Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

my theory why we have such short lifespans


  • Please log in to reply
174 replies to this topic

#136    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:34 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 10 February 2011 - 01:07 AM, said:

reference: The Deluge Story in stone, by B.C Nelson, 949, p. 156
Reference: The Flood in the light of the Bible, Geology, and Archeology, by A.M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69


digital artist research paper said:

China - This flood story apparently comes from the United States, not China. It has
been traced back to Nelson’s 1931 story “The deluge story in stone”. Nelson says that
according to the Hihking, Fuhi escaped the waters of a deluge, and reappeared as the
first man at the reproduction of a renovated world, accompanied by his wife, three sons
and three daughters. The temple illustration is a separate account which Nelson
attributes to Gützlaff, presumably Karl Gützlaff, a Lutheran missionary in China around
1825. Gützlaff reports it as a picture of Noah, not Fuhi. There is no further references
to allow either account to be checked and the temple illustration has not been found by
anyone else.

So in essence, it is a story, taken from a story, using an unsubstantiated cave find that in the nearly 200 years since the supposed find has not been found by anyone else.

This of course does not answer the question I previously posted.


#137    sam12six

sam12six

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,371 posts
  • Joined:07 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:42 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 10 February 2011 - 01:07 AM, said:

reference: The Deluge Story in stone, by B.C Nelson, 949, p. 156
Reference: The Flood in the light of the Bible, Geology, and Archeology, by A.M. Rehwinkel, 1957, p. 69


I thought we were going to be using information that can't be found in nasty books.

On second thought, Ummm What?

How is this any type of response to the concept of shamwows drying the flood waters or the size of the ark?

Actually, on third thought, never mind - you're right. I'm not sure what your contention is but you're right.


#138    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:46 AM

View Postphysicsolved, on 09 February 2011 - 02:08 PM, said:

"MAY …. well have had long, independent evolutionary histories stretching as far back as 2 billion years. "

(note: definition of the word "may.": to indicate possibility
to express a strong wish:
Conclusion: just because you wish possibilities…doesn't make it so.)

http://idiom.wishfull thinking : (believing that something is true or that something will happen just because one wishes that it were true or would happen)

"Not appear to be"= they way "I" see it…doesn't appear to be the way you see it. Yet there is no "appearance" of facts to the contrary.


"This research" ( I assume yours)…proves nothing. Conjectures many things.

'..Knowledge obtained."…Then knowledge interpreted based on predisposition.

"..computer functioning." As a direct result of the functionality of the HUMAN brain. Brain= intelligently designed computer. Question: Does the apes brain work? Rhetorical. Does the ape know how to use the equally designed computer. A computer designed relative to the HUMAN brain? This explains "how" the computer works as well as the human brain. Reiteration: Intelligent design verses chance. The chance that an ape or a fish or a microscopic organism will ever "use" much less "design" a computer.

Chance mentality= "lack of cohesive or relevant"…mental resolve or intellectual fortitude.



"there is MUCH more to becoming credentialed'..than self-delusion and wishful thinking.

Credentials= "interpret…the meaning." You said it.

I am not being so "confident and assertive" rather logical, reasonable. Using the power of my computer brain and the functionality of the "observational" eye in processing knowledge so as to deduce reasonable, logical and observational "conclusions." However I do not relegate others "interpretations" so long as these deductions are in harmony with ..logic, reasonableness and observation.

My "degrees" naturally necessitates my "digress"(degrees) away from the myriad interpretations of "data" that are extant today. Those degrees naturally represent "deviation" from the ability to logically, reasonably and coherently( consistently and accurately) process knowledge and then logically, reasonably and coherently form appropriate conclusions. My posts will stand on there own merits as both "degree of knowledge" as well as "ability to reasonably , logically and coherently" form conclusions relative to such "degree of knowledge".

This part of your post represents one thing: evolutionary condescension.

