Atheism growing in America

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

If that is true, there has to be something higher. There simply cannot be a natural moral order without something higher.

why must there be something higher? I mean really humanity has evolved over the centeries with new understanding and revisions to acceptable behaviour. look through the dark ages and in the time of Atillah the Hun, the time of the barbarian, vikings, the spanish inquisitors, these things are now seen as wrong for one reason or an other why is that? because morality has evolved (weather religion played a role or not that is ones own choice and decision) but even the basic acceptable behaviour has changed in the past few centuries.... one could say that moral order (as it is seen in current times) evolved with the human race.

other examples are with pack animals if one in the pack (pride herd or what not) does something unacceptable they are shunned by the rest (ex-communicated if you will) so there is a natural moral order there as well (true you may look at the same thing and say damn god thought of every thing but I personally see it as a natural occouring phenomina)

[uncertaindrumer]

I certainly don't see the Spanish inquisiton as wrong, maybe you do. It had its abuses but it wasn't a terrible idea.

As for morality evolving... umm ... no. I totally reject that notion. Also, something has to be higher because the LAW has to be higher! If it isn't binding upon us it is no law at all, and it can only be binding upon us if it is above us, and it can only be above us if something greater than us created it.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

I certainly don't see the Spanish inquisiton as wrong, maybe you do. It had its abuses but it wasn't a terrible idea.

As for morality evolving... umm ... no. I totally reject that notion. Also, something has to be higher because the LAW has to be higher! If it isn't binding upon us it is no law at all, and it can only be binding upon us if it is above us, and it can only be above us if something greater than us created it.

Basically UD at this point we come to an impass where we have to agree to disagree because with this we are looking at the same information and coming to different conclusions. plain and simple... you have your own ideas about morality and natural (in your case supernatural) order. I mean there is really nothing more to say now is there?

[SecretWeapon]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

why must there be something higher? I mean really humanity has evolved over the centeries with new understanding and revisions to acceptable behaviour. look through the dark ages and in the time of Atillah the Hun, the time of the barbarian, vikings, the spanish inquisitors, these things are now seen as wrong for one reason or an other why is that? because morality has evolved (weather religion played a role or not that is ones own choice and decision) but even the basic acceptable behaviour has changed in the past few centuries.... one could say that moral order (as it is seen in current times) evolved with the human race.

other examples are with pack animals if one in the pack (pride herd or what not) does something unacceptable they are shunned by the rest (ex-communicated if you will) so there is a natural moral order there as well (true you may look at the same thing and say damn god thought of every thing but I personally see it as a natural occouring phenomina)

Did man really evolve over the centuries? Or was did a God-given
knowledge of the world one is born into once come standard with
the human race? The human only uses about 4%[?] of
his/her brain, if I remember correctly.( Which I may not,
nevertheless, it is a very small amount) Why all the excess?
A mistake of evolution? An untapped gift of evolution?
A strength given by evolution, but hampered by the short
lifespan of a human? (Which would make evolution contradictory
to itself in that it gives gifts that cannot be used, delivering
a blow to the idea that all present life on earth is a result of
"survival of the fittest". Why make humans incredibly genius,
and then kill them young?) Or possibley this complies with
the Biblical account of mankind being fallen. This decline in
human thought and understanding would cast some cold water
on the recently arisen theory that there never was a higher being.

From S8int.com

SUDDEN APPEARANCE:
Are you aware that "ALL CULTURES BEGAN SUDDENLY" and were fully developed? A long preliminary period is not supported by archaeology. Before cities on earth, there was nothing. There was no transition whatsoever between the ancient civilizations and any primitive forebearers. They were at their peak from the beginning. :

...Great cities, enormous temples, pyramids of overwhelming size. Colossal statues with tremendous expressive power. Luxurious tunnels and tombs. Splendid streets flanked by magnificent sculpture, perfect drainage systems. A decimal system at the very start. A ready-made writing, already perfected. A well established naming system (in which each Pharaoh had as many as five names). Society already divided into specialist classes. An army, civil service and hierarchy minutely organized. A court exhibiting all the indications of well-defined precedence and form. Egypt came from a clearly established civilization.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence is that,1 Each of the first civilizations appeared suddenly, already fully developed. 2) That a connection existed between them. 3) Their footprints led back to the Middle East mountains where Noah and his family left the Ark. :

The sudden appearance of civilization is itself a memorial to history's one great catastrophe. More importantly, the flood is a historical event of tremendous testimonial importance to modern man...... :

Ancient Maps:
....hard evidence that shows the ancient's knowledge of planet earth as seen through their cartographers eyes was far more sophisticated than we have previously supposed. Their maps are surprisingly accurate and reveal knowledge of parts of the earth that were not known until very recently. They also show profound changes have taken place in man's lifetime since the flood, especially at the poles as you shall see. :

Maps drawn from the 11th to the 17th century were obviously copied from maps probably drawn thousands of years before. Some maps show Greenland and Antarctica free of ice. (The Piri Reis Map from 1513 shows Antartica):

HAD TO BE COPIES
Obviously these maps..had to have been copied from earlier sources. They display a scientific achievement far surpassing the abilities of the navigators and map-makers of the Renaissance, Middle Ages, the Arab world, or any ancient geographers. THEY HAD TO BE THE PRODUCT OF AN UNKNOWN PEOPLE ANTEDATING RECOGNIZED HISTORY.--end of quote

" Science supports the Bible. That's just how it is. On the other hand, there's the theory of Evolution which is not science. What sustains it? FAITH !Science as Religion. One has to believe that all matter is self created, that this matter in turn created intelligence and; in spite of the fact that it has never been seen, that this inorganic self-creating matter then created life in opposition to observed science. All of this in violation of the 1st and 2nd law of Physics, probability theory, biogenesis and common sense.

