Gods of Academia

Upstart scientists who find themselves in opposition to Darwinism. There seems to be some,

" Fear of the Gods"

amoung new comers to the many scientific fields now days. It seems that many times in the past certain findings by researchers have had some very negative effects on their careers .Is it just a coincidence that these findings all seem to refute evolution in one way or another? Many researchers simply won't publish any findings that go against evolution for fear of these vengeful Gods.

People have been denied careers, some have even been fired as I understand it. Many simply
refuse to research certain areas at all because they feel they may get into trouble.
These "Gods" are really just people. But these people are tyrants. They are control freaks.
They want to control what we all believe.

I have a new question for the scientific evolutionary members of our ATS community....
How do you know there isn't some findings, results, conclusions that have been hidden away?
Or possibly even shredded and trashed, to keep them from everyone, including you?
Most of you seem to ignore this factor. The factor of deciet. This is what's wrong with putting
your trust in man.
What if Steven Hawking and Michiu Kaku and even Dawkins and Hitchens only know what someone else wants them to know?
This is what's wrong with anyone telling someone else what not to believe.
When you only learn from other men. Then you can only know what other men already know. Or less.

above top secret

Above Top Secret

reply to post by randyvs


Well, I'm not sure exactly what you mean there randyvs ... although I am not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, nor am I an atheist, I know of a lot of scientist who like myself are agnostic. That is to say that they neither deny or confirm the existence of God, they, like most of us simply don't know.

In fact agnosticism should be a prerequisite of any inquiry lest it be distorted with a need to make any discovery fit onto a preconceived belief. So I don't see why a scientist should be conflicted about being a man of faith any more than a man of faith should conflicted in reason.

The two are actually rather unrelated, and they are not mutually exclusive, except to those who are so committed to their positions that they are uninterested in authentic inquiry.

Perhaps I am missing what you are getting at but in all honesty and respect, your above statement seems to be a rather broad stroke and lacks specificity ... thus I may, as per usual, have missed the point entirely.

they need to cut lose all these Liberal teachers, who seem to have gotten a foot hold in the education system.
I don't care if they teach darwinism, but Creationism should be taught as well...

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Perhaps I am missing what you are getting at but in all honesty and respect, your above statement seems to be a rather broad stroke and lacks specificity ... thus I may, as per usual, have missed the point entirely.

I agree it is a bit vague
I added some links. Took me awhile because I couldn't find the right button. First time I got lost in the new skin.
It also has a lot to do with the forum it's posted in dog.
:lol;
sorry.

reply to post by randyvs


Randy bud!


You bring a great point to light, but the content of your post leaves many wanting more...


Here, let me help you:

www.icr.org...

Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have uncovered many new evidences that the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.


It doesn't matter who is the messanger, it's the message mi amigo...


This in no way changes the fact that ID or organized religion wreaks of ignorance, but hey...


Love you man..!

reply to post by facelift

This in no way changes the fact that ID or organized religion wreaks of ignorance, but hey...

Compadre all people are welcome to post what ever they like. That most likely makes you all the more welcome.
I can always use some help. So thank you for the lift Face.

What explanation of existence dosn't sound ignorant? I do agree.

great add on

Love back your way man.

reply to post by schrodingers dog

authentic inquiry

i think that's the crux of any discussion on this topic. experts from all sides of this topic claim to have given the subject, authentic inquiry. some creationists are even scientists and some evolutionists are even believers in gods (frequently an extra-terrestrial hypothesis, a sort of panspermia on steroids).. and then there are schools of thoughts that vary, from greatly to marginally, from those positions, as well. all believe they have given the subject authentic inquiry and they all may be right to one degree or another (as far as the amount of authentic inquiry). where the system breaks down is the definition of "authentic" and "inquiry."

reply to post by randyvs
Hiya Randy, I see what you're getting at and it's not completely wrong. Over the centuries, some discoveries have been suppressed for political or religious reasons...especially religious. At the same time, sooner or later, discoveries come to light in one place or other.

There's an inevitability that the big discoveries seem to appear in a variety of locations in similar time-frames. Discovery of planets, the concepts of radio, TV and telephone etc. They all appeared kinda simultaneously. Think whack-a-mole.