"Dating."…: "As a consequence, the radiocarbon method shows limitations on dating of materials that are younger than the industrial era.

""The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.... It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half comes out to be accepted. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates." …
Not only is carbon 14 dating limited in its theorectical usefulness any farther back in time than 50,000 years,3 but its dating accuracy seems to be in question for anything greater 4 or 5 thousand years. This is possibly do to the fact that the 14C atmospheric concentration (relative to 12C) is rising and is not the same as it was only a few thousand years ago. ( If man had any "chance" of using this "farce dating system" ………..man has went and screwed it up again.)

Your calibration "theory" does not alter these facts to any significant degree.

Question? How does your calibration answer the following questions:

When did the world begin. What date. When did man arrive? What date? How old is the "attique yomin." How intelligent is he? What was the date of human speech? What was the date when humans realized that fire was hot? What was the date when humans climbed out of the cave into the light? What was the date when a fish meandered to the seashore? What was the duration of time that it took this fish to evolve to higher life form? What time period would have allowed this fish to live that long without rotting( so as to evolve)? What date was it that proteins and amino acids simultaneously/spontaneously "came to be" ( one without the other precludes "one or the other") etc…

Does your "dating methods" (utterly deficient) ..answer these questions?

You are correct: "there are a number of other methods that are utilized." to vainly attempt to "crutch up" evolutionary dogma. A dogma that could not be appropriately validated even if a great sequoia tree were the crutch.

You have provided no, "corroborative substantiated" proofs for your position. Thus until you do so it would be quite unusual for you to ask for such from me as if you have already validated yourself and your own positions. This lack of substantiation should (verses is) also be "apparent to all the readers.." Thus it would seem, due to this reality that , " you will not likely garner any degree of respect or support."

Sweat ( oops…swede: "Keep in mind that closing your eyes to the facts does not make them go away.."


I have presented some facts. However, as is  predominately the case most things presented as facts are not FACTS at all. Thus due to that reality most of my posts represent "observation, logic, reasonableness" relative to potentialities verses real proven facts.

Can you be so modest? If not then , "Your next steps forward will rapidly reinforce this."


.


CALIBRATION..........C A LIBERATION. cALIBRATION= THE SELF ASSURED OPINION THAT THIS WITTY TWEEKING OF "LAUGHABLE DATING PROCESS" SOMEHOW "LIBERATES" MAN FROM THE BELIEF IN INTELLIGENT DESIGN.

1) It may be that your close-reading/research capabilities are not serving you well. Had you made the effort to explore the second reference, you would have found the following:

  For example, the microscopic fossil shown on the left below comes from 2 billion year old rock.


This second reference was intentionally provided in order to clarify the initial quote and reference to waterborne microbes.

http://evolution.ber...stfossils.shtml

2) This next section would appear to be composed of yet another round of incoherent linguistic play.

3) Credentials - Are we then to take this section as a confirmation of the fact that you do not, indeed, have any legitimate training or experience in the fields in which you profess to be qualified?

4) Re: Dating. It would appear that this would contain a quote from another source. Three points. 1) Quoting a source without citation is considered plagiarism. This is highly frowned upon both professionally and within these pages. In more rigorous environments, your career could be over. 2) From the phrasing of this reference, it would not appear to come from a qualified source. 3) Given the date figure presented in the reference, it would appear to be quite outdated.

5) Questions:

Re: Date of planet. Figures vary somewhat, but they generally fall between ~ 4.5 and 4.6 billion years

http://pubs.usgs.gov...eotime/age.html

Re: First man - Your question here is decidedly vague. Are you referring to Homo sapiens, H. sapiens sapiens, or earlier/co-existing members of the line? For starters, please re-read:

http://anthro.paloma.../mod_homo_4.htm

Re: First land animals - Current research indicates a period circa 380 - 360 million BP. See below:

http://news.uchicago...p?asset_id=1458

http://www.ucmp.berk...ds/tetrafr.html

http://www.livescien...ppearances.html

Re: Earliest controlled use of fire. While there are potential indications of the controlled use of fire as early as 400Kya, there is sound documentation for this practice by 300 - 250 Kya. See below. Also note the meticulous and detailed nature of the research that goes into these determinations.

http://www.tau.ac.il...FireJHE2007.pdf

http://docs.google.c...akteqfvdfU_gChw

And the qualified documentation in support of your position?

Edited to add: And reasonably current. Your fledgling first attempts at documentation, even discounting the bias, are sadly outdated.

.

Edited by Swede, 10 February 2011 - 01:56 AM.


#139    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,633 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:59 AM

View Postsam12six, on 10 February 2011 - 01:42 AM, said:

I thought we were going to be using information that can't be found in nasty books.

On second thought, Ummm What?

How is this any type of response to the concept of shamwows drying the flood waters or the size of the ark?

Actually, on third thought, never mind - you're right. I'm not sure what your contention is but you're right.

It's pretty apparent, sam12six. He has to rely on books and such written 50 - 80 years ago and pretending that nothing has been learned since then. Kind of like sticking ones head in the sand and complaining to everyone else that it's dark outside.  :rolleyes:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#140    kmt_sesh

kmt_sesh

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • 7,781 posts
  • Joined:08 Jul 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:08 AM

View PostSwede, on 10 February 2011 - 01:46 AM, said:

...

Edited to add: And reasonably current. Your fledgling first attempts at documentation, even discounting the bias, are sadly outdated.

.

LOL Wow, Swede, you're a great optimist. It's a quality I sadly lack. I gave up long ago in expecting a coherent, well-devised, and productive counter-argument supported by appropriate corroboration.

Maybe we're expecting too much.  :lol:

Edited by kmt_sesh, 10 February 2011 - 02:11 AM.

Posted Image
Words of wisdom from Richard Clopton:
For every credibility gap there is a gullibility fill.

Visit My Blog!

#141    cormac mac airt

cormac mac airt

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,633 posts
  • Joined:18 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee, USA

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:20 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 February 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

LOL Wow, Swede, you're a great optimist. It's a quality I sadly lack. I gave up long ago in expecting a coherent, well-devised, and productive counter-argument supported by appropriate corroboration.

Maybe we're expecting too much.  :lol:


Actually that anyone expected anything meaningful, was too much. That was quite apparent some time ago, kmt_sesh.  :yes:

cormac

The city and citizens, which you yesterday described to us in fiction, we will now transfer to the world of reality. It shall be the ancient city of Athens, and we will suppose that the citizens whom you imagined, were our veritable ancestors, of whom the priest spoke; they will perfectly harmonise, and there will be no inconsistency in saying that the citizens of your republic are these ancient Athenians. --  Plato's Timaeus

#142    digitalartist

digitalartist

    Psychic Spy

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,941 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York State

  • I'm Done

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:27 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 February 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

LOL Wow, Swede, you're a great optimist. It's a quality I sadly lack. I gave up long ago in expecting a coherent, well-devised, and productive counter-argument supported by appropriate corroboration.

Maybe we're expecting too much.  :lol:

View Postcormac mac airt, on 10 February 2011 - 02:20 AM, said:

Actually that anyone expected anything meaningful, was too much. That was quite apparent some time ago, kmt_sesh.  :yes:

cormac

Animal House said:

Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We gotta take these b*******. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.



#143    Swede

Swede

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,414 posts
  • Joined:30 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:36 AM

View Postkmt_sesh, on 10 February 2011 - 02:08 AM, said:

LOL Wow, Swede, you're a great optimist. It's a quality I sadly lack. I gave up long ago in expecting a coherent, well-devised, and productive counter-argument supported by appropriate corroboration.

Maybe we're expecting too much.  :lol:

Chuckle! I must confess that I agree. One can only do so much in specific cases. On the other hand, these occasions can potentially serve as a venue for addressing questions that may linger in the minds of some of the less involved readers. Thus the personal motivation. Hopefully such efforts are not totally in vain.

