and evidence to undermine facts found by the very professionals in charge of the digs.

Such as the convenient red pebbles found by geologists Percy Boswell and J. D. Solomon that then conveniently disappeared after the find was discredited as being of extreme antiquity.

Such as the firing of Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre after her find and her refusal to back down from the age of the artifacts she found that were tested and confirmed...

The list goes on and on and on...

[cormac mac airt]

You neglect one or two points, purposeful manipulation of data and evidence to undermine facts found by the very professionals in charge of the digs.

Such as the convenient red pebbles found by geologists Percy Boswell and J. D. Solomon that then conveniently disappeared after the find was discredited as being of extreme antiquity.

Such as the firing of Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre after her find and her refusal to back down from the age of the artifacts she found that were tested and confirmed...

The list goes on and on and on...

You've been purposefully misrepresenting the evidence from the start. In the case of Oldowan Man, the bed was determined NOT to be as old as originally believed as well as the age NOT being anywhere near the original date. Which BTW was claimed by Reck to be half a million (500,000) years old. That you didn't know that neither the bed nor Oldowan Man is as old as originally claimed does not negate the fact.

Kind of sad that you'd bring up Virginia Steen-McIntyre considering the discovery in question was NOT hers to begin with, but that of Cynthia Irwin-Williams who didn't agree with her interpretation either. A good bit of information on the situation can be found in the "Ancient Coverup" thread from 2010, Post #69 by Swede. Who BTW is an expert in the field.

So I'd agree with another poster here who said you cherry-pick your facts. I think that's obvious to many at this point.

cormac

[Doug1029]

Leaky was blackmailed into backing down, or get his funding cut off. There were NO red pebbles of a higher strata buried at the level of the skeleton, both Reck and Leaky checked in painstaking detail, it is there in his notes.

The red pebbles and limestone chips were found in the crate after it was unpacked in Germany, they are not original to the burial site and this is even admitted in the Louis Leaky article on Wikipedia...

While he was gone, the opposition worked up some "evidence" of the intrusion of Olduvai Man into an earlier layer, evidence that seemed convincing at the time, but is missing and unverifiable now.

Numerous Archaeologists, Paleontologists, Geologists and other professionals have lost their jobs because of their insistence of the facts...

What you are talking about is professional misconduct. What did the review board say about this when charges were brought before it? If they weren't brought before it, why not? If you genuinely know of something, why are you bringing it up on UM instead of filing charges with the appropriate professional societies? You could get the unethical folks fired if you're right.

Doug

Edited July 10, 2013 by Doug1029

[Doug1029]

Such as the firing of Geologist Virginia Steen-McIntyre after her find and her refusal to back down from the age of the artifacts she found that were tested and confirmed...

The list goes on and on and on...

The list should include the Americas. There has been an on-going debate among archeologists over the last 20 or so years concerning pre-Ice Age human habitation of North America. I have a copy of a report claiming a 22,000-year age for a site in South America at a time when 12,000 YBP was thought to be the maximum age for paleo-Indians. That's a significant difference and there was a lot of rancor over it. But it is now accepted that Indians (or someone) occupied the Americas long before the ice-free corridor opened in the Wisconsinan Ice Sheet.

I also know of some firings that had nothing to do with findings. More accurately: they had everything to do with a lack of findings. These folks then tried to blame the firing on their contrary findings - give me a break. People lie about such things all the time.

I have never personally encountered a problem with contrary findings when I had done the work needed to back them up. Usually bad science gets shot down prior to publication. I'm wondering if that's what happened in the cases you cite.

Doug

[Doug1029]

You neglect one or two points, purposeful manipulation of data and evidence to undermine facts found by the very professionals in charge of the digs.

I deal with statistical data. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of measurements go into even a small project. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fake data without getting caught? I'll give you an example: off the top of your head, name 100 digits. Bet you can't create a random distribution without actually counting them.