This leads and has to some extraordinary explanatory contortions, strange suppositions and sleight of hand. For example, since catastrophic events in our history would lend too much credence to the truth of the Flood of Noah, those theories are avoided. It is thought and promoted that man has evolved both physically and technologically from the primitive to the modern on a uniform basis. Given that presupposition, what do you do as a scientist when you encounter ancient artifacts or items produced by antique high technology?

As a scientist, you’d better be careful what you say or risk ridicule and professional suicide. As a result one can wind up convincing oneself, other scientific disciplines and the public that these things can be explained by elbow grease or some other arcane theory which is best not examined too closely.(That's how items like true optical lenses get described as "worship artifacts"--because everyone knows the ancients didn't have optical lenses). See True Suppressions

If the Bible account is true, evidence in the form of archeological artifacts and the like Should be occasionally found in the fossil and archeological record--and they are!


On subsequent pages we discuss some of the evidence that indicates that what we've been told by science may not be entirely accurate. One note of caution: this information comes from a variety of sources with a variety of beliefs and ideas behind them. Our viewpoint is that of Christians who belief that there is one God and that He created the universe at some time in the past nowhere near millions or billions of years ago. Exactly how long ago is besides the point. We believe that there was a worldwide flood and that evolution as an explanation for our existence is a fairy tale. If you believe differently perhaps we can agree that what we're being told about origins and the past is seriously flawed.

[SecretWeapon]

http://www.s8int.com/page2.html

The Human Skull in Ancient Rock

Right: Evolution Takes a Hit
Scientists fear evidence that man is as old as coal Photo Right:Hard evidence for hard hearts? Solid rock proof for hard heads? Smithsonian squelching evidence again?

"Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we really are and how we really got here. An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rock-like hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in Pennsylvania.

Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was formed during the Carboniferous -- a minimum of 280 million years ago -- it means that man has existed multi-millions of years before the ... insectivore from whom the evolutionists claim we eventually evolved.

However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful disdainful influence -- deceit, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy -- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental truth about ourselves." ...Ed Conrad

Additional Info:Quoted from Anomalies and Enigmas Forum

"Aside from the evidence of bones, evidence of human occupation of this area in Carboniferous times included one particularly strange item: a petrified handle of some sort of a tool.

This item was totally petrified and appeared almost to be made of coal; "coalified" might be a better term. Other than that, it appeared entirely similar to and entirely as well-made as any normal handle to an axe or sledge hammer of our own day and evinced a fairly high level of technology. The grain structure of a wooden handle was there.

It appears that the bones in all cases were there first, that the shale formed up around the bones, and that the bone was then gradually replaced with minerals being carried into the cavities they left by water.

The human femur bone we saw was very large; I would guess that its owner was eight or nine feet tall.(see "Giants" Page 6) Other than that it entirely resembled a normal femur bone from a man about my size which we had along with us for comparison in photos. ...

Vine (an author) has also claimed that the American Indian was here in America from the beginning, his most recent book, "Red Earth, White Lies", strongly challenging the standard Bering land bridge thesis. I should think that what I saw would shatter the Bering land bridge thesis for anybody with lingering doubts.

The experiences which Ed Conrad has had in trying to present these findings to scientists are entirely in line with what I would expect, given what experience has taught me about scientists in these fields. He has had several writeups in local and regional papers, including one in the Reding Eagle which indicates that all relevant tests have been done, and that all favor Conrad's claims.

Conrad has had several prominent scientists agree to the validity of his claims, and yet these had their own schedules and projects and none were willing to attempt to take any of these findings and do anything with them, and attempts to deal with the Smithsonian and with major universities has been much like beating his head against a tree and, as of the last four or five years, he had simply given up. That, of course, was in the age just prior to the age of the WWW page...

Conrad has previously assumed that his findings indicated man's presence on Earth in the accepted period of the Carboniferous age, i.e. almost 300 million years ago, and his writings in some of the documents noted here reflect that.

The evidence seems to suggest one of three possibilities:

1. humans/hominids were around in the Carboniferous period, conventionally dated to 300m (million) years ago.
2. The Carboniferous period is vastly more recent than conventionally dated.
3. The evidence is the result of an elaborate hoax.


I rule possibility 3 out from my own direct observations; the femur bone embedded in shale along with other petrified bone embedded in shale boulders could not possibly be faked. Item 1 does not strike me as plausible for numerous reasons, not the least of which being that no complex species such as ours has ever lasted that long.

I thus see the second possibility as the only viable one, and would recommend the section of Velikovsky's "Earth in Upheaval" titled "Collapsing Schemes" as a starting point for anybody seeking further information.

It would appear that all of the dating schemes we are familiar with are simply FUBAR, standard army jargon meaning "Fouled Up Beyond Any Recognition". Either of possibilities 1 and 2 above should cause major grief for evolutionists; the one requires man to be here long before monkeys or apes were, the other indicates there hasn't been time for evolution."--Endquote



http://www.s8int.com/page3.html
The Baalbek Monolithic Stones

Right: The Baalbek Stones. Click Photo for more

This column was hewn as one solid piece and weighs 1200 tons. It's two cousins are in place in the base of the "Temple of Jupiter" and weigh in at over 1000 tons. (The "Temple of Jupiter" is pictured in the banner on the top right of this page and in the photo on the left.)

