Gods of Academia

reply to post by randyvs

How do you know there isn't some findings, results, conclusions that have been hidden away?

An appeal to secret knowledge eh. Yes, how do we who accept Evolution know that there isn't some secret government vault somewhere hidden away by some sinister scientists? BUAHAHHAHA! *lightning and thunder crash*

I could just as well ask how you know there isn't some hidden evidence that the Hindu Gods are real, or perhaps the Norse, or any other belief in the book. Elves, fairies, etc. How do you know there's no secret hidden evidence for them?

First off science doesn't work well with secrets which is why in order to get published you need to go through peer review. If something cannot make it through this process it isn't because there is some sinister conspiracy but more likely that there were fundamental errors or flaws in the data, method, hypothesis, conclusion, etc. Science works by building off each the work of other scientists and science is all about discovery. Ever since we began looking for the origins of life and bio-diversity we've wanted to find God. Those first scientists that set out to unlock the secrets of life were, for the most part, theists. Their loyalty, however, was not to an ancient book or text but to the truth of the way "God" created. What did we discover? Evolution.

Secondly even if some evidence suggesting intervention by an intelligent designer were found it wouldn't overturn natural evolution, it would merely indicate that at some point an intelligent agent was involved. Natural Evolution, indeed speciation, would still be an observed fact. We've seen it happen, we've directly observed it, we know it happens. I, for one, would think scientists would be excited by these sorts of discoveries, finding some proof that Evolution was guided would be exciting especially if we could determine what sort of beings had guided it.

Thirdly, and this is more a question for you Randy: What form would this evidence take?

Supposing it is true that a supernatural being created life on Earth via supernatural means, what sort of evidence would a supernatural intervention leave behind? My guess is very little, what would observe in the fossil record would be the sudden appearance of every species that ever lived all fossilized on one level of strata.

This is what's wrong with anyone telling someone else what not to believe.

Only no one is doing that. Scientists are reporting what we know to a good degree of certainty, what we've discovered. You can continue on believing in whatever you want irregardless of these discoveries. Now people like me might look at your decision to reject the evidence as a bit odd and we might try to set you straight on a few points you're confused on but I for one would never want you to accept Evolution just because I told you too or to reject Creationism just because I told you not to believe it.

reply to post by nophun


no, the guy is right. the hyskos shepherd kings were the hibiru (hebrew). they were called hibiru for a specific reason: the hibiru were worshippers of en.lil (associated with jupiter) at nibiru/nibru (the crossing place) in mesopotamia, now called nippur. so they were the people of the crossing or simply, the people of the cross.

anunnaki bearing the symbol of jupiter (en.lil), the planet of the crossing, or simply, the planet of the cross
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/4c4ecf6eaad1815c.jpg[/atsimg]

it may also be a reference to a nomadic lifestyle. following the course of specific planets (particularly jupiter) across the sky, resulted in a seasonal migration from mesopotamia to egypt.

as far as the hibiru not being egyptian pharaohs, methinks that is the biggest cover up of all.

the alpha and the omega

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/aee1f44facfb3aa6.jpg[/atsimg]

Revelation 1:8
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.

jesus, the first pharaoh and the last pharaoh. and a nice little crossing symbol, smack in the middle of it.

Originally posted by randyvs

I have a new question for the scientific evolutionary members of our ATS community....
How do you know there isn't some findings, results, conclusions that have been hidden away?
Or possibly even shredded and trashed, to keep them from everyone, including you?
Most of you seem to ignore this factor. The factor of deciet. This is what's wrong with puttng
your trust in man.

In asking this question we must also take into consideration that the credibility of our so called 'scientific community' has been, on many occasions, been put through tight scrutinty following the many elaberate hoaxes that now influences many (but not all) of present day 'discoveries'.

Its one thing to announce a new discovery, but to announce one that effects previous scientificaly established discoverys of the same nature is another. A classic example concerns the Piltdown Man..

The "Piltdown Man" is a famous Anthropological hoax concerning the finding of the remains of a previously unknown early human. The hoax find consisted of fragments of a skull and jawbone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, East Sussex, England. The fragments were thought by many experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early man. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni ("Dawson's dawn-man"), after the collector Charles Dawson) was given to the specimen. The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jawbone of an orangutan that had been deliberately combined with the skull of a fully developed modern human.

The Piltdown hoax is perhaps the most famous paleontological hoax in history. It has been prominent for two reasons: the attention paid to the issue of human evolution, and the length of time (more than 40 years) that elapsed from its discovery to its full exposure as a forgery.

Source

While i do consider myself a 'conspiracy theorist', I do still retain a logical sceptisim within me.. Not everything we hear about is what it seems, sometimes its not about hiding secrets from the people but caution being exercised where there is genuine doubt.

reply to post by nophun

He is a dishonest conman

You know you can be pretty convincing yourself there Nophun. What I really have a hard time with is the only other explanation I've heard. Also seen in the video.

