reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hello Kandinsky,

Thanks again for your post.



SC: Whilst I generally agree with your line of reasoning here, I would also point out to you that science is already in a state of "unstuckness" by virtue of the fact that its present historical model cannot explain why fossils are found in the wrong rock strata, missing links between species such as, for example, non-flowering and flowering plants and the numerous anomarts found the world over. There is also the question of 'time'; time to evolve or transform from one life form to another. Some scientists argue against evolution because there simply was not sufficient time for all life forms on Earth to evolve. Well, if there were many trees evolving life in parallel then the time required becomes much less.

The monophylogenetic model of evolution as per Darwinisim has simply failed to overcome these problems. On the other hand a polyphylogenetic model of evolution would solve all of these "problems" in one fell swoop.

Life on Earth may be a much more complicated picture than the nice single tree of Darwinism. I see it as having started as a veritable forest of such trees, each producing unique life forms sometimes life forms that look like life forms on other trees. I see the fossil record as not one jigsaw puzzle that has to be reassembled but a myriad of jigsaw puzzles with the individual pieces all jumbled together that first have to be separated into their own puzzles (phylo-tree) and then assembled into their own complete picture. I simply do not accept that the fossil record is ONE record of ONE phylogenetic tree.

To give life the BEST chance of taking root and surviving, it makes more sense that you would plant many "seeds" for to plant just one "seed" would likely lead to failure. More "seeds" equals more chance of success. That is why I think the polyphylogenetic model to be more probable than Darwin's single tree model.

And, of course, if polyphylogenetic evolution is correct then this opens up a whole new world of questions and allows the possibility (if not probability) that other forms of hominid life forms (nor unlike homo sapiens sapiens) could have arisen millions of years ago, left their anomart traces (perhaps including the Sphinx) and became extinct. The next line of intelligent hominid species to rise came through our own phylo-tree via Homo Erectus. And when we blast ourselves to oblivion, who knows, the next line of intelligent homind to walk the Earth millions of years from now may be through the line of Apes.

It's been a good discussion and I have enjoyed it. Many thanks for your input.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 15/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Kandinsky

---

Hello Kandinsky,

Thanks again for your post.



SC: Whilst I generally agree with your line of reasoning here, I would also point out to you that science is already in a state of "unstuckness" by virtue of the fact that its present historical model cannot explain why fossils are found in the wrong rock strata, missing links between species such as, for example, non-flowering and flowering plants and the numerous anomarts found the world over. There is also the question of 'time'; time to evolve or transform from one life form to another. Some scientists argue against evolution because there simply was not sufficient time for all life forms on Earth to evolve. Well, if there were many trees evolving life in parallel then the time required becomes much less.

The monophylogenetic model of evolution as per Darwinisim has simply failed to overcome these problems. On the other hand a polyphylogenetic model of evolution would solve all of these "problems" in one fell swoop.

Life on Earth may be a much more complicated picture than the nice single tree of Darwinism. I see it as having started as a veritable forest of such trees, each producing unique life forms sometimes life forms that look like life forms on other trees. To give life the BEST chance of taking root and surviving, it makes more sense that you would plant many "seeds" for to plant just one "seed" would likely lead to failure. More "seeds" equals more chance of success. That is why I think the polyphylogenetic model to be more probable than Darwin's single tree.

And, of course, if polyphylogenetic evolution is correct then this opens up the possibility (if not probability) that other forms of hominid life forms (nor unlike homo sapiens sapiens) could have arisen millions of years ago, left their anomart traces (perhaps including the Sphinx) and became extinct. The next line of intelligent hominid species to rise came through our own phylo-tree via Homo Erectus. And when we blast ourselves to oblivion, who knows, the next line of intelligent homind to walk the Earth millions of years from now may be through the line of Apes.

It's been a good discussion. Many thanks for your input.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 15/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]

Well lets see, you don't like AS disagreeing with geologists because he isn't one?

So is that a new rule for you Scott? That only people with the same degree are allowed to point out errors in things? I really, really don't think you mean that as that would pretty much shut you down.



You seem to be using the old fringe concept of "geee there are so many possibilities, just one MIGHT be right". In this case none of them are.


So, Schoch doesn't agree nor any other geologists - or have some jumped on board for this theory of an 800,000 year old Sphinx?

Concerning your old tired tirades against science, yes Scott "they" don't believe your theory and they don't believe a lot of things. Usually for good reason. Can you find examples of pig headness in science? Sure can and you can see how that is overturned in time.