"The temple is one of the largest stone structures in the world. Some 26 feet above the structure's base are found three of the largest stones ever employed by man.

Each of these stones measures 10 feet thick, 13 feet high, and is over 60 feet long. Knowing the density of limestone permits weight estimates of over 1.2 million pounds. Some people with impressive engineering skills cut, dressed, and moved these immense stone blocks from a quarry 3/4 of a mile away.

A walk to this quarry introduces the observer to the Monolith, an even larger block of limestone: 13 feet, 5 inches; 15 feet, 6 inches; and 69 feet, 11 inches. The Monolith weighs in at over 2,000,000 pounds. In comparison, the largest stones used in the Great Pyramid tip the scales at only 400,000 pounds..."Science Frontiers Online

Notice the man perched on the column and another standing at the base. Forget the ancient airplanes, the ancient helicopters the world maps--this alone should set the; standard, straightline, primitive man-to-advanced man, and then to civilization, "scientific" dogma on its ear.

There is no way that this stone can be explained by the science and history they teach us in school. No technology existing today could move this stone much less transport it from where it was quarried, nor lift it upon its 23 foot foundation.** (Actually, it appears moving such a monolith is on the edge but within current technology--Benjamin K., a Christian engineer informs us that Mammoet, and another company; Lampson Cranes-- & perhaps a few others have machines that could do the job.)

The pre-existing stone foundation upon which the Romans built their temple at the site is 1/2 mile long on one side. No one knows who built it.

There are no historical records although the local folks think it is a Pre-flood City originally built by Cain--after his banishment. Photo from See also Mysteries of the Bible.

[SecretWeapon]

http://www.s8int.com/page3.html

Ancient Precision Stone Cutting

The object on the left is thought to be an Aztec artifact of some antiquity. (photo from mysteries of ancient cultures Do you believe that these earplugs, made from obsidian, a fragile glass, were made by hand with primitive tools and sand as an abrasive? These objects can only have been made with advanced machining tools. Look at them; less than a millimeter thick and perfectly symmetrical. And why did they need earplugs anyway?

The kind of precision stone cutting and even stone transportation associated with the Egyptian pyramids cannot be explained by the use of the primitive technology available to the Egyptians.

In fact, the technology of the older pyramids is probably beyond the Egyptians ability. The thing is, this "stone technology" problem turns up all over the world.

The picture on the right is from Sacsayhuaman, probably an ancient stone fortress in excess of 2000 years old. Some of these stones are 10 feet high or more. Notice their irregular forms. They have been fitted together in an extremely precise manner which we would be hard pressed to duplicate with modern technology; much less the primitive technology supposedly available.

Click photo for more

The impressive architecture of the subterranean Hypogeum is more than 6000 years old. To try to force its existence into the current paradyme, scientist claim that its stone age builders built the huge underground structure using only "antler picks and stone mallets!"

That's enough to make milk come out your nose (if you happened to be drinking it when you heard it).

Today, a diamond drill can cut through granite at a rate only 1/500 of that achieved by the Builders of the Great pyramid (sonic drills?) according to expert Christopher Dunn. His eye-opening article shows what happens when a technology expert tries to swallow ridiculous theories put forth by non-technologists in order to support uniformism and the current scientific dogma. An excerpt from his site--Petrie was a well known early Egyptian archeologist;

"Egyptian artifacts representing tubular drilling are the most clearly astounding and conclusive evidence yet presented to identify the knowledge and technology existing in pre-history.

The ancient pyramid builders used a technique for drilling holes that is commonly known as "trepanning." This technique leaves a central core and is an efficient means of hole making. For holes that didn’t go all the way through the material, they reached a desired depth and then broke the core out of the hole.

It was not only evident in the holes that Petrie was studying, but on the cores cast aside by the masons who had done the trepanning. Regarding tool marks which left a spiral groove on a core taken out of a hole drilled into a piece of granite, he wrote:

"The spiral of the cut sinks .100 inch in the circumference of 6 inches, or 1 in 60, a rate of ploughing out of the quartz and feldspar which is astonishing."

After reading this, I had to agree with Petrie. This was an incredible feed-rate for drilling into any material, let alone granite. I was completely confounded as to how a drill could achieve this feedrate. Petrie was so astounded by these artifacts that he attempted to explain them at three different points in one chapter. To an engineer in the 1880’s, what Petrie was looking at was an anomaly."

More info on this topic from these two sites:

Advanced Machinery in Ancient Egypt by Christopher Dunn
Mysteries of the Ancient Cultures

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Egyptian Anomalies

Left is another interesting enigmatic "out of place" Egyptian artifact

"At the Hathor Temple in Dendera, Egypt, several intriguing glyphs are depicting strange scenes. In the opinion of a classical archeologist, there is hardly anything out of ordinary in the scenes. The explanation of the glyphs stirred some passion amongst amateurs and experts alike.

But then something curious happened: the book got noticed by electrical engineers. As a group of professionals who could not care less about what other experts think, they commented on the picture with an unequivocal 'wow!'

Ivan Sanderson gives an example of analysis in an already mentioned publication, "Investigating the Unexplained" done by an electromagnetics engineer, who knew nothing about the history or mythology of ancient Egyptians. It is necessary to quote him verbatim for contextual meaning:

"The items, as depicted, are most fascinating; certain elements, especially the cables, are virtually an exact copy of engineering illustrations as currently used. The cable is shown as very heavy, and striated, indicating a bundle of many conductors, rather than a single high voltage cable.

