Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[lesliedellow]

Let's see: Since 1930 astronomers have abandoned standard particle physics theory, relegated gravity as described by Einstein in GR and SR as "two bit players" in a universe dominated by "dark energy". So much for the claim "gravity sucks". In fluid dynamics they continue to peddle a concept that Alfven himself called "pseudoscience" throughout his professional career, and that he made obsolete with his double layer paper. I'd say that since 1930 astronomers have abandoned virtually the entire realm of empirical physics in favor of myth making with magic energy/matter.

Yeah sure. Only General Relativity relates to gravity, and which part of Potential Theory is pseudo-science exactly?

St Alfven said it, so it must be true, I suppose.

 

[JacksBratt]

Not if you squeeze the cranium between two boards.



Are they all the same, or are they characteristic? You need to pick one.

Also, if sutures form between adjacent skull plates after the boarding has been done, then the sutures will form just fine, as seen in this picture.

Where is your source for all of this? These skulls are totally missing the middle suture that runs up the back of all human skulls. The top "cap" is a solid piece of bone with no sutures. This is impossible in any human skull, boarded or not.

Also, you still cannot create a larger volume in the brain cavity by tying your kids head to a board or wrapping it with rope.

This skull shows the part of a human skull that fills in as an infant ages to an age of around 19 months or so.

This skull is obviously not even close to the one above and all the boarding you do is not going to change it.

So just call it fake. It will then all go away...

 

[JacksBratt]

There were no giants.
You have been taken in by internet falsehoods and a poor reading of the Bible.

Of course there weren't. All the evidence is faked. Every single piece. Every skull, every skeleton, every newspaper article, every story that has been told to the pioneers by Indians (who, by the way would rather die than ever tell a lie).
They are all lies. Not one has any shred of truth...

Yet, my great great great great grandfather........ was a rock.

 

[JacksBratt]

But here's the thing... there is ZERO evidence for your claim.
The story of Fallen Angels taking human wives to produce wicked offspring, the stories of the Native Americans are all just stories.
The photos you have shown are all fake, and the cone-head skulls are not evidence of giants.

Considering that you probably do not believe the Bible and you will not believe the stories from the Natives, I cannot comment on any of the written record of any of this.

The skulls are huge, and have double rows of teeth. Are you saying that they were not Giants, just ancient bobble heads?

OR, just go with your ostrich approach....... Yep, they are all fakes. every single one.... Go with that. Life will be easier for you.
Isn't this a fantastic work of fakery? Good job it's not real. What in the world would we do if even one of these was authentic.

This one too:

 

[Loudmouth]

Where is your source for all of this? These skulls are totally missing the middle suture that runs up the back of all human skulls. The top "cap" is a solid piece of bone with no sutures. This is impossible in any human skull, boarded or not.

Who says it is impossible?

 

[JacksBratt]

Who says it is impossible?

DNA. It's blueprinted this way.
Just like we have two eyes, two legs, sinuses, cochlea, fingernails, and rods and cones in our eyes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Considering that you probably do not believe the Bible and you will not believe the stories from the Natives, I cannot comment on any of the written record of any of this.

The skulls are huge, and have double rows of teeth. Are you saying that they were not Giants, just ancient bobble heads?

OR, just go with your ostrich approach....... Yep, they are all fakes. every single one.... Go with that. Life will be easier for you.
Isn't this a fantastic work of fakery? Good job it's not real. What in the world would we do if even one of these was authentic.

This one too:

Those skulls do not show double rows of teeth, and where is your evidence that giants had large elongated heads? Hmm? Your claim of "Oh, the skulls are elongated. Therefore giants!" is ridiculously unfounded.

And yes, I don't believe the Bible, because the Bible is not the word of God. It's the word of men, pure and simple. God's word is in the world around us. And there's zero evidence of any giants.

 

[Loudmouth]

DNA. It's blueprinted this way.
Just like we have two eyes, two legs, sinuses, cochlea, fingernails, and rods and cones in our eyes.

I asked for a who, which would be a name and a reference. Have one?

Also, if someone gets their ears pierced, does this mean that their DNA has the blueprint for holes in the ear lobes?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course there weren't. All the evidence is faked. Every single piece. Every skull, every skeleton, every newspaper article, every story that has been told to the pioneers by Indians (who, by the way would rather die than ever tell a lie).
They are all lies. Not one has any shred of truth...

Yet, my great great great great grandfather........ was a rock.

The Vikings told stories about ice giants, so they must be true!
The Irish Celts told stories about the ettin, so they must be true!
The Chinese told stories about dragons, so they must be true!
The Medieval Germans told stories about werewolves, so they must be true!