In this sense, suppression can only be localised, regional or temporary.

The particular cover-up you're circling in your OP is, imo, way too big to be kept from the bright minds of this world. Hawkins and other physicists know the universe is older than 6000 years (or suchlike) based on something as simple as how long the light from distant galaxies takes to get here. They know the speed of light. Someone like Louise Leakey knows the Earth is older than 6000 years or so, because not only does her education in paleontology show her the proof of evolution, her field research does too. Leakey has literally pulled the bones of hominids, many thousands of years from the African debris fields. Dr Steffenson knows the Earth is older than 6000 years due to his education as a climatologist, but also for his personal involvement in drilling ice-core samples from Greenland.

In recent years, we've got evidence of evolution in the well-known Peppered Moth population. 200 years ago, England was a soot-covered, industrialised, coal burning place. Smog was common-place. The Peppered Moth was a dark moth to blend in with the background. Natural selection picked out the darker moths for survival because the birds *selected* out all the lighter ones that stood out as food. As England has become cleaner and much less sooty, Peppered Moths have begun to get lighter.

Anyway Randy, my point is that an ancient Earth and universe is supported by far more sources than some shady conspiracy could hide. Evolution and natural selection is supported by too many sources too. I know you like your Creationist God and prefer the Genesis version of Creation above Big Bangs and Evolution. That's fair enough and I'm not arguing against your beliefs. Strikes me that you can have a Creationist God and evolution if you forget about the 6 days and put your God before the big bang or whatever theory it develops into.

Anyway Randy, my point is that an ancient Earth and universe is supported by far more sources than some shady conspiracy could hide. Evolution and natural selection is supported by too many sources too. I know you like your Creationist God and prefer the Genesis version of Creation above Big Bangs and Evolution. That's fair enough and I'm not arguing against your beliefs. Strikes me that you can have a Creationist God and evolution if you forget about the 6 days and put your God before the big bang or whatever theory it develops into.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Yeah. I don't really even buy into a young earth belief either. For the most part I feel people
who really have no reason to be concerned with earths age. People like me, should prolly
just be glad it's here underfoot. What I mean to say is, the earths age isn't even given in scripture.
Why debate conjecture against hard data. What good can come of that?

Sorry for the inefficiecies people i'm exhausteded and time to get ot sleep til tomorrow.

Try'in to think. Kandy was that you who was interested in the Bombaadiere beetle.? Did you check the links
I provided? They were both people who were victimised by "The Gods" in a big way.

In this sense, suppression can only be localised, regional or temporary.

I like." whack a mole' that's for sure.
Thank you for the great post Kandy.


Sorry you guys I'm exhausted goin to bed.

Originally posted by facelift
reply to post by randyvs

 

Then there are the recent research findings by ICR scientists and others working on the RATE project that have uncovered many new evidences that the earth is young, including the ubiquitous presence of radiocarbon in coal beds and even in diamonds. For years, of course, creationists have been pointing out that no real evolution has taken place during the several thousand years of human history and also that there are no legitimate series of transitional forms in the fossil beds of the past, plus the negative effects of mutations and the testimony of the laws of thermodynamics—all of which seem to make any macroevolution extremely unlikely, if not impossible.

Scientific theories change over time (evolve, if you will... chuckle chuckle...) as new evidence is gathered, so good scientists follow where the evidence leads. That's not to say that some scientists haven't been guilty of having pet hypotheses and trying to downplay evidence that refutes their favorite but, ultimately, truth will out - enough people will gather enough evidence that it can't be ignored.

The "scientists" at the ICR and the DI work on creation science/intelligent design from the opposite direction of good science. They start with their conclusion, that God did all of it, and work backward from there. Further, they fail to offer up any direct evidence of God or a creator. Instead, they offer up evidence that evolution doesn't occur in the way that's currently accepted and set up a false duality - the theory of evolution is wrong, therefore there must be a creator.

