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.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #30]

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

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

That would depend on the nature of those arguments you are using your reasoning here to counter....
but the question is still relevant. When all is said and done, what of the abilities of human science makes any more difference to the human being here on the planet, that the difference is any more or less "noble" for that?

In other words, what argument can the process of science show that it is any better a proces for that? What is the big deal if science process enables human beings to continue on - perhaps indefinitely here in this universe? So what if other points of view see nothing greater in that pursuit, than their own beliefs which are focused upon other universes and whatever "noble" thing they identify therein?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #32]

That would depend on the nature of those arguments you are using your reasoning here to counter....

They seemed unambiguous to me ... science was stated to be ungodly, futile, and human frowardness, all very dismissing of science in general. I don't see it that way, and to the contrary see science as an effort to find out how nature works, how to explain and predict things based on that, to improve human lives in a wide range of areas (transportation, medicine, communications, comfort, etc.), and generally find answers to questions that arise from the never-ending quest humans have been on since our appearance here to acquire more knowledge and understanding.

When all is said and done, what of the abilities of human science makes any more difference to the human being here on the planet, that the difference is any more or less "noble" for that?

If you don't like the word noble, change it to valuable or something like that. I didn't use that word after any in depth analysis of all of its possible meanings and implications and how someone might interpret it. It was simply a statement to counter negative comments about science, typed on the fly. But scientific discoveries and improved understanding of nature and how things work has certainly vastly improved life on this planet for humans in many areas. I'd call that highly beneficial and desirable, and even a noble cause. Here is an example of a sentence using "noble cause" from Collinsdictionary.com:

He is committed to the noble cause of getting more students from poorer backgrounds into higher education.

Would you quibble with that sentence and use of the word noble? If the word cause was replaced with endeavor would that change the meaning?

[William]

[Replying to William in post #32]

That would depend on the nature of those arguments you are using your reasoning here to counter....

They seemed unambiguous to me ... science was stated to be ungodly, futile, and human frowardness, all very dismissing of science in general. I don't see it that way, and to the contrary see science as an effort to find out how nature works, how to explain and predict things based on that, to improve human lives in a wide range of areas (transportation, medicine, communications, comfort, etc.), and generally find answers to questions that arise from the never-ending quest humans have been on since our appearance here to acquire more knowledge and understanding.

When all is said and done, what of the abilities of human science makes any more difference to the human being here on the planet, that the difference is any more or less "noble" for that?

If you don't like the word noble, change it to valuable or something like that. I didn't use that word after any in depth analysis of all of its possible meanings and implications and how someone might interpret it. It was simply a statement to counter negative comments about science, typed on the fly. But scientific discoveries and improved understanding of nature and how things work has certainly vastly improved life on this planet for humans in many areas. I'd call that highly beneficial and desirable, and even a noble cause. Here is an example of a sentence using "noble cause" from Collinsdictionary.com:

He is committed to the noble cause of getting more students from poorer backgrounds into higher education.

Would you quibble with that sentence and use of the word noble? If the word cause was replaced with endeavor would that change the meaning?

I am trying to sus out your counter argument as offering the reader anything more valuable. I don't see either approach as being actually more valuable than the other. What I do see is preference, which is fine.
If that is what you are essentially arguing - your preference [science] is better for the world [in your opinion], than those who believe we exist within a creation and prefer to cast their eye into things science cannot... I myself have no preference between the two because I am unable to see the evidence that one is better than the other. They are both fairly much equal.

He is committed to the task of getting more students from poorer backgrounds into higher education. seems to me to be more honest because it sticks to the point without unnecessary opinion being attached to it.

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #25]

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

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

Science is not Godly. It is human frowardness.

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

So accurate for you to agree Science is independent of Godliness and has no need for gods, as I just informed you. This is verified in Proverbs 3 where it directs Believers "Do not lean on your own understanding."

The huge majority of humans are those who go into the Broad Path Leading To Destruction. Do you confidently walk the Broad Path? Yes? No?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #35]

So accurate for you to agree Science is independent of Godliness and has no need for gods, as I just informed you. This is verified in Proverbs 3 where it directs Believers "Do not lean on your own understanding."

Proverbs is text within a religious book written some 2000 years ago. It doesn't "verify" anything as far as science (nothing in the Bible does ... much of it is demonstrably false such as the creation story, Noah's flood, and many other examples of fiction contained within it).

The huge majority of humans are those who go into the Broad Path Leading To Destruction. Do you confidently walk the Broad Path? Yes? No?

I assume this is a personal opinion on how the huge majority of humans behave? What is the "Broad Path Leading To Destruction"? You didn't define what that is, so I can't answer whether or not I walk the "Broad Path." But I don't believe that gods of any kind exist (now or in the past), that humans have afterlives, or things like that simply due to the lack of any evidence. Does this mean I walk the "Broad Path Leading To Destruction"? So far I have not destructed as a result of not believing in the existence of imaginary gods.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #34]

He is committed to the task of getting more students from poorer backgrounds into higher education. seems to me to be more honest because it sticks to the point without unnecessary opinion being attached to it.

I don't see how my claim that science is a worthwhile (or noble, valuable, etc.) endeavor is simply an opinion. Science has demonstrably improved the lives of humans in so many areas that it is hard to see how recognition of that is simply one person's opinion. Is it only an an opinion that the new Covid-19 vaccines (to pick one example) are beneficial to humans, and that the tremendous effort involved in their development is laudable and significant? Medical advances alone can justify the claim that science is a highly valuable endeavor, without any opinion attached.

[Purple Knight]

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.

[Benson]

[Replying to Benson in post #35]

So accurate for you to agree Science is independent of Godliness and has no need for gods, as I just informed you. This is verified in Proverbs 3 where it directs Believers "Do not lean on your own understanding."

Proverbs is text within a religious book written some 2000 years ago. It doesn't "verify" anything as far as science (nothing in the Bible does ... much of it is demonstrably false such as the creation story, Noah's flood, and many other examples of fiction contained within it).

The huge majority of humans are those who go into the Broad Path Leading To Destruction. Do you confidently walk the Broad Path? Yes? No?

I assume this is a personal opinion on how the huge majority of humans behave? What is the "Broad Path Leading To Destruction"? You didn't define what that is, so I can't answer whether or not I walk the "Broad Path." But I don't believe that gods of any kind exist (now or in the past), that humans have afterlives, or things like that simