Remember when "atheist" had a negative connotation?

Ana Theist wrote:

Thanks (seriously) for the info, B&S.

When you find something that appears in a peer-reviewed academic/scientific journal, please do share the link(s) with us. This could be very, very interesting.

I will look for any. Takes some digging....

Bible and slavery wrote:

I will look for any. Takes some digging....

Punny.

Bible and slavery wrote:

Care to try again? ...

Ok sure let's try again. See if it sinks in this time.

Here is a quick hint for you. Whenever someone uses the term "so-called professional (fill in the blank)" it is a dead giveaway that the writer has no expertise and has an obvious agenda (see: Sarah Palin).

;) wrote:

So is there legitimate evidence somewhere that we can see? A piece of a chariot wheel? Photos somewhere?

How about video evidence?

Earlier in this thread, I had brought up the existence of giants and some of you completely dismissed this as pure fantasy. If it doesn't fit the evolution narrative, this is what happens. See article below.

https://sapientiaexanimo.wordpress.com/2015/02/18/archaeologists-sometimes-find-things-that-defy-explanations/

ARCHAEOLOGISTS SOMETIMES FIND THINGS THAT DEFY EXPLANATIONS

FEBRUARY 18, 2015

Did you know that archaeologists sometimes find things that absolutely defy explanations?

But because they don’t fit into the “accepted version” of history, they are not given coverage in the mainstream media. Before a story about science will show up in our news, scientists must have at least a “theory” about how it fits into the generally accepted worldview which is being pushed in our schools and on our televisions.

There are, however, very “weird” discoveries that are being made all the time. For example, the “giant skeletons” that keep popping up all over the place are one of the greatest mysteries of the world.

The “accepted version” of history that we all have been taught just doesn’t add up. There was a whole lot more going on in the ancient world than we were ever allowed to learn. There are great mysteries about our past that are just now starting to be revealed.

When it comes to Giants / Nephilims, there are countless hoaxes out there. However, Giants were very real. Giant skeletal remains and fossils have been recorded and illustrated in both mythology and historical occurrences from cultures worldwide. To those who investigate allegations of archaeological cover-ups, there are disturbing indications that the most important archaeological institute, an independent federal agency, has been actively suppressing some of the most interesting and important archaeological discoveries made in the Americas.

The Vatican has been long accused of keeping artifacts and ancient books in their vast cellars, without allowing the outside world access to them. There’s an agenda to keep our “true history” hidden from us.

There is abundant evidence of ancient giants all over the globe. But most people won’t even allow themselves to consider the evidence because it is just “too bizarre”. In Peru, for instance, they are not whisked away like they are in the USA.

It should be noted that there have been hundreds of giant discoveries in the USA that have been either ignored or taken into custody, never to be seen again. Once you learn the truth, it quickly becomes clear that giants did once walk the earth. (The Smithsonian either hid artifacts or destroyed them)

But “pssssst” – it doesn’t fit with the “theory of evolution” and with the generally accepted version of history, so you aren’t supposed to talk about it.

Genesis 6:4 (KJV)

“There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

Bible and slavery wrote:

;) wrote:

So is there legitimate evidence somewhere that we can see? A piece of a chariot wheel? Photos somewhere?

How about video evidence?

http://youtu.be/Lzb4ekyX1kc

Do you ever ask yourself obvious questions? For example:

1) How easy would it be for a professional team to bring up a few of these "strange coral structures"?

2) How enormously well-rewarded would the team of professionals be who confirmed that these were consistent with the Moses conjecture?

Oh yeah, I forgot. There is a grand conspiracy to cover up and avoid the truth among thousands of ruthlessly competitive professionals whose entire career is devoted to uncovering truth.

Bible and slavery wrote:

Earlier in this thread, I had brought up the existence of giants and some of you completely dismissed this as pure fantasy. If it doesn't fit the evolution narrative, this is what happens. See article below.

...

Awesome! You posted confirmation of what I was saying even before I could complete my post.

Well done.

The Grand Conspiracy!

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Bible and slavery wrote:

Care to try again? ...

Ok sure let's try again. See if it sinks in this time.

Here is a quick hint for you. Whenever someone uses the term "so-called professional (fill in the blank)" it is a dead giveaway that the writer has no expertise and has an obvious agenda (see: Sarah Palin).

And when scientists suppress or bury data/evidence if it doesn't fit their theory. What does that tell you?

Bible and slavery wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Ok sure let's try again. See if it sinks in this time.

Here is a quick hint for you. Whenever someone uses the term "so-called professional (fill in the blank)" it is a dead giveaway that the writer has no expertise and has an obvious agenda (see: Sarah Palin).

And when scientists suppress or bury data/evidence if it doesn't fit their theory. What does that tell you?