Edit: Phrasing.

.

Edited by Swede, 10 February 2011 - 03:25 AM.


#144    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence

  • Member
  • 9,166 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 10 February 2011 - 04:08 AM

View Postsam12six, on 09 February 2011 - 10:57 PM, said:

That would be an easy one. If one assumes the water was at one point high enough to cover Everest, then it satisfies the "whole Earth under water" thing. Now, as the water recedes, Noah & Co could not see Everest so when they hit Ararat, it was the highest point from their perspective. As for where the water went, I propose Sham-Wows.

Not that I think it actually happened, just that that would explain it. Of course, that pretty much flies in the face of scripture.

View Postdigitalartist, on 10 February 2011 - 01:20 AM, said:

That would be a possible answer except if one counts the days and dates in then bible the same day the waters begin to recede at a steady pace the ark comes to rest on Mt Ararat.  For that to happen the water level would have to drop 13,000 feet in one day or part of a day but then the rate would be reduced because, again according to the bible, the time between the ark coming to rest on Mt Ararat and the mountain tops becoming visible is 74 days, yet according to the bible (once again) the rate of level decrease was steady, not a sudden drop followed by a more steady rate.
Gentlemen, please.

Rather than avail myself of the village idiot, I prefer to butt into this useless thread here, so that I might enlighten you with spiritual beatification ala Harte.

Sam, that does not fly in the face of scripture.  Digital, I don't think the bible actually says it that way.

Remember, Noah sent out a dove (was it a dove? I forget) and he came back with an olive branch.  Now, obviously, an olive tree ain't gonna sprout out of the ocean, so the water must have been receding for quite a while before Noah sighted Ararat.

I submit that the dove flew from Turkey to the top of Everest, where the weather had changed dramatically due to all the flooding, allowing olive trees to grow where once only baby Yetis could, copped an olive branch, and flew all the way back to Turkey, handing it to Noah, who later thought it must have come from the top of Ararat, the only land he could see (or had seen in quite a while.)

I believe this will satisfy both of your questions regarding this particular matter, allowing us all to get back to witnessing the decline into utter ruin of another posters' mental capacities, a fascinating and morbid exercise that, not unlike a bloody wreck on the interstate, I find myself incapable of looking away from.

Harte

I've consulted all the sages I could find in yellow pages but there aren't many of them. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong. - Thomas Jefferson
Giorgio's dying Ancient Aliens internet forum

#145    Leonardo

Leonardo

    Awake

  • Member
  • 15,584 posts
  • Joined:20 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

  • Hell is a guilty conscience

Posted 10 February 2011 - 09:33 AM

View PostHarte, on 10 February 2011 - 04:08 AM, said:

Remember, Noah sent out a dove (was it a dove? I forget) and he came back with an olive branch.

But was it a European or African dove?

This is important when calculating how fast it could fly while carrying that olive branch, thence return to Noah in the evening of the day he set it to flight!

Edited by Leonardo, 10 February 2011 - 09:55 AM.

In the book of life, the answers aren't in the back. - Charlie Brown

"It is a profound and necessary truth that the deep things in science are not found because they are useful; they are found because it was possible to find them."  - J. Robert Oppenheimer; Scientific Director; The Manhattan Project

"talking bull**** is not a victimless crime" - Marina Hyde, author.

#146    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 10 February 2011 - 12:29 PM

It was the second dove that returned.  The first never came back.  Which proves that the second dove was female and pregnant.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#147    jules99

jules99

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,049 posts
  • Joined:07 Oct 2009

Posted 10 February 2011 - 01:13 PM

View Postlightly, on 10 February 2011 - 12:29 PM, said:

It was the second dove that returned.  The first never came back.  Which proves that the second dove was female and pregnant.