Oh hey I almost forgot to thank you for posting the rock carving. Thank you

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

An appeal to secret knowledge eh. Yes, how do we who accept Evolution know that there isn't some secret government vault somewhere hidden away by some sinister scientists? BUAHAHHAHA! *lightning and thunder crash*

Titen, how funny. I knew you would get kick out of this. Surely you can't laugh at the whole of the idea. Therefore
with there being some truth to bare and the fact all your trust is in mankind, not an unfallible organism. I think it
should be given serious consideration. Thus I thread.

I could just as well ask how you know there isn't some hidden evidence that the Hindu Gods are real, or perhaps the Norse, or any other belief in the book. Elves, fairies, etc. How do you know there's no secret hidden evidence for them?

Don't you?

Thirdly, and this is more a question for you Randy: What form would this evidence take?

What form would it take? I'm pretty sure you know where I agree with you. As you said it would have no
effect on facts that are known to be true. If it were the kind of evidence I would prefer? It would give us more reason than ever to believe that all the trial and error, mankind has endured, wasn't even necessary.
Save a lost relationship with God. What if God was a source of infallible information to science, to mankind? How much farther ahead would we be ? How much more would we know.? Maybe that's what God meant in the beginning? The silent stars are truly ours. Here we sit theorising when who knows the adventures we could all be experiencing if we still had" the shell answer man" instead of speculation, contemplation, experimentation.
One step forward three steps back.Look at God for what he would be! Not if he is or he isn't. The fact is, he isn't.
How that sentence is finished nobody knows. Could be, he isn't here right now but he will be. Or he isn't here
because he dosn't exist.
Seems to me it would be far more logical for the universe to have a source. For mankind to have a source that could guide him. Into the void or whatever. is that so bad?

Randy, good post about the "church of Science". The default position of Science is Agnosticism.....science does not claim to know anything, and yet, many people feel things have been written in stone. I don't believe science is ready to discuss the origin of the universe yet, and how could it? It can only observe and test. So you have bunk theories that stand tall and proud, and what stands in the shadows? The Truth.

Living through someone else's discoveries is dangerous. Very dangerous. So some want to wait around for someone else to figure out life for them? why be so lazy, the answer is within us all.

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


but they ARE discussing the origin of the universe oh oh you gotta see this video!

Google Video Link

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


Thanks endtime. I could use alot of your insights here, so if you like stick around for awhile.

Undo
Hey I only got thru not even half that vid . Pretty long. I'm hooked though I will watch the rest tonight.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun

 

He is a dishonest conman

You know you can be pretty convincing yourself there Nophun. What I really have a hard time with is the only other explanation I've heard. Also seen in the video.

Oh hey I almost forgot to thank you for posting the rock carving. Thank you

edit on 16-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Well there is nothing dishonest about my post.
You obviously never even looked at the pages I linked in my first post. The image of the carving is from the University of Oklahoma, I found it via the Associates for Biblical Research page I linked.

To be honest I never even watched the clip you posted in full. I did try to watch the documentary in full some time ago ... lets just say it is not my thing. I did how ever did research it and found the most of what the creator of the film says has been refuted by biblical scholars over and over again.

What I am trying to say is this "documentary" did not even pass "peer review"

University of Oklahoma
www.ou.edu...

Associates for Biblical Research
www.biblearchaeology.org...

Take it for what it is Randy.

Bryant G. Wood PhD
The Exodus Decoded is similar to The Da Vinci Code in that disparate pieces of information from the past are brought together in a story line. There is a big difference between the two, however. The Exodus Decoded is presented as factual history, whereas The Da Vinci Code is advertised as a novel. The exhibits of The Exodus Decoded do not stand up to scrutiny in the court of objective scholarship. Archaeological data are wrenched from their chronological contexts and forced into a different time frame to fit the filmmaker’s reconstruction. What is more, the film is replete with factual errors. Although the production is offered as a serious and accurate documentary, it is not accurate and it cannot be taken seriously. There is little of substance in The Exodus Decoded for those seeking valid historical and archaeological information on the Exodus.

Bryant G. Wood a biblical archaeologist and young Earth creationist, who would love to prove what is stated in that "documentary".
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by nophun

Well there is nothing dishonest about my post.

You know I wouldn't say that about a post of yours or of you. come on now! Also I don't discount anything your saying about the Documentary. the whole James Cameron part of it makes me wonder what the hell? So
pretty much that's why I didn't post the whole motha. If you will? I will look at your links directly.

Here's a question for you Nophun. Has there ever been anything in any field or of any level that really made you take notice and second guess yourself? I'm guessing no. If I'm wrong can you tell me about it? If I'm right how do you think that is percieved by others? Just a little pick at your brain.

You know what I did take a quick glance over those papers now that I looked again. This thread has gone really slow. I'm not all that quick anymore either.But ya, you had me convinced I blew you off and I di unt!

