Oldest Americans 1.3 millon years???

page: 11
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



Neanderthals, homo sapiens sapiens, homo erectus, Hobbits, they all existed simultaneously and there is absolutely no proof that one of those species evolved from another one. This "scientific" idea is exhausted and it is really very suspicious that some people still try to perpetuate it.

What is your alternative? Everything you are looking at right now is an outcome of science. Computer, screen, keyboard, plastics etc. Listening to music? How was that created? Instruments, recording studio, mp3 technology etc. I'll assume you're clothed? Design, materials, stores, transport, washing powder, washing machines etc Hungry? Food production, processing, packaging etc. The 'scientific' idea is all we have.

You use scientific terms 'neanderthals, homo sapiens' etc. Hitting an animal with a club was a scientific thought. Producing stone tools was scientific. Such thoughts led to us being in control of our environment. When our earliest ancestors used sticks to winkle maggots out of tree bark, that simple action has put satellites around the Earth. It's created inoculations to disease and placed a gun in a crackhead's hand
It's all science dude!




posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



Neanderthals, homo sapiens sapiens, homo erectus, Hobbits, they all existed simultaneously and there is absolutely no proof that one of those species evolved from another one. This "scientific" idea is exhausted and it is really very suspicious that some people still try to perpetuate it.

What is your alternative? Everything you are looking at right now is an outcome of science. Computer, screen, keyboard, plastics etc. Listening to music? How was that created? Instruments, recording studio, mp3 technology etc. I'll assume you're clothed? Design, materials, stores, transport, washing powder, washing machines etc Hungry? Food production, processing, packaging etc. The 'scientific' idea is all we have.

You use scientific terms 'neanderthals, homo sapiens' etc. Hitting an animal with a club was a scientific thought. Producing stone tools was scientific. Such thoughts led to us being in control of our environment. When our earliest ancestors used sticks to winkle maggots out of tree bark, that simple action has put satellites around the Earth. It's created inoculations to disease and placed a gun in a crackhead's hand
It's all science dude!


Come on Kandinsky, even birds use twigs to wriggle out maggots
That is not a proof that we are descendants of birds.

My "alternative" is more a proof than there is a proof that even such thing as species exists.

It is a fact that DNA of one individual is slightly different in other individuals. Otherwise, all living beings would be clones and there would be no evolution.

You should try to understand that "consensus" in creating categories is not an "absolute knowledge or fact".

We don't consider racial differences in regards to human species as essential only for political reasons. Scientifically, those differences are real. It is just about how we tune our "perception" what makes some fact a "proof".

Talking about evolution of species, is totally opposed to the interests of an individual, a "member" of a species. This kind of thinking is intentional and is aiming against personality.

Our ability to learn is a proof that an individual can evolve by acquiring knowledge, and this evolution is spiritual, not physiological. It is not recorded in fossil remains, but it is recorded in archaeological remains and there is an obvious attempt to hide and eliminate all those proofs that point out there was some spiritual evolution outside of the imposed frame of mind.

This "frame of mind", to which many scientists are subjected, is what I am pointing at.

The importance of spiritual evolution comes before this imaginary "struggle to survive".

There are tons of evidence that this cover-up is ongoing.

In the history of human society there are mass murders, ostracism, marginalizing, of all those who don't fit into the given ideological frame. This is also a kind of evolution within humankind, only it is the "negative selection" going on and science has no positive explanation or justification for that and, because of that, it is simply neglecting and a priori eliminating it as a valid theme for discussion.

This is where and why science gets to serve the political agenda. So, science is not a god given tool to discover truth. Scientific, analytical method is valid, but interpreting data is a political game.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



My "alternative" is more a proof than there is a proof that even such thing as species exists.
If you or a loved one ever requires a blood transfusion or organ transplant, we can only hope that such a thing as species exists. Let's also hope that the 'political agenda' has provided a hospital equipped with trained staff and the equipment necessary.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



My "alternative" is more a proof than there is a proof that even such thing as species exists.
If you or a loved one ever requires a blood transfusion or organ transplant, we can only hope that such a thing as species exists. Let's also hope that the 'political agenda' has provided a hospital equipped with trained staff and the equipment necessary.


You can even get pig organs, because they are compatible, so much for this proof...



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



You can even get pig organs, because they are compatible, so much for this proof..

How did they find out? Where do they come from? Why is the operation safe?
Why are your anti-science points so reliant on science?



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


SC: Whilst I do enjoy reading your bluster and find it quite humerous (honestly), that's all you have.