Oh and you made a comment or linked to a comment about carbon dates, so why are the "out of the ball park" C-14 dates included for the two datings of the pyramids? Why are they not all on "target", please explain this gross failure of the conspiracy to hide the evidence? LOL

You might want to read, "The first Americans " by Christopher Hardaker which speaks in depth about Valsequillo, he has a certian fringe lean to it but it has interesting information. We look forward to what the present excavation find.

Could you link to where the publications of the two writers of the 'silly' paper were confirmed? I didn't see those despite reading the thread. I ran there names thru google scholar and found nothing. I'd appreciate the link.


[edit on 15/3/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thanks for your post.



SC: Not at all. That's not what I said and it is certainly not my objection. It is one thing disagreeing but it is a whole different matter when deriding the work of professionals as "silly" and especially so when you have not FIRST presented your objections to the authors of this paper to extend them the courtesy and opportunity of presenting a rebuttal to any points raised. Solenhofen did not do this and THAT is what I find objectionable. That Solenhofen himself is not in fact a geologist merely compounds his obvious disrespect for the geologists of this paper.



SC: Nope. Read my response above.



SC: I certainly don't mean how you have interpreted my objection to Solenhofen. Read my response above.



SC: And I see you are using the old ortho dismissive attitude as though that will somehow explain these anomarts or make them go away. Sorry, Hans, but casually dismissing a body of evidence that contradicts the prevailing model of our history and origins simply won't cut it. All it does is demonstarte your complete inability to accept that the model of our past might actually be flawed. I suppose having invested so much belief in this paradigm it is far easier for you to make the bogey-man in the closet go away by somehow pretending it doesn't actually exist. It does exist, Hans, and it won't go away. With this "anomalous" evidence there is every possibility that the prevailing model you so believe in could in fact be wrong. The only reason your paradigm has prevailed is because it disregards evidence that does not fit the model. That is simply avoiding the truth; that is burying your head in the sand and it is bad science to boot.



SC: Not as far as I'm aware. I think the findings of these geologists have first to be verified or rebutted. I think that would be the most appropriate course of action before any conclusions are drawn, don't you?



SC: I think "tirade" is a bit harsh, Hans. And I certainly do not have such against science per se - certain scientific practices I can accept but I certainly don't think I am alone in objecting to the massaging of evidence that some scientists evidently engage in.



SC: And clearly, Hans, you mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn about what people think of my theories. I don't. What I do think is important is that my theories should be brought to the table. And let me tell you, there is a great risk in doing this but again, it is a risk I think needs to be taken.

You see, Hans, it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth. And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.



SC: Yes, "in time". But only after people like me have been lambasted for years for having the temerity to question the orthodox view. But fret not - I've a strong chin.



SC: Read David Down's quote agian, Hans. The C14 dates are published ONLY when they agree with the archaeologist. In other words, dates that DO NOT agree are never published. So, I cannot tell you what anomalous C14 dates have been disregarded but disregarded they are. The point also being - if C14 dates are dismissed as unreliable for one artefact, why should we then happily consider the C14 dating for other artefacts as any more reliable?



SC: "LOL"? - the first sign that you have lost the argument.



SC: Equally you might want to read the story of Virginia Steen-McIntyre concerning the "First Americans". If you really want to see how the academic mafia operate, read her story.



SC: I have no idea what 'silly' paper you refer to. If you are meaning the geological paper that the non-geologist Solenhofen branded as 'silly' then you do yourself a great disservice, Hans by cloaking yourself in the same verbal disrespect as Solenhofen. Dig deeper - the references ARE there.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

I agree, while a dual catastrophic scenario could well have happened, the first part of it much more long ago.

/ Back on topic...

I have always felt that the ages of man and the Earth and even the universe were wrong. I have always felt that the universe was maybe trillions of years of instead of the 13-15 billion years stated. I have a feeling that Earth is far older that we think it is. Man to could be a lot older than was thought. So a ago of 1,000,000 years for the Sphinx is a lot but it very well could be true. And who says that man had to be the ones that built it. It could have been built a long time before we came on the seen.

reply to post by fixer1967

---

Howdy Fixer


The problem is that the stones cut from the area around the sphinx don't show erosion that would have occurred over 800,000 years - you need to remember that the Sphinx enclosure was cut out. And those blocks location are known. They don't show, and limestone is relatively soft, the type of erosion from being exposed to the elements for that lenght of time.

