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

[JacksBratt]

Masterful comeback. You have shown me that you are correct, without even having to lift a single finger.
You are a master.

I'm sorry, sometimes all I can do is laugh. Next time I won't post it and move on to the next retort to my posts.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well if my son had a head of those proportions, I would be taking him to see the doctor. "proportionate" lol.

What are you not getting about this? Yes, the cranium is enlarged, but the rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
I'll repeat: The rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
One more time: The rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
If the skull with the enlarged cranium belonged to a giant, the whole of the skull would be enlarged along with the cranium.

Are you just being deliberately dense?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm sorry, sometimes all I can do is laugh. Next time I won't post it and move on to the next retort to my posts.

And the fact that you think typing 'LOL' in response to my comment definitely proves something: you truly are just blowing smoke out of your behind.

 

[JacksBratt]

What are you not getting about this? Yes, the cranium is enlarged, but the rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
I'll repeat: The rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
One more time: The rest of the skull has the same proportions as the regular skull.
If the skull with the enlarged cranium belonged to a giant, the whole of the skull would be enlarged along with the cranium.

Are you just being deliberately dense?

Actually, no, the orbits are much larger and the volume of the brain cavity is huge. Combined with the fact that I have mentioned many times, the whole bone structure of the skull is "inhuman". If you were to put skin on these skulls, like the forensic experts do, then the resultant head would be extremely uncharacteristic of a normally proportioned human.
To put the resultant head on a normal human would turn heads. However, on someone 8 to 12 foot tall, it would be proportionate.

By the way, being "deliberately dense" would be to state that the world wide evidence of these beings and the fact that they were a race and did exist..... is all fakes and all a hoax.

During World War II, author Ivan T. Sanderson tells of how his crew was bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull. Had the creatures to whom these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller.

 

[JacksBratt]

And the fact that you think typing 'LOL' in response to my comment definitely proves something: you truly are just blowing smoke out of your behind.

I don't think it proves anything. How could it. I just literally laughed at your response...... Like I said, I won't respond with that again.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Actually, no, the orbits are much larger and the volume of the brain cavity is huge. Combined with the fact that I have mentioned many times, the whole bone structure of the skull is "inhuman". If you were to put skin on these skulls, like the forensic experts do, then the resultant head would be extremely uncharacteristic of a normally proportioned human.
To put the resultant head on a normal human would turn heads. However, on someone 8 to 12 foot tall, it would be proportionate.

During World War II, author Ivan T. Sanderson tells of how his crew was bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull. Had the creatures to whom these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller.

Do you mean like they did for this gentleman?

Take a look at him. Take a good look at him.
He is not a giant. The whole of his face has the same proportions as those of a normal human. You fail.

And also, if you quote a source, it's only polite to name the source you got it from.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think it proves anything. How could it. I just literally laughed at your response...... Like I said, I won't respond with that again.

You're right. It doesn't prove anything. Nothing you have given is proof of your erroneous and downright pitiful claims of giants.
Again: you're blowing smoke from your behind.

 

[Jimmy D]

Actually, no, the orbits are much larger and the volume of the brain cavity is huge. Combined with the fact that I have mentioned many times, the whole bone structure of the skull is "inhuman". If you were to put skin on these skulls, like the forensic experts do, then the resultant head would be extremely uncharacteristic of a normally proportioned human.
To put the resultant head on a normal human would turn heads. However, on someone 8 to 12 foot tall, it would be proportionate.

By the way, being "deliberately dense" would be to state that the world wide evidence of these beings and the fact that they were a race and did exist..... is all fakes and all a hoax.

During World War II, author Ivan T. Sanderson tells of how his crew was bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull. Had the creatures to whom these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller.

Ivan T. Sanderson

This is a bloke who spent time investigating yetis, lake monsters etc and was (professionally) interested in the paranormal, it's a bit of a coincidence that such a man should report seeing these giants. What happened to these skulls anyway? He was also a trained biologist so a discovery like this could have made him, and the skulls, world famous.

It's worth noting that he also wrote fiction.

 

[James Wilson]

Why assumptions are unavoidable in science, Part 2

In Part 1 I addressed questions by 2 people about whether assumptions really drive us to make decisions in science... or make mistakes. They do. Now, a little more insight into why.

Descartes (1596-1650), the Father of French Science, discovered the refractive index of water and created analytical geometry. He's been so influential with the French that when their science is critiqued nowadays, people often point back to Descartes as the cause. It bothered him that scientists of his day could not separate facts, assumptions and superstition. So he decided to do the same for Science that he had for analytical geometry: eliminate all assumptions and superstition, creating the perfect Science.

In trying to strip away all assumptions in life, he got stuck on how to prove his own existence. We’ve all experienced this: We find ourselves in a truly drastic situation, to realize later that it’s only been a dream. I was talking to my wife one day and referred to a very emotional incident in my memory. She said, "That never happened!" "But I have a very clear memory of it." "We talked about doing that, but never did." Either the discussions about doing it or a dream imprinted it in my memory. The same thing happens to accident victims. That's why the police try to get to witnesses early before they incorporate all the other eye-witness reports into their memory. Brain scientists tells us the brain can't differentiate between a retelling and an actual memory. I know that sounds crazy, but don't complain to me, complain to the brain scientists.

After a long time wrestling with this problem, Descartes came up with his rallying cry, “I think, therefore I am!” But philosophers since then have countered, “Just because you think doesn’t mean you exist. You may be dreaming you are thinking!”

So, if you would like to purge all assumptions from Science, you’d have to go back to Descartes’ problem, first prove that you really exist right now, and build up Science from there.

Now, let's get to an example: Around Dr. Edwin Hubble's time (I can't be exact on the time - this isn't my area of expertise - so please don't call me a liar if I get the time wrong) red-shifted light from the stars was connected to fast-moving stars. An assumption, but much of our universe dating is based upon that assumption. Dr. Halton Arp had the same assumption when he calculated the size of the universe. But he changed his mind because he found another explanation for red-shifted light.

On his website (I know he's dead, but I assume his website is still up) he shows paired stars where one has red-shifted light and the other star in the circling pair does not. Assumptions are tricky like that. Sometimes they fit the scientific model so perfectly we assume they are true or factual. Then along comes a scientist who thinks diversely. Diverse thinkers normally get fired, so think twice about doing it. I've been fired twice. From the same lab!

 

[Loudmouth]

I tried to divide up the detailed work into bite-sized pieces. Here's the next bite:

Since the world renowned cosmologist assumed away the Big Bang universe with Earth at the center, we’ll look at what Guth overlooked. For this we go on to the work of astrophysicist Dr. D. Russell Humphreys' book entitled, "Starlight and Time", Master Books, Colorado Springs, CO, June 1995.

The Big Bang developed from a black hole in reverse, and is sometimes called a White Hole. Both contain a huge mass and retain all light within the event horizon. This massively distorts time, the same way an astronaut entering the event horizon of a black hole will cease aging (not because he dies, though that may indeed happen, but because of GR (General Relativity)).

In this model, the visible universe developed inside a white hole. To understand what that’s like, we first have to look at the behavior of black holes

Steven Hawking’s description in “A Brief History of Time” of an astronaut sinking into the event horizon of a black hole looks at this from the view of an outsider. Humphreys extrapolates to the view of the insider: As an astronaut sinking into a black hole looks outward through binoculars, he sees clocks outside the black hole spinning very fast, while his own clock appears to be at a normal speed. The event horizon ‘artificially ages’ all things in contact with it.

Thus, the most distant stars in our universe appear very old, or red shifted, but that does not mean they are!

Humphreys goes on in his book to explain the events of Creation within the context of this white hole (see the book for this detail). Thus his ‘white hole’ theory has explanatory power, while the Eden Theory or Gap Theory only distort Scripture to appear to agree with modern science. The problem here is… it (either the Eden or Gap Theory) changes God’s immutable Word into aiming at a moving target, for science has frequently proved itself wrong in the past.

In closing, I’d like to present this interesting quote from cosmologists Stephen Hawking and George Ellis (p. 132 of their book, “The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time”): “…we are not able to make cosmological models without some admixture of ideology.”

So, Bible-believing Christians, tell your scientist friends to stop telling you that science proves the age of the universe. According to Hawking and Ellis, models of the universe don’t prove anything, they only show the power of their assumptions.

I apologize for any errors incorporated by my summarization of Humphreys’ work.

First, Humphrey's thesis predicts that distant galaxies will be blue shifted. They are red shifted. Humphrey's work has been seriously refuted for quite a while now.

"Although soon hailed by many creationists as a landmark resolution to the starlight problem, the work has been severely criticized by physicists and astronomers. They report that it contained serious flaws in its math and physics, and is demonstrably incorrect (Conner and Page, 1998). In response, Humphreys has made a number of modifications to his model (Conner and Ross, 1999). However, critics assert that the modifications actually deepen the problems and errors. Although Humphreys denies this and insists that his model is still valid (Humphreys, 2002), it is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community (Isaac, 2006)."
http://paleo.cc/ce/humphrey.htm

Second, the dating of rocks has nothing to do with measuring the age of the universe. It is completely independent of the Big Bang. We find rocks on Earth that are over 4 billion years old.

 

[Loudmouth]

Did you notice that the bone structure is totally different than any human. The suture lines are totally different. The brain cavity is twice as big?

A giant would have a noticeably wider skull throughout. That isn't the case. Different suture lines does not a giant make.

 

[Loudmouth]

Why assumptions are unavoidable in science, Part 2

In Part 1 I addressed questions by 2 people about whether assumptions really drive us to make decisions in science... or make mistakes. They do. Now, a little more insight into why.

The fundamental aspects of radiometric dating are not assumed. They have all been checked and are backed by observation.

 

[JacksBratt]

You're right. It doesn't prove anything. Nothing you have given is proof of your erroneous and downright pitiful claims of giants.

There is more proof out there for this than for "lucy" or any of the other bits and pieces of bone that was fabricated, glued, filed, augmented into some gold standard foundation for the farce of evolution.

Again: you're blowing smoke from your behind.

You like that phrase, don't you?

However, the smoke you see is from the farce of the theory of evolution. That will clear as more and more evidence rises to the surface and the truth is revealed.
I can wait.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

There is more proof out there for this than for "lucy" or any of the other bits and pieces of bone that was fabricated, glued, filed, augmented into some gold standard foundation for the farce of evolution.

Bull-squirt. Archaeologists have actual evidence of prehistoric early humans. You have nothing except poorly-done photoshop jobs and outright lies.

You like that phrase, don't you?

However, the smoke you see is from the farce of the theory of evolution. That will clear as more and more evidence rises to the surface and the truth is revealed.
I can wait.

I only use that phrase because CF doesn't allow rude language.
All of the evidence supports evolution and nothing supports your cockamamie claims.

 

[James Wilson]

First, Humphrey's thesis predicts that distant galaxies will be blue shifted. They are red shifted. Humphrey's work has been seriously refuted for quite a while now.

"Although soon hailed by many creationists as a landmark resolution to the starlight problem, the work has been severely criticized by physicists and astronomers. They report that it contained serious flaws in its math and physics, and is demonstrably incorrect (Conner and Page, 1998). In response, Humphreys has made a number of modifications to his model (Conner and Ross, 1999). However, critics assert that the modifications actually deepen the problems and errors. Although Humphreys denies this and insists that his model is still valid (Humphreys, 2002), it is overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community (Isaac, 2006)."
http://paleo.cc/ce/humphrey.htm

Second, the dating of rocks has nothing to do with measuring the age of the universe. It is completely independent of the Big Bang. We find rocks on Earth that are over 4 billion years old.

Scientists need to understand one thing: Something "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community" applies to almost every new scientific discovery. This is one of the reasons that Kuhn's work is so important; it explains the tendency to unanimity or consensus that does not mean correctness.

Here's an example:
When DeBroglie wrote his thesis, he turned to his music background and postulated that “sometimes” matter behaved like waves of music. His graduate committee scratched their heads, not knowing whether to flunk him or graduate him with honors. They sent out his thesis to the experts.

One expert said, “If you graduate this numbskull (paraphrase), I’ll resign my Nobel Prize!” Einstein said, “Give him the Nobel! (paraphrase).”

If they hadn't sent his thesis to Einstein, his work would have "overwhelmingly been rejected by the scientific community". Big deal. All scientific breakthrough starts in a very small group... usually one scientist. Do you really believe science is a democracy? Some of these single-scientist theories have taken the man's entire life to gain ascendance.

Then look at the history of science. How many theories have "overwhelmingly been rejected by the scientific community" and later replaced what all the scientists wanted to maintain.

Let's go back to Einstein's figurative library where all the mysteries of the universe are waiting to be revealed (I know it sounds a little crazy, but give Einstein some credit for being a pretty amazing scientist). Einstein got his inspiration from that image. An image that said, "Look for the simple and intuitively obvious".

I know it's comfortable to let the scientists vote for you and just go along. But you'll never create groundbreaking new ideas if you're looking for affirmation. Affirmation seekers find only inertia and sameness.

Don't interpret the affirmation as an indicator of truth. Think for yourself. Have an open mind.

 

[Loudmouth]

There is more proof out there for this than for "lucy" or any of the other bits and pieces of bone that was fabricated, glued, filed, augmented into some gold standard foundation for the farce of evolution.