As a matter of fact, a single high voltage cable would be much thinner; if the insulation was required to be that heavy for extreme high voltages, or moderately high voltages at high currents, rest assured that no technician would be holding the associated device. Corona leakage would 'get' him most swiftly.

The supporting stands would be much taller and heavier to withstand such voltages. It is much more likely that the cable is, as stated, a multi-conductor, wrapped and insulated with an outer jacket. If this were a 'light bulb', the maximum size of both would be explainable by heavy current demands; but high voltage of such a size would not be required.

It would seem to follow that moderately high voltages are in use; a connector is obviously employed; some type of supporting base to glass seal seems apparent."

The monkey with knives in hand on the right of the picture is a glypth that supposedly coveys; danger for the uninitiated.

Obviously, these technologies did not belong to the Egyptians, if they are legitimate artifacts. We'd know if the Egyptians tooled around in helicopters and airplanes, or routinely used electric power. Note that the bas relief objects at Abydos were reported to have been found underneath newer, Egyptian artifacts.

All artifacts from the previous pre-flood age would not have been destroyed in the flood. If our civilization were wiped out in a worldwide flood, what artifacts would remain for post flood civilizations to find--and possibly use or revere? Skyscrapers, cars, metal objects? What if those men could not guess what their original uses were but incorporated them somehow as "sacred" objects or objects to recreate in art etc.?

Consider the Sphinx. New data concerning the WATER EROSION on the Sphinx indicates that it may be much older than previously thought--built by a civilization much older than Egypt's.

We still today can't replicate the technology of the "4th dynasty" pyramids. "Egyptologists thought (some still do) that the Sphinx was built during the 4th Dynasty of ancient Egypt. However this theory has more recently been challenged.

In contrast to the older pyramids, "3rd" dynasty pyramids were built with blocks manageably small enough to be moved by 5 or 6 men. 5th and 6th dynasty pyramids which are supposed to be more advanced, were so poorly built that most of them today amount to little more than large piles of rubble.

Fourth dynasty pyramids at Giza (where the Sphinx is also to be found) however, have survived thousands of years relatively intact--and the blocks are so large that it is difficult to understand how they were moved."

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Bagdad Battery

Right, a "working" 2000+ year old battery.

The ancient battery in the Baghdad Museum, as well as those others which were unearthed in Iraq, are all dated from the Parthian occupation between 248 BCE and 226 CE. However,a Dr. Konig, the discoverer also found copper vases plated with silver in the Baghdad Museum, excavated from Sumerian sites in southern Iraq, dating back to at least 2500 BCE.

When the vases were lightly tapped, a blue patina or film separated from the surface, which is characteristic of silver electroplated onto copper base. It would appear then that the Parthians inherited their batteries from one of the earliest known civilizations.

[SecretWeapon]

http://www.s8int.com/page4.html
Neanderthal Skull With "Bullet Hole" Behind Ear

An Auroch is an large, extinct "buffalo like" animal. Many skeletons of this extinct type have been found in Europe.

What is remarkable about one in particular in the Moscow Museum of Paleontology is that it has a bullet hole in its skull. The hole is round, without radial cracks that would result from slower projectiles like spears and arrows. The only known projectile that leaves this kind of smooth, round hole without radial cracks is a bullet because of its velocity.


I mention the auroch first because of a possible objection that can be raised. If it is indeed a bullet hole, perhaps the skeleton was shot many, many years after the animals' death. The problem here is that the auroch survived the wound and lived long enough for unmistakable calcification to appear at the site of the injury.

How did an animal that became extinct supposedly thousands and thousands of years ago come by a "modern" bullet hole in its skull

A similar round, clean, smooth hole without radial cracks was found in the skull of a "Neanderthal" man found in the early 1920's in Rhodesia. The man supposedly died over 40,000 years ago.

The skull is currently at the British Museum. The skull was found more than fifty feet below ground level. In addition to the hole consistent only with that made by a bullet, the other side of the skull was blown out from the inside!

Now, a word about this photo. There aren't that many Neanderthal skulls in "captivity". I heard about this alleged bullet hole several years ago and I knew that it was a particular skull at the British Museum. I found this photo several years ago and I think it is important to say that the museum made no mention of the bullet hole at all.

It was simply one of the photos of the skull. I think that bears a lttle on its authenticity--it did not purport to be a picture of a skull with a bullet hole. That fact is something that the anthropologists apparently overlooked. Cuozzo, in his book, Buried Alive mentions actually getting his hands on the skull.

Of course, there are alternative explanations given for the hole, but it appears to have been the fatal wound and nothing we know of makes that kind of wound except a bullet---or perhaps a small meteorite, presumably traveling horizontally to the ground.

On the one hand, you have Paleontologists offering alternative scenarios for the hole, and on the other you have a German forensic scientist who examined the skull who states categorically that the wound could have come only from a bullet because of the velocity neccessary to produce the characteristics of the wound. One assumes that the forensic scientist would have some experience with bullet holes that perhaps an anthropologist or a paleoentolist may not have.

[SecretWeapon]

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html
The London Artifact

From the Creation Evidence Museum. Follow the link to learn more. This is a hammer made from an alloy of iron which is very modern in technology, which is encased in "100 million" year old rock (according to geologists) which has formed around it.