I think what's even worse is that they commonly ignore new research. Using the ICR paragraph as an example:

Presence of radiocarbon in carbonaceous formations? Gove, in work performed ca 2002, showed that the C14 found in carbon beds is related to the radioactivity of the surrounding rock formations because radioactive emissions from uranium-thorium series i.e. the emissions from the surrounding rock can actually create new C14. Was Gove an evolution crusader? Nope, not even close. He was a particle physicist studying neutrino detection and was concerned with contamination of the scintillation fluid by beta emitters... like C14!

No evolution has taken place in several thousand years of human history? You mean except for the human-induced and guided speciation of dogs? Or the evolution of bacteria to produce new enzymes to break down molecules that are wholly anthropogenic, like nylon? Nope... no evolution here.

All mutation is harmful? Looking at my above example, I would think that one's DNA being altered in such a way that allows one to produce a new enzyme which lends the ability to process a new food source is beneficial. But what about humans? There are mutations found in humans that confer higher bone density i.e. stronger bones, decreased risks of heart disease, and greater resistance to HIV. Granted, sometimes whether a mutation is beneficial or harmful is ambiguous, or entirely dependent on environment, like the mutation which causes Sickle-cell disease. Yes, it can lead to ischemic attacks, spleen issues, and other medical problems... but it also halts the spread of malaria, which was pretty useful when malaria was rampant.

Using entropy to disprove evolution? The entropy of a closed system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time. The Earth is not a closed system - light enters the system, heat radiates out of the system. I guess they could argue that the Universe as a whole is a closed system. But isolated pockets of low entropy can form in a closed system if they're offset by an increase in entropy elsewhere in the system, this is readily observable. In fact, not only does the second law not contradict evolution, scientists have made the case that entropy would be necessary for it to occur.

Sorry to seemingly sidetrack the thread, but I just wanted to address some of the points raised in the ICR statement to make the point that creationists aren't being silenced through some conspiracy of evil scientists who are afraid that their positions will be in jeopardy because the public may find out that evolution is some kind of a hoax. If anything, the mainstream (I know, I know... that's an evil word 'round these here parts!) scientific community wants creationists to make claims - they're just letting out more rope with which to hang themselves.

Finally, as a counter example to the two provided, I'd like to hold up Michael Behe. Dr. Behe wrote what was, for some time, one of the standard texts used to promote intelligent design - "Darwin's Black Box". Further, he testified on behalf of the defense in the Kitzmiller case, which was pretty squarely in the public eye. Did he get fired? Is he no longer allowed to publish? Is he not allowed to teach at institutions of higher education? Nope... still a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh.

reply to post by iterationzero


Righto on,. another detailed answer. Helps out the not detailed enough thread. Thank you mon.

and that's just covering evolution gods of academia. what about the historians, archaeologists, mathematicians, and other scientists? what we have here is a serious breakdown in the information stream. it concerns me that some nefarious organization is playing both ends against the middle on these topics. for example:

it has been proven, without doubt, that dynastic egypt was the brainchild of a group of mesopotamians who had migrated to upper egypt (abydos, naqada period) from akkad. but the mainstream historical and archaeological texts, still say dynastic egypt was the brainchild of native africans.

it has been proven without doubt, that a racial group called the hibiru (hyskos shepherd kings), were at one time rulers, who were eventually enslaved and then chased out of egypt by pharaoh ahmose (ah-mose. sounds familar doesn't it?). but mainstream historical and archaeological texts, still say the hebrews (israelites) were never enslaved in egypt and the ancient accounts of this event, are pure fabrication.

it has been proven, without a doubt, that the black sea flood is equivalent to the biblical flood and the flood of the epic of gilgamesh, but mainstream historical and geological texts, as a general rule, still maintain the flood accounts of the ancient people of mesopotamia are fairy tales.

the osirieon at abydos was built much earlier than Seti I, but the mainstream historical and archaeological texts, choose to ignore the evidence, in lieu of the version that seti built it. things that make you go "hmmm."

there are countless examples of historical figures from various ancient texts, the world over, that have been proven to have existed and not mythological afterall but it is all summarily ignored in mainstream texts covering such topics, in lieu of a theory promulgated 300 years ago that all ancient history is mythological.

so evolution science isn't the only place we are discovering the human predilection to data tyranny.

Originally posted by Target Earth
they need to cut lose all these Liberal teachers, who seem to have gotten a foot hold in the education system.
I don't care if they teach darwinism, but Creationism should be taught as well...

