The Existence of a Preadamic Population on Earth.

[Benson]

Let's chat about origins and creation.

It is not possible to explain the ancient geological evidence in the Earth, or the Massive numbers and size of Megalithic ruins all over the Earth with a Young Earth narrative. Additionally, recent discoveries of hominid bones and their retrieved DNA, recovered with crafted artifacts, from numerous sites do not support a theory of human evolution, but shows strong evidence of hominids on Earth hundreds of thousands of years ago suddenly arising.

Even retrieved clay and stone records list kings and their populations living for many successive tens of thousands of years. The successively distinct categories of fossilized reptiles and lower life forms shows multiple repetitive appearances and extinctions, far apart from any do called Evolution unto modern creatures. The recently discovered incredible resilience of microlife denies its theorized creation only for today's low stress biome.

The only theory which gives sense to all of this is the following:

1.) Earth has for close to half a million years been a Petri dish for propagation of various carbon based species.

2.) Successive planetary catastrophies have each time wiped out most life, but have occasionslly left living survivors, and have left many physical artifacts.

3.) The creation and manipulation of the physical Earth and its life have been puposefully accomplished by various sentient agencies able to plan and execute with intricacy.

4.) The most recent recreation if the biome and life has been done by the Superior Great Creator YHWH/Elohim/God as recorded in Genesis, when God said "Let Us Make Man In Our Image," which had never before been done. After all of the previous experimentation by other beings, God then created a far superior Man in His own Image.

5.) Researched oral traditions and artifacts show every major ancient culture had an enduring narrative of both extra terrestrial action upon creation, and a world wide flood.

Today, we have a huge data base of non God supernatural beings tampering with the life forms and the DNA of God's superior humans, in order to corrupt and control us for their Satanic purposes. Large eye socketed and oversized humanoid skulls from Egypt, South America, Central Europe, and other recesses show there were greatly nontypical humanoids living in ancient empires. Even a very small nonhuman, nonape biped Egyptian mummy has been found.

Yes, the fallen angels and Satan can manipulate existing life forms, as shown in the Pre Noah accounts of Genesis and the Book of Enoch. It continues through today. Jesus will now return when the Earth again becomes "As The Days of Noah" were with its corrupted life forms.

Unfortunately, Christendom denies this all, as part of their high road to spiritual superiority and tidy Theology. Unfortunately as well, the corrupt Roman Catholic church being The Beast of Babylon actually has a leg up on the reality of some of this. They will use it as a tool of the emerging One World Order.

[Benson]

Science is not a "discipline" because the results of it are chaos and damage. Those who espouse and conduct science serve the deathly pursuits of arrogance and presumption. Even as they deny the relevance of a Godly human heart, they invariably admit to perceptional and material lack of resource. All their examination and study of the physical realm end with statements such as:

"More study upon this needs pursuit."
"At this time we cannot be certain of any significance."
"There appears to be no possible consensus at this point."
"Without further answers, a course of action is lacking."
"This research is limited in its breadth of data."
"This new avenue of inquiry with its preliminary assessment will require full review of the standard model."

Etc., etc. ...

True Discipline happens only through God, not through procedural rigor within human inquiry. Did you forget, "In Christ exists all knowledge?"

Your quotes(although you fail to show their links) far from showing arrogance and presumption, illustrate the honesty, balance and openness of science.

I'll simply add a couple more:

The wrong view of science betrays itself in the craving to be right; for it is not his possession of knowledge, of irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and recklessly critical quest for truth.

Karl Popper 'the Logic of scientific discovery'

and:

There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance.

Hippocrates

The successes of science, and especially the scientific method, are vast, and increasing every day, whether you accept that or not. Of course all knowledge can be used for good or ill, as with many things available to mankind, and scientific knowledge is no different.