Do you see where I'm going with this?

 

[James Wilson]

loudmouth seems to be writing his own history.

You exclaimed, "You have also completely made this up. That is not an assumption used in geology. In fact, the meteor impact that marked the K/T boundary is a perfect example of an extraterrestrial cause."

Quoting from Shawna Vogel in Naked Earth: The New Geophysics: "Adapting Uniformitarianism to fit the 1990s, geologists even make room in their modern theories for occasional catastrophic events like mantle avalanches or, as we shall soon see, asteroid impacts." p. 156.

To use the example of the meteor impact brought on by the iridium is sophistry: I used that same example to show how the Alvarez's overcame the opposition of the Uniformitarianists.

When I gave the number as 150 years, it was an estimate, not a lie. On doing a little more research, perhaps I should have said around 200 years, making my point that old assumptions often constrain modern science.

Can we tone down the ad hominem attack a little here?

 

[Loudmouth]

loudmouth seems to be writing his own history.

Read it for yourself:

"For a while, Buckland had continued to insist that some geological layers were related to the Great Flood, but grew to accept the idea that they represented multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. In 1840 he made a field trip to Scotland with the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz, and became convinced that the "diluvial" features which he had attributed to the Deluge had, in fact, been produced by ancient ice ages. Buckland became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations, and diluvialism went out of use in geology. Active geologists no longer posited sudden ancient catastrophes with unknown causes, and instead increasingly explained phenomena by observable processes causing slow changes over great periods."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Criticisms_and_retractions:_the_downfall_of_Diluvialism

Noah's flood was disproven before Darwin ever set pen to page.

Quoting from Shawna Vogel in Naked Earth: The New Geophysics: "Adapting Uniformitarianism to fit the 1990s, geologists even make room in their modern theories for occasional catastrophic events like mantle avalanches or, as we shall soon see, asteroid impacts." p. 156.

When were catastrophic events ever removed from geology, as you claimed?

When were Christians kicked out of geology?

When was evidence for God ever kicked out of geology?

 

[James Wilson]

Read it for yourself:

"For a while, Buckland had continued to insist that some geological layers were related to the Great Flood, but grew to accept the idea that they represented multiple inundations which occurred well before humans existed. In 1840 he made a field trip to Scotland with the Swiss geologist Louis Agassiz, and became convinced that the "diluvial" features which he had attributed to the Deluge had, in fact, been produced by ancient ice ages. Buckland became one of the foremost champions of Agassiz's theory of glaciations, and diluvialism went out of use in geology. Active geologists no longer posited sudden ancient catastrophes with unknown causes, and instead increasingly explained phenomena by observable processes causing slow changes over great periods."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_geology#Criticisms_and_retractions:_the_downfall_of_Diluvialism

Noah's flood was disproven before Darwin ever set pen to page.



When were catastrophic events ever removed from geology, as you claimed?

When were Christians kicked out of geology?

When was evidence for God ever kicked out of geology?

Let's try to do one conversation at a time. I showed a published reference contradicting your supposition and you showed a fellow who changed his mind about the Flood. If you don't trust the published reference, I don't know what to say.

Do a search of "Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism" (https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20101013062251AAkZcuF is just one of many references).

If you're going to expend all your energy on denying what is easily proven (in this very limited discussion: such as, you clearly need to do some reading on "Uniformitarian vs. Catastrophism").

I have a masters degree in nuclear engineering and have worked for at a government lab for 26 years. I've also presented lectures on evolution vs. creation many times and for many years. This is not something that can be done if you keep shifting the subject. Or if you keep denying you know anything about searching the net. How about NOT presuming automatically that I'm a stupid numbskull and trying to remain civil?

If you can't observe normal rules of debate (including no ad hominem attacks), then I will cease this string, not because your logic is overwhelming, but absent.

 

[Hoghead1]

When were Christians kicked out of geology? What kind of a question is that? It is more a snide remark than a solid rebuttal. When was God kicked out of geology? Another snide remark. In point of fact, it is definitely not the business of science to prove or disprove God, period. That's the task for philosophy and theology. You dub yourself Loudmouth. Well, you are certainly one here. All you've shown is that you know absolutely nothing about science or Christianity.

 

[Butterfly99]

When were Christians kicked out of geology? What kind of a question is that? It is more a snide remark than a solid rebuttal. When was God kicked out of geology? Another snide remark. In point of fact, it is definitely not the business of science to prove or disprove God, period. That's the task for philosophy and theology. You dub yourself Loudmouth. Well, you are certainly one here. All you've shown is that you know absolutely nothing about science or Christianity.