Howdy Scott

SC: Not at all. That's not what I said and it is certainly not my objection. It is one thing disagreeing but it is a whole different matter when deriding the work of professionals as "silly" and especially so when you have not FIRST presented your objections to the authors of this paper to extend them the courtesy and opportunity of presenting a rebuttal to any points raised. Solenhofen did not do this and THAT is what I find objectionable. That Solenhofen himself is not in fact a geologist merely compounds his obvious disrespect for the geologists of this paper.

Hans: its not a paper Scott it’s a conference pre-print – you do understand that don’t you and how that differs from a peer reviewed paper? Also when you put out any type of document it is open to discussion, there is no need to discuss it first with the authors. Did you do that before you disagreed with Egyptologists? Did you contact them first or did you post your rejections of their theories on the net first? – we both know the answer to that don’t we Scott?

SC: Nope. Read my response above.

Hans: Avoidance Scott, let’s try again, in the above comment you set out a method of dealing with documents put out with ideas in them, you insist AS follows that. Are you now going to, yourself, act in that way? Yes or no?


SC: I certainly don't mean how you have interpreted my objection to Solenhofen. Read my response above.

Hans: So can we in the future see you act in this manner towards scientific materials – ie you will only comment on this board on a subject after you have communicated with the authors, two you will not show disrespect to by commenting on subjects in which you have no degree or specialization? So will you do that Scott? Yes or no?


SC: And I see you are using the old ortho dismissive attitude as though that will somehow explain these anomarts or make them go away.

Hans: They’ve been explained hundreds of times Scott- denial of that isn’t constructive? Or are you saying they haven’t?

Sorry, Hans, but casually dismissing a body of evidence that contradicts the prevailing model of our history and origins simply won't cut it.

Hans: Casually dismissing the explanation and debunking of this evidence simply won’t cut it either Scott – challenge, pick any three of Cremo’s stuff that you feel haven’t been falsified. We’ll go thru them once again.

All it does is demonstarte your complete inability to accept that the model of our past might actually be flawed.

Hans: An error on your part Scott I do believe we are missing information. Science moves forward. Clinging to bad evidence and denying its been dealt with is simply denial. You are in denial Scott. The information you think is evidence is just debunk junk, one of the important traits of science is to recognize garbage and move on. You seem unable to do that.

I suppose having invested so much belief in this paradigm it is far easier for you to make the bogey-man in the closet go away by somehow pretending it doesn't actually exist. It does exist, Hans, and it won't go away. With this "anomalous" evidence there is every possibility that the prevailing model you so believe in could in fact be wrong.

Hans: No its easy to laugh at people who go into psycho babble when they don’t have evidence Scott, you’ve gone into psycho-babble…bing bing, no evidence

The only reason your paradigm has prevailed is because it disregards evidence that does not fit the model. That is simply avoiding the truth; that is burying your head in the sand and it is bad science to boot.

Hans: A near perfect description of your pyramid theory and its collapse, but we digress


SC: Not as far as I'm aware. I think the findings of these geologists have first to be verified or rebutted. I think that would be the most appropriate course of action before any conclusions are drawn, don't you?

Hans: Nope, it should be openly discussed by anyone who wants to, who’d have thunk it, you trying to play the authority/expert card, most amusing

SC: I think "tirade" is a bit harsh, Hans. And I certainly do not have such against science per se - certain scientific practices I can accept but I certainly don't think I am alone in objecting to the massaging of evidence that some scientists evidently engage in.
Hans: Yes not like the wonderful world of fringe were they demonstrate on a daily basis the proper way to show evidence? LOL. Scott your hatred of science because ‘they’ don’t accept your theory isn’t their fault, its nothing personal, its just your evidence, its not you it’s the evidence. Try to understand that.


SC: And clearly, Hans, you mistake me for someone who actually gives a damn about what people think of my theories.

Hans: Actually you do, a whole lot, your ego is, unfortunately that ego of yours is weaker than a bridge made of egg whites, but again we’re getting off subject now aren’t we?

I don't. What I do think is important is that my theories should be brought to the table.

Hans: Risk? Yes a risk of not being taken serious, don’t tell me you’re going to try the classic fringe claim that ‘they’ are trying to suppress you?

And let me tell you, there is a great risk in doing this but again, it is a risk I think needs to be taken.

Hans: Gosh my hero, so tell us of this risk?


You see, Hans, it is much easier to tear down than to build up. It is safer to cower in the trenches of stagnant orthodoxy than to battle across the minefields in search of one's own truth.

Hans: Clue thunderous and and loud martial music with some biblical lighting for Scotts glorious pronouncement of his martyrdom…….ta da

And, in presenting what I discover, I do not do so in search of medals, or honours or money or baubels - I do so only in the hope that I will find a better truth of our history and origins at the end of my journey than the one that spouts forth from the fetid mound of perceived wisdom that you so readily accept as gospel.

