rigorousintuition.ca

deleted due to mistake

The trouble with all of this of course for the Church of progress, is that if people were made aware of all of this, then Darwinism, one of the bedrocks of the CoP collapses into the absurd fabrication that it (imho) clearly also is.

incorrect. darwinism has fuckall to do with urban history. please demonstrate why/how this is otherwise or retract your statement...

OP ED wrote:[

incorrect. darwinism has fuckall to do with urban history. please demonstrate why/how this is otherwise or retract your statement...

well perhaps you can help me OP ED,

How does the Darwinistic timeline work ?

And, while your at it, perhaps you can give me a few striking examples of macro evolution, and perhaps show me a few of about a zillion of the missing links required ( to convince me at least ) ?

on second edit. I aint no creationist either - well, not by a bloke in a white robe and a beard .

Plus or minus tens of thousands of years does little to a Darwinist theory that stipulates our rise nearly 4 million years ago - and in modern form 200k years ago. I think it's a more intriguing question to ask, the Alienist intervention theory. If you're into that sort of thing...

Also deepest held secret held closest to the heart: Under the Lion's paw.

slimmouse wrote:

OP ED wrote:[

incorrect. darwinism has fuckall to do with urban history. please demonstrate why/how this is otherwise or retract your statement...

well perhaps you can help me OP ED,

How does the Darwinistic timeline work ?

Geologic timelines + basic 19th century physics + the tech they use on Maury to figure out who the baby-daddy is = Darwinism proven.

case closed.

And, while your at it, perhaps you can give me a few striking examples of macro evolution, and perhaps show me a few of about a zillion of the missing links required ( to convince me at least )

define macro evolution?

that sounds like slippery KREATIONIST logic to me.

darwinism is no longer based on fossils. get with the program.

neodarwinism is an emergent factor of gene theory, which btw, is real enough to force evolve weapons with....(real enough for you?)

on second edit. I aint no creationist either - well, not by a bloke in a white robe and a beard .

well that's a step in the right direction, and if you're american it doesn't suprise me that you don't realize that the age of the sphinx, plus or minus a hundred thousand years, has no effect whatsoever on the prehistory of human biological development.

Neanderthals invented crayons 140,000 years ago.

[around when the atlanteans founded sumeria]

Will someone kindly point me towards some of these Egyptian texts that mention dynasties from the thirty-fifth millennium or so BCE? Or these Sumerian texts that point back 150,000 years? Citing an unreferenced Zecharia Sitchen, J.A. West, Richard Hoagland or Graham Hancock--can any of those guys translate from hierogylphs or cuneiform?--quote is automatic disqualification.

It's a fair request.

OP ED wrote:Geologic timelines + basic 19th century physics + the tech they use on Maury to figure out who the baby-daddy is = Darwinism proven.

case closed.

Nope. You can't get here from there.

[Maybe with 22nd century physics, though. Something like a unified theory of matter and consciousness.]

nathan28 wrote:Will someone kindly point me towards some of these Egyptian texts that mention dynasties from the thirty-fifth millennium or so BCE? Or these Sumerian texts that point back 150,000 years? Citing an unreferenced Zecharia Sitchen, J.A. West, Richard Hoagland or Graham Hancock--can any of those guys translate from hierogylphs or cuneiform?--quote is automatic disqualification.

It's a fair request.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.2.1.1#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_K ... t#The_list

OP ED wrote:

nathan28 wrote:Will someone kindly point me towards some of these Egyptian texts that mention dynasties from the thirty-fifth millennium or so BCE? Or these Sumerian texts that point back 150,000 years? Citing an unreferenced Zecharia Sitchen, J.A. West, Richard Hoagland or Graham Hancock--can any of those guys translate from hierogylphs or cuneiform?--quote is automatic disqualification.

It's a fair request.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.2.1.1#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_K ... t#The_list

Thank you.

monster wrote:

OP ED wrote:Geologic timelines + basic 19th century physics + the tech they use on Maury to figure out who the baby-daddy is = Darwinism proven.

case closed.

Nope. You can't get here from there.

explain.

