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.

[blackstart]

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.

Well, for any of that to work, people need to "worship" (for lack of a better word, here meaning hold on high) academic integrity. The peers doing the reviewing have to be honest. The journals have to care about truth over dollar signs. If morality falls out of science, you get a replicability crisis. Science actually needs morality; science relies on honesty at every level, even when people have an incentive to be dishonest. It can't function if the scientific community is a collective dungwad of deceptive sellouts.

Science is basically about investigating the natural world. Its methods include observation, collecting data, conjecture leading to inductive hypotheses, experiment and testing of hypotheses, repetition, falsification and prediction, scrutiny by critical peer review.

This is the best way in which science tries to be as objective as possible. If you have more practical ways of 'doing' science and ensuring greater objectivity then please produce them.

[William]

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.

Well, for any of that to work, people need to "worship" (for lack of a better word, here meaning hold on high) academic integrity. The peers doing the reviewing have to be honest. The journals have to care about truth over dollar signs. If morality falls out of science, you get a replicability crisis. Science actually needs morality; science relies on honesty at every level, even when people have an incentive to be dishonest. It can't function if the scientific community is a collective dungwad of deceptive sellouts.

Science is basically about investigating the natural world. Its methods include observation, collecting data, conjecture leading to inductive hypotheses, experiment and testing of hypotheses, repetition, falsification and prediction, scrutiny by critical peer review.

This is the best way in which science tries to be as objective as possible. If you have more practical ways of 'doing' science and ensuring greater objectivity then please produce them.

Its methods include observation, collecting data, conjecture leading to inductive hypotheses, experiment and testing of hypotheses, repetition, falsification and prediction, scrutiny by critical peer review.

If religion had stuck to such methods, perhaps its mythologies would be worthy of contemplation...

[Purple Knight]

Science is basically about investigating the natural world. Its methods include observation, collecting data, conjecture leading to inductive hypotheses, experiment and testing of hypotheses, repetition, falsification and prediction, scrutiny by critical peer review.

This is the best way in which science tries to be as objective as possible. If you have more practical ways of 'doing' science and ensuring greater objectivity then please produce them.

It is the best way to be objective, provided everyone does it. Unfortunately there is every incentive in a competitive society to simply lie. The fact that the replicability crisis didn't happen sooner is an outright miracle, because people always had the incentive to be dishonest.

For a while everyone was honest. And thousands of people fell by the wayside who weren't quite good enough to produce results. They ended up working at McDonald's (or some other likely unskilled occupation). There was no thanks for them; this is just the way the system works.

A few of these people instead fudged numbers or designed their studies to get whatever result people would pay for. They won. They got careers. And we groan and we grumble and we cry for more scrutiny but none of that will fix the problem because the dishonesty will just rise up to the next level.

The problem is that competitiveness and honesty don't mix, because people figure out the meta eventually. Those first people got punished for doing the right thing, and the other people got rewarded for breaking the honour system. Because that was, and still is, a part of the system, it does need an overhaul, or it will only get worse.

[blackstart]

If religion had stuck to such methods, perhaps its mythologies would be worthy of contemplation...

An interesting idea, but, I fear, one doomed to failure, as supernatural assertions are not amenable to scientific methods. There is a place for mythology, of course, as it reflects the creative and imaginative side of human beings, but, alas, it has so often been used in the systematic, rigid control that certain religions attempt to produce.

[blackstart]

Science is basically about investigating the natural world. Its methods include observation, collecting data, conjecture leading to inductive hypotheses, experiment and testing of hypotheses, repetition, falsification and prediction, scrutiny by critical peer review.

This is the best way in which science tries to be as objective as possible. If you have more practical ways of 'doing' science and ensuring greater objectivity then please produce them.

It is the best way to be objective, provided everyone does it. Unfortunately there is every incentive in a competitive society to simply lie. The fact that the replicability crisis didn't happen sooner is an outright miracle, because people always had the incentive to be dishonest.

For a while everyone was honest. And thousands of people fell by the wayside who weren't quite good enough to produce results. They ended up working at McDonald's (or some other likely unskilled occupation). There was no thanks for them; this is just the way the system works.

A few of these people instead fudged numbers or designed their studies to get whatever result people would pay for. They won. They got careers. And we groan and we grumble and we cry for more scrutiny but none of that will fix the problem because the dishonesty will just rise up to the next level.

The problem is that competitiveness and honesty don't mix, because people figure out the meta eventually. Those first people got punished for doing the right thing, and the other people got rewarded for breaking the honour system. Because that was, and still is, a part of the system, it does need an overhaul, or it will only get worse.

It's the best way to to be objective(at least to be intersubjective) that we know. Yes, of course, there will be scientists and organizations which attempt to defraud, but the successes of science are there for all to see. I am typing this on a computer which is a tribute to scientific knowledge and understanding, there are huge and continuing advances in medicine, we know more about how the universe was formed and its subsequent evolution than ever before. Of course we don't know everything and some things, perhaps, we never will, but The bottom line is, science works.

[William]

If religion had stuck to such methods, perhaps its mythologies would be worthy of contemplation...

An interesting idea, but, I fear, one doomed to failure, as supernatural assertions are not amenable to scientific methods. There is a place for mythology, of course, as it reflects the creative and imaginative side of human beings, but, alas, it has so often been used in the systematic, rigid control that certain religions attempt to produce.

This goes to prove such concepts can and do affect the real world.
One can use the similar method you mention in ways which can at least show the likelihood of any supernatural cliam being possibly true or false.

[Purple Knight]

The bottom line is, science works.

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

[Benson]

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.

[blackstart]

If religion had stuck to such methods, perhaps its mythologies would be worthy of contemplation...

An interesting idea, but, I fear, one doomed to failure, as supernatural assertions are not amenable to scientific methods. There is a place for mythology, of course, as it reflects the creative and imaginative side of human beings, but, alas, it has so often been used in the systematic, rigid control that certain religions attempt to produce.

This goes to prove such concepts can and do affect the real world.
One can use the similar method you mention in ways which can at least show the likelihood of any supernatural cliam being possibly true or false.

It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world. Where I would agree, and what science can reasonably show, is that many of the supporting arguments that are/have been used to bolster the existence of such an entity are suspect and can be explained in purely natural ways(E.g. design, ex nihilo, origins of humankind etc.).

[William]

If religion had stuck to such methods, perhaps its mythologies would be worthy of contemplation...

An interesting idea, but, I fear, one doomed to failure, as supernatural assertions are not amenable to scientific methods. There is a place for mythology, of course, as it reflects the creative and imaginative side of human beings, but, alas, it has so often been used in the systematic, rigid control that certain religions attempt to produce.

This goes to prove such concepts can and do affect the real world.
One can use the similar method you mention in ways which can at least show the likelihood of any supernatural cliam being possibly true or false.

It seems to me that science cannot fruitfully examine the idea of some sort of universal consciousness or supernatural entity using the tools of science because there is no evidence that such an entity exists by looking at the natural world.

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?