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]

No tools needed. Know that as we are confined to our senses and thoughts, all we experience is subjective simulation of whatever is out there.

[Purple Knight]

The bottom line is, science works.

It does. It's just whether or not we can trust people to do it.

Yes, the works of Science are shown by both it's basis apart from God to deny His Creation, and by its heritage of corruption upon all aspects of humanity. People can be trusted to continue through the temporary god of Earth to enact all of what Science has become. Coming up is AI, transhumanism, world socialism, massive suffering, and population reduction, all through Science.

I wouldn't go that far. I'm simply saying that science requires morality to function properly - it requires people to be honest, and not fudge their numbers or design their studies dishonestly, even though they have every incentive to do so.

For a while everyone was honest. And then the threads of competition exploited and used up that honesty. Now we have a replicability crisis.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #49]

Yes, the works of Science are shown by both it's basis apart from God to deny His Creation, and by its heritage of corruption upon all aspects of humanity.

Science doesn't bother itself with creation myths, but it can certainly be used to show many of them (when taken literally) to be false including the one in the Genesis. It also does not concern itself with gods as they are not needed to explain nature or solve problems. Where do you get the idea that science somehow denies gods or any particular religion's creation story? There is no conspiracy within science at large to undermine religions or deny the existence of gods, etc. It is just that when considered scientifically, there is no evidence for gods and none have ever been demonstrated to actually exist (outside of the human mind where they are created). They are irrelevant to science.

People can be trusted to continue through the temporary god of Earth to enact all of what Science has become. Coming up is AI, transhumanism, world socialism, massive suffering, and population reduction, all through Science.

Nothing wrong with AI ... just natural advances in software development. World socialism may not be a good idea, but what has that got to do with science? Massive suffering is one thing science has drastically reduced, not created (how may Europeans would have died from bubonic plague if the science of today had been available?). Population reduction, or at least a reduction to a growth rate comparable to the replacement rate, is a good idea. Earth can't support an infinite human population, and if the exponential growth of the last few centuries continues for another few, mother nature (or massive wars over resources) will probably solve that problem if we humans don't. But birth rates (per woman) are falling and that is expected to continue, so maybe we'll dodge an overpopulation bullet naturally as education and higher standards of living (and lower infant death rates due to scientific advances) continue to lead to a reduction in birth rates in underdeveloped countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #49]

Yes, the works of Science are shown by both it's basis apart from God to deny His Creation, and by its heritage of corruption upon all aspects of humanity.

Science doesn't bother itself with creation myths, but it can certainly be used to show many of them (when taken literally) to be false including the one in the Genesis. It also does not concern itself with gods as they are not needed to explain nature or solve problems. Where do you get the idea that science somehow denies gods or any particular religion's creation story? There is no conspiracy within science at large to undermine religions or deny the existence of gods, etc. It is just that when considered scientifically, there is no evidence for gods and none have ever been demonstrated to actually exist (outside of the human mind where they are created). They are irrelevant to science.

People can be trusted to continue through the temporary god of Earth to enact all of what Science has become. Coming up is AI, transhumanism, world socialism, massive suffering, and population reduction, all through Science.

Nothing wrong with AI ... just natural advances in software development. World socialism may not be a good idea, but what has that got to do with science? Massive suffering is one thing science has drastically reduced, not created (how may Europeans would have died from bubonic plague if the science of today had been available?). Population reduction, or at least a reduction to a growth rate comparable to the replacement rate, is a good idea. Earth can't support an infinite human population, and if the exponential growth of the last few centuries continues for another few, mother nature (or massive wars over resources) will probably solve that problem if we humans don't. But birth rates (per woman) are falling and that is expected to continue, so maybe we'll dodge an overpopulation bullet naturally as education and higher standards of living (and lower infant death rates due to scientific advances) continue to lead to a reduction in birth rates in underdeveloped countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

Now you say "Science does not bother itself." Lol. As if Science itself is sentient .

Actually, the impetus behind pure Science is in fact a sentient force called Satan. That is why Science constantly works to deny The God of The Bible, and His Creation, rather than to acknowledge God and what he has created for Science to identify in physical reality. Step up and repeat what your master, Satan, will have you proclaim. Be strong in Satan!

Have you ever noticed how much work and expense Science must do in order to do nothing more than ask more questions? Have you ever noticed no Scientist has ever created anything, but at best can only rearrange a few things?

Lol. I serve and speak of the Creator. Of you and of "Science."