Wasnt it a Raven? Which would make the offspring a Rove or a Daven


#148    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 10 February 2011 - 02:01 PM

View PostSwede, on 10 February 2011 - 01:46 AM, said:

1) It may be that your close-reading/research capabilities are not serving you well. Had you made the effort to explore the second reference, you would have found the following:

  For example, the microscopic fossil shown on the left below comes from 2 billion year old rock.


This second reference was intentionally provided in order to clarify the initial quote and reference to waterborne microbes.

http://evolution.ber...stfossils.shtml

2) This next section would appear to be composed of yet another round of incoherent linguistic play.

3) Credentials - Are we then to take this section as a confirmation of the fact that you do not, indeed, have any legitimate training or experience in the fields in which you profess to be qualified?

4) Re: Dating. It would appear that this would contain a quote from another source. Three points. 1) Quoting a source without citation is considered plagiarism. This is highly frowned upon both professionally and within these pages. In more rigorous environments, your career could be over. 2) From the phrasing of this reference, it would not appear to come from a qualified source. 3) Given the date figure presented in the reference, it would appear to be quite outdated.

5) Questions:

Re: Date of planet. Figures vary somewhat, but they generally fall between ~ 4.5 and 4.6 billion years

http://pubs.usgs.gov...eotime/age.html

Re: First man - Your question here is decidedly vague. Are you referring to Homo sapiens, H. sapiens sapiens, or earlier/co-existing members of the line? For starters, please re-read:

http://anthro.paloma.../mod_homo_4.htm

Re: First land animals - Current research indicates a period circa 380 - 360 million BP. See below:

http://news.uchicago...p?asset_id=1458

http://www.ucmp.berk...ds/tetrafr.html

http://www.livescien...ppearances.html

Re: Earliest controlled use of fire. While there are potential indications of the controlled use of fire as early as 400Kya, there is sound documentation for this practice by 300 - 250 Kya. See below. Also note the meticulous and detailed nature of the research that goes into these determinations.

http://www.tau.ac.il...FireJHE2007.pdf

http://docs.google.c...akteqfvdfU_gChw

And the qualified documentation in support of your position?

Edited to add: And reasonably current. Your fledgling first attempts at documentation, even discounting the bias, are sadly outdated.

.


"For example, the microscopic fossil shown on the left below comes from 2 billion year old rock"


Fossil record. Ha ha !


#149    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,066 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:11 PM

View Postjules99, on 10 February 2011 - 01:13 PM, said:

Wasnt it a Raven? Which would make the offspring a Rove or a Daven

  lol, ... woops,  i had it wrong.    Yup,   the raven went first.   Then one dove, a her,  was sent out three times and on the third time "returned not again unto him any more".    It doesn't mention her mate at all..  or how it came to pass that we still have doves.  :lol:  

Genesis 8

6 ¶ And it came to pass at the end of forty days , that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made:

7 And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.

8 Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;

9 But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.

10 And he stayed yet another seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;

11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

12 And he stayed yet another seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#150    physicsolved

physicsolved

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 388 posts
  • Joined:13 Nov 2009

Posted 10 February 2011 - 05:23 PM

View PostSwede, on 10 February 2011 - 01:46 AM, said:

1) It may be that your close-reading/research capabilities are not serving you well. Had you made the effort to explore the second reference, you would have found the following:

  For example, the microscopic fossil shown on the left below comes from 2 billion year old rock.


This second reference was intentionally provided in order to clarify the initial quote and reference to waterborne microbes.

http://evolution.ber...stfossils.shtml

2) This next section would appear to be composed of yet another round of incoherent linguistic play.

3) Credentials - Are we then to take this section as a confirmation of the fact that you do not, indeed, have any legitimate training or experience in the fields in which you profess to be qualified?

4) Re: Dating. It would appear that this would contain a quote from another source. Three points. 1) Quoting a source without citation is considered plagiarism. This is highly frowned upon both professionally and within these pages. In more rigorous environments, your career could be over. 2) From the phrasing of this reference, it would not appear to come from a qualified source. 3) Given the date figure presented in the reference, it would appear to be quite outdated.