Hans: You do it to justify and get back at all the people who have not taken you seriously. Scott really get off the high horse. You are really getting way, way to far into this aren’t you?

SC: Yes, "in time". But only after people like me have been lambasted for years for having the temerity to question the orthodox view. But fret not - I've a strong chin.

Hans: Scientists are human and have human failing, but the evidence always wins out. You may have a strong chin but you might want to find some evidence to support your ideas – that will work a whole lot better.

SC: Read David Down's quote agian, Hans. The C14 dates are published ONLY when they agree with the archaeologist.

Hans: Completely wrong Scott. So by your comment the two C-14 projects for samples taken from the pyramids should only show data that supports the orthodox view? Is this correct? Please explain why C-14 dates outside of the orthodox time line are then presented in both of these studies? Please explain?

In other words, dates that DO NOT agree are never published.

Hans: Scott are you even aware of how totally wrong that is? It’s laughable? Are you even aware of the C-14 dates that came out of the two C-14 dating projects? Obviously your aren’t.

So, I cannot tell you what anomalous C14 dates have been disregarded but disregarded they are.

Hans: So you don’t know anything about it but you know they’ve been disregarded….phew, so I guess we’re now going to go over the pyramids C-14 dates huh. Odd that you’ve never come across them? Or are you just playing dumb?

The point also being - if C14 dates are dismissed as unreliable for one artefact, why should we then happily consider the C14 dating for other artefacts as any more reliable?

Hans: Suggest you read about C-14 and all its in and outs.It isn’t a black and white subject – and if you think it is, think again.


SC: "LOL"? - the first sign that you have lost the argument.

Hans: in this case you’re right, you’ve lost the argument, LOL

SC: Equally you might want to read the story of Virginia Steen-McIntyre concerning the "First Americans". If you really want to see how the academic mafia operate, read her story.

Hans: I’m quite aware of it, strange how everything got published and people are working there now, I guess the conspiracy doesn’t work too well does it? Who was her boss at the dig? How’d he make out?


SC: I have no idea what 'silly' paper you refer to.

Hans: Sure you do, but you are looking for a reason not to verify what you said

If you are meaning the geological paper that the non-geologist Solenhofen branded as 'silly' then you do yourself a great disservice, Hans by cloaking yourself in the same verbal disrespect as Solenhofen.

Hans: Because it IS a silly paper Scott if you could get over your “I hate science” attitude you’d know that too. There is silliness in this world and you need to know when to reject stuff.

Dig deeper - the references ARE there.

Hans: I say they aren’t, after the lambasting I’ve given you don’t you want to show me up? Let’s see those references Scott. I’ve got my apology for doubting your sincerity already written – given me a reason to post it.



[edit on 16/3/09 by Hanslune]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Hello Hans,

Thank you for your post.



SC: Oh - so that makes Solenhofen’s little outburst okay, does it? I think not. This is a research paper produced by professional geologists, one of whom actually went to Giza and studied the Sphinx erosion up close and personal. Solenhofen is NOT a geologist and only studies the Sphinx from photos. I certainly do not deny – nor ever have denied – Solenhofen’s right to his opinion but it is an opinion that should be taken with a health warning attached since he is not in fact a qualified geologist.



SC: But this isn’t just “any” type of paper – it’s a research paper that draws real conclusions and questions about an important historical artefact. And no one is saying such a paper is not open to discussion but I can’t see any benefit at all to be had in branding the paper “silly” when we only have access to the pre-print and not the full paper. That is one sure way to potentially make oneself look “silly”.



SC: It’s a matter of record, Hans, that Egyptologists actually disagree with each other on many issues. And where I happen to disagree with them I do so because of the EVIDENCE and not because I think Egyptologists are “silly” which I don’t. I defy you to go and find a single quote from me anywhere where I have branded the work of an Egyptologist as “silly”.



SC: Yes, indeed we do. My disagreement with Egyptology is well documented as is the evidence to prove my own argument. Further, it is also well documented that I actually agree with the vast body of Egyptology so I am not entirely sure what it is you are attempting to spin here?



SC: I suggest Solenhofen would do better were he to demonstrate due respect to the “authority” in the same way that I do.



SC: First, see my response above. Second, many of the authors I agree or disagree with have shuffled off this mortal coil. Are you suggesting a medium?