Creationists claim that they are using the same evidence that evolutionists are using, but they betray this misinformation with posts like this one. It's quite obvious that they ignore the fossil evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Scientists need to understand one thing: Something "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community" applies to almost every new scientific discovery.

It was REFUTED by the scientific community. It was shown to be wrong.

 

[James Wilson]

Why assumptions are unavoidable in science, Part 2

In Part 1 I addressed questions by 2 people about whether assumptions really drive us to make decisions in science... or make mistakes. They do. Now, a little more insight into why.

Descartes (1596-1650), the Father of French Science, discovered the refractive index of water and created analytical geometry. He's been so influential with the French that when their science is critiqued nowadays, people often point back to Descartes as the cause. It bothered him that scientists of his day could not separate facts, assumptions and superstition. So he decided to do the same for Science that he had for analytical geometry: eliminate all assumptions and superstition, creating the perfect Science.

In trying to strip away all assumptions in life, he got stuck on how to prove his own existence. We’ve all experienced this: We find ourselves in a truly drastic situation, to realize later that it’s only been a dream. I was talking to my wife one day and referred to a very emotional incident in my memory. She said, "That never happened!" "But I have a very clear memory of it." "We talked about doing that, but never did." Either the discussions about doing it or a dream imprinted it in my memory. The same thing happens to accident victims. That's why the police try to get to witnesses early before they incorporate all the other eye-witness reports into their memory. Brain scientists tells us the brain can't differentiate between a retelling and an actual memory. I know that sounds crazy, but don't complain to me, complain to the brain scientists.

After a long time wrestling with this problem, Descartes came up with his rallying cry, “I think, therefore I am!” But philosophers since then have countered, “Just because you think doesn’t mean you exist. You may be dreaming you are thinking!”

So, if you would like to purge all assumptions from Science, you’d have to go back to Descartes’ problem, first prove that you really exist right now, and build up Science from there.

Now, let's get to an example: Around Dr. Edwin Hubble's time (I can't be exact on the time - this isn't my area of expertise - so please don't call me a liar if I get the time wrong) red-shifted light from the stars was connected to fast-moving stars. An assumption, but much of our universe dating is based upon that assumption. Dr. Halton Arp had the same assumption when he calculated the size of the universe. But he changed his mind because he found another explanation for red-shifted light.

On his website (I know he's dead, but I assume his website is still up) he shows paired stars where one has red-shifted light and the other star in the circling pair does not. Assumptions are tricky like that. Sometimes they fit the scientific model so perfectly we assume they are true or factual. Then along comes a scientist who thinks diversely. Diverse thinkers normally get fired, so think twice about doing it. I've been fired twice. From the same lab!

Scientists need to understand one thing: Something "overwhelmingly rejected by the scientific community" applies to almost every new scientific discovery. This is one of the reasons that Kuhn's work is so important; it explains the tendency to unanimity or consensus that does not mean correctness.

Here's an example:
When DeBroglie wrote his thesis, he turned to his music background and postulated that “sometimes” matter behaved like waves of music. His graduate committee scratched their heads, not knowing whether to flunk him or graduate him with honors. They sent out his thesis to the experts.

One expert said, “If you graduate this numbskull (paraphrase), I’ll resign my Nobel Prize!” Einstein said, “Give him the Nobel! (paraphrase).”

If they hadn't sent his thesis to Einstein, his work would have "overwhelmingly been rejected by the scientific community". Big deal. All scientific breakthrough starts in a very small group... usually one scientist. Do you really believe science is a democracy? Some of these single-scientist theories have taken the man's entire life to gain ascendance.

Then look at the history of science. How many theories have "overwhelmingly been rejected by the scientific community" and later replaced what all the scientists wanted to maintain.

Let's go back to Einstein's figurative library where all the mysteries of the universe are waiting to be revealed (I know it sounds a little crazy, but give Einstein some credit for being a pretty amazing scientist). Einstein got his inspiration from that image. An image that said, "Look for the simple and intuitively obvious".

I know it's comfortable to let the scientists vote for you and just go along. But you'll never create groundbreaking new ideas if you're looking for affirmation. Affirmation seekers find only inertia and sameness.

Don't interpret the affirmation as an indicator of truth. Think for yourself. Have an open mind.

Sorry to comment on my own words, but I forgot to add an important point.

One of the important lessons from Einstein's figurative library holding the mysteries of the universe is this; we scientists enter that library as little children, not being able to snatch the mysteries from the shelves on our own. We need help.