]Kandinsky: Bit of bluster, subject knowledge, links to evidence and supported documents. Throw in an academic education as experience of the 'lying academics' you refer to and it becomes clear you have even less than bluster...


SC: What I have are questions; questions that are apparently causing you some measure of annoyance it would seem.

Are you now trying to infer here that scientists/academics have not lied in the past, have not massaged results in the past, have not effectively altered our perceptions of our past by such despicable practices – that this is all just bluster on my part? Oh the utter temerity of me to raise such uncomfortable FACTS. Kandinsky - if the best way you can deal with such FACTS is to somehow call it ‘bluster’ and try to use it to somehow make me look foolish then I suggest you try something else. No amount of silky-rhetoric will make this little dastardly deed on the part of academics go away. Nor should it. Let dead dogs sleep, Kandinsky.

You have already conceded the possibility of parallel evolution in this thread and, indeed, that it may indeed have occurred very early on in evolution. So, for you to then later say the idea is nonsense and infer that I am some kind of wack-job is entirely contradictory on your part.

You wield science as if it is some thumping hammer not realizing that all you have is an inflatable hammer – that has a puncture! Science DOES NOT have all the answers, Kandinksy and if it continues to massage evidence to prove that it does then it cannot cry “Foul!” if people like me continue to point out the shortcomings. Yes, you would much prefer if I just went away, wouldn’t you? Sorry – hell will freeze over first.

And before you go all huffy – I am categorically not against science, okay! Let’s get that perfectly straight. It’s the SCIENTISTS that mess with evidence I have the problem with. Are we clear on that?


Kandinsky: I didn't concede the possibility of PCPE in any sense that resembles yours. It was conceded as an abstract possibility like centaurs existing.


SC: Baloney! Sheer baloney! Those hallucinogens really are playing havoc with your memory, aren’t they. You accepted Byrd’s view that some lines of evolution could have evolved in parallel but that they died out early on and turned to mush (or whatever term she used). So don’t tell me now you had considered it only as an “abstract idea”. Utter tosh! If you’re going to massage the evidence, Kandinsky, try and not get caught doing it.


Kandinsky Without that concession you'd have done your usual trick of claiming victory for your crazy ideas and leaving the thread with those famous words..."My work here is done."


SC: See above.


Kandinsky: 'Wack-job' is far too basic a term. You've spent years believing in Atlantis, cyclical cataclysms, 'forbidden knowledge', lost civilizations and God only knows what else.


SC: You use such terms in the same way the Inquisition used the term “Witchcraft”, as if they are something to be feared. Why do you fear such terms, Kandinsky? What is it that so concerns you about them?


Kandinksy: If you had contained yourself to those ideas we wouldn't be having this discussion. I used to have the same ideas.


SC: You did not have then the proof I have presented to you that shows Giza is categorically a unified design whose underlying design imperative is the Belt Stars of the Orion constellation. Perhaps now would be a good time for you to revisit some of your former thoughts in light of this new evidence.


Kandinsky: Instead, you embark on an egotistical adventure of accusing academics of dishonesty and of scientists conspiring to hide the 'Truth' from the rest of us.


SC: Not all scientists. But then, it only takes ONE unscrupulous scientist to massage evidence that can then totally distort our perception of our history and origins. What else would you rather we called such dishonesty? History?


Kandinsky: Then you set yourself up as arbiter of the theory of evolution and find it wanting Ignoring decades of research and our old friend the university library, you seriously believe that you alone have discovered a PCPE...


SC: Bluster, rhetoric and complete nonsense. You well know I accept evolution. Decades of research has NEVER considered evolution through the lens of parallel evolution – a concept that might actually (as I keep saying) help explain some of the shortcomings of the ‘singular’ evolutionary model. You use such terms as “decades of research” as though the length of study somehow validates the conclusion; that the conclusion must be correct cos we studied the subject for years. Science is a graveyard of such research and conclusions. And I am NOT the only person on the planet that has considered parallel evolution as the opening posts in this thread will easily show you.

Continued……

[edit on 6/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

From previous…..


Kandinsky: You are not a wack-job, just a person with blinkered dedication to a belief system that years of being contradicted will not alter...


SC: Kettle, black, pot, the, calling, the – re-arrange into a well-known phrase. My mind remains open to continually ask questions. Yours thinks we have all the answers and, unfortunately, it does so with all the zeal of the convert.


SC: I'd like to see a proof of this. What library do you suggest? DNA is a code, a 'programme' if you like. For all you know that 'programme' could respond to the environment proactively as well as reactively. Do you actually know what every single part of the DNA code does? If so, do you have a reference? Thanks.