SC: It is not showing disrespect to comment on subjects one is not qualified in. It shows disrespect when you are not qualified, don’t have the full facts and then brand the work “silly” (as per Solenhofen). Do you not understand this simple difference, Hans? Show me anywhere where I have branded the work of an Egyptologist (living or dead) as being “silly”?



SC: Many have and I accept the explanations given. There are others, however, that - in my considered opinion - are much less certain.



SC: It only takes ONE, Hans, just ONE to disprove the prevailing paradigm of our history and origins. Or are you conveniently forgetting that? Deal with Steen-McIntyre’s evidence, Hans, if you can. Where does that place the conventional paradigm of our history when there is a strong body of evidence that homo sapiens sapiens existed in the Americas possibly hundreds of thousands of years before is commonly accepted? It dumps the prevailing paradigm right in the dumper, Hans, that’s where.



SC: Missing information? No, Hans – some of the evidence has been available to us all the time but has been ignored, passed over and even ridiculed.. How many years have passed since Steen-McIntyre made her paradigm-shifting discovery? Almost thirty!! Only recently is a new school of scientists revisiting her work and beginning to take what she has said all along seriously. But then I guess the new school had to wait that long for the old guard to be shuffled off into their pensions. That isn’t science. It’s egotistical protectionism.



SC: And it would have moved forward far quicker had the academic mafia actually taken Steen-McIntyre seriously from the get-go instead of protecting their own selfish interests.


Continued…

[edit on 16/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Continued….



SC: And ignoring good evidence is the WORST form of denial and borders on dishonesty. Are you now claiming Steen-McIntyre’s evidence is bad or that it’s been dealt with?



SC: I do not deny the evidence presented by Steen-McIntyre. You apparently do if you think I am in denial.



SC: Steen-McIntyre. Ditto.



SC: I personally do not think Steen-McIntyre’s paradigm-shifting evidence is “psycho-babble”. Why you would think so says more about your fear of being wrong than it does mine. It’s almost as if you think saying something is wrong automatically makes it wrong, Hans. Only EVIDENCE will prove the case one way or t’other. Bing, bing!



SC: Yes, digression – another sure sign that you have lost the argument.



SC: Glad to have brought a smile to your face, Hans! :-)



SC: More digression, I see. I’m happy with my evidence.



SC: Now that IS amusing. I guess if you can’t beat the argument, attack its author, eh?



SC: Yes, more digression from you.



SC: Oh my! Hadn’t even thought of that one! Do you think there’s anything in that?



SC: Read through this thread and it should dawn on you.



SC: Ahh… the facetious tact now - as if that will somehow win you the debate? You’re bright, Hans. You can do much better than being facetious.



SC: No – I have no axe to grind with anyone. Honestly. And I’m allergic to horses.



SC: And in the meantime everyone else who accepts what the ignored evidence is really telling us about our past and origins (vis-à-vis Steen McIntyre) are just loons, right?



SC: I’m happy with my own evidence and that of Steen-McIntyre. I also look forward to hearing the rebuttal (or otherwise) from the geologists of this paper to whom I have emailed the pertinent points raised by Solenhofen and Brunel.

Continued...

[edit on 16/3/2009 by Scott Creighton]

reply to post by Hanslune

---

Continued….



SC: Yes – the figures in those reports are in the “ball-park” that allows Egyptologists to accept them. Had such figures come back with a dating of, for example, 10,500BC they would have been passed over and not quoted. That is what Down’s is telling us actually happens and it happens regularly by his account. Deal with reality, Hans. This is what an archaeologist is REALLY saying ACTUALLY HAPPENS. Why can’t you accept that?



SC: See my response above.



SC: As a matter of fact, I have seen those dates and have the report in PDF format. And laughable or not, Hans, this is what an Archaeologist (David Down) is telling us actually happens. There is little point in venting your frustration about this quite outrageous and despicable practice at me. I am merely the messenger.



SC: What can I say, Hans. Read David Down’s quote again, to wit:





SC: Given what Down say, perhaps not a bad idea, eh?



SC: I have come across them, Hans. These C14 dates of Giza are not a big secret, y’know.



SC: Black and white? Yes, like if the date agrees or diagrees with a preconceived historical paradigm. That’s a fairly black and white decision to be making.



SC: Keep it up, Hans.



SC: Only took them almost thirty years!

en.wikipedia.org...



SC: If you say so.



SC: That would be the “silliness” of Steen-McIntyre then?



SC: No, Hans – I don’t want to “show you up”. That’s really not my style.



SC: Keep digging.



SC: Sorry but like I’ve already told you - it really isn’t my style.

Kind regards,

Scott Creighton