You know the drill: fake; lousy geological aging techniques; or lousy evolutionary timeframes? I say perhaps a pre-flood relic given that the technology is modern yet it is encased in rock at least a couple of thousand years old.

"This ancient tool has a simple form, similar to the type of hammer that is still common in Germany today. The handle now is a very hard petrified crystal with an intact structure. It was possible to ascertain that the interior of the handle had partly turned into porous coal.

There is no way to scientifically explain this combination of carbonization and petrification. I have not heard of a similar piece, found anywhere in the world. Two very different processes must have occurred simultaneously or in short succession. Crystal petrifaction requires an ecosphere of running water whereas for the development of porous coal, one could, for example, assume that fire was the necessary agent. Water and fire, it goes without saying, are two very different and mutually exclusive elements.

The analysis of the subsiding of the Flood, to be undertaken at a later point in this book, will explain what now looks like a contradiction. The outer layers of the hammer handle reminded me of the petrified stumps and piles of wood I had seen earlier at the "Petrified Forest National Park" in Arizona, on a visit in 1988.

The exhibits there, pieces of the cut up piles of wood, had completely petrified and displayed a homogenous crystal structure. I do not know of one piece discovered in that park to contain a coal interior comparable to that of the fossil hammer. The age of the trees there is officially estimated at between 100 and 200 million years.

Wood petrifies when it is buried in silt deposited by flooding rivers or seas and silicates, such as are found in volcanic ash, dissolve and impregnate it. These substances replace the hydrogen and oxygen portions in the wood and begin the petrifaction process by silicification. This may produce very solid opal or quartz minerals. The final product is approximately 5 times as heavy as common pine wood.

This short description of the hammer handle should make it obvious that the fossil hammer must be authentic and very ancient. In spite of all our modern technical abilities, it has never been possible to produce petrified wood with porous coal inside.

It therefore is out of the question that such a hammer could be a hoax. I must clearly emphasize this point, as most artifacts which contradict the accepted view of the world we are accustomed to, are accused of being forgeries. Our traditional

schools of thought, however, are at a loss to explain this hammer.

Petrified wood, and therefore this ancient tool, is supposed to be at least 140 million years old. Official scientific authorities, however, say that humans capable of manufacturing high quality tools have only existed for a few recent millenia. Something concerning these datings and the enormous time intervals of the geological era must be erroneous.

Is humanity really many millions of years old or is it a young species? Did the processes of rock formation take place more recently than is believed?

Examination of the hammer.

Before I look into these questions, I would like to give a more detailed description of the hammerhead's characteristics in order to make the full extent of the mystery clear.

Detailed research was carried out independently of one another by two different institutes. John Mackay, Director of Australia's "Creation Science Foundation", analyzed the hammer thoroughly during his visit to the United States.

A number of Australian metallurgists, as well as those working at the respected metallurgic Institute "Batelle Memorial Laboratory" in Columbus, Ohio (USA), took part in these analyses.

Sophisticated electron microscopes served to examine the structure and composition of the steel the hammerhead was made of.

The results of the examinations were as mysterious as they were bewildering. The hammerhead, chemically speaking, consisted of 96.6 % iron, 2.6 % chlorine, and 0.74 sulphur. Incredibly, this material is almost entirely solid iron!

Other additives or impurities were not detectable. Non-destructive testing methods of steel quality comprise x-ray examination, magnetic testing as well as ultrasonic detection. X-rays showed no evidence of inclusions or irregularities in the hammerhead steel. This means, it was tempered and hardened in some way.

In general, chemically genuine and unworked steel is rather soft. The even structure determined, however, suggests that this hard steel that was manufactured by some sophisticated technology. The results of the examination are as sensational as they are unbelievable. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of steel manufacturing knows that every modern steel-making process, inevitably leads to carbon or silicon impurities! I emphasize the word inevitably. Steel production without these impurities is simply unthinkable!

No other known ingredients used for refinement such as copper, titanium, manganese, cobalt, or molybdenum, vanadium, wolfram or nickel could be traced. We employ these and other elements in steel manufacturing to achieve different properties needed for different fields of application.

The high quantity of the chlorine in the fossil hammerhead is remarkable, as well. Chlorine plays no part in modern steel manufacturing. It is not used at all today, so it is impossible to produce the high steel quality of the type found here by today's manufacturing methods.

This leads us to the question; who manufactured this hammer and when? Based on the standpoint of accepted research and science, it is impossible for this hammer to exist, much less to have ever been manufactured. For the reasons given, it is thus out of the question that we are dealing with a "hoax" hammerhead.

Much the same has been shown concerning the hammer handle. Two forgery-proof materials for which we have no scientific explanation, combined in one tool.

This is extraordinary evidence of a very different history of earth and humankind! If our school teachings are correct, there is no other conclusion than that an alien visiting earth must have lost the hammer.

Still, I have one other more logical explanation to offer and I will present it in the further course of this book: My explanation, however, is not in accordance with traditional scientific theory. The fossil hammer shows still more peculiar features. In breaking open the hammer's original stone enclosure in 1934, the upper edge of the metal head was damaged, leaving a small notch. The inside of the notch revealed a shiny silvery surface.

Until today, more than 60 years later, the color of the notch has not changed. No traces of rust are perceptible. The relatively high concentration of chlorine combined with a total absence of carbon, which would cause corrosion by reacting with oxygen, may be responsible for this phenomenon...." Hans Zillner in his book: Darwin's Mistake

"20,000 to 100,000" Year Old Metal "Screws"

Thousands of spiral, screwlike objects sized as small as 1/10,000th of an inch have been found beginning in the early-nineties and are still being found by gold miners in the Ural mountains in Russia.

