i saw a show on the history channel last night; histories mysteries.

it featured a site(can't remember the name; wanted to post right after the show but got company) off the southernmost tip of japan that is buried underwater.

filled with right angle cuts; and newly discovered just for the filming of the show; a face with a headdress on over what they call the "stage" a perfectly square platform measuring 70' by 70'.

graham hancock is convinced it is man made; a scientist who dated the sphynx at 5,000 years old(contrary to the 2,500 year date by "conventional science") can't determine if it's natural or man-made; or won't determine because "mainstream" scientists say it is a natural formation and is impossible to have been built by man because the site is underwater.

the last time the site was above water was 8,000 b.c.e.; when "mainstream" scientists say we were still hunter-gatherers.

now if the site has been under-water for 10,000 years; and is man-made; that means it is probably much older than 10,000 years.

which means if man-made history would have to be re-written.

conventional scientists don't even want to go to the site to examine it; they just write it off as a natural occurence.

every diver and scientist of the region who have been have no doubt it was man-made; even the scientist from mit who dated the sphynx doesn't discount the claim that it is man made; but won't confirm it(i believe for fear of ruining his career by going in the face of his colleagues; by his own words the 5,000 b.c.e. year date on the sphynx is probably early but to fit it in "conventional" wisdom the 5,000 year date is what he published).

to paraphrase graham hancock; when something flies in the face of modern science; most scientists dismiss it without even investigating it. much of what is underwater now used to be above water during the ice age. graham hancock believes as i have for a long time that there are probably thousands of underwater structures near the equator between the tropics; like the pyramids of japan; the biminany road; and above these lines as well like the circle of stones in england that goes into the water(which is undeniably man made but science has no answer for because the age is the same as the pyramids of japan).

if science really is the search for truth; why do they close their eyes when it appears that they might possibly be wrong and ridicule it.

evolution was an easily believable theory in the 1850's when it was introduced; but became hard to believe in the 1950's when dna was discovered.

dna a property of ALL lifeforms; now what i remember from biology class the first 3 semesters were spent studying how this became that with no mention of dna transformation.

why?

because the last semester spent of human development went on to explain that we have dna so that we can't mate with donkeys and we have an excellent chance of looking like our parents when we are born.

for evolution to be correct you have to have a whole generation of offspring born with the exact same genetic difference from the parents with dna re-written at some point for the dinosaurs that weren't killed off to become birds. scales may not have become feathers overnight; but at some point the dna referencing had to be changed; and not in one; not in dozens; not in hundreds; but in hundreds of thousands or the change would never have survived to reach the third generation of offspring.

and it was only last year that the human genome was mapped.

whenever you hear about how a species evolved into this or that on the discovery channel; the learning channel; or the national geographic channel from now on make a tick sheet for every occurrence of evolution make a check; for every explanation of how make a check; for every dna transformation mentioned make a check.

and you will find that evolution is not proven; not explained accurately or even correctly; but is just accepted.

for centuries we believed the earth to be the center of the universe and those who disagreed were persecuted.

for centuries we believed the earth to be flat and those who disagreed persecuted.

for centuries we believed that the human brain could not withstand speeds over 25 miles per hour and those who disagreed were ridiculed.

for centuries we believed heavier than air objects could not fly(even though we saw birds do it every day) and those who disagreed were ridiculued.

for two centuries we believed evolution was the origin of man and those who disagree are ridiculed.

for the last century we believed our past was 8,000 years old being classified as modern man and those who disagree are ridiculed.

if history has proven anything it is that the powerful will eventually fall and what was once believed as the fact will eventually be looked at as how did we ever believe that.

it is the year 2001 and we need to move beyond the 1800's mentality we are locked in and start asking more questions.

our technology has leaped beyond our knowledge and we must investigate everything.

would I be off topic to talk about why God (or a greater being of some kind) MUST exist?

Assuming no god, Evolution, from the ameoba to the human would seem impossible. The physiology of evolution is statistically impossible. Also you can argue that the third law of thermodynamics says that the opposite should happen without the input of energy. Energy could easily be input (feeding) so we can ignore that. But it would still be impossible, even without that law for the amoeba to change into the human.

The reason a greater being must exist is that that greater being could have overseen evolution and formed the human. I believe the Christian bible is a metaphorical story and only 'represents' the truth. The 7 days (also 'day' translated from hebrew is actually an 'indeterminate amount of time') of the bible represent evolution. An evolution that God orchestrated and modeled the way He wanted to.

Everyone argues 1 day to god is a thousand years to man. But if you read that same bible it says "God created the sun to light the day and a Moon to light the night and this was the first day. or something like that. So the sun rising and setting and rising again is a day. a day is a day. God created Earth in 6 days.

actually the sun was not "created" til the third day; light itself was "created" the second day.

but to an observer on earth; with all the dust that would be in the air from the forming of the earth; their would be a hazy glow all about until the dust settled and the sun itself and not just the light produced would be visible.

goatboy; interesting theory.

i'm a deist though; and don't believe god interfered much after creation. basically saying "i want you to enjoy everything i have given you; and if you fuck this planet up; well the universe is quite big"

the question i have to your theory is why would an omniscient and omnipotent being create something that needed meddling after creation.

i'd have to say regarding the start of life and the origin of man that i am agnostic.

i just don't know.

with all the other elements of science factored in evolution is on the boundary of impossible to create this many different and varying species of life on just one planet.

yet biologists ask us to rely on a little bit of faith and in a way "created" their own religion; with the creed "science hasn't failed you yet".

but with my above post we see that time and time again accepted scientific fact repeatedly becomes absurd.

man thinks it's on the threshold of knowing everything.

i believe mankind has entered puberty; which i consider an excellent analogy for our world's present state; continued unrest and each generation seeking desperately for an identity of its own seperate from that of the previous generation; much like the rebellious nature of teenagers.

you can see this clearly in america with our multiplicity of divergent cultures but with a central focus on popular music in the target demographic of 18-24 year olds.

in the 60's it was rock and roll; when that became mainstream a new revolution was needed; the 70's gave us punk.

when post-punk bands became mainstream you had the heavy metal hairband revolution arise which quickly turned into the grunge revolution.

which now focuses on hip hop; which is looking to be displaced by techno.

whereas classical music survived for millenia while man remained in it's infancy.

as we progress more i believe we will see a stabling effect of popular music; much like the classical era of infancy.

another reason i believe we are in puberty is a childhood memory of a teacher stating we were one of the youngest nations on the face of the earth.

now look around you.

in roughly 30 years(a nanosecond if viewed over the entire time of man's existance; yet what would it be in universal terms) we are now one of the oldest.

literally in the blink of an eye the earth underwent a major change in the last 100 years.

the rebellious nature of teenagers towards their parents.

for all of our knowledge we have; their is unimaginably more information yet to be discovered.

and when you watch the news tonight you will see the juvenile attitude man has towards one another.

we know nothing.

Witch, don't make stupid generalizations. Not everyone thinks God's day is our 1000 years or whatever. I don't.
A day is NOT a day. Translated from Hebrew, a 'day' can be an indeterminate amount of time. I said that before. It can also mean one rotation of the earth on its axis. My suggestion to you is learn Hebrew and read a Hebrew bible.

I like to consider myself a deist as well, except every once in a while I see something that makes me believe otherwise. So I'm not a true deist, but I feel like one based on my observations and reasoning.
Lost, is it possible that evolution up to 4000 years ago WAS all part of creation. The Bible was written after man already existed so its possible that the Bible considers all before it a part of creation. Therefore a Deist could be true to deism and still believe that a god meddled up until man was born. I don't think the Big Bang was creation, I think it was a lot more than that.
I like your quote, btw "...well the universe is quite big"

The reason the US (we will use an an example) has had such a metamorphosis in the past 100 years is the industrial revolution. Cars led to freedom, as did the lack of a need to WORK all the time. Before then, your life was your job. Innovations in technology led to many cool-ass things, like music.
Very astute. We know nothing.

As you are reading this, there is a 'chance' that what you are actually looking at is a pile of ant carcasses, but those odds are pretty slim. Better odds than evolution w/out intervention, yes?

goatboy you're right. I always wanted to learn hebrew. One should also learn to speak aramaic as well. and greek.

