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

[JacksBratt]

Show a comparison between these skulls and the skulls of a regular human to match your claim that they are the skulls of giants, or you are just blowing smoke out of your behind.

Giant Baby Mummy.

I don't see or smell any smoke........ You?

 

[JacksBratt]

Didn't I read in one of his links that the giants were up to 25 feet tall? If that is so, the giant skulls ought to be 64 times the volume of a modern human skull.

Show me where I said that these skulls were from 25 foot tall Giants.
Most of the skeletons were presumed to be 8 to 12 foot tall beings of normal health. Not with the same disease as Andre the Giant.

 

[JacksBratt]

He also claimed they had double rows of teeth, so there'd be that to see too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Giant Baby Mummy.

I don't see or smell any smoke........ You?

I ran the first image through a google image search. It's fake.
And the last two: how can you honestly think that the skull on the left is the skull of a giant? Apart from the obviously artificial cranial deformation, it has all of the same size properties as the skull on the right. It is not the skull of a giant.
If it were, the entirety of the skull would be disproportionately than the regular skull.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That skulls is evidence that a normal human had double rows of teeth.
It is NOT evidence of giants having double rows of teeth.
You REALLY need to get it together about the size of your 'giants'.

 

[Loudmouth]

Giant Baby Mummy.

Fake.

I don't see or smell any smoke........ You?

Did you fail to notice that the jaws, brow ridges, eye sockets, and width of skull all match up with modern humans?

 

[Michael]

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

The mainstream has been trying to ride the coattails of GR theory, while actually peddling a supernatural "blunder" theory, not pure GR theory. Their introduction of "dark energy", or magical forms of energy simply turns the math formula into a supernatural unsupported claim that begins and ends with an affirming the consequent fallacy and a "statement of faith" in "space expansion", something Einstein's use of a non-zero constant never even required nor implied!

Your heroes simply kludged the math and pretend that GR theory gives their dark energy claims instant merit. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of pure empirical physics.

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

How is it that you're comfortable peddling a pseudo-scientific "blunder" theory, while trying to ride the coattails of two different areas of physics where the authors of the theory actually *disapproved* of your unsupported claims?

Almost every lab example of "magnetic reconnection" begins and ends with an electric field that drives current through plasma. The rest rely upon lasers that also "drive current" through plasma. It's nothing more than "current reconnection" via a double layer, and Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant in all such environments! Holy Cow. Sure, just ignore the authors themselves and bury your head in the sand as it relates to the fact that no experiment on Earth ultimately supports any of your claims.

 

[lesliedellow]

The mainstream has been trying to ride the coattails of GR theory, while actually peddling a supernatural "blunder" theory, not pure GR theory. Their introduction of "dark energy", or magical forms of energy simply turns the math formula into a supernatural unsupported claim that begins and ends with an affirming the consequent fallacy and a "statement of faith" in "space expansion", something Einstein's use of a non-zero constant never even required nor implied!

Your heroes simply kludged the math and pretend that GR theory gives their dark energy claims instant merit. Nothing could be further from the truth in terms of pure empirical physics.



How is it that you're comfortable peddling a pseudo-scientific "blunder" theory, while trying to ride the coattails of two different areas of physics where the authors of the theory actually *disapproved* of your unsupported claims?

Almost every lab example of "magnetic reconnection" begins and ends with an electric field that drives current through plasma. The rest rely upon lasers that also "drive current" through plasma. It's nothing more than "current reconnection" via a double layer, and Alfven's double layer paper makes the whole concept obsolete and irrelevant in all such environments! Holy Cow. Sure, just ignore the authors themselves and bury your head in the sand as it relates to the fact that no experiment on Earth ultimately supports any of your claims.

I've heard it all before.

 

[Michael]

I've heard it all before.

Yep, and you've simply buried your head in the sand to all the problems with Lambda-CDM for years now.

Nevermind the fact that your claims about SN1A events being so called "standard candles" have since been falsified, and "space expansion" has never been empirically linked to photon redshift, "dark energy" did it anyway!

 

[James Wilson]

Most scientists reject Thomas Kuhn’s wakeup call in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, even though his book fostered the science of paradigm change, how to detect when aging paradigms are wearing out, and how to predict the paradigms (or scientific models) of tomorrow.

Using these techniques, I published various papers in national and international conferences and journals (not Creationist or Christian venues, but solid, scientific conferences). Here’s an example of my publications:

A paper showing how the largest and third largest meteorites to ever hit the Earth caused elephant-sized oil deposits (the type that birthed Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth) on two great circles on the Earth. These circles lined up existing elephant-sized deposits and projected where to look for the next such deposits. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, which warned their members about nasty Creationists on their website, still published my paper.