I would say that it clearly points to a Grand Conspiracy!

Seriously though. You don't seem to have any idea how science works. I guess that's fine. Many people live happy lives with such a level of ignorance. I personally find it distasteful but to each his own.

Yes, How Punny wrote:

Bible and slavery wrote:

How about video evidence?

http://youtu.be/Lzb4ekyX1kc

Do you ever ask yourself obvious questions? For example:

1) How easy would it be for a professional team to bring up a few of these "strange coral structures"?

2) How enormously well-rewarded would the team of professionals be who confirmed that these were consistent with the Moses conjecture?

Oh yeah, I forgot. There is a grand conspiracy to cover up and avoid the truth among thousands of ruthlessly competitive professionals whose entire career is devoted to uncovering truth.

It's against the law. Egypt forbids removal of coral or coral covered objects.

Actually, you don't know how science works. Here is an example of the shenanigans that scientists do today:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/archaeology.htm

Suppressed archaeology:

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory:

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.

We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.

Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.

Here is another example of science and not fitting the narrative:

Pressure Tactics: The Ica Stones of Peru

Now we turn to another, very different case. In 1966, Dr Javier Cabrera received a stone as a gift from a poor local farmer in his native Ica, Peru. A fish was carved on the stone, which would not have meant much to the average villager but it did mean a lot to the educated Dr Cabrera. He recognised it as a long-extinct species. This aroused his curiosity. He purchased more stones from the farmer, who said he had collected them near the river after a flood.

Dr Cabrera accumulated more and more stones, and word of their existence and potential import reached the archaeological community. Soon, the doctor had amassed thousands of "Ica stones". The sophisticated carvings were as enigmatic as they were fascinating. Someone had carved men fighting with dinosaurs, men with telescopes and men performing operations with surgical equipment. They also contained drawings of lost continents.

Several of the stones were sent to Germany and the etchings were dated to remote antiquity. But we all know that men could not have lived at the time of dinosaurs; Homo sapiens has only existed for about 100,000 years.

The BBC got wind of this discovery and swooped down to produce a documentary about the Ica stones. The media exposure ignited a storm of controversy. Archaeologists criticised the Peruvian government for being lax about enforcing antiquities laws (but that was not their real concern). Pressure was applied to government officials.

The farmer who had been selling the stones to Cabrera was arrested; he claimed to have found them in a cave but refused to disclose the exact location to authorities, or so they claimed.

This case was disposed of so artfully that it would do any corrupt politician proud. The Peruvian government threatened to prosecute and imprison the farmer. He was offered and accepted a plea bargain; he then recanted his story and "admitted" to having carved the stones himself. That seems highly implausible, since he was uneducated and unskilled and there were 11,000 stones in all. Some were fairly large and intricately carved with animals and scenes that the farmer would not have had knowledge of without being a palaeontologist. He would have needed to work every day for several decades to produce that volume of stones. However, the underlying facts were neither here nor there. The Ica stones were labelled "hoax" and forgotten.

The case did not require a head-to-head confrontation or public discrediting of non-scientists by scientists; it was taken care of with invisible pressure tactics. Since it was filed under "hoax", the enigmatic evidence never had to be dealt with.

Show me some examples instead of throwing out snarky platitudes.

Bible and slavery wrote:

Actually, you don't know how science works. Here is an example of the shenanigans that scientists do today:

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts ...

Thus proving my point.

Look, I really don't mind your ignorance. It doesn't much impact me. And I've seen enough of your type to recognize that you are incapable of change.

I hope you are happy in your ignorance. Really, I mean that. Sometimes I even wish I could get away from giving a shit about truth but for whatever reason it doesn't work for me.

All the best to you.

You conveniently cutoff the rest the statement. Trying to pull a Mike Rossi on us? Talk about suppressing a full statement.

"That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics...."

From now, I'm calling you Mike (Rossi) as you just lost all credibility. Go away.

Hell, I remember when it was spelled with the e before the i.

Hey Pointing out/errrr, Mike.., you do realize that you broke one of the cardinal rules of arguing. You in essence cheated, pasting a statement that was out of context.

I may not believe in the Bibile either, but to resort to those tactics. Bad move.

Ana Theist wrote:

When you find something that appears in a peer-reviewed academic/scientific journal, please do share the link(s) with us. This could be very, very interesting.

Don't hold your breath while you're waiting, lady. You'll turn blue.

sdghh wrote:

Ana Theist wrote:

When you find something that appears in a peer-reviewed academic/scientific journal, please do share the link(s) with us. This could be very, very interesting.

Don't hold your breath while you're waiting, lady. You'll turn blue.

Your timing is impeccable!

Here is the peer reviewed journal: