by vision-master » Sat 20 Jun 2009, 11:29:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('vision-master', 'I') only seek truth.
You seek a crutch.
Here's a nice quote from another forum about ID.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'V')M - There is no evidence he will accepts because it necessitates a change in his beliefs. The evidence for past cultures is MUCH stronger than that of random mutation evolution being the prime cause for species differentiation & multiplicity. But he was told by an Authority just how things are and nothing can change that until another Authority comes & tells him otherwise. He's the epitome of the Education System & they would be proud of him.
Evidence in stone won't do it, evidence in Ooparts isn't enough & anachronistic knowledge will fail the test for him because somebody, somewhere, will find a way to discount it.
think of it this way - the Education system has turned out people who honestly believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming because their Authority tells them it is so. It matters not to them that their Authority sits in a room with a computer coming up with his 'facts' or that the people who are out doing actual science (as opposed to computer games) out in the field where they measure & test & observe what is happening in the real world disagree with the supposed facts being found on computers.
Education has being carefully focussed over the years to produce people who will do as they are told, who will accept what is told to them & who would fail any test of critical thinking, logical analysis or original creativity put to them.
Yet evidence which 'suggests' things becomes solid fact simply because someone who 'wears a white coat' suggests it to them. The fact is, even the genetic evidence proclaiming how old we are & how long ago things happened is, at best, a guesstimate because, like Carbon Dating, it relies on things affected by the background radiation environment - carbon dating is acknowledged to be in error & so, when presented honestly, is shown as (say) 5000 years, + or - 350. (of course when they are trying to present an agenda, the + or - gets left off, but it is there & until recently it was at 10%.
And when you get to something more than 40,000 or 50,000 years ago, Carbon Dating becomes irrelevant, because we don't have records or good enough proxies to define the radiation environment that long ago, so we cannot tell the carbon 14 accumulation or decay rates.
The random mutation 'tick' of the natural selection clock has a similar problem. If, for example, there was a radiation even 70,000 years ago that raised the background radiation environment in any amount, the mutation rate changes. What is not emphasised about these changes is that they come from outside. the cell has no mechanism for forcing random changes on the DNA - in fact, the cell has mechanisms for preventing such. And while I've seen a number of publications about the natural selection rate being useful, & being applied to both central & mitochondrial DNA, I haven't seen those publications giving explanation for why the rate is what it is nor of possible variations in the rate.
And I have yet to see a standard explanation for why, or how, this standard 'tick' of mutation can produce such a massive flooding of niches after an ELE. (Extinction Level Event) The number of genetic defects is small, even the harmful ones. the number of neutral ones is smaller still and the number of beneficial ones is even smaller. We look around our world & see very little evidence of genetic alterations, yet we are expected to accept that somehow, these alterations will suddenly, after a massive event wipes out a plethora of life forms, start producing enormous numbers of new species, deliver suddenly beneficial changes to allow the flooding of new types into new biological niches & provide an evolutionary flooding of the type we see after each ELE.
If rnadom mutation is the driver, an external event such as an ELE would have little effect on the species numbers - the build up of new species & the filling of niches would proceed at the steady pace driven by the ongoing tiny numbers of positive mutations in the genomes of current animals.
And I agree with VM - I think we have had higher civilisation before this, albeit perhaps modelled differently - & I remain unconvinced that our lives are significantly better in any way than were those of the societies who built the original Dwarka, or who lived in Yonaguni or Tiahuanaco. I doubt strongly that our focus on the physical, that our belief in happiness through owning 'things' or our conviction that all can be explained by physical mechanism provide any amount of content or happiness in the people.
Certainly when I try to imagine a people who, with far less resources than we have, could build the monuments we see reaching from the past to us, I see a society far more cohesive, far more focussed & quite obviously far more prepared to work together than any I see now in the 'superior' Western world.
And if our physicists & cosmologists, as well as the mystics & sages from the past are correct, the piss-farting around about nailing down the dotted i's & crossed t's of the Standard Model is little more than defining to the exact minutiae, a dream that occurred last night. And when we wake up, we will find that, while there may have been useful content in the dream, and we may have learned things we didn't know before, that real life is significantly different than that of which we dreamed.
Don't get me wrong here. Physical information is important & the explorations of science are useful, but currently they are firstly, blinkered by misconceptions that science is the ONLY way to learn & secondly, hampered drastically by the political machinations which prevent all knowledge from being explored in favour of what those behind the scenes are willing to have us know. Media & funding carrots & sticks are being used to discourage raw science & to significantly alter the path of investigation.
So, what might convince the True Believers of orthodox Science as propounded by the obviously unbiased and investigative media?
Evidence in stone won't do it, evidence in Ooparts isn't enough & anachronistic knowledge will fail the test for him because somebody, somewhere, will find a way to discount it.
And if the steady ascent of Man from Cave wall to Walmart is shown to be wrong, then we need to revise the whole subject of how we came to be. And along the way, you can bet your arse, the subject of design versus evolution will face a revision as well.
Where modern views fail in an obvious manner is it only needs one piece of the many pieces of evidence to be correct & the whole edifice of 'we are the best because we are the latest' comes crashing down. And there is plenty of it around, but it gets ignored or discounted for obviously facile or ridiculous reasons.
So the Piri Reis map is enough. Never mind the circumlocutions they indulge in to try to show how it doesn't show the coast of Antarctica when it was free of ice, never mind how they try to claim it doesn't show the coast of South America before anyone we know had mapped it. Let's stick with the USGS finding that it is based on an accurate system of Latitude & Longitude.
According to our modern beliefs, nobody back then had a way to accurately determine Longitude. They didn't have an accurate chronometer until a couple of hundred years after Piri Reis & it's kind of a necessity. Not only that, but the USGS agrees the map is a copy of a globe mapped onto a flat surface, but not one using Mercator projection such as modern atlases use.
The mathematics needed to perform such a feat were, again, not invented according to orthodox view, until a couple of hundred years after the map was made.
And Piri Reis says clearly on the map it was copied from older sources - this was in a time when people got ennobled for producing an accurate map for their nation or king. Orontaeus (sp?) also had a map, it shows other strange things, like accurately mapping the rivers & coastal mountains of an ice free Antarctica.
Those maps alone are enough to force a revision in our entire pattern of thinking about the past. Those maps invalidate everything we've been taught about the history of Man.
Science tells us that the Sphinx could NOT have been built in 2400BC yet those still bhound by the modern Education chains will insist an obvious idiot like Hawass is right when experts in their fields of science say otherwise. Robert Schoch did not go on a tourist holiday & come up with his theory, he took a properly credentialed team there & they did real science. As such, in science, (& to a much higher level of confidence than the whole 'random mutations did it all hypothesis) the Sphinx is much older than 2400BC - the minimum a cautious guy like Schoch is prepared to back is around 7,000BC, but that is when the last of the rains pelted down on a greener Sahara - it is suggesting that a couple of years of rain did all the damage to the sphinx & to the surrounding excavation from which it was carved.
In solid rock, we have scientific evidence that there was a civilisation capable of an incredible work of art, when, according to our modern educated-in beliefs, there were no societies to do it.
Let's look at Tiahuanaco - again we have a place that, even by the most conservative estimates, predates any society that could have built it.
Obviously, the media & educated views are wrong. There WERE such societies around because we have their remains, both on land & under the sea. So the whole structure of past knowledge has to be revised. Obviously this has brought about a massive increase in funding to Universities & research organisations to delve into, open up & publish the scientific proof of our true forebears.