These metal items found in depths from 3 to 40 feet are thought to be 20 thousand plus years old.

Dr Matveyeva who has studied the objects: “The layer which contains the spiral shaped objects is characterised as gravel and detritus deposits … From their orientation these layers can be dated to 100,000 years and correspond to lower regions of the Mikulinsk horizon of the upper Pleistocene.”

In plain language the Pleistocene is the previous geological epoch, which began about 2 million years ago and ended around 10,000 years ago.

Contrary to what some commentators believe however, we don't think that these objects are extraterrestrial in origin. Rather we think their origin is very terrestrial, the vestiges of a former hi tech civilisation, the evidence of which will become increasing apparent over the coming years.

[SecretWeapon]

http://www.s8int.com/page6.html
Ancient Metal Pipes in Chinese Lake and Mountain


The widespread news of mysterious iron pipes at the foot of Mount Baigong, located in the depths of the Qaidam Basin, Qinghai Province, has roused concern from related departments.

What is astonishing is inside for there is a half-pipe about 40 centimeters in diameter tilting from the top to the inner end of the cave. Another pipe of the same diameter goes into the earth with only its top visible above the ground.

At the opening of the cave there are a dozen pipes at the diameter between 10 and 40 centimeters run into the mount straightly, showing high fixing technique.

About 80 meters away from the caves is the shimmering Toson Lake, on whose beach 40 meters away, many iron pipes can be found scattered on sands and rocks. They run in the east-west direction with a diameter between 2 and 4.5 centimeters. They are of various strange shapes and the thinnest is like a toothpick, but not blocked inside after years of sand movement.


More strange is that there are also some pipes in the lake, some reaching above water surface and some buried below, with similar shapes and thickness with those on the beach.

DELINGHA (QINGHAI), -- A group of nine Chinese scientists will go to west China's Qinghai Province this month to closely examine the relics....

..According to Qin Jianwen, head of the publicity department of the Delingha government, the scraps were once taken to a local smeltery for analysis. The result shows that they are made up of 30 percent ferric oxide with a large amount of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide. Eight percent of the content could not be identified.

"The large content of silicon dioxide and calcium oxide is a result of long interaction between iron and sandstone, which means the pipes must be very old," said Liu Shaolin, the engineer who did the analysis.

"This result has made the site even more mysterious," Qin said."Nature is harsh here. There are no residents let alone modern industry in the area, only a few migrant herdsmen to the north of the mountain."

Parts of two Stories originally published by:

Xinhua News Agency, China - June 19,2002,June 25, 2002


I could go on and on like this... My point is, that if ancient civilizations
knew as much/more than we do, then perhaps there is some truth to
at least one religion.

[SecretWeapon]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Lunar Shadow)

Atheism isn't a religion it is a philisophy stand point. how can something be a religion when there is nothing being worshiped?

Well then, what created the universe and all existance? Evolution? Pure
chance?

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an improved theory—is it then a science or faith?"—*L.H. Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of the Species, by *Charles Darwin (1971 edition), pp. x, xi (1971 edition).

"The irony is devastating. The main purpose of Darwinism was to drive every last trace of an incredible God from biology. But the theory replaces God with and even more incredible deity—omnipotent chance."—*T. Rosazak, Unfinished Animal (1975), pp. 101-102.

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works."—*Arthur N. Field.

"With the failure of these many efforts, science was left in the somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate theories of living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the inevitable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not prove to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past."—*Loren Eisley, The Immense Journey (1957), p. 199.


"[The theory of evolution] forms a satisfactory faith on which to base our interpretation of nature."—*L. Harrison Matthews, "Introduction to Origin of Species," p. xxii (1977 edition).

"It is a religion of science that Darwinism chiefly held, and holds over men's minds."—*Encounter, November, p. 48 (1959).

" `Creation,' in the ordinary sense of the word, is perfectly conceivable. I find no difficulty in conceiving that, at some former period, this universe was not in existence, and that it made its appearance in six days (or instantaneously, if that is preferred), in consequence of the volition of some preexisting Being. Then, as now, the so-called a priori arguments against Theism and, given a Deity, against the possibility of creative acts, appeared to me to be devoid of reasonable foundation."—*Thomas H. Huxley, quoted in *L. Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Vol. I (1903), p. 241 (1903).

A co-developer of the Piltdown Man hoax, said this:

"A Belief in Evolution is a basic doctrine in the Rationalists' Liturgy."—*Sir Arthur Keith, Darwinism and Its Critics (1935), p. 53.

"It is therefore a matter of faith, on the part of the biologist, that biogenesis did occur and he can choose whatever method of biogenesis happens to suit him personally; the evidence of what did happen is not available."—*G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1960), p. 150.


"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."—*R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone . . exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."—*Louis Trenchard More, quoted in Science and the Two-tailed Dinosaur, p. 33.

"If I, as a geologist, were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis."—*Wallace Pratt, quoted by W.L. Copithorne, in "The Worlds of Wallace Pratt," The Lamp, Fall 1971, p. 14.


"Given the facts, our existence seems quite improbable—more miraculous, perhaps, than the seven-day wonder of Genesis."—*Judith Hooper, "Perfect Timing," New Age Journal, Vol. 11, December 1985, p. 18.