Kandinsky: What a surprise...the "Prove it!" defense. Geez, Scott,


SC: We’re talking about science so surely there is a proof. Let’s see it.


Kandinsky: are we off on another 'possibilities' adventure? If you believe that there is a 'possibility' that DNA is an intelligent program designed to spread homo sapiens into space..


SC: I said it as speculation – indeed, it was asked as a question. Nothing wrong with that, is there? What have you against thinking about possibilities, about the intuitive mind?

To quote Einstein:


“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

“The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”



Kandinsky: To avoid accepting reasoned understandings of life's history and genetics on this planet you've invented PCPE.


SC: Not so. I understand life’s history and genetics well enough to understand its shortcomings. It is these I have tried to find a solution to since the prevailing model of our history and origins cannot yet answer such.


KandinskY: To explain why the reasoned understandings are wrong you've created the VSM Defense.


SC: Back to VSM again. Okay – let’s go with it. Virginia Steen-McIntyre’s original dating evidence was massaged in order that it conformed to the prevailing historical paradigm. What’s your point. It happened. What “reasoned understanding” do you know of that should allow such a “crime” to occur? If you have a problem with the fact that I consider this a less than edifying chapter in the history of science then I suggest the real problem rests with you. If I am cynical or suspicious of some scientists I have grounds to be and no slippery verbal machinations on your part will ever gloss over that. Moving on…


Kandinsky: With the PCPE notion being shown to be implausible,


SC: You saying it is implausible does not and will not make it so. If anything, the evidence of parallel evolution we know continues to this day is good grounds for accepting that the concept would have occurred in the most remote times, at the very dawn of evolution. If it’s plausible today, it’s plausible in the past.


Kandinsky: you've now created a message in DNA. Jeez, Scott! Does any of this embarrass you!?


SC: Embarrassed? See the Einstein quotes above. I have absolutely no reason to be embarrassed about any of my ideas. Nor should anyone, for that matter. Yes, including you. But I guess you would much prefer to live within the solid walls of consensus orthodoxy, whose received wisdom comforts you like a child’s teddy, always fearful to put your head above the trench wall, never to rock the boat. If asking difficult questions or presenting radical ideas should be seen as a cause for embarrassment then we would never have evolved in the first place.


Kandinsky: I've said it before...if all our theories, research and knowledge have to be dismissed to support a conclusion...


SC: Why do you keep saying this? I’m not dismissing evolutionary research and knowledge. Evolutionary research and knowledge as we presently understand it proves parallel evolution within existing phylo-trees. I see no reason why a proto-bacteria that ultimately evolved a type of grass could not have had a counterpart proto-bacteria elsewhere in the world evolving a slightly different form of grass – the difference in the grass types being due to the different environments. How is this dismissing research and knowledge?


Kandinsky: Colleges do good night courses and they're reasonably priced. I strongly advise you to take a GCSE in science. You'll learn a few things and gain access to the library. Teachers enjoy characters with unfounded beliefs in their classes. It makes for great fun


SC: One does not need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If my argument was so lacking in scientific foundation I seriously doubt you would have given it the time of day in this thread and would have simply ignored it. Why do you feel so compelled to defeat this idea, Kandinsky? Why do you feel so driven to have this idea dismissed with every device you can muster, including (though not limited to) derision, ad hominems, ridicule, sarcasm. The argument stands. You have debunked nothing.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



[edit on 6/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by DangerDeath
 



You can even get pig organs, because they are compatible, so much for this proof..

How did they find out? Where do they come from? Why is the operation safe?
Why are your anti-science points so reliant on science?


I am not anti science, but in practice many scientists are anti science for various reasons. Nevertheless, they try to sell that as "science'.

Science is about collecting facts, while interpretation of those facts is not necessarily scientific. Anyone can interpret them, and we know that those with biggest stick are always right


For instance, to say that survival is the motor of life is wrong. To say that reproduction is the means of survival is also wrong. There are so many people or other individuals of all kinds of species, which do not reproduce. Those are not scientific conclusions, they are not in accord with the facts.

There is a species of ants which reproduce by cloning. How does that fit into theory of evolution? Life could as well be engineered, even in nature. What do we really know about that?

There are bacteria living in mesosphere, they rejoice in UV radiation. This fact alone may bring down theory which says that life occurred spontaneously in Earth's oceans, from the so called "organic soup". This fact tells us that influence from the outside could have started life on Earth.

One little fact like this will show how wrong scientists were about the whole concept. And what then, the pain of admitting they were wrong. This pain is sometimes so strong.