You finish with a question 'Did you forget, "In Christ exists all knowledge?" which I find a rather odd question to ask of an agnostic atheist. My answer would be this. You may believe it, but I have no reason to think that the accounts of Christ have any real validity. It is quite possible that such a charismatic leader and teacher actually lived, and much of what he is supposed to have said is worthwhile but there is no evidence of his divinity or any of the supernatural acts described in the Gospels, and the idea of him possessing 'all knowledge' is therefore highly dubious. I don't 'forget', I simply disagree.

Yes, "the craving to be right" is the Godless basis for all human science. Thereby, we see it's futility.

"Let every man be wrong."

BTW, links are nothing more than convenient references. You worship them in error.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #22]

Yes, "the craving to be right" is the Godless basis for all human science. Thereby, we see it's futility.

Yet science has a great number of highly valuable contributions from many humans who were devoutly religious as already mentioned (using Newton, Planck and Maxwell as examples), and that continues today. Are you claiming that their contributions were futile or meaningless? That is demonstrably false. Scientific progress does not depend on gods or whether or not they exist, or a scientist's position on that subject.

BTW, links are nothing more than convenient references. You worship them in error.

No, they can provide supporting (or confirming) evidence to support claims being made that otherwise may be just personal opinion. No different than providing references in peer-reviewed journal articles for prior or related research, footnotes and bibliographies in books, etc. Anyone can throw out comments and opinions, but those carry much more weight in a debate when they are backed up by supporting evidence, often conveniently supplied by links (in the internet age) to external sources. There is no "worship" involved.

[blackstart]

Yes, "the craving to be right" is the Godless basis for all human science. Thereby, we see it's futility.

The basis of science is the attempt to explain the natural world using the discipline of scientific methodology. It would necessarily therefore be based upon the desire to produce accurate hypotheses backed by peer reviewed evidence, with the proviso that any such hypothesis is provisional, and subject to change, given the integrity of alternative or future evidence.

The idea that a 'godless' basis for human science(I don't know of any other kind) must ensure its futility is not a logical statement. The one does not necessarily lead to the other.

"Let every man be wrong."

Granted that we can all make mistakes, which, of course, includes you. Science tries to reduce the propensity for mistakes by using the scientific method.

BTW, links are nothing more than convenient references. You worship them in error.

As I don't worship 'links' I reject your criticism. It is simply accepted custom and good manners so that we know the source for any quotations and to verify that such quotations haven't been made up. You gave six quotations in post 14, without once referring to your sources.

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #22]

Yes, "the craving to be right" is the Godless basis for all human science. Thereby, we see it's futility.

Yet science has a great number of highly valuable contributions from many humans who were devoutly religious as already mentioned (using Newton, Planck and Maxwell as examples), and that continues today. Are you claiming that their contributions were futile or meaningless? That is demonstrably false. Scientific progress does not depend on gods or whether or not they exist, or a scientist's position on that subject.

BTW, links are nothing more than convenient references. You worship them in error.

No, they can provide supporting (or confirming) evidence to support claims being made that otherwise may be just personal opinion. No different than providing references in peer-reviewed journal articles for prior or related research, footnotes and bibliographies in books, etc. Anyone can throw out comments and opinions, but those carry much more weight in a debate when they are backed up by supporting evidence, often conveniently supplied by links (in the internet age) to external sources. There is no "worship" involved.

Worship is the action of giving credence, repute, preferential authority, prolonged attention, and subjective value. Link worshipping controls those who do this. They do not control links.

Standing with foolish men, entertaining them, and considering their pursuits is to participate with them. Blessed is the man who stands not in the way of the Ungodly. Science is not Godly. It is human frowardness.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #25]

Link worshipping controls those who do this. They do not control links.

Links (related to the internet) simply point to other web pages (or within the same web page, #) containing information. The entire Bible is available via links to various websites. Does this mean the Bible is useless because it is available via website links? Information is information ... it doesn't matter what form or format is used to provide it. A web page containing the text of the Bible is no different than a paper book containing that same text, and ditto for any other document. A file displayed in a web browser and accessed via a link is just another method of displaying information, and is very useful (for example) for supporting claims made on internet forums.