"Our theory of evolution has become . . one which cannot be refuted by any possible observations. Every conceivable observation can be fitted into it . . No one can think of ways in which to test it. Ideas wither without basis or based on a few laboratory experiments carried out in extremely simplified systems, have attained currency far beyond their validity. They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training."—*L.C. Birch and *P. Ehrlich, Nature, April 22, 1967.


"The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith."—*J.W.N. Sullivan, Limitations of Science (1933), p. 95.


"Today the tables are turned. The modified, but still characteristically Darwinian theory has itself become an orthodoxy, preached by its adherents with religious fervor, and doubted, they feel, only by a few muddlers imperfect in scientific faith."—*M. Grene, Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 49.


"Evolution requires plenty of faith; a faith in L-proteins that defy chance formation; a faith in the formation of DNA codes which, if generated spontaneously, would spell only pandemonium; a faith in a primitive environment that, in reality, would fiendishly devour any chemical precursors to life; a faith in experiments that prove nothing but the need for intelligence in the beginning; a faith in a primitive ocean that would not thicken, but would only haplessly dilute chemicals; a faith in natural laws of thermodynamics and biogenesis that actually deny the possibility for the spontaneous generation of life; a faith in future scientific revelations that, when realized, always seem to present more dilemmas to the evolutionists; faith in improbabilities that treasonously tell two stories—one denying evolution, the other confirming the Creator; faith in transformations that remain fixed; faith in mutations and natural selection that add to a double negative for evolution; faith in fossils that embarrassingly show fixity through time, regular absence of transitional forms and striking testimony to a worldwide water deluge; a faith in time which proves to only promote degradation in the absence of mind; and faith in reductionism that ends up reducing the materialist's arguments to zero and forcing the need to invoke a supernatural Creator."—R.L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1981), p. 455.


"The facts must mold the theories, not the theories the facts . . I am most critical of my biologist friends in this matter. Try telling a biologist that, impartially judged among other accepted theories of science, such as the theory of relativity, it seems to you that the theory of natural selection has a very uncertain, hypothetical status, and watch his reaction. I'll bet you that he gets red in the face. This is `religion,' not `science,' with him."—*Burton, "The Human Side of the Physiologist: Prejudice and Poetry," Physiologist 2 (1957).


"Darwinism is a creed not only with scientists committed to document the all-purpose role of natural selection. It is a creed with masses of people who have at best a vague notion of the mechanism of evolution as proposed by Darwin, let alone as further complicated by his successors."—*S. Jaki, Cosmos and Creator (1982).



"[Karl] Popper warns of a danger: `A theory, even a scientific theory, may become an intellectual fashion, a substitute for religion, an entrenched dogma.' This has certainly been true of evolutionary theory."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1977), p. 150.



"Evolution is sometimes the key mythological element in a philosophy that functions as a virtual religion."—*E. Harrison, "Origin and Evolution of the Universe," Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia (1974), p. 1007.



"What is at stake is not the validity of the Darwinian theory itself, but of the approach to science that it has come to represent. The peculiar form of consensus the theory wields has produced a premature closure of inquiry in several branches of biology, and even if this is to be expected in `normal science,' such a dogmatic approach does not appear healthy."—*R. Brady, "Dogma and Doubt," Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 17:79, 96 (1982).

*Lessel says that *Sagan's boastful declarations about evolutionary theory, actually changes matter and energy into a god with moral qualities.

"By calling evolution fact, the process of evolution is removed from dispute; it is no longer merely a scientific construct, but now stands apart from humankind and its perceptual frailties. Sagan apparently wishes to accomplish what Peter Berger calls `objectification,' the attribution of objective reality to a humanly produced concept . . With evolution no longer regarded as a mere human construct, but now as a part of the natural order of the cosmos, evolution becomes a sacred archetype against which human actions can be weighed. Evolution is a sacred object or process in that it becomes endowed with mysterious and awesome power."—*T. Lessl, Science and the Sacred Cosmos: The Ideological Rhetoric of Carl Sagan," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 71:178 (1985).

[SecretWeapon]

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by SecretWeapon)

"In fact [subsequent to the publication of Darwin's book, Origin of Species], evolution became, in a sense, a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to `bend' their observations to fit with it. . To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all . . If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being? . . I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is Creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it."—*H.S. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physics Bulletin, Vol. 31, p. 138 (1980) [emphasis his].

You know what..... People don't understand Darwin’s theory. Darwin is not responsible from the notion of A Biogenesis not by a long shot that notion came after the death of Darwin. The theory of evolution is an observable science. The problem with you 6 day literalists is the fact that you challenge us to find the missing link so we do and what happens you want the 2 missing links before and after that link and so on and so on it is a typical move to avoid acceptance that your story of Creation isn't literal truth.... I know many Christians whom are Evolutionists. Who are you to say that your god didn't use Evolution as a tool of his creation? How do you explain humans sharing 94% of the DNA makeup with dogs or 98% with Apes and chimps? I can keep giving examples.