So, scientists took one very fragile assumption and built a magnificent building upon it. No way, it doesn't really work like that. That is not science. That is a stereotype of "linear progress" at work.

There is no proof that a different species was ever created by existing species. No one ever saw something like that happen. The whole story relies on paleontological evidence. That is forensic evidence, and forensics can be applied only to human affairs, where it is certain that humans created given conditions. But in nature, without proven fact that one species begets another, it is just speculation. One huge speculation.

Regarding this very scarce evidence of humanoids, why is science so eager to draw conclusions at all? Why is that so important? I don't really see the importance of creating such a magnificent theory of linear origination. There is absolutely no need to do that from scientific point of view. It is something else, not science.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
You are an absolute treasure Mr Creighton.



SC: What I have are questions; questions that are apparently causing you some measure of annoyance it would seem.


You have questions that are averse to answers. The only answers you want are those that support your dreams of being the guy that discovered PCPE or strange civilizations with astronomical knowledge beyond the abilities of their times.



And before you go all huffy – I am categorically not against science, okay! Let’s get that perfectly straight. It’s the SCIENTISTS that mess with evidence I have the problem with. Are we clear on that?


We aren't clear on that at all. Every piece of evidence that challenges your unusual ideas is ignored or condemned because 'scientists lie.' You are in a vicious circle whereby your ideas are true so scientists must lie. If you could even accept the 'possibility' that 51% of scientists tell the truth, your ideas will still be found to be wrong. All the evidence contradicts your beliefs of lost civilizations, Atlantis etc. As long as they all lie, you can kid yourself that you're correct.



SC: You use such terms in the same way the Inquisition used the term “Witchcraft”, as if they are something to be feared. Why do you fear such terms, Kandinsky? What is it that so concerns you about them?


Funny you mention witchcraft. Ever since that infamous rant on the 'Million year old sphinx' thread, I've associated that blinkered form of fanaticism with those that burnt witches in the middle ages. By extension, I'm reminded of those that burn books...science books




You well know I accept evolution. Decades of research has NEVER considered evolution through the lens of parallel evolution – a concept that might actually (as I keep saying) help explain some of the shortcomings of the ‘singular’ evolutionary model. You use such terms as “decades of research” as though the length of study somehow validates the conclusion; that the conclusion must be correct cos we studied the subject for years. Science is a graveyard of such research and conclusions.


I see no evidence that you accept or even particularly understand evolution. You certainly have very little understanding of natural selection. Parallel evolution in the sense you understand it, is immediately dismissed for all the reasons already discussed. 'Decades of research' was used as a simplistic way of drawing your attention to the experience and knowledge that forms the body of science. Your research is in the graveyard because it's been peer-reviewed and found wanting.




SC: I said it as speculation – indeed, it was asked as a question. Nothing wrong with that, is there? What have you against thinking about possibilities, about the intuitive mind?


To avoid accepting the 40ka dates for the footprints you've surpassed any expectations of rationality. Rather than agree with the dates, your wild fantasies have led you to create a new theory of intelligent DNA that has a plan in mind?! As a kid, your mam must have enjoyed your explanations for how that packet of biscuits disappeared...Oh to be a fly on that wall...



SC: Not so. I understand life’s history and genetics well enough to understand its shortcomings. It is these I have tried to find a solution to since the prevailing model of our history and origins cannot yet answer such.

If you genuinely wanted to find a solution to 'evolution's shortcomings' you'd get yourself an education in science and write a paper on PCPE that could be reviewed by people with an equivalent knowledge. Here's a freebie you should find interesting...Paleontological Evidence to Date the Tree of Life Over a hundred citations and over 150 references. The most interesting (and understandable!) section discusses the point when the ancestors of chimp and human diverged. Read it. It's difficult to understand and I definitely found a lot of the other sections flying over my head. It illustrates the standard that is expected for a hypothesis.

And finally....



SC: Why do you feel so compelled to defeat this idea, Kandinsky? Why do you feel so driven to have this idea dismissed with every device you can muster, including (though not limited to) derision, ad hominems, ridicule, sarcasm. The argument stands. You have debunked nothing.


The argument stands in your mind only. Read the links. Read some research. You've used the same devices so it's open season. I'm not compelled to defeat your ideas. I have a few ideas that are also unsupported by science. The difference is that I allow for the probability that my ideas are just wrong. I don't justify my ideas by deciding that scientists are liars. I haven't created a fantasy land that allows for me being right and everyone else being wrong.

Debunked? PCPE has been thoroughly debunked. Your take on advanced civilizations has been debunked. Your claim that you accept evolution has ironically been debunked by you. It's all moot and irrelevant without the capacity to reappraise and reevaluate ideas.