Remember Gregor Mendel? A fine god-fearing Christian. And a monk. He faked some of his data and the cheating was detected, albeit a couple centuries after the fact. He was right about genetics, but for the wrong reasons.

Professional misconduct does occur, particularly when there are large amounts of money involved. But when it happens, it should be brought before the professional societies for review. The person who knows of professional wrongdoing and does not report it is as guilty as the perpetrator.

Doug

[Jor-el]

You've been purposefully misrepresenting the evidence from the start. In the case of Oldowan Man, the bed was determined NOT to be as old as originally believed as well as the age NOT being anywhere near the original date. Which BTW was claimed by Reck to be half a million (500,000) years old. That you didn't know that neither the bed nor Oldowan Man is as old as originally claimed does not negate the fact.

Let me continue quoting directly from where your image leaves off...

The news only momentarily depressed Louis. He was still convinced that the basic premise behind Olduvai Man—that Homo sapiens was of great antiquity—was correct, and he felt certain that his Kanam and Kanjera finds carried the proof. "Everyone admits that Homo sapiens must go back to the beginning of the Pleistocene at least—somewhere," he wrote to Burkitt about his new fossils. 'The question has always been, Where? And the evidence ... seems to suggest that the answer is 'the region of the great central African lakes.'" Hut even Louis knew that proving his claim was not easily done. "1 can forsee great rights when I get back," he wrote to Hopwood from his last camp at a site called Apis Rock. "Enough. Life is hard but good & somehow we will get results worthwhile & make the world believe."

http://books.google....an,&f=false

It seems that the statements did not convince Leaky... go figure.

The layers of rock found at Olduvai Gorge are labeled in the sketch above. The bed in which the anatomically modern skeleton was found by Reck, Bed II, is currently dated as being 1.15 million to 1.7 million years old.

Reck identified a sequence of five beds at Olduvai Gorge. The first four beds are water-laid volcanic tuffs of various colors. bed I is grey and yellow. Bed II is generally of a buff color, although the upper portion has a reddish tint. Bed III is bright red, while Bed IV is grey, or brownish. Bed V, a loesslike deposit, is brownish. 628.

The conventionally accepted ages of these strata are currently:

• Bed I: 1.70 million to 2.00 million years old
  
• Bed II: 1.15 million to 1.70 million years old
  
• Bed II and IV: 700,000 to 1.15 million years old
  
• Bed V: divided into several formations dating back to about 400,000 years
  

Reck understood the general ages of the strata, which were considered slightly younger than they are today but still placed Bed II at around 800,000 years old (when the supposed distant predecessors of man such as Java man were thought to have been living), and knew that the finding of an anatomically modern skeleton at such an early period would call into question modern man's descent from Java man, and therefore he "carefully considered the possibility that the human skeleton had arrived in Bed II through burial or earth movements" (Cremo & Thompson 630).

Reck himself wrote in 1914:

The bed in which the human remains were found, without any accompanying cultural objects, showed no signs of disturbance. The spot appeared exactly like any other in the horizon. There was no evidence of any refilled hole or grave.

Kind of sad that you'd bring up Virginia Steen-McIntyre considering the discovery in question was NOT hers to begin with, but that of Cynthia Irwin-Williams who didn't agree with her interpretation either. A good bit of information on the situation can be found in the "Ancient Coverup" thread from 2010, Post #69 by Swede. Who BTW is an expert in the field.

So I'd agree with another poster here who said you cherry-pick your facts. I think that's obvious to many at this point.

Cormac

She didn't agree but the dating stands and is verified... you have an explanation for that?

http://www.bibliotec...ncia_life18.htm

During the microscopic examination of the phenocrysts, Dr. Steen- McIntyre detected a phenomenon she described as resembling a picket fence. The samples, instead of having fresh-looking crystal surfaces, looked rather shaggy, having a “picket fence” appearance. The volcanic glass fragments were also weathered and had absorbed water from the soil in which they lay until excavated.