If your god created this existence for humanity then he screwed up because look around in the vacuum of space you know what you see the most of?? Black holes so by that measuring stick one could say the point of your god’s creation was to make black holes because that seems to be the purpose of the universe. Because that is what is produced the most in this dimension. Besides what kind of quack throws a bunch of people on a planet too small to support life (at its current growth rate) and waste the rest of the universe with black holes? If there is a god we are obviously not the purpose of this existence we are nothing more than a by product. (thank you Richard Carrier)

I love the all of a sudden argument it has to be the most absurd notion that has ever been conceived by the religious fundamentalist movement there are plenty of things that are not taken in to account when making these arguments. Take your all of a sudden arguments and your flood geology and flush them down the nearest toilet (even though that would be too much honor for them) they are useless senseless and unscientific and any Christian apologist who says different is trying to sell you something (like their next book) do some real research not just the crap you dig up from these fundamentalist websites read something that challenges your viewpoint and maybe you might actually learn something rather than subscribing to the pathetic group think mentality that you are spewing

A Biogenesis: you criticize it far too often but you claim the same thing nothingness and poof life. The theory of A Biogenesis is much more complex than you give it credit for. Let me break it down for you like this ok are we paying attention because I don't want you to miss this



Creationist view of Abiogenesis

Simple chemicals-----------------------------------------------Bacteria


The true Theory of Abiogenesis

Simple chemicals-------Polymers-----replicating polymers-----hypercycle-----protoboint-----Bacteria

source


it is much more complex a theory than you make it out to be and if you are too stupid to realize that then I greatly pity you I have more respect for UD because I know that he at least studies and gives solid reasons for why he doesn't think it possible rather than quote mining the board to death not to mention wasting Steve's bandwidth for the mind numbing garbage you posted. Try using a damn link next time rather than wasting space you pathetic sack of parasitic bile.

[uncertaindrumer]

Man who wants to read all that... lol

And anyway, anarkist, I don't see what impasse we have reached. I continue stating the logical premise that a moral order that doesn't come from something higher is no moral order at all, and you never refute it. What say you? How can we have morals without someone who decides what morals are? Subjective morals aren't morals at all.

[Lunar Shadow]

Quote: (Originally Posted by uncertaindrumer)

Man who wants to read all that... lol

And anyway, anarkist, I don't see what impasse we have reached. I continue stating the logical premise that a moral order that doesn't come from something higher is no moral order at all, and you never refute it. What say you? How can we have morals without someone who decides what morals are? Subjective morals aren't morals at all.

If you'd like I can get you materal on objective natualistic morality. gimmie a bit here I need to go out and run some errands.

[SecretWeapon]

Yeah, I know ABiogenesis is complicated, and I'm not too stupid to
understand that.

Quote:

Creationist view of Abiogenesis

Simple chemicals-----------------------------------------------Bacteria

Show me where I said that ABiogenesis is this simple. I don't recall ever
saying that it is simple at all. After following that link and reading that
article, I left alot of these points not underlined, but if you could explain
away the underlined ones (without being rude) I'd be much obliged.
Ignore the ones not underlined. Number one will most likely make you
flip out, like you usually do. Ignore it. Yes, please forgive me, I got it
from a "fundie" website, but if you do not explain I will be forced to believe
that you cannot.

1 - Spontaneous generation has been scientifically disproved

2 - Instant success would have to be necessary for the life form to survive

3 - Thousands of essential body parts and thousands more of essential chemical compounds would have to instantly form themselves

4 - Both male and female forms would need to make themselves and be near each other in space and time - OR asexual bacteria
would have to change into sexual bacteria, how could this happen?

5 - Law of mass action would immediately destroy chemical compounds

6 - Water is never enough to produce life chemicals

7 - There is no lab equipment out in nature

8 - Condensation problem: Water must be carefully removed for fats, sugars, and nucleic acids to derive out of protein

9 - Precipitation problem: Enzymes would immediately be destroyed

10 - Most life chemicals not found in watery environment

11 - Lightning bolts only damage and kill and could not be the energy source

12 - Oxygen problem: Life could not originate where there is oxygen

13 - Life could not survive without continual oxygen

14 - Oxidized iron is found in rocks existing where life is said to have originated

15 - Life can not originate without water. But there can be no water without oxygen

16 - A reducing atmosphere (no oxygen) would produce life-killing peroxides

17 - Ultraviolet light in reducing atmosphere would immediately kill life

18 - Without oxygen, there would be no protective ozone layer

19 - Proteins would immediately hydrolyze and destroy themselves

20 - There would not be enough chemicals available to form even the simplest protein

21 - Nitrogen is in most biochemicals, but there is not enough concentrated nitrogen in nature to form life

22 - There is not enough available phosporus in nature either

23 - Scientists have no idea how to make fatty acids or how they could make themselves

24 - The atmosphere throughout the world would have to instantly change from no oxygen to its present oxygen-rich content

25 - Extremely complicated chemical combinations not found in nonliving material exist in living tissue

26 - Residue problem: Since such extremely rich chemical mixtures are found in living things, we should find residues of them in nature, but they do not exist

27 - Accidental formations of amino acids would produce equal amounts of left- and right-handed forms which exist in animal life

28 - Dissolution problem: Even if correct chemicals gather together, the next instant they would spontaneously disintegrate by forming with other chemicals

29 - Immediate, complete duplication and reproduction of DNA, Protein enzymes, fats, cells, etc. would be needed for survival

30 - There is not the remotest possibility life could originate by itself. There is not enough time and space in all the universe and in all eternity to product our present myriad of living species on earth


I'm also interested in how the Cambrian Explosion is explained. Apearantly
a "boom" of complicated creatures came out of nowhere, with no fossil
evidence of more simple creatures before them.

Also, if the "fundie" websites have a good point I'm going to use it. If you
dismiss a fact just because of who said it then I say you are ignorant.
I could say that my hair is brown and you could choose to disbelieve it
just because my name is Ryan, but that doesn't make much sense, does it?
Of course not. Just because a website that is "fundie" says something
doesn't mean that you should ignore just because it came
from a "fundie" site, even if it's true.