Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
megabyte

my theory why we have such short lifespans

175 posts in this topic

Just a general reminder here - if you are quoting material from somewhere then please always credit it to the original source/author and only use a small portion of it, don't copy and paste walls of text from other sources on to the forums.

Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radiation amplified "stalls" the reproductive processes

I'm not sure what you mean here, could you expound on this in a clear and concise manner? Also, since its easy for many people to forgot the science they learned during their schooling years, when you claim what scientists or "evolutionists" claim can you be sure to reference that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely not?

I agree.

Not with the Oak Leaf Clusters, please. It should be with the Oak Leaf Cluster****s.

Harte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this and many other examples of complete and utter rubbish you are awarded the Fractal Wrongness Award, First Place, with Oak Leaf Cluster.

FractalWrongness.jpg

cormac

Delightful. :D It's been quite some time since you've graced a poster with the FWA, cormac.

Then again, very few posters spend so much time claiming to be familiar with the scientific method and research methodology while at the same time petulantly dismissing the scientific method and research methodology, and writing page after page of dense posts devoid of corroboration but filled top to bottom with incoherent rubbish.

Rarely has the Fractal Wrongness Award been so richly deserved!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a note to physicsolved, who I've been avoiding as of late, for obvious reasons: Even you can see now how trashed you're credibility is. You've garnered no support and indeed have raised nothing but acrimony and derision. This is one reason I've been quite recently. I'm not here to raise my own stress level. This forum is supposed to be about discussion and debate. You've engaged in neither. All you've done to date is ridicule and dismiss other posters while doing nothing to bolster your own arguments in a reasonable and logical way. So I for one suggest, either engage us in mature debate or go back to posting in your ghost town "animal determinatives" thread where you can continue to delight in your own voice while causing no one else any trouble. :tu:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow, I'm not usually this cross, even with some of the more vexing posters at UM. It's not often that a poster brings out the worst in me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I'm not usually this cross, even with some of the more vexing posters at UM. It's not often that a poster brings out the worst in me.

:lol:

Sorry, kmt.

Just.Could.Not.Resist!

And, for double the fun, it's even (tangentially) relevant to this thread!

"Why is he still alive?"

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol:

Sorry, kmt.

Just.Could.Not.Resist!

And, for double the fun, it's even (tangentially) relevant to this thread!

"Why is he still alive?"

:lol: It's very apropos, Leonardo. Pretty well sums it up for all of us, eh?

"He vexes me. I'm terribly vexed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you copy the entire Greek scriptures ( verses the erroneous term "new testament)..then copy the psalms and proverbs then you will have accomplished what I did at the age of 24. I was not inspired of God..rather inspired by the many relevancies to be gleaned from this very exceptional book. A book that was inspired of God relative to 40 other humans..and not me.

I have equally studies the sciences of astronomy and physics. As well I have found much reward in studying anthropology, ancient history, linguistics, anatomy, art..as well geometry.

As I previously stated: If the waters covered all the high mountains as stated in the bible, the ark, floating at the height of Mt Everest, more than 2 miles above Mt Ararat, could not have come to rest on Mt Ararat and that if the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat as stated in the bible, the level of the ocean would have been more than 2 miles lower than the top of Mt Everest and thus the waters could not have covered all the high mountains.

Both statements are said to be true in the bible but it is an impossibility for both statements to be true, indicating a conflict that throws doubt on the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.

With your knowledge and learning, perhaps you can answer or refute this instead of just dismissing it as you previously have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I previously stated: If the waters covered all the high mountains as stated in the bible, the ark, floating at the height of Mt Everest, more than 2 miles above Mt Ararat, could not have come to rest on Mt Ararat and that if the ark did come to rest on Mt Ararat as stated in the bible, the level of the ocean would have been more than 2 miles lower than the top of Mt Everest and thus the waters could not have covered all the high mountains.

Both statements are said to be true in the bible but it is an impossibility for both statements to be true, indicating a conflict that throws doubt on the supposed historical accuracy of the bible.

With your knowledge and learning, perhaps you can answer or refute this instead of just dismissing it as you previously have.

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. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. It's like when I mention to fundamentalists that for whomever wrote the myth, Noah's ark was plenty big enough for all the animals they were aware of in the Middle East a couple thousand years ago - they just turn purple and start talking about 'kinds'...

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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".

post-95635-0-25473700-1297358585_thumb.j

Edited by physicsolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.