5) Questions:

Re: Date of planet. Figures vary somewhat, but they generally fall between ~ 4.5 and 4.6 billion years

http://pubs.usgs.gov...eotime/age.html

Re: First man - Your question here is decidedly vague. Are you referring to Homo sapiens, H. sapiens sapiens, or earlier/co-existing members of the line? For starters, please re-read:

http://anthro.paloma.../mod_homo_4.htm

Re: First land animals - Current research indicates a period circa 380 - 360 million BP. See below:

http://news.uchicago...p?asset_id=1458

http://www.ucmp.berk...ds/tetrafr.html

http://www.livescien...ppearances.html

Re: Earliest controlled use of fire. While there are potential indications of the controlled use of fire as early as 400Kya, there is sound documentation for this practice by 300 - 250 Kya. See below. Also note the meticulous and detailed nature of the research that goes into these determinations.

http://www.tau.ac.il...FireJHE2007.pdf

http://docs.google.c...akteqfvdfU_gChw

And the qualified documentation in support of your position?

Edited to add: And reasonably current. Your fledgling first attempts at documentation, even discounting the bias, are sadly outdated.

.


Calibration? Is Evolution a “series”(saga- collection of “stories“)… of religious celebrations?

Celebrate(defined) : to perform (a sacrament or solemn ceremony) publicly and with appropriate rites ..  to honor (as a holiday) especially by solemn ceremonies… to mark (as an anniversary) by festivities or other deviation from routine

In the words of “cool and the gang” ..”celebrate good times.”

Evolutionists have never failed to propagate evolutionary theories (plethoric) as the “cool” way of viewing things. (hip, fly, peer review, assured, composed, coolheaded, deliberate, detached, dispassionate, impassive, imperturbable, levelheaded, nonchalant, philosophical, phlegmatic, placid, quiet, relaxed, self-controlled, self-possessed, serene, stolid, together, tranquil, unagitated, unemotional, unexcited, unflappable, unruffled)

Thus “cool” ( evolution?) and the “gang” ( evolutionists: Individual/collective) have never ceased to interpret “data” as well to “conclude ages”(saga-agas)  and through this frivolous unrestrained ignorance of principles and laws of intelligent design they have unyieldingly devised self-interpretive conclusions and “witty rationales” that they self-assuredly parrot as “facts”.

The evolutionists through the years have never “let up” in “celebrating” ( calibrating) “good times”. The times, ages as well as data they appeal to represent “bad interpretations” of “good intelligent design/methodology/chronology.” In their own minds their opinions are “good”. The “gang” agrees that they are good. With this incurable appeal to “what is accepted and popular must be correct” and due to the relegation of any consideration of intelligent design..the “GANG-green” that is evolutionary theory continues to spread.

They consist in and persist in this “illogical and petty” resolve to invalidate any and all intelligent design save their own. They have ever remained in this “mental state” while celebrating any and all “interpretations” that they have came to and subsequently embrace as “word.” Their ideas like the gangrene of religious ideology the world around is introduced to “naïve and impressionable” “kids” so as to deviously mold these ones ( relative to their malleable minds) so as to seek to add to the “cool and the gang.”

Need I remind these ones of the evolutionary  celebration that revolved around the Piltdown man.”( this proves that the adult evolutionists are just as naïve and venerable as the “potential evolutionists” represented by their kids):

Reference: Wicipedia “Piltdown man”

The "Piltdown Man" is a famous anthropological hoax concerning the finding of the remains of a previously unknown early human. The hoax find consisted of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex, England. The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man", after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.
The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax ever. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

So called “anthropologists” ..duped for 40 years.

In what ways did the evolutionists calibrate themselves to this “eating of crow”. We do know one thing that the “…“EXPERTS experts of the day (considered this ) to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man.  