Some of the vesicles had puddles of water in them, indicating they were of considerable age. In previous research, Dr. Steen-McIntyre had performed dating procedures on ash layers at Yellowstone National Park (Steen McIntyre 1980). The samples from Hueyatlaco bore a striking resemblance to those from Yellowstone dated at 251,000 years.

Some zircon crystals from two of the volcanic layers, the Hueyatlaco Ash and the Tetela Brown Mud, were given by Dr. Steen-McIntyre to another geochemist, C. W. Naeser, to process for dating. Naeser used the zircon fission-track dating method, which relies on radioactive properties of certain elements. The results from this process demonstrated the Tetela Brown Mud to be 600,000 ± 340,000 years BP, and the Hueyatlaco ash was determined to be 370,000 ± 200,000 years BP.

The minimum age ranged from 170,000 years to 260,000 years BP (Steen-McIntyre, personal communication with Suzanne Clark).

Szabo’s results, using the uranium-series method, ranged in age from 180,000 to 260,000 years BP. Naeser’s zircon fission-track method showed ages ranging from 170,000 years to 260,000 years BP. Both sets of dates agreed with Dr. Steen-McIntyre’s observations of 251,000 years. Three separate methods, calculated by three separate geologists, yielded similar results, yet the results met with skepticism and hostility.

As members of the team began to complete their respective dating methods and the results were presented to her, Irwin-Williams became critical of the results and indicated her dissatisfaction in all of the publications regarding the Valsequillo project by various team members. Irwin-Williams was clearly distressed that date estimates place human presence at Valsequillo long before 30,000 BP, the earliest date she could accept.

It is not improbable that Irwin-Williams feared her career was in jeopardy in light of such dates.

It is very easy to divert attention from the facts... especially when they can't be undermined.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Jor-el

[Jor-el]

What you are talking about is professional misconduct. What did the review board say about this when charges were brought before it? If they weren't brought before it, why not? If you genuinely know of something, why are you bringing it up on UM instead of filing charges with the appropriate professional societies? You could get the unethical folks fired if you're right.

Doug

My friend, the parties are long dead in one case and the other has been publicized all over the world but happened over 30 years ago, I think everyone who is interested in the subject has already formed an opinion...

[Jor-el]

The list should include the Americas. There has been an on-going debate among archeologists over the last 20 or so years concerning pre-Ice Age human habitation of North America. I have a copy of a report claiming a 22,000-year age for a site in South America at a time when 12,000 YBP was thought to be the maximum age for paleo-Indians. That's a significant difference and there was a lot of rancor over it. But it is now accepted that Indians (or someone) occupied the Americas long before the ice-free corridor opened in the Wisconsinan Ice Sheet.

I also know of some firings that had nothing to do with findings. More accurately: they had everything to do with a lack of findings. These folks then tried to blame the firing on their contrary findings - give me a break. People lie about such things all the time.

I have never personally encountered a problem with contrary findings when I had done the work needed to back them up. Usually bad science gets shot down prior to publication. I'm wondering if that's what happened in the cases you cite.

Doug

Form your own opinion before you decide then...

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/esp_ciencia_life18.htm

[Jor-el]

I deal with statistical data. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands of measurements go into even a small project. Do you have any idea how hard it is to fake data without getting caught? I'll give you an example: off the top of your head, name 100 digits. Bet you can't create a random distribution without actually counting them.

Remember Gregor Mendel? A fine god-fearing Christian. And a monk. He faked some of his data and the cheating was detected, albeit a couple centuries after the fact. He was right about genetics, but for the wrong reasons.

Professional misconduct does occur, particularly when there are large amounts of money involved. But when it happens, it should be brought before the professional societies for review. The person who knows of professional wrongdoing and does not report it is as guilty as the perpetrator.

Doug

Who said anything about faking all the data, I stated that not all the data is taken into account, something quite different... that not taking into account incudes faking reasons to invalidate the data.... ie "a mistake must have been made".... heck even you did it...

I also know of some firings that had nothing to do with findings. More accurately: they had everything to do with a lack of findings. These folks then tried to blame the firing on their contrary findings - give me a break. People lie about such things all the time.

I have never personally encountered a problem with contrary findings when I had done the work needed to back them up. Usually bad science gets shot down prior to publication. I'm wondering if that's what happened in the cases you cite.

You subconsciously made a choice on how to proceed... but your choice is already made...

[cormac mac airt]

Let me continue quoting directly from where your image leaves off...

The news only momentarily depressed Louis. He was still convinced that the basic premise behind Olduvai Man—that Homo sapiens was of great antiquity—was correct, and he felt certain that his Kanam and Kanjera finds carried the proof. "Everyone admits that Homo sapiens must go back to the beginning of the Pleistocene at least—somewhere," he wrote to Burkitt about his new fossils. 'The question has always been, Where? And the evidence ... seems to suggest that the answer is 'the region of the great central African lakes.'" Hut even Louis knew that proving his claim was not easily done. "1 can forsee great rights when I get back," he wrote to Hopwood from his last camp at a site called Apis Rock. "Enough. Life is hard but good & somehow we will get results worthwhile & make the world believe."

http://books.google....an,&f=false

It seems that the statements did not convince Leaky... go figure.

The layers of rock found at Olduvai Gorge are labeled in the sketch above. The bed in which the anatomically modern skeleton was found by Reck, Bed II, is currently dated as being 1.15 million to 1.7 million years old.

Reck identified a sequence of five beds at Olduvai Gorge. The first four beds are water-laid volcanic tuffs of various colors. bed I is grey and yellow. Bed II is generally of a buff color, although the upper portion has a reddish tint. Bed III is bright red, while Bed IV is grey, or brownish. Bed V, a loesslike deposit, is brownish. 628.

The conventionally accepted ages of these strata are currently:

• Bed I: 1.70 million to 2.00 million years old
  
• Bed II: 1.15 million to 1.70 million years old
  
• Bed II and IV: 700,000 to 1.15 million years old
  
• Bed V: divided into several formations dating back to about 400,000 years
  

Reck understood the general ages of the strata, which were considered slightly younger than they are today but still placed Bed II at around 800,000 years old (when the supposed distant predecessors of man such as Java man were thought to have been living), and knew that the finding of an anatomically modern skeleton at such an early period would call into question modern man's descent from Java man, and therefore he "carefully considered the possibility that the human skeleton had arrived in Bed II through burial or earth movements" (Cremo & Thompson 630).

Reck himself wrote in 1914:

The bed in which the human remains were found, without any accompanying cultural objects, showed no signs of disturbance. The spot appeared exactly like any other in the horizon. There was no evidence of any refilled hole or grave.

She didn't agree but the dating stands and is verified... you have an explanation for that?

http://www.bibliotec...ncia_life18.htm

During the microscopic examination of the phenocrysts, Dr. Steen- McIntyre detected a phenomenon she described as resembling a picket fence. The samples, instead of having fresh-looking crystal surfaces, looked rather shaggy, having a “picket fence” appearance. The volcanic glass fragments were also weathered and had absorbed water from the soil in which they lay until excavated.

Some of the vesicles had puddles of water in them, indicating they were of considerable age. In previous research, Dr. Steen-McIntyre had performed dating procedures on ash layers at Yellowstone National Park (Steen McIntyre 1980). The samples from Hueyatlaco bore a striking resemblance to those from Yellowstone dated at 251,000 years.

Some zircon crystals from two of the volcanic layers, the Hueyatlaco Ash and the Tetela Brown Mud, were given by Dr. Steen-McIntyre to another geochemist, C. W. Naeser, to process for dating. Naeser used the zircon fission-track dating method, which relies on radioactive properties of certain elements. The results from this process demonstrated the Tetela Brown Mud to be 600,000 ± 340,000 years BP, and the Hueyatlaco ash was determined to be 370,000 ± 200,000 years BP.