Darwinism is an extensive topic with empirical evidence.
Creationism is subjective evidence at best.
School tends to teach only the former.

and that's just covering evolution gods of academia. what about the historians, archaeologists, mathematicians, and other scientists? what we have here is a serious breakdown in the information stream. it concerns me that some nefarious organization is playing both ends against the middle on these topics. for example

reply to post by undo


YES. yes yes yes . Now we are getting somewhere. This is exactly where I was trying to steer this thread.
Good job undo. I was so tired when I put this puppy up last night. Total lack of potency in the OP.
Thank you for that excellent observation.

reply to post by randyvs


thank you. doesn't it bother you that one of the reasons the ancient texts of the ancient world are ruled myth is because 300 years ago, none of the stuff in it was scientifically possible, yet today, it can all (or almost all) be done with science? they ruled it not scientifically possible, and therefore a myth, 300 years ago.

today, the mainstream communities of the various schools of science (of which archaeology and history are said to be a part), are still desperately clinging to 300 year old decisions and no amount of evidence to the contrary is likely to sway them. this is because it points out the big elephant in the room, that if we were to actually notice it, collectively, we might suddenly become religious fanatics or (gasp) ufo nuts. when the truth is, just having accurate data would make most of us quite happy, all fanaticism aside.

reply to post by undo


Seems kind of funny also the way the replys are trickling in. where is everyone?

thank you. doesn't it bother you that one of the reasons the ancient texts of the ancient world are ruled myth is because 300 years ago, none of the stuff in it was scientifically possible, yet today, it can all (or almost all) be done with science? they ruled it not scientifically possible, and therefore a myth. 300 years ago.

Hell yes it bothers me.
This is what I was just about to post. Watch this thru unless you've already seen it.





Change that switch that around.
Kind of funny, three rock carvings that belong together as a recording of a bible miracle. One was at a completely different museum.? What is that? Total incompetance? Or worse exactly what we are taking about,
This is historical evidence of a Bible miracle.

reply to post by randyvs


"The Exodus Decoded" is bull# Randy.
Don't take my word for it, surely you agree these people know the bible.

Associates for Biblical Research
www.biblearchaeology.org...

Biblical Archaeology Society
web.archive.org...://www.bib-arch.org/bswbOOexodusbeware.html

Wiki for a bigger list.
en.wikipedia.org...

The two idiots you link in the OP are just two idiots bought and paid for by the ID movement ... Well I cannot prove they sold out .. but I can confirm they are idiots.

Originally posted by randyvs

They are control freaks.
They want to control what we all believe.

By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

From the The AiG Statement of Faith
www.answersingenesis.org...

reply to post by nophun

The Exodus Decoded" is bull# Randy

Ok, Seems irrelevant though. There's no way you can say that about those rock carvings. Or the interpretation
there in. It's not even debatable. It is carved into rock, that the waters were divided and Pharoahs army was lost to the sea. Carved in stone. Can there be a greater testimony?
Thanks for your reply by the way.

Paulygirl
Thank you for the link Madam.

Has anybody seen my video? What the ---- did somebody steal the ----en thing?
Can't trust anybody around this site these days.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun

 

The Exodus Decoded" is bull# Randy

Ok, Seems irrelevant though. There's no way you can say that about those rock carvings. Or the interpretation
there in. It's not even debatable. It is carved into rock, that the waters were divided and Pharoahs army was lost to the sea. Carved in stone. Can there be a greater testimony?
Thanks for your reply by the way.

Sorry about my short last post Randy.
How is is irrelevant? Jacobovici is not credible.

You are talking about this artifact ?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4fc8d7340d1c.jpg[/atsimg]

He comes to his conclusion the spirals are really waves and this is a image of Moses being chased though the divided sea, COMPLETELY forgetting to mention those "waves" are a common Mycenaean motif.

Even if a piece was never found with this design before or after this one, you would seriously think it is not debatable that this is proof that the sea parted and moses ran though on solid ground ? Really ?

The guy came up with own conclusions to sell a story. Much like Zecharia Sitchin, in my opinion.
He is a dishonest conman.