They were “hitherto” fooled this despite 40 years of  “controversy”..” until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery,” Thus as this “fossil” was proven  false..so to the many interpretations of data accredited to the evolutionist are equally “false-ilized”( false-ified). Where formerly it was “celebrated!” ( the calibration of a human remains with that of animal remains).

Not dissimilar to the religious “effigies” , and despite this lie not being worthy of  further “memento” the following image represents the “fossilized burial” of the idea and the subsequent “memorializing” of the “hoax” ( lie, deceit….mental deviance). Notice that this  grave marker is not so dissimilar to the many other religious phallic symbols representing the life and subsequent death of religion gone awry.

Evolution= Religious ideal in opposition to intelligent design, purpose and accountability
Piltdown man= The consequence of such “susceptibility” to religious falsity.

However as it is the very nature of religious thought the “calibrations, calibrations, interpretation of data, farce chronologies, and fossilized religious thoughts ( engrained mental dispositions), unchanging repelling of logic etc..,will continue. It will not stop due to lack of mental resolve ( individually/collectively) and the shunning of logical thought.

Until it is abruptly put an end to as the product of the wise and intelligent resolve( resolve of purpose) by a logical and intelligent One whose thoughts are “higher” than the intellectual deficiency of humans.

Thus as it is true of religion it is true of the religion of evolution. A system of beliefs and traditions innate to a group of people. As it is true of religion the evolutionists to have “ performed publicly” their religion. The evolutionists have indeed! Honored “beasts” ( apes , fish, single celled organisms). Exactly as the religious systems of the world have for many thousands of years. They have performed “solemn ceremonies” ( the burial of the lie that was Piltdown man and the subsequent eulogizing of this “beastly” “image”. For upward of 40 years humans with illogical mindsets held this “skull image” in high esteem, revered it, framed religious ideals around it. Even after it was proven to be a hoax they took the time to honor it by burying it and placing a “marker” relative to the “beast.”

And they still claim that their ideas lack mental fortitude. They still claim that their credentials assure that they could not be “duped” again. They have calibrated things. They have researched these things better and now are even more (self) assured.

Fossil record! Ha ha! ( “false all” record…reassert/resort). They persist in living  with the “cool gang” in their self-absorbed,, self-maintained and self-built “false resort.“ It is at this mental resort that these ones   flock (  F+L+O+C+K= phallic) so as to be “men folk” ( masculine thinkers) and play “golf” ( flog= f+l+o+g…phallic). After a few rounds of golf and after talking insurance next to the “man made” pond that has the duck ( aflak-kalfa-aphallic- caliph-golf) then they come together as the “cool gang” so as to inevitably try to “flog” (golf)  the lie out of the truth.

Flog=  to beat with or as if with a rod or whip b : to criticize harshly. 2. : to force or urge into action : drive.  : to promote aggressively .

Thus it is true, and so long as religious ideas are allowed to remain unrestrained ..the religion that is evolution will continue to :

Promote aggressively the false (phallus) ideas of “chance”
Criticize harshly and arrogantly  logic and reasoning ability
Force or urge their religious ideologies on others ( kids at that!). Indeed! Force their religion down peoples throats.

As well:

To beat with or as if a rod or whip…the dickens out of intelligent design.

All must be careful not to succumb to the Piltdown man that is evolution. All must avoid the passivity that allows religious ideas to “go awry.” We need to be resolved to bury the Piltdown man as well forget about it verses treat it as worthy of exhumation or “reverence.

We all need to consider “alternative realities.”


This being said frankly verses any disrespect to any individuals by name( rather to the evolutionary dogma itself) I have became resolved to cease participation in this "dead" argument. I will allow all those who choose to remain to "talk amongst yourselves" as a means of continuing to perpetuate the "system of religion" that is evolution. As well to continue to revere the "god of chance".

Attached Files


Edited by physicsolved, 10 February 2011 - 05:36 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users