The minimum age ranged from 170,000 years to 260,000 years BP (Steen-McIntyre, personal communication with Suzanne Clark).

Szabo’s results, using the uranium-series method, ranged in age from 180,000 to 260,000 years BP. Naeser’s zircon fission-track method showed ages ranging from 170,000 years to 260,000 years BP. Both sets of dates agreed with Dr. Steen-McIntyre’s observations of 251,000 years. Three separate methods, calculated by three separate geologists, yielded similar results, yet the results met with skepticism and hostility.

As members of the team began to complete their respective dating methods and the results were presented to her, Irwin-Williams became critical of the results and indicated her dissatisfaction in all of the publications regarding the Valsequillo project by various team members. Irwin-Williams was clearly distressed that date estimates place human presence at Valsequillo long before 30,000 BP, the earliest date she could accept.

It is not improbable that Irwin-Williams feared her career was in jeopardy in light of such dates.

It is very easy to divert attention from the facts... especially when they can't be undermined.

Ignoring what it says at the very bottom of Page 66 will not make it go away. To whit:

Subsequent Carbon 14 tests have dated the skeleton to 17,000 BC.

Quote Reck all you want, it still doesn't alter that fact that the tests done is England on the samples showed he was wrong.

In

In a letter dated 3 November 1974 to Alan L. Bryan, a colleague in Alberta, she said:

My capsule comment on the situation (expletives deleted) is that this is one of the most irresponsible public announcements with which it has ever been my misfortune to become involved. Of the three dating methods used by Malde on the materials, two are so new that we have essentially no information on their validity. The third (fission-track dating) gave an anomalous result of about 300,000 ± 300,000 (in other words, no date at all).

That's pretty well cut and dried. There were two questionable dating methods used and a third which essentially gave no meaningful date. That's a no-brainer.

cormac

[Harte]

The Hueyatlaco site might be genuine. Without confirmation, however, it must remain a genuine puzzle.

Maybe this will help in that regard:

PHOENIX -- An amateur archaeologist said he has made a discovery that could change the theory of how America was first settled, but the tough part may be getting someone to listen.

Ken Stanton can hardly control his enthusiasm as he shows off a site in north-central Phoenix that he says contains some ancient artifacts.

“You can see them all through here, that's an artifact there,” said Stanton, as he point them out.

And while to most people it may look like a pile of rocks, Stanton said this site could change everything we think about how the Americas were settled.

“This would be the first Acheulean stone tools, proof of it in the Americas period," Stanton said.

Acheulean tools are stone tools that date anywhere from 150,000 to 1.4 million years ago.

Source

Also, more here.

Jor-el should run with this instead of bogus crap long ago disproven.

At least this is recent, and doesn't in fact violate any established theory - it simply indicates previously unknown migrations of either H. Sapiens or one of his predecessors like later forms of Erectus, just like Hueyatlaco might indicate.

Let me point out that it has already been established that Erectus knew at least something about traveling across the ocean, at least for short distances (Flores Island, Malta finds.) (EDIT: Sorry, that was Crete, IIRC, not Malta.)

Drop Cremo, Jor-el, and work with actual science. It's more exciting because it's real.

Harte

Edited July 11, 2013 by Harte

[Mr Walker]

Truly amazing!!!!

fullywired

Naa! fairly typical for a boy growing up where and when I did.

Some of my school mates went on to do truly amazing things like flying one of the the last aircraft into saigon in the vietnam war to evacute australian personel while dodging sams, along the only narrow air corridor available, then retiring to smuggle bibles into russia and the soviet union.