[brunumb]

Actually, the impetus behind pure Science is in fact a sentient force called Satan. That is why Science constantly works to deny The God of The Bible, and His Creation, rather than to acknowledge God and what he has created for Science to identify in physical reality. Step up and repeat what your master, Satan, will have you proclaim. Be strong in Satan!

Oh, dear. Science, or more specifically the scientific method, is how we learn about the world we live in. It is purely the search for knowledge and truth. There is no intention to deny any gods. If the knowledge we gain contradicts what the Bible claims, then it is not a fault of science but a fault of the Bible. Resorting to fictional characters in an attempt to discredit what science does simply exposes the paucity of your arguments.

[blackstart]

It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.

Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?

Thank you for your response:

Of course that is a possibility, however it is not one which addresses the idea of a supernatural creator. Let me explain:

Two of the several exponents of the possibility of a simulated universe are Nick Bostrom(philosopher) and Neil DeGrasse Tyson(astronomer). Both of these advocate a possibility that a superior civilization might well have the technology to produce such a simulation.

Bostrom doesn't suggest that it's the most probable explanation of our universe. Even within his hypothesis, he gives equal probability to other conclusions:

Personally, I assign less than 50% probability to the simulation hypothesis – rather something like in 20%-region, perhaps, maybe. However, this estimate is a subjective personal opinion and is not part of the simulation argument.

Furthermore he suggests that the simulation hypothesis:

has no direct connection with religious conceptions of a literally omniscient and omnipotent deity. The simulation-hypothesis does not imply the existence of such a deity, nor does it imply its non-existence.

Indeed, he goes on to say that, far from being outside natural laws

the simulators implied by the simulation-hypothesis would be naturalistic entities, subject to the laws of nature at their own level of reality

He is of the opinion that:

There is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently technologically advanced civilisation from implementing human minds in computers.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html

Hence, if the 'creator god' idea is to be our yardstick then that must surely include any 'advanced civilization' capable of producing such a simulation, not necessarily one god at all, but potentially millions, all of whom are subject to natural laws.I would also add, that if we were to take this route, we might well come to the conclusion that our present observations suggest the imperfect nature of this simulation? Could it be that this is just a trial run?(smiley)

And we are left with the same problem of who created the simulation creators. It seems to be tortoises all the way down.

Not only that, but why couldn't the simulation creators be capable of have creating more than one simulation? And, why couldn't the simulated be capable of producing their own simulation?

On your second point, in theory it might be possible that science could discover problems with the simulation. Indeed, several people have suggested this. However, unfortunately, you have the major problem of falsification, and, so far, no one has been able to produce any convincing evidence whatever. So I suggest that it simply stays in the realm of conjecture.

[blackstart]

Actually, the impetus behind pure Science is in fact a sentient force called Satan.

Actually the impetus behind pure science is human curiosity and the desire to learn more about our natural world.

That is why Science constantly works to deny The God of The Bible, and His Creationrather than to acknowledge God and what he has created for Science to identify in physical reality.

It is not within the remit of science to either deny or support the 'God of the Bible'.

Step up and repeat what your master, Satan, will have you proclaim. Be strong in Satan!

It might be an idea for you to try to learn about science before you try to attach your rather meaningless assertions to the subject.

Have you ever noticed how much work and expense Science must do in order to do nothing more than ask more questions? Have you ever noticed no Scientist has ever created anything, but at best can only rearrange a few things?

The basis of science is a process of discovery by asking questions about our natural world. By so doing, it provides information and understanding which often results in technological progress. Few would take your rather naive and simplistic view that it is 'nothing more than ask more questions' and 'rearrange a few things.' If that were true however, and bearing in mind the extensive list of scientific discoveries, then I say carry on rearranging a few more things and carry on questioning.

Lol. I serve and speak of the Creator. Of you and of "Science."

You can speak of whomever you wish. assertion carries no weight wahatever.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #55]

Now you say "Science does not bother itself." Lol. As if Science itself is sentient .

You really misinterpreted that one! Science is performed by human beings, who are indeed sentient.

Actually, the impetus behind pure Science is in fact a sentient force called Satan.

"Satan" is just another imaginary character invented by the same process that led to the invention of gods, angels and other fictional beings. So it cannot be the impetus behing anything. As explained in other posts, science is driven by the desire to understand nature and "how things work." It is not influenced by imaginary religious characters.

Have you ever noticed no Scientist has ever created anything, but at best can only rearrange a few things?