(creationists?)

nathan28 wrote:

OP ED wrote:

nathan28 wrote:Will someone kindly point me towards some of these Egyptian texts that mention dynasties from the thirty-fifth millennium or so BCE? Or these Sumerian texts that point back 150,000 years? Citing an unreferenced Zecharia Sitchen, J.A. West, Richard Hoagland or Graham Hancock--can any of those guys translate from hierogylphs or cuneiform?--quote is automatic disqualification.

It's a fair request.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.2.1.1#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_K ... t#The_list

Thank you.

i have other stuff. may take me a bit to find.

seems to me the ancients all assumed human civilization is much older than we do. finding one of their texts that does NOT point to very old numbers would be rare.

[although i admit that it is neglected by western schooling]

OP ED wrote:

nathan28 wrote:

OP ED wrote:

nathan28 wrote:Will someone kindly point me towards some of these Egyptian texts that mention dynasties from the thirty-fifth millennium or so BCE? Or these Sumerian texts that point back 150,000 years? Citing an unreferenced Zecharia Sitchen, J.A. West, Richard Hoagland or Graham Hancock--can any of those guys translate from hierogylphs or cuneiform?--quote is automatic disqualification.

It's a fair request.

http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/et ... xt=t.2.1.1#

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_K ... t#The_list

Thank you.

i have other stuff. may take me a bit to find.

seems to me the ancients all assumed human civilization is much older than we do. finding one of their texts that does NOT point to very old numbers would be rare.

[although i admit that it is neglected by western schooling]

Well the Ancient Israelites genealogy only goes back to about 3500 BCE and that's counting all the antediluvians, but then again, the Hebrews are basically the hillbillies of the Mediterranean / Ancient Middle East. ("Lo, they used bricks for stones", inadvertently hilarious lines of agitprop) Even the early Xian churches felt the need to extend the historical timeline back further.

I do find the archaeological evidence less compelling, though. That one recently-discovered temple in Kurdistan (?) predates all the conventionally accepted ancient cities, the theory being that it was temples that led to cities (which fits quite well into the priesthood = control theory). Same phenomena might account for the age of the Sphinx, as well (100% speculative but I think the original carving was a jackal, not a lion or a pharoah)

OP ED wrote:

monster wrote:

OP ED wrote:Geologic timelines + basic 19th century physics + the tech they use on Maury to figure out who the baby-daddy is = Darwinism proven.

case closed.

Nope. You can't get here from there.

explain.

(creationists?)

Well, kinda, if you consider genetic engineering to be Kreatin. OMH had me figured. I firmly believe that many, if not all of the macro evolutionary advances, especially WRT to humanity are the product of genetic engineering.

Which I also believe is the message carved in stone in the Sphinx.

Serious thanks for your input on this thread Op Ed

slimmouse wrote:

OP ED wrote:

monster wrote:

OP ED wrote:Geologic timelines + basic 19th century physics + the tech they use on Maury to figure out who the baby-daddy is = Darwinism proven.

case closed.

Nope. You can't get here from there.

explain.

(creationists?)

Well, kinda, if you consider genetic engineering to be Kreatin. OMH had me figured. I firmly believe that many, if not all of the macro evolutionary advances, especially WRT to humanity are the product of genetic engineering.

Which I also believe is the message carved in stone in the Sphinx.

Serious thanks for your input on this thread Op Ed

Slim, what is it the West is referencing when he talks about the 35,000 BCE thing? Is it just star charts?

re: nate28: i agree wrt jackals. re: anubis, etc.

re: slim: (&etc)

i don't know from genetic engineering.

(possible, i suppose, and the "old" texts seem to hint at it often, esp in sumer)

...

sorry if i came as reactionary. i was raised by baptists, and "macro evolution" is usually code for "god made them all as 'every kind' and then we got different sorts of dogs from that", etc etc...[nonsense about noah]

which is so obviously suspect and biased that i consider it beneath me to label it as even a viable option.

"macro" evolution seems to be a code for a nineteenth century notion of "species" which is entirely outdated. obsolete. "species" is a spectrum, not a line, as we now well know, and "speciation" is a logical outcome [a byproduct] of slow genetic drift happening across aeons.

only young earthers need to solve this problem.

i am not aware of any serious flaws in the accepted neodarwinist model as a whole. (perhaps monster has new research)