Why not just answer the questions that he asked? They were reasonable.

 

[JacksBratt]

I asked for a who, which would be a name and a reference. Have one?

Also, if someone gets their ears pierced, does this mean that their DNA has the blueprint for holes in the ear lobes?

Well, this is getting ridiculous......

Check any book on anatomy. All human skulls have the same bone structure. Just like you have one upper arm bone, called a humerus and two forearm bones, the ulna and radius. You cannot make the arm have three bones in the forearm by binding it or stretching it and the same is with the skull. You are born with plates of bones that are unique to humans and they will grow together as you go from infant to young child. They will then fuse in this pattern characteristic of all humans.

Sheeesh....... research anything about anatomy?

No, if you cut your arm off, pierce your ear, put a bone in your nose it would be a renovation. Not genetic. That didn't even deserve a response it was so silly.

These creatures, humanoid beings had different bone structure in their skull, large skulls and their children would have the same type of bone structure in their skulls. And so on, and so on.....

 

[JacksBratt]

Those skulls do not show double rows of teeth, and where is your evidence that giants had large elongated heads? Hmm? Your claim of "Oh, the skulls are elongated. Therefore giants!" is ridiculously unfounded.

And yes, I don't believe the Bible, because the Bible is not the word of God. It's the word of men, pure and simple. God's word is in the world around us. And there's zero evidence of any giants.

I resisted even replying to your ostrich like view of this but here I go......I know, I know.... it cannot be.... it must be a hoax..... just like the hundreds of other items of proof of this actually being truth. What about our precious theory of evolution. I just won't accept it.....

FORBIDDEN ARCHEOLOGY
Here’s yet another update to “Forbidden Archeology” in America:

A giant mystery: 18 strange giant skeletons found in Wisconsin: Sons of god; Men of renown
Kristan Harris
SouthMilwaukeeNow
Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:30 CST



Here’s one for your “Forbidden Archaeology” file.Scientists are remaining stubbornly silent about a lost race of giants found in burial mounds near Lake Delavan, Wisconsin, in May 1912. The dig site at Lake Delavan was overseen by Beloit College and it included more than 200 effigy mounds that proved to be classic examples of 8th century Woodland Culture. But the enormous size of the skeletons and elongated skulls found in May 1912 did not fit very neatly into anyone’s concept of a textbook standard. They were enormous. These were not average human beings.


Strange Skulls


First reported in the 4 May 1912 issue of the New York Times the 18 skeletons found by the Peterson brothers on Lake Lawn Farm in southwest Wisconsin exhibited several strange and freakish features.


Their heights ranged between 7.6ft and 10 feet and their skulls “presumably those of men, are much larger than the heads of any race which inhabit America to-day.” They tend to have a double row of teeth, 6 fingers, 6 toes and like humans came in differant races. The teeth in the front of the jaw are regular molars. Heads usually found are elongated believed due to longer than normal life span.


” One must wonder how much can they lift if twice the size of a average human today? Are these the Giants the Bible & many other civilizations have in their history and painted on their walls. The Bible in Genisis 6:4 ” There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old men of renown. ” Now this is faulty logic to any scientist out there because I am using religous/cultural history to fill a hole in science.


Over 200 Giant digs have been found in recent years. Giant skeleton finds have not made the local/national news since the 1950’s for the most part. It seems in most peoples opinion do to the fear that people would question evolution . If anything a de-evolution.

 

[JacksBratt]

The Vikings told stories about ice giants, so they must be true!
The Irish Celts told stories about the ettin, so they must be true!
The Chinese told stories about dragons, so they must be true!
The Medieval Germans told stories about werewolves, so they must be true!

Do you see where I'm going with this?

Oh ya, I see. You left out Sasquatch, and Yeti, and Big Foot. Do you have actual skeletons, skulls and pictures to base this on or are you going to try to float your boat on just stories.

I have shown actual pictures of museum artifacts of skulls, newspaper articles on the discovery of these bones in mound type graves, pictures of actual large bones and I will even throw in a quote from Abe Lincoln:

But still there is more. It calls up the indefinite past. When Columbus first sought this continent---when Christ suffered on the cross---when Moses led Israel through the Red-Sea---nay, even, when Adam first came from the hand of his Maker---then as now, Niagara was roaring here. The eyes of that species of extinct giants, whose bones fill the mounds of America, have gazed on Niagara, as ours do now..