Really? How did the computer you are connecting to this website come about? What about the internet itself and the global infrastructure needed for it to function. What about the new covid vaccines? Where those just out there already existing (produced by your favorite god I suppose) and scientists just found them? What about all of the metal alloys used in a huge range of industries that don't occur naturally? There are countless other examples of things scientists have invented and produced, that would not exist without their efforts. Saying that these things are just "rearrangements" is not even close to a correct description.

Lol. I serve and speak of the Creator. Of you and of "Science."

And do you have any evidence for the existence of this "Creator"? I didn't think so. Science on the other hand, clearly does exist as evidenced by its real-world, tangible, and valuable results.

[William]

It seems to me that examining the nature of nature one can realistically see therein that it may be we exist within some sort of reality simulation.

Are there any tools which we can use scientifically which could help us determine whether some sort of universal consciousness is detectable?

Thank you for your response:

Of course that is a possibility, however it is not one which addresses the idea of a supernatural creator. Let me explain:

Two of the several exponents of the possibility of a simulated universe are Nick Bostrom(philosopher) and Neil DeGrasse Tyson(astronomer). Both of these advocate a possibility that a superior civilization might well have the technology to produce such a simulation.

Bostrom doesn't suggest that it's the most probable explanation of our universe. Even within his hypothesis, he gives equal probability to other conclusions:

Personally, I assign less than 50% probability to the simulation hypothesis – rather something like in 20%-region, perhaps, maybe. However, this estimate is a subjective personal opinion and is not part of the simulation argument.

Furthermore he suggests that the simulation hypothesis:

has no direct connection with religious conceptions of a literally omniscient and omnipotent deity. The simulation-hypothesis does not imply the existence of such a deity, nor does it imply its non-existence.

Indeed, he goes on to say that, far from being outside natural laws

the simulators implied by the simulation-hypothesis would be naturalistic entities, subject to the laws of nature at their own level of reality

He is of the opinion that:

There is no known physical law or material constraint that would prevent a sufficiently technologically advanced civilisation from implementing human minds in computers.

https://www.simulation-argument.com/faq.html

Hence, if the 'creator god' idea is to be our yardstick then that must surely include any 'advanced civilization' capable of producing such a simulation, not necessarily one god at all, but potentially millions, all of whom are subject to natural laws.I would also add, that if we were to take this route, we might well come to the conclusion that our present observations suggest the imperfect nature of this simulation? Could it be that this is just a trial run?(smiley)

And we are left with the same problem of who created the simulation creators. It seems to be tortoises all the way down.

Not only that, but why couldn't the simulation creators be capable of have creating more than one simulation? And, why couldn't the simulated be capable of producing their own simulation?

I am unsure as to where you explanation is here...which addresses the idea of a supernatural creator.

On your second point, in theory it might be possible that science could discover problems with the simulation. Indeed, several people have suggested this. However, unfortunately, you have the major problem of falsification, and, so far, no one has been able to produce any convincing evidence whatever. So I suggest that it simply stays in the realm of conjecture.

I would say that as far a science goes, it will indeed stay in the realm of conjecture until such possible problems with the simulation are identified.
Do you also suggest that religion also keeps their various ideas about this universe being created by Creators/a Creator "in the realm of conjecture" for the same reasons as you have mentioned...?

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #55]

Now you say "Science does not bother itself." Lol. As if Science itself is sentient .

You really misinterpreted that one! Science is performed by human beings, who are indeed sentient.

Actually, the impetus behind pure Science is in fact a sentient force called Satan.

"Satan" is just another imaginary character invented by the same process that led to the invention of gods, angels and other fictional beings. So it cannot be the impetus behing anything. As explained in other posts, science is driven by the desire to understand nature and "how things work." It is not influenced by imaginary religious characters.

Have you ever noticed no Scientist has ever created anything, but at best can only rearrange a few things?

Really? How did the computer you are connecting to this website come about? What about the internet itself and the global infrastructure needed for it to function. What about the new covid vaccines? Where those just out there already existing (produced by your favorite god I suppose) and scientists just found them? What about all of the metal alloys used in a huge range of industries that don't occur naturally? There are countless other examples of things scientists have invented and produced, that would not exist without their efforts. Saying that these things are just "rearrangements" is not even close to a correct description.

Lol. I serve and speak of the Creator. Of you and of "Science."

And do you have any evidence for the existence of this "Creator"? I didn't think so. Science on the other hand, clearly does exist as evidenced by its real-world, tangible, and valuable results.

I have huge evidence, largely from God's Mercy to give sight and sentience. Those who choose blindness will remain blind.

If you have a cell phone, do you look upon it as a chance self assembly of components? Is its technology from randomness? Is the subatomic matter held in quantum balance without any external impetus?