Or getting out of iran about 3 hours before the borders were closed and the revolution began, or having everything stolen by armed bandits while travelling on a train in india and walking into the embassy in a loin cloth. Or establishing the english language school at the univeristy in brunei for the sultan of brunei He asked the sultan what the budget was, and the sultan replied "What do you mean budget? just buy everything you need and hire the best staff you can get".,

Or setting up the chinese equivalent of our satellite television network. Or teaching at chinese and japanese schools for most of your life. Even my nephews doctorate in nuclear molecular biology is more amazing. Oh and one boy and one girl from my class of about 20 high school graduates went on to be well known australian actors and television/ film stars.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

Walter Cassels ("Supernatural Religion," available online) has written six chapters on the relationship of miracles to the Bible. In essence, Christianity cannot survive without miracles because a lack of them would mean that whatever knowledge is laid out in the Bible is accessible to rational thought - and that is not a miracle.

If you are going to claim that "miracles" are the product of an advanced technology, then science would require you to present some evidence supporting the conclusion that such a technology actually exists (or has existed). Your beliefs have been arrived at through "faith" and may be valid for you, but because they can't be verified by impartial observation, have no validity outside of yourself. We all have beliefs that we arrived at through "faith" (even us "scientists") that are valid only to us. This is an important issue whether we believe in god or not - because god is in your mind does not imply that you are in god's mind.

Doug

No it takes other evidence to know that you are in god's mind lol.

I dont have beliefs. I have assumptions and potentials based on demonstrated physical realities. I am not saying that, when an "angel" or entityl manifests physically in front of me, and is visible for a long distance around me to others, that this IS a hologram or a being arriving by transmat. Just that I have those alternatives scientifically available to me, when someone from 2000 years ago did not Miracles predate christinity just as god predates christianity. God and miracle are just human words for certain things. Neither is the "right" or most descriptively accurate word, and many other words have been used and are still used, to describe them.

ps of course all the words/knowledge in the bible is/are accessible to rational thought. They were written by humans, and thus every word and every concept is available to all other humans, because our minds all function the same. Read the bible and your mind comes to understand the knowledge, words and concepts, stored in the minds of people from 4000 to 2000 years ago. You can do the same for ancient sumerian and babylonian egyptian or chinese writing.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mr Walker

[Doug1029]

My friend, the parties are long dead in one case and the other has been publicized all over the world but happened over 30 years ago, I think everyone who is interested in the subject has already formed an opinion...

So what have the professional journals said about these cases? You probably can't find actual scientific articles on all of them, but at least some should have been examined by genuine experts.

Doug

[Doug1029]

No it takes other evidence to know that you are in god's mind lol.

I dont have beliefs. I have assumptions and potentials based on demonstrated physical realities. I am not saying that, when an "angel" or entityl manifests physically in front of me, and is visible for a long distance around me to others, that this IS a hologram or a being arriving by transmat. Just that I have those alternatives scientifically available to me, when someone from 2000 years ago did not Miracles predate christinity just as god predates christianity. God and miracle are just human words for certain things. Neither is the "right" or most descriptively accurate word, and many other words have been used and are still used, to describe them.

Some Quakers believe that "angels" can be people you know and have known for a long time. An inspired bit of wisdom or a kind act could be a message from god. "Angels" are only messengers anyway, so why could a human not carry the message? Kind of blurs the bounds between the physical and the divine.

Quakers have deliberately avoided the creation of a dogma that tells people how they have to believe. As a result you find a lot of free thinkers in Quaker meetings.

Doug

Edited July 11, 2013 by Doug1029

[Jor-el]

So what have the professional journals said about these cases? You probably can't find actual scientific articles on all of them, but at least some should have been examined by genuine experts.

Doug

Many of them were reported by the journals themselves... that's why we know about them.

[Doug1029]

Many of them were reported by the journals themselves... that's why we know about them.

In other words: science correcting its mistakes as expected.

Doug

[Frank Merton]

If God exists then everyone is in His mind all the time; ergo no God. There are moral problems with saying a being exists who could stop the suffering but doesn't, no matter what sort of myth you invent to try to explain it all away. It's really not brain surgery here.