Mental note: Nophun gets bent if you don't look at his links. Oh hell I made a funny..
:

randy,

this discussion is an uphill battle. these people are still being taught in college that any archaeology that has proven most of the ancient texts were at the very least historical, are in fact, just discovering these things for nothing. that ancient history is still just myths and fairy tales, and this is especially true about the bible. they can't separate in their minds, the papal authorities interpretation of ancient history vs. what the text actually says. they can't separate out what the original languages say, vs. what the translations say. in fact, that's entirely too much work. much easier to take the easy route and claim the whole thing is bunk.

reply to post by undo

this discussion is an uphill battle. these people are still being taught in college that any archaeology that has proven most of the ancient texts were at the very least historical, are in fact, just discovering these things for nothing. that ancient history is still just myths and fairy tales, and this is especially true about the bible. they can't separate in their minds, the papal authorities interpretation of ancient history vs. what the text actually says. they can't separate out what the original languages say, vs. what the translations say. in fact, that's entirely too much work. much easier to take the easy route and claim the whole thing [/quote]


I can't totally agree with you as many aren't afraid to do the research for their side of town . If you follow me.
Nophun is prolific in this way. He seems very bias. Hence the question I had for him.
Of course this is an uphill battle. Some of the greatest minds ATS has to offer are involved here
and most of them just don't want a creator to be a factor. It's easy to see how prejudice the are against the very idea. For the possibility to be discounted like they do? It's ignorent by way of prejudice. Me thinks.

edit on 17-9-2010 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by nophun

 

Here's a question for you Nophun. Has there ever been anything in any field or of any level that really made you take notice and second guess yourself? I'm guessing no. If I'm wrong can you tell me about it? If I'm right how do you think that is percieved by others? Just a little pick at your brain.

Randy, Seriously silly question.
Obviously I second guess myself and others nonstop on many topics. I use to even do it when it came to my lack of religion. I guess I stopped second guessing my lack of religion/God/Creator/etc when I came to the conclusion God/religion is not necessary. I should quickly point out I am not talking about Yahweh, Jesus (w/magic), Allah, Zeus, Thor, etc. I have always known (as far back as I remember or cared about such subjects) all these deities just do not add up if you take any amount of time to actually study the history and scriptures.

When I was young I guess I always just assumed there was something more to life, there just had to be. I guess I just grew out of it as I gained more knowledge and got a bit older. I remember hearing things like the watchmaker argument and such and putting some thought into it .. but seriously Randy. If you never believed in a god would "Looks designed, must have a designer" really make you question your lack of belief ?

Most arguments for God are silly and never would get a self thinking non-believer to convert without help from a outside source. (example: Someone who just lost a close family member).

So to answer your question. No I no longer question myself when it comes to these subjects.

.. If you mean in general .. Just today I thought I could make it to work in 10 minutes but second guessed my self and left 15 minutes early.

P.S
I made it in 8.5 minutes

reply to post by nophun

If you mean in general .. Just today I thought I could make it to work in 10 minutes but second guessed my self and left 15 minutes early.

A silly question? Well ya if I meant it in general. That not being the case, your answer is intersting to me. Everybody always starts thinking," this is it" where I put the big move on them, work some some a dat Southern
Baptist hokey in da pokey. I've asked questions in of the same nature of Titen and others. Never once
have I tried to convert anybody ever in my whole life Nophun. I believe as long as I do my part by not ever denying and always stating my truth the way I see it and believe it.
The rest is up to some one else. Trying to convert people is just a way different thing than what I believe.
Your answers help me see where you come from that's why the interest. I could be just be a zealot like I get called around here a lot. Not having any interest in anyone else personally at all.
So........But if you don't like those kind of questions poping up. Not a problem at all, I understand...
Just an attempt to understand the people I talk to often.

Originally posted by undo
reply to post by The Endtime Warrior

 

but they ARE discussing the origin of the universe

oh oh you gotta see this video!

Google Video Link

Undo, I know. When I was in philosophy class the teacher showed as a video from Stephen Hawking. He had proof about "the big bang" I was so excited to watch because I was like whoa, we are going to be shown that the big bang is fact....unfortunately, I was rather disappointed. What was shown was a rocket was launched into space....it left me scratching my head. There was no other footage, no other arguments, apparently a rocket flying into space proves the "big bang". But he's a professor what do I know

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior

Undo, I know. When I was in philosophy class the teacher showed as a video from Stephen Hawking. He had proof about "the big bang" I was so excited to watch because I was like whoa, we are going to be shown that the big bang is fact....unfortunately, I was rather disappointed. What was shown was a rocket was launched into space....it left me scratching my head. There was no other footage, no other arguments, apparently a rocket flying into space proves the "big bang". But he's a professor what do I know

Undo kinda has me think'in along the same lines, as when I take the gum from my mouth and stretch it in
opposite directions.

reply to post by The Endtime Warrior


What does the big bang have to do with Evolution?

reply to post by Titen-Sxull


absolutely nothing. however it could be looked at in another way. say you have a theory. clearly the big bang is a theory. it is supported by "evidence" . the evidence is open to interpretation. So if you start out somewhere in your "train of thought" you are liable to end up at very different destination then where you should be. Some people have taken VERY HUGE LEAPS.

reply to OP

So you're asking 'what if there was a conspiracy among scientists to hide evidence for Bible creation?', and asking us to provide evidence for or against it?

Doesn't work like that. If you have evidence of a conspiracy, show us. Until you do, there is no conspiracy.

Doh.