I wasn't meaning to Generalize. Im assuming you are Jewish. so you have an advantage over me on the old testament.

Now i would like to talk about this underwater thing in Japan. off the coast of the Florida Keys are lots of man Made structures. Many statues and even pyramids that some say may have been there for 10,000 years. These are obviouslly not "Natural" because you can clearly see human faces in some of the structures. But these are like miles and miles off of the coast. and about 20-50 feet under water. the reefs off of florida are shallow files miles off the coast. Was it a huge Quake that dropped the ground floor. and if so Who the hell built these things. Aztec, Myans?. Whats really eerie is they look like they are from Greece. Mythical Greek Characters. how did they get there?

Jewish Deist? No, Witch, I just read the book. Mother's Methodist, 10 yr. old brother's athiest. Dad's Protestant or something... i'm not sure. I do know that I went to his church once (for family political reasons) and vowed never to go again.

I'm very pleased to discover that there was a report done that mathematically proved evolution statistically impossible without some greater being dictating it.

Impossible is like 1:10^300 against and evolution was approximated to be 1:10^500 against or something along those lines.

happy.

i lean more to the agnostic viewpoint, i believe that there IS some"greater power" but that it doesnt care, or....isn't even sapient. thats my theory, the evolution of orgamnisms to our present state sould have been brought about by some random cosmic "accident". some energetic anomaly flaoting through our portion of the gaxaly accidently stirred some molecules of primordial ooze and,...viola...life as we know it starts....

------------------
He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice."-Albert Einstein

energetic anomoly?

Doesn't that sound like a major cop-out to you?

quote:

---

dna a property of ALL lifeforms; now what i remember from biology class the first 3 semesters were spent studying how this became that with no mention of dna transformation.

why?

because the last semester spent of human development went on to explain that we have dna so that we can't mate with donkeys and we have an excellent chance of looking like our parents when we are born.

for evolution to be correct you have to have a whole generation of offspring born with the exact same genetic difference from the parents with dna re-written at some point for the dinosaurs that weren't killed off to become birds. scales may not have become feathers overnight; but at some point the dna referencing had to be changed; and not in one; not in dozens; not in hundreds; but in hundreds of thousands or the change would never have survived to reach the third generation of offspring.

---

The trait changeing doesn't have to change in the population at once. Look at dogs, all dogs can mate. But every type of dog has different traits than other dogs.

When you say gene transformation are you talking about gene swapping and gene mutation? Those are the driving force behind natural selection. They are the cause of the variations.

quote:

---

I'm very pleased to discover that there was a report done that mathematically proved evolution statistically impossible without some greater being dictating it.

---

What? Huh? Could you give me a link?

Im having alot of trouble believing that it's possible to prove evolution impossible or that there even is an impossible. Evolution appears to be pure logic to me. From fossils to what we see with our own eyes. Evolution in some form is the only way that species could have changed over the eons. Im not pin-pointing natural selection or catalistic evoltion. Im speaking of evolution in any form.

Wait...are we talking about the changing of species or the origan of life?

Bong, what I was trying to say is that it would have been impossible without conscious intervention, ie: a higher power.

I will try to find a link for that report for you, just give me a few days. I'm on vacation, dammit.

What you are talking about with evolution is natural selection. The animals with the best traits pass on the most of themselves in the gene pool and eventually things change. It Does take a Very long time to affect a whole species though.

quote:

---

it

---

Evolution or the beginning of life.

Because if I don't know what you are talking about I can't argue against or for it.

Say "it" is evolution from bacteria to human in 4 billion years. I believe that it's possible.

Say "it" is life being created from pools of non-living material. Then I would understand your arguement. That the probablity of it happening is 1:10^500 without divine intervention. Then I would argue that we are just a unique happening in the universe. 1:10^500 that still means it's possible because look at us now. It would mean that it's not very likely that there is other life in the universe then.

Does anybody think that maybe both arguements are correct? God did create reality and evolution? Wasn't man one of the last things created? So lets say God created this here primordial ooze. And out of that came every manner of beast of the feild and everything that swimmeth and flyeth and soforth. But for The One Creator Of The Universe, this took most of what science tells us was millions of years. The jewish bible just picks up were it gets relevant.