A paper that proposed an alternative to the asymptotic increase in global warming by considering cyclic warming throughout thousands of years of history, via the mechanism of the worldwide ocean conveyor. This paper not only predicted the cause of global warming, but its solution or prevention. This was published at the Boston Global Warming conference, and in their international journal by special invitation. They also invited me the following year to submit my follow-on work for their Featured Speaker position.

Three international conferences published my papers on the problems with the world’s best radiometric dating methods. As a result of these papers, I was invited to attend a conference featuring a ‘shootout’ of the Western proponents of oil exploration (looking in sedimentary formations for ‘petro-oil’ or oil sourced from animals and plants) vs. Russian techniques (looking for abiotic oil in basement or the deepest layers below the fossil record).

I also pointed out errors in two computer codes by the world’s foremost experts in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and human error analysis. I was paid by these experts to correct these same computer codes.

Using Kuhn’s techniques, I was able to propose significant advancements in widely diverse fields, and get them published. Scientists can disparage Kuhn all they want, but his techniques work!

Kuhn, like the boy who cried out, “The king has no clothes”, wasn’t reaching out to the king’s guards as much as the long-suffering populace.

I also realize that very few rigid scientists will change (it has been said that “Science improves one funeral at a time”, for there is no other way to loosen the hold of the rigid and powerful eggheads preventing progress in science). Instead I’m reaching out to the conservative Christian and Jewish parents who’ve watched their kids march off to college and lose their faith under the assault of atheistic and evolutionist teachers.

From the reactions of naysayers in this string, many of our scientists not only can’t see the assumptions that support their science, but blindly refuse to acknowledge these assumptions when they ARE pointed out. Scientists will not experience the power to ADVANCE their science unless they first recognize the assumptions inherent IN their science.

 

[bhsmte]

Most scientists reject Thomas Kuhn’s wakeup call in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, even though his book fostered the science of paradigm change, how to detect when aging paradigms are wearing out, and how to predict the paradigms (or scientific models) of tomorrow.

Using these techniques, I published various papers in national and international conferences and journals (not Creationist or Christian venues, but solid, scientific conferences). Here’s an example of my publications:

A paper showing how the largest and third largest meteorites to ever hit the Earth caused elephant-sized oil deposits (the type that birthed Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth) on two great circles on the Earth. These circles lined up existing elephant-sized deposits and projected where to look for the next such deposits. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, which warned their members about nasty Creationists on their website, still published my paper.

A paper that proposed an alternative to the asymptotic increase in global warming by considering cyclic warming throughout thousands of years of history, via the mechanism of the worldwide ocean conveyor. This paper not only predicted the cause of global warming, but its solution or prevention. This was published at the Boston Global Warming conference, and in their international journal by special invitation. They also invited me the following year to submit my follow-on work for their Featured Speaker position.

Three international conferences published my papers on the problems with the world’s best radiometric dating methods. As a result of these papers, I was invited to attend a conference featuring a ‘shootout’ of the Western proponents of oil exploration (looking in sedimentary formations for ‘petro-oil’ or oil sourced from animals and plants) vs. Russian techniques (looking for abiotic oil in basement or the deepest layers below the fossil record).

I also pointed out errors in two computer codes by the world’s foremost experts in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and human error analysis. I was paid by these experts to correct these same computer codes.

Using Kuhn’s techniques, I was able to propose significant advancements in widely diverse fields, and get them published. Scientists can disparage Kuhn all they want, but his techniques work!

Kuhn, like the boy who cried out, “The king has no clothes”, wasn’t reaching out to the king’s guards as much as the long-suffering populace.

I also realize that very few rigid scientists will change (it has been said that “Science improves one funeral at a time”, for there is no other way to loosen the hold of the rigid and powerful eggheads preventing progress in science). Instead I’m reaching out to the conservative Christian and Jewish parents who’ve watched their kids march off to college and lose their faith under the assault of atheistic and evolutionist teachers.

From the reactions of naysayers in this string, many of our scientists not only can’t see the assumptions that support their science, but blindly refuse to acknowledge these assumptions when they ARE pointed out. Scientists will not experience the power to ADVANCE their science unless they first recognize the assumptions inherent IN their science.

Any objective evidence to support all this?

 

[Loudmouth]

Most scientists reject Thomas Kuhn’s wakeup call in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, even though his book fostered the science of paradigm change, how to detect when aging paradigms are wearing out, and how to predict the paradigms (or scientific models) of tomorrow.

Using these techniques, I published various papers in national and international conferences and journals (not Creationist or Christian venues, but solid, scientific conferences). Here’s an example of my publications:

A paper showing how the largest and third largest meteorites to ever hit the Earth caused elephant-sized oil deposits (the type that birthed Saudi Arabia’s oil wealth) on two great circles on the Earth. These circles lined up existing elephant-sized deposits and projected where to look for the next such deposits. The Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists, which warned their members about nasty Creationists on their website, still published my paper.