Until you can support your ephemeral ideas with evidence, the book deal and 'told you so' daydreams will never come true



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by amari
 



Most will say humanoids migrated from Europe and Asia to the Americas and can be traced by DNA. I say the opposite that the humanoids came from the Americas and spread throughout the Earth


Amari...the idea doesn't really work or explain why fossils get progressively older as we get closer to Africa.


Simple in my opinion the the dating process of these fossils in Africa are wrong it is a cover up because the powers that be do not want us to know the truth that we came from Mars. It is evident to me that the humans and other alien looking lifeforms from Mars found in the rocks at the landing site of the original colony in the U.S. could manipulate DNA.

[edit on 6-6-2009 by amari]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsky: Debunked? PCPE has been thoroughly debunked.


SC: You accepted PCPE and then did a neat back-flip when Byrd presented her petri dish. You're fooling no one, Kandinksy.

Okay, Kandinsky, let's cut to the chase here - show me how the science of evolution - as it is presently understood today - cannot allow for the following scenario:

Two (or more) pro-bacteria in different parts of the world, in different environments, eventually evolve two (or more) lineages producing different types of grass. The difference in the grass types being the result of their local environment. Explain to me with all the evolutionary knowledge and research that I apparently don't understand or am dismissing, how this is not viable within the corpus of current evolutionary understanding? That's all you have to do and I will drop the idea - can't say fairer than that now, can I?


Kandinsky: Your take on advanced civilizations has been debunked.


SC: You're a card, you really are! You keep banging on about "advanced civilisations" as if it's a bad word. Fact of the matter is the word "advanced" is entirely sujective. And if you had read through my ATS Forum you will find that I categorically do not subscribe to the Gizamids as Power Plants, harmonic resonators, alien landing pads, photon torpedoes, or anything of the sort.

You use the phrase "Advanced Civilisation" like it's some kind of disease. Fact is, Kandinsky, even Isaac Netwon held the view that the ancients had access to advanced knowledge (his Prisca Sapientia); ancient knowledge that was more "advanced" than his time. What you seem to think is that knowledge is a nice, linear framework. It's not. Knowledge is lost when empires fall only to be re-discovered much later. The people that lived during the Dark Ages would have spoken of the ancient "Advanced Civilisation" that existed in a former "Golden Age" i.e. the Roman Empire. And they'd be right. So put away your little punctured, inflatable "advanced civilisation" hammer. It's simply not effective.

Now. here's exercise two for you. The Gizamids were designed using the belt stars of the Orion Constellation using a very simple geometric technique. I really don't think it requires and "Advanced Civilisation" to draw a staright line through 2 points, or to create a 45* or 90* angle, do you? Okay, so tell me how this evidence is flawed. That's all you have to do:

The Giza-Orion Blueprint

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...


The Precession of the Queens

www.scottcreighton.co.uk...


Kandinsky: Until you can support your ephemeral ideas with evidence, the book deal and 'told you so' daydreams will never come true.


SC: If you say so. LOL!

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 7/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 
Hello Scott,
Still spamming the boards with your own links I see. Me, me, me! The '1.3 million ya footprints' OP has been hijacked to your own ridiculous agenda. Funny how everything seems to relate back to absurd ideas about Giza. You've created your very own Narnia where scientists all lie and ancient civilizations leave knowledge of a cataclysm in the form of three pyramids
In your 'Narnia' even evolution must be twisted to allow for the advanced civilization that's missing in the real world. Why have all the lying scientists missed PCPE? Because they lie...sigh...ahem.



Okay, Kandinsky - show me how evolution - as it is presently understood today - cannot allow for the following scenario:


You've been shown in terms that were fairly simple and clearly expressed. That you confound them into something utterly different is inevitable. Your now using grass as a means of claiming intelligent bipedal humanoids existed in the Americas? Ridiculous. The next step in your inevitable argument would lead back to Giza..."So if PCPE could occur in the Americas, it could also occur in Africa and therefore my idea about Giza and ancient messages is true!" Isn't that how it goes Scott? Is that a rough approximation of how most things go with you?




You use the phrase "Advanced Civilisation" like it's some kind of disease. The people that lived during the Dark Ages would have spoken of the ancient "Advanced Civilisation" that existed in a former "Golden Age" i.e. the Roman Empire.


That's funny
You wouldn't even admit to believing in 'advanced civilizations' until it was shown that you do. Deep down you have some embarrassment about the beliefs. Roman Empire? Are you joking? That particular 'advanced civilization' is fairly well represented in the historical record. We know the dates and everything. Cool huh?