[GoldenWolf]

If God exists then everyone is in His mind all the time; ergo no God. There are moral problems with saying a being exists who could stop the suffering but doesn't, no matter what sort of myth you invent to try to explain it all away. It's really not brain surgery here.

I've tried explaining that many times the past couple years on this board, they don't understand.

[Jor-el]

Ignoring what it says at the very bottom of Page 66 will not make it go away. To whit:

Subsequent Carbon 14 tests have dated the skeleton to 17,000 BC.

Seriously, they dated it? (as if I didn't know)

I wonder how, since they did not use the skull, and the rest of the skeleton disappeared from the Munich during the 2nd World War....

The museum director provided some small fragments of bone, which Protsch said were "most likely" part of the original skeleton.

Yeah science in action...

Oh, another thing.... C-14 has a half life of ~5,568 years, The maximum theoretical detection limit is about 100,000 years and he wanted to date a fossil that was supposedly over 500.000 years old using this method... what does that tell us?

Quote Reck all you want, it still doesn't alter that fact that the tests done is England on the samples showed he was wrong.

If I'm quoting Reck its because the testing is BS, as I have demonstrated above... You do not use bone fragments from an unknown or doubtful source to test the age of a known fossil... I think that's pretty basic.

You do not use a test that has an upper limiting factor inferior to the supposed age of the fossil in question... I think that's pretty basic as well.

But I think we have said all we are going to usefully say to one another... good luck with your belief in evolution.

Quote

In a letter dated 3 November 1974 to Alan L. Bryan, a colleague in Alberta, she said:

My capsule comment on the situation (expletives deleted) is that this is one of the most irresponsible public announcements with which it has ever been my misfortune to become involved. Of the three dating methods used by Malde on the materials, two are so new that we have essentially no information on their validity. The third (fission-track dating) gave an anomalous result of about 300,000 ± 300,000 (in other words, no date at all).

That's pretty well cut and dried. There were two questionable dating methods used and a third which essentially gave no meaningful date. That's a no-brainer.

cormac

So you quote Irwin-Williams and you again ignore the evidence...

It seems Irwin-Williams got the fission track date wrong. (It was in the article... you ignored it.)

Steen-McIntyre, in a letter to J.L. Bada, cites the date given by that method as 370,000 ± 200,000; a wide range of error, but hardly meaningless. The experimental methods (Tephrahydration and Uranium series) have since been found to be reasonably reliable.

Believe what you want, but get your facts straight and be open minded.

[Jor-el]

The Hueyatlaco site might be genuine. Without confirmation, however, it must remain a genuine puzzle.

Maybe this will help in that regard:

Source

Also, more here.

Thank you for sharing this Harte, I will keep those links and use them in future...

Here is another in the same vein...

http://www.edconrad.com/

This is proof that man is not merely a few hundred thousand or million years old and it is backed by testing...

Jor-el should run with this instead of bogus crap long ago disproven.

At least this is recent, and doesn't in fact violate any established theory - it simply indicates previously unknown migrations of either H. Sapiens or one of his predecessors like later forms of Erectus, just like Hueyatlaco might indicate.

Let me point out that it has already been established that Erectus knew at least something about traveling across the ocean, at least for short distances (Flores Island, Malta finds.) (EDIT: Sorry, that was Crete, IIRC, not Malta.)

Drop Cremo, Jor-el, and work with actual science. It's more exciting because it's real.

Harte

I would drop him in a heartbeat if many of his assertions weren't in fact true, even if he used many examples that were in fact disproven... there are a number that are not... Hueyatlaco being one of them. Olduvai man being another.

There are dozens of others he didn't mention, like the ones your links provided, but the point is that there aren't supposed to be humans or even humanlike beings over 100 million years ago... and people are surprised and shout hoax when we have human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock bed...

No evolution as it stands is in error, unimaginably huge error... I'm sure you will disagree, but that is how I see it after the evidence is all wheighed.