A paper that proposed an alternative to the asymptotic increase in global warming by considering cyclic warming throughout thousands of years of history, via the mechanism of the worldwide ocean conveyor. This paper not only predicted the cause of global warming, but its solution or prevention. This was published at the Boston Global Warming conference, and in their international journal by special invitation. They also invited me the following year to submit my follow-on work for their Featured Speaker position.

Three international conferences published my papers on the problems with the world’s best radiometric dating methods. As a result of these papers, I was invited to attend a conference featuring a ‘shootout’ of the Western proponents of oil exploration (looking in sedimentary formations for ‘petro-oil’ or oil sourced from animals and plants) vs. Russian techniques (looking for abiotic oil in basement or the deepest layers below the fossil record).

I also pointed out errors in two computer codes by the world’s foremost experts in Probabilistic Risk Assessment and human error analysis. I was paid by these experts to correct these same computer codes.

Using Kuhn’s techniques, I was able to propose significant advancements in widely diverse fields, and get them published. Scientists can disparage Kuhn all they want, but his techniques work!

Kuhn, like the boy who cried out, “The king has no clothes”, wasn’t reaching out to the king’s guards as much as the long-suffering populace.

I also realize that very few rigid scientists will change (it has been said that “Science improves one funeral at a time”, for there is no other way to loosen the hold of the rigid and powerful eggheads preventing progress in science). Instead I’m reaching out to the conservative Christian and Jewish parents who’ve watched their kids march off to college and lose their faith under the assault of atheistic and evolutionist teachers.

From the reactions of naysayers in this string, many of our scientists not only can’t see the assumptions that support their science, but blindly refuse to acknowledge these assumptions when they ARE pointed out. Scientists will not experience the power to ADVANCE their science unless they first recognize the assumptions inherent IN their science.

This is the pseudoscience two-step.

Kuhn says that paradigms change.

Crackpot goes on long speil of pseduscience.

Crackpot claims that his science is supported by Kuhn.

Just so you know, that's now how science works.

 

[smaneck]

Coneheads in Colonial America:

 

[James Wilson]

Any objective evidence to support all this?

About 10 scientific conferences and publications thought so.

 

[Loudmouth]

About 10 scientific conferences and publications thought so.

And they would be?

 

[James Wilson]

This is the pseudoscience two-step.

Kuhn says that paradigms change.

Crackpot goes on long speil of pseduscience.

Crackpot claims that his science is supported by Kuhn.

Just so you know, that's now how science works.

Hey, check this out!

Loudmouth said, "Just so you know, that's now how science works." I'm sure he meant to type 'not' instead of 'now', but isn't our God all-powerful, even over the keys of a computer terminal?

 

[bhsmte]

About 10 scientific conferences and publications thought so.

Go on.......

 

[Loudmouth]

Hey, check this out!

Loudmouth said, "Just so you know, that's now how science works." I'm sure he meant to type 'not' instead of 'now', but isn't our God all-powerful, even over the keys of a computer terminal?

God is so limited that the best he can do is cause one misspelling on an online forum?

 

[RickG]

About 10 scientific conferences and publications thought so.

Interesting, how about citations/links so we can all review the science.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I had to back into the OT through my faith in Jesus Christ. I firmly believe, through both reason and revelation that Jesus is the incarnation among men of God almighty. The Maker of Heaven and Earth. The books which go into length about Jesus, (apart from the prophecies about Him throughout the OT), are the New Testament books. In most of my bibles, there are footnotes at the bottom of the pages. The NT referring back to the OT. I began exploring the OT in earnest using those footnotes. Jesus is Lord, and we must believe and have faith that He is who He says He is for salvation. He quotes the OT constantly. He refers to His father and various historical characters from the OT countless times. I believe that the OT is true because Jesus, who I understand to BE God believed the scriptures to be true. I don't view the OT as a science text book. It is the story of the evolution of relationship of man and God, and our struggles with idolatry and sin, leading to the incarnation. Science has all kinds of ideas about what happened and when, and good for them. Their job is to measure, quantify, classify and experiment on the matter of the known material universe. Our job is love God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and love our neighbor as ourselves. Ours is the realm of the metaphysical universe both seen and unssen as revealed to us by the power of the Holy Spirit and revealed to us in Scripture, through the Apostles, Church Fathers, Doctors of the Church and the Saints. The Church is open to the legitimate findings of science, and in fact founded the scientific method. Science should not be stumbling block for anyone seeking communion with our Lord and Savious.

Yours in Christ,
Steve