Scott, you have no evidence that supports an ancient lost civilization existing thousands of years ago. You can lie and deceive yourself that it's all being hidden in back rooms by those damn academics and scientists. PCPE couldn't create a bipedal humanoid in the Americas. You can lie and deceive yourself that without any science education, you have found what everyone else has overlooked. Remarkably, this new theory was discovered without research and won't be shared with the rest of the world. Your gizamids idea has been roundly dismissed elsewhere and I'm not feeding your lamentable need to believe your ideas...

C'mon Scott...you've been debunked in many threads and by some reasonable people too. The boss of Hall of Maat for heaven's sake is a professional with a past of believing in your type of ideas. Hall of Maat is probably the single most valid place to discuss unusual archeology etc. Even they dismissed your notions. Point for point debunked. Has it altered anything? Not a bit. You are as sure that 'Narnia' exists in place of the real world as ever you were. You do it all without the knowledge of how ridiculous it is.

I can't work out if you completely understand it's all BS like Sitchin, V Daniken and Cremo or you honestly don't have the intellectual capacity to work it out for yourself. Every time someone responds to your repetitive 'possibilities' it's with the understanding that they are whistling in the wind. You don't read anything. It's comical that you regard yourself so highly and yet don't read a damn thing about anything.

All dreams without evidence and narrow minded buffoonery. Anyone that can dismiss decades of research across the humanities and science remains a buffoon. Why not give this thread a break from the nonsense and write your own threads instead of hijacking others to drum up attention? The world needs another journey through the 'lost past' 'lying scientists' 'VSM' 'dog ate my homework' 'Cremo' all equals Giza and Orion. It would do if Hancock hadn't already written about Giza and Orion...



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,


Kandinsk: Still spamming the boards with your own links I see.


SC: Er - that would be because I present evidence that you have thus far failed to deal with. So I will continue to do so until you actually debunk the evidence in those links. And claiming my work has been debunked elsewhere simply won't do. Show this board where and how my work has been disproven on any other board. Let's see it, Kandinsky. You're the one that's said this - so you're just gonna have to show everyone here how you are right. Put up or shut up.


SC: Okay, Kandinsky - show me how evolution - as it is presently understood today - cannot allow for the following scenario:

Kandinksy: You've been shown in terms that were fairly simple and clearly expressed. That you confound them into something utterly different is inevitable.


SC: Complete rubbish. Anyone can go through this thread from the start and see who has remained consistent in their views and who has been as slippery as a wet salmon coated in jelly. Anyone can go through this thread - it's all a matter of record here - and see who accepted the idea of PCPE until a petri dish made them think otherwise and then tried to pretend they never accepted it. It's all there, Kandinsky.

And - for the record - I have never stated anywhere in this thread that an identical hominid species would have evolved in another part of the world, only that it is feasible that another hominid species with high intelligence could have evolved elsewhere in parallel. If you don't believe that then I suggest you read through this entire thread and you will find I am correct.


Kandinksy: You're now using grass as a means of claiming intelligent bipedal humanoids existed in the Americas? Ridiculous.


SC: Yes, I agree - you are being completely "ridiculous" and this is just another lame example of how you are attempting to obfuscate and confuse. I use this as a simple example to get the point across to you. And still you evade answering. However, all your silky sleight of tongue, all your bombastic rhetoric and your sad efforts to evade answering the question will not get you out of this.

Answer the question, Kandinsky.

THE QUESTION:


SC: Okay, Kandinsky, let's cut to the chase here - show me how the science of evolution - as it is presently understood today - cannot allow for the following scenario:

Two (or more) proto-bacteria in different parts of the world, in different environments, eventually evolve two (or more) lineages producing different types of grass. The difference in the grass types being the result of their local environment. Explain to me with all the evolutionary knowledge and research that I apparently don't understand or am dismissing, how this is not viable within the corpus of current evolutionary understanding? That's all you have to do and I will drop the idea - can't say fairer than that now, can I?


Answer the question. Put up or shut up.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 7/6/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Scott Creighton
 



Show this board where and how my work has been disproven on any other board. Let's see it, Kandinsky.

I call this a debunking


More unanswered questions...

The only Scott concession available online?

Oh No! He's back with the old 'It must be true' circular argument..

'But I suppose you'll keep saying it over and over and over again?

'The rhetoric is getting pretty thick man...'

Deja vu?

Nothing new here...