Science is not Godly. It is human frowardness.

Science is independent of "godliness", and has no need for gods. It has solved countless problems and made life far better for humans. Would you rather the entire human population die from the next pandemic (or this one) instead of scientists working to prevent that outcome? Science is a noble human endeavor, as the huge majority of humans recognize and appreciate.

[William]

[Replying to Benson in post #25]

Link worshipping controls those who do this. They do not control links.

Links (related to the internet) simply point to other web pages (or within the same web page, #) containing information. The entire Bible is available via links to various websites. Does this mean the Bible is useless because it is available via website links? Information is information ... it doesn't matter what form or format is used to provide it. A web page containing the text of the Bible is no different than a paper book containing that same text, and ditto for any other document. A file displayed in a web browser and accessed via a link is just another method of displaying information, and is very useful (for example) for supporting claims made on internet forums.

Science is not Godly. It is human frowardness.

Science is independent of "godliness", and has no need for gods. It has solved countless problems and made life far better for humans. Would you rather the entire human population die from the next pandemic (or this one) instead of scientists working to prevent that outcome? Science is a noble human endeavor, as the huge majority of humans recognize and appreciate.

In the grand scheme of things, the notion of "Noble" in relation to science being used to preserve the human species/species in general seems a bit far fetched to me, as it begs the question "For what possible noble purpose could any species contribute to this universe?"

The answers one can come up with in relation to that question, are nothing notably 'noble', but rather, run of the mill natural.

The process might consist of awesomeness, but how is noble endeavor a requirement in that process, human or otherwise?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #27]

The process might consist of awesomeness, but how is noble endeavor a requirement in that process, human or otherwise?

I'm using a definition of "noble" along these lines (from Reverso Dictionary):

adj
if you describe something as noble, you think that its appearance or quality is very impressive, making it superior to other things of its type.

grand or imposing; magnificant.

of superior quality or kind; excellent.

The endeavor part is just the effort at doing science. I'm not referring to a definition of noble relating to high morals or lofty goals, or nobility as in an aristocrat of some sort like a king or queen.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #27]

The process might consist of awesomeness, but how is noble endeavor a requirement in that process, human or otherwise?

I'm using a definition of "noble" along these lines (from Reverso Dictionary):

adj
if you describe something as noble, you think that its appearance or quality is very impressive, making it superior to other things of its type.

grand or imposing; magnificant.

of superior quality or kind; excellent.

The endeavor part is just the effort at doing science. I'm not referring to a definition of noble relating to high morals or lofty goals, or nobility as in an aristocrat of some sort like a king or queen.

Thank You for clarifying that. Now it makes sense...

[William]

[Replying to William in post #27]

The process might consist of awesomeness, but how is noble endeavor a requirement in that process, human or otherwise?

I'm using a definition of "noble" along these lines (from Reverso Dictionary):

adj
if you describe something as noble, you think that its appearance or quality is very impressive, making it superior to other things of its type.

grand or imposing; magnificant.

of superior quality or kind; excellent.

The endeavor part is just the effort at doing science. I'm not referring to a definition of noble relating to high morals or lofty goals, or nobility as in an aristocrat of some sort like a king or queen.

Thank You for clarifying that. But it still doesn't mean anything in relation to the grand scheme of things...words such as "grand" or "imposing"; "magnificent" "of superior quality or kind"; "excellent" do convey ideas of loftiness. [of goals]

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #30]

Thank You for clarifying that. But it still doesn't mean anything in relation to the grand scheme of things...words such as "grand" or "imposing"; "magnificent" "of superior quality or kind"; "excellent" do convey ideas of loftiness. [of goals]

Methinks you are reading way too much into a passing comment. I had no deep meaning in mind when I wrote that sentence. It was mainly to counter the earlier descriptions of science as not godly, futile, and "human frowardness." Noble endeavor is close to the opposite of those descriptions.