Now, before you get out your "evolutionists guide responding to any truth that exposes evolution as a farce", He is not talking about Mammoth bones... they were not buried in the mounds. The mounds were grave sites of an intelligent giant cannibalistic race of people, usually with red hair (go figure), six fingers and toes, elongated skulls and double rows of teeth. They terrorized the native tribes, cannibalized them and fought with them in wars.

The evidence is throughout the world and much of it is in the land that is now the USA, Mexico and much of South America.

Sure there are hoaxes out there. Have you forgotten all the hoaxes of the evolution trail? The skeletons (cough,cough) it that theories closet....

However, they are not all hoaxes. There is really something to this story and the archaeological evidence that backs it up.

 

[Gene2memE]

Here's my problems with these accounts:

No follow-up is EVER reported. Archaeology was an established science at the time, yet there are never any accounts of experts in the field being consulted, of specimens being sent to universities, museums or medical institutions of the time.

There are no bones. Mankind has been digging up and investigating and PRESERVING dinosaur bones since the early 1820s - possibly even earlier. We still have the bones from some of the very first dinosaur discoveries - the Oxford University Museum of Natural History has bones from an Iguanadon from 1922, a Megalosaurus dating back to 1824 and a Hylaeosaurus from 1842. The Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences has a near complete Iguanadon skeleton from 1878. Yet, curiously, despite the claims that the skeletons of several thousand giants have been found, there is not a single skeleton to be displayed, reconstruction to be found or contemporary picture, lithograph or sketch.

There are no journal articles from the period describing giant skeletons. Archaeology was a flourishing science at the beginning of the 20th century, and there were dozens of contemporary journals to publish in. There are all sorts of articles about dinosaurs, prehistoric man, early European and American societies and the like. Yet, articles about giant skeletons are CONSPICUOUS BY THEIR ABSENCE. All we have are sensationalist newspaper articles.

As soon as cameras began to become widely used as a tool for archaeology, the reports of giants start to dry up. When photos and reference rulers become standard equipment in archaeology, the reports of giants vanish.

Even at the time these were recognised as hoaxes. By the 1860s, there had been so many giant skeleton hoaxes uncovered that Mark Twain even took the time to pen a parody of them.

That's right, the idea of giants has been laughed at for more than 150 years, but people here keep bringing them up. As P.T. Barnum said: There's a sucker born every minute

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

Thomas Kuhn wrote the book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which devastated the scientific community by saying “All the assumptions of a culture are held in common, and assumed to be fact. These assumptions/turned fact are transmitted by educational institutions and authorities” (paraphrase). And the scientists hounded him until he recanted his premise (I thought we’d gotten smarter after forcing Galileo to recant)

Here is a classic example of creationist fraud. You put in Quotes what you admit is not a quote. I read Kuhn, and your fake 'quote' grossly distorted what he wrote. Kuhn never "recanted." He did need to make repeated attempts to correct the stupid misrepresentations of what he did write. This was futile as your ignorant misrepresentations expose.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Loudmouth objected to my not giving a theological discussion of Einstein's deism. I wanted to be brief.

Someone in this string questioned what kind of assumptions am I talking about. When the Alvarez father-and-son team suggested that the concentrated iridium layer present all over the world implied that a meteorite had hit the earth, ending the age of the dinosaurs. One group hotly debated with the Alvarez's for 10 years, fighting them at every turn.

Let's look into that group and the assumptions that they thought were fact (those 'pesky' Christians were not involved in this obstruction of science). 150 years ago the geologists wanted to clean up the neighborhood. After all, with shells on the highest mountains, it seemed pretty obvious to Christian geologists that Noah's Flood had really occurred.

So the geologists banned Christians and God-believers from their science with these two assumptions:
First, that nothing in geology can be the effect of an extraterrestrial cause (hence, God is outlawed). Secondly, they declared that no catastrophes would be allowed (they included 'miracles' or 'acts of God' as 'catastrophes').

When the sincere Alvarez pair came along, these foolish two violated geology's sacrosanct assumptions/facts: Nothing extraterrestrial (like a meteor) and nothing catastrophic (that meteor hitting the Earth).

Every time I bring this up, some geologists, instead of responding to the meat of the conversation, pick at tiny things. Like, the assumptions I referred to constitute 'Uniformitarianism', which many geologists no longer accept. That's a true statement, but specious, because science was delayed for 10 years by this foolish argument over 150 year old assumptions. Ignore the minor corrections; get to the major.

This is a very impressive piece of bafflegab. I counted 10 gross errors. Were they all from ignorance, or were some on purpose?