Same old inability to 'think out of the box.' These guys make the same points that are often leveled at your ideas...you don't have enough evidence, you ignore conflicting evidence, you use circular arguments etc etc. You've created a mythology that allows for your opinion that Giza Pyramids are an early warning system. The utter absence of a civilization that could possibly know about 'precession' makes your whole contention wrong.




And - for the record - I have never stated anywhere in this thread that an identicalhominid species would have evolved in another part of the world, only that it is feasible that another hominid species with high intelligence could have evolved elsewhere in parallel.


You are the undoubted king of slippery nonsense. You raised imaginary PCPE to explain how the 40k ya footprints were actually 1.3 million ya. The idea has been clearly explained by you and clearly refuted by others. Possibilities and BS.



THE QUESTION:


Just another Scott tactic to avoid conceding that most of your contributions to this thread have been self-serving connivance. I'm not going through it all again and again. Your ideas have been found wanting. In five years you'll be beating the same old carcass in another hijacked thread. Go away and do some 'research.' Post a thread in your own section with supporting evidence (links etc) and maybe, just maybe, you'll become more than just a member on the Hancock site.

I've nothing more to say to you unless you can provide evidence that you aren't an articulate imbecile. Until you make a point that has merit, interest and isn't more mendacious obfuscation, I'm not wasting more time with your wholly unsubstantiated daydreams.

The only thing keeping this thread going is two stubborn individuals and the sound of tumbleweed...keep your ideas and jog on...



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 

Hello Kandinsky,

Thank you for your reply.

Ah, the Hall of Ma'at. Remember this:


How very, very different you must find things here on GHMB, where the promoters of alternative ideas and explorers of new theories can not be simply bullied off the forum by a crowd of clucking, tutting, sneering cynics in residence.

The Hall of Ma’at, that tomb of dead ideas and intellectual cowardice, where the closing of ranks replaces debate and where any argument which challenges the smug preconceptions of the regulars is stamped upon. Where posts are edited, censored, or removed at the merest whiff of any dissent or alternative argument that might hold water, and where the slightest inkling of a fresh and thought-provoking take on the ancient world is enough to bring the moderators in like fussing mother hens to close down the thread.

Yes, how very different you must find GHMB, when you regularly hone your skills on a forum where anyone with an alternative view has to proceed with two hands tied behind their backs while a gang of co-dependent reactionaries lay into them with full editorial backing and who then have the gall to pretend that they are actually freely debating anything or “weighing the evidence”. Why, it was daily entertainment at one point to tune in to that site just to hear the regular thud-thud-thud of Scott Creighton’s threads being shut down by the panicking moderators as quickly as he could start them. At one point they split the entire Ancient History section in two to try to quarantine Scott’s contributions.

Such was the fear of new ideas. Such was the loathing for an independent mind. Such was the intolerance of anyone who dared to try to waken those leaden, sleeping, pedestrian brains, some of whom had once dabbled in alternative theory themselves and had their fingers burnt and so took up their new closed mindsets with all the venom of the convert. Yet when Robert Bauval visits the forum they all roll over to have their bellies tickled by the great man – his fame and book sales overcoming their die hard allegiance to the orthodox view. A most unedifying sight, a most unhealthy environment, and indeed it would all be weirdly funny were there not so many decent and open minded people interested in the alternate history field who wander innocently in to the midst of this self-serving cabal only to get the intellectual equivalent of a mugging.


SC: Not my view but certainly one that I share. Your varied links to my debates with the HoM's (thanks for posting the links BTW) show only that they disgreed with my theories. Disagreement is not debunking. There's a mighty big difference, Kandinsky and I'm sure you know that as you're an intelligent person. And also, for the record, I was never actually allowed the opportunity to present the Giza-Orion Blueprint to the HoMs so, again, they have debunked zilch!

Now, Kandinsky. I asked of you to answer a very simple and straightforward question. You refused. Everyone here can see that you refused to answer my simple question, Kandinsky. So, in order that there are no hard feelings expressed or that there can be any confusion or misunderstanding later, let me ask you the question one more time - I really do believe in fairness and that it is important to give people every opportunity to respond:

THE QUESTION:


SC: Okay, Kandinsky, let's cut to the chase here - show me how the science of evolution - as it is presently understood today - cannot allow for the following scenario:

Two (or more) proto-bacteria in different parts of the world, in different environments, eventually evolve two (or more) lineages producing different types of grass. The difference in the grass types being the result of their local environment. Explain to me with all the evolutionary knowledge and research that I apparently don't understand or am dismissing, how this is not viable within the corpus of current evolutionary understanding? That's all you have to do and I will drop the idea - can't say fairer than that now, can I?