Now loudmouth, based on my past interactions with you, I would say you probably don't believe in Einstein's approach. But suppose you could turn back time and be his boss. Would you say to him, "Get real, Einstein! Think like the rest of us!" I would hope you wouldn't have squelched Einstein just because he thought differently than you.

Let's examine the big bang. In the first tiniest fraction of a second, big bangers say that a singularity occurred. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it means that scientists believe this event was so fantastic and unexplainable, it's beyond the pale of cause-and-effect, which the scientists allow to be suspended for this event.

There's another event that happens around a black hole... an event horizon. This happens whether the black hole is aggregating or dispersing. Whether it's a growing black hole or a big bang. Whether you refer to the change wrought by the event horizon (you can call it a blue light rather than a red shifted light), but it's still pretty mysterious.

Something happened! That changed the universe that was wiped by this event horizon. I don't think you can say, loudmouth, exactly what happened, but it was pretty phenomenal. Did it make the universe look younger than it is, or older?

Let's take it a step further. If you accept the "Inflationary Universe" that Alan Guth wrote about in his book, this internationally known astrophysicist stated that there were stars outside of the Big Bang before it banged. Now, this is my thought experiment:
These preexisting stars shown light into the phenomenon of the big bang as it banged. The event horizon (or event horizons, as Guth believes) raced through this incoming light. What did that racing through do to the preexisting starlight? Before the big bang banged, those stars were 'neighboring' stars... that is, they were only the width of a black hole away. Then the big bang pushed those stars away from us at near light speed for 13.7 billion years. But the light we now see from those once-neighboring stars could have been the preexisting light from before the big bang.

All I'm trying to say is this: don't be a know-it-all. Don't call anyone an idiot who believes in a world view different from yours. You don't have to believe in their world view, but don't pretend to be the oracle from on high about truth. Such an oracle doesn't exist.

Now I admit that some of my Christian brothers and sisters have great faith in the Bible (which is a good thing from my perspective), but don't understand the scientific method. But I understand the scientific method and have had about 40 papers accepted in mainline conferences and publications where my scientific method was accepted and approved.

I build upon the scientific expertise of others. I have presented here statements made by men of renown in fields of science. They may have minority opinions, but minority opinion switches to majority in the field of science pretty often.

All I'm saying is give us a little room to disagree with you, loudmouth.

Sir Crick, one of the two men who got the nobel prize for discovering DNA, the biggest molecule known to man, said DNA was too complex to have evolved within the age of the Earth. He postulated directed panspermia, or that the aliens did it! You don't have to accept that theory. Just allow him to have a minority opinion that disagrees with yours. Don't call him an idiot. Be a little tolerant to dissenting opinion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now loudmouth, based on my past interactions with you, I would say you probably don't believe in Einstein's approach.

I don't accept Humphrey's thesis because it was refuted by the facts. Einstein's approach has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

As I have stressed over and over, the Big Bang has NOTHING to do with measuring the age of the Earth, so I don't know why you keep going on about it.

 

[JacksBratt]

Bull-squirt. Archaeologists have actual evidence of prehistoric early humans. You have nothing except poorly-done photoshop jobs and outright lies.



I only use that phrase because CF doesn't allow rude language.
All of the evidence supports evolution and nothing supports your cockamamie claims.

They have good reasons for their rules. Some people cannot accept that other people have views different to those that they hold on to so tightly.They get irate if there is other views that leave their world in question.

Creationists claim that they are using the same evidence that evolutionists are using, but they betray this misinformation with posts like this one. It's quite obvious that they ignore the fossil evidence.

Fossil "evidence" or fossilized bones, are just a snapshot of the life of a particular animal or tree at that one moment of it's life. They cannot be used to form a time line or predict the animals siblings, predecessors, ancestry or offspring. Yet, these are the assumptions made and the TOE banks on the public and scientific community swallowing these as solid gold truths.

If I took a litter of our pups, say five pups of a purebred litter. I kill one and bury it at the age of 1 month. Then another at 2 months and so on and make sure one is full grown dog.

Then I present the bones as the evolution of this animal. Who could dispute it?
Who would dispute it? It would fulfill all the criteria of the evolution of a species. Yet it is not. It is a wrong assumption.

Evolution is the assumption and extrapolation of pin point snap shots of time in an organisms life and from that predicting the animals total cradle to grave biography, including it's family tree and continuing family tree.

Just because a multitude of "scientists" all collaborate to agree on this and totally intellectually attack anyone who believes otherwise, does not make it any more than the farce it is.