W, That's what I'm saying.

"It" is the whole thing. I think it would be more probable for life to spring from energy and non-living material than for the human to evolve from a one-celled organism.

Roll a six-sided die 1 billion times. Whenever you roll anything But a six, start again. It's more probable that you would succeed at That task then for a one-celled organism to evolve to even a frog or a lizard.

Now set that die down 1 billion times so that the six face is up each time. It could still take longer than a human's lifetime, but it would be possible with time.

God orchestrated evolution.
--------------------------

If you want to argue statistics, and say that it is possible for those odds to exist, and it is possible to roll that dice given those requirements and a billion years:
It's statistically posible that all the molecules that compose your body, at this very moment exist only on 18 seperate planets throughout the universe and none on earth and that you only think you exist as a human being. You are ALSO a blind man, 30 years old, living in the womb of an African elephant and wearing spectacles that were made in 1876 out of plutonium and thus far have never given off radiation.

get it? at least my idea? You don't have to agree, but you might understand. Evolution was statistically impossible

what kind of loser takes the time to read your novels on nonsense?

unfortunatly Goat, the time when scientist and priest agreed are long gone. It used to be that way. In fact, science and philosophy used to be the same thing. But as sciences vehicle: technology became more complex the two begane to drift apart.
And now here we are today. Television religion and the amazing hidden homeless. At least in this country. Many of the older counries don't like the taste of modern society, but with each new generation find themselves dealing with it more and more.
For more on this read my post "The way things were..." over at techno.&techno.

actually religion and science agree on a great many deals.

from astrophysics and theoretical physics to archaelogy, the only one they severely differ on is the origin of man; and the possiblity of life elsewhere.

Krael, You don't have to read my novels, but this is the science forum, so valid opinions take a few more words. I never even asked you to read them.

Wyrm, I disagree. I think science agrees more with religion now than ever before, but only because science didn't truly exist before the Renaissance and in many places until recently (last 100-200 yrs)

Science demands trial and error, hypothesis and proof, (or at least trial until disproof), and it didn't used to be that way.

'Science' was a term used as a tool to try to explain things that religion wanted to impress upon the masses. It was a credible source of disinformation really.

Science didn't exist until recently? Were have you been?
Science hasn't become popular among the masses until recently. Its always been there, just under a different name. Science was the more symbolic, material form of early religion. Just because we say chemistry instead of alchemy or astronomy instead of astrology doesn't mean that the later 2 are not "science".
Take the Cult of Pythagoras. Pythagoras revolutionized the public understanding of mathematics. Some of his more "proven" tenets are still used today. He was considered to be a demi-god among his followers. The Pythagoreans beleived the #'s 1 through 10 to be sacred, the fundamental components used in the creation of reality by God.
Of course, they don't teach you that in school. All you need to know is that A squared + B squared = C squared.
Astronomy is astrology only without beleif in higher powers. The veiw point that the celestial bodies are lifeless hunks of dirt or gas instead of gods is only because of mans preocupation with with his cool "new" tools. As a matter of fact, astrology today has only been funtionaly bolstered by astronomy's findings. Yet, the 2 are still not to be considered the same.
2 much of society is under the impression that if you can't see it, then it must not be there. This causes a heated interest in the vehicle of science: technology. Who cares about God when you can go 0 to 60 in 4.8 sec.s? Realization that God created this computer, electricity, your eyeballs and continues to exist as such is commonly farthest from the mind. Understanding this process used to be the duty of the preist( or preistess or witch or druid or shaman or whatever). Until it got complicated by "scientist".

Ok..

...In mainstream society...especially in European/American education...


What I meant was that what used to be called "science" and what is being referred to as science, wasn't. When some guy coined 'The scientific method' science became a little more, as you like to say 'popular'.

What I said was that "science" the item of Anglo culture, was propaganda.

btw: I wasn't alive prior to this century, nor was my mother. Where have I been? Most likely in the form of dirt, other lifeforms, and seawater, all over the world.

Propaganda for what? I'm interested in this common thought that religion was brought about to control people. Or confuse people. You must understand that as americans, a good portion of our spiritual contact is Christianity. ( a fairly young faith in comparison to most)