Answer the question, Kandinsky. There are people watching. Let's have your answer.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Why do people always wonder how people go to the america's?
You accept that people developed in asia, africa and europe but not here?
Native Americans cannot truly be native?
I got news for all of you. We didn't come here from anywhere. We developed here just as people's of other cultures developed on their own patch of earth.
We have always been here. Hopi legends tell of how we survived many global catastrophe's with help from our brothers and sisters from the stars.
We survived, Fire, Ice, and flood. We will continue to survive as we always have. We are not asians.. we are not africans.. we are americans.
Our people have always been here.
Why can people not accept that?



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 07:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
Why do people always wonder how people go to the america's?
You accept that people developed in asia, africa and europe but not here?
Native Americans cannot truly be native?
I got news for all of you. We didn't come here from anywhere. We developed here just as people's of other cultures developed on their own patch of earth.
We have always been here. Hopi legends tell of how we survived many global catastrophe's with help from our brothers and sisters from the stars.
We survived, Fire, Ice, and flood. We will continue to survive as we always have. We are not asians.. we are not africans.. we are americans.
Our people have always been here.
Why can people not accept that?


Because some people are dominated by the "alien mind" - the ideas. And it is practically impossible for them to set themselves free from them, that part is not contained within the dominant idea.



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari Our people have always been here. Why can people not accept that?


If that's the case you would have to have been plunked down fully evolved as anatomically modern human beings...a privilege not accorded those who had to climb up the ol' evolutionary ladder.

I hesitate to point out that the continent isn't riding on the back of a giant turtle, either. I don't intend to mock you...merely pointing out that traditional stories and creation myths are generally not the best source material for serious discourse.

Mind you, nor do I buy into Adam and Eve. But I'd say that the real story of the peopling of an empty continent is one of the most exciting and dramatic tales of human history. They say that everybody here is an immigrant, but your people clearly have seniority.
Peace



posted on Jun, 7 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck
 


Evolution is still a theory as is creation. We still have no real proof how exactly we got here. People need to stop referring to theories as if they are fact.

Until we have filled in all the blanks and proven it without any doubt.. we are still drawing blanks. I do not think my ancestors were just making crap up.
Tell me how they would even do that? How do a people who have no advanced devices chart out star systems that are so far away?



posted on Jun, 8 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   
Uhm.... Scot....


Originally posted by Scott Creighton
Within environments of extreme cold and extreme heat, life forms that evolve will be severely limited. In more temperate (i.e. life-conducive) climes, however, then all manner of life can evolve - including (for example) one proto-bacteria laying the lineage for non-flowering plants whilst another proto-bacteria elsewhere in a temperate region of the world laying the lineage for flowering plants.


Yes. This is what I've been saying for the past innumerable posts, except that we know the differentiation took place after plants more complicated than single celled algae arose and after plants moved from the water to dry ground.



In my view it is entirely feasible then that in such "tempearte zones", similar life forms could have evolved all over the planet (within the temperate zone), some of which could ultimately have produced consciously aware species.


Well, you're not identifying "consciously aware"... I'm sure this argument is taken up later. But everything with any sort of rudimentary sensory system is consciously aware of its environment and will respond in some way to stimulus. Even plants.

As was said before.


As such I consider it entirely feasible still that consciously aware species (different from but not entirely unlike humans) could have evolved (in parallel) in such circumstances.


We'd see the precursor species, then. Dolphins and chimpanzees are both excellent examples of intelligence in non-human creatures. You see encephalization (brain to body mass ratio) considerably higher than in other creatures and you see thoughtful response. You also see the ability to identify the self in a mirror and recognize self as a complex idea construct. They have sense-making sounds.

You don't, however, see them building things or organizing; they're limited by environment and by structure. Their sound vocabulary is not developed enough that one member can tell another member what to do when they are out of sight of one another.

And intelligent species just don't "appear" suddenly.



As an aside - and this really is my own personal opinion about evolution - so take from it what you will, or not, as the case may be. I see evolution not as a long series of "fortunate accidents" of mutation but rather as organisms proactively responding to environmental changes triggered perhaps by chemical reactions encoded within the orgamism's DNA.


In that case, successful species wouldn't be going extinct. Like camels and horses in North America.



This is to say that there may be a programme within the DNA of an organism that triggers an "appropriate" response (change) in the organism when it encounters a different or changing environment.


Lamarckism has been disproven with many experiments, Scott. You can try it for yourself... just set out a plant and gradually decrease the amount of water you give it. It won't trigger any response other than stress and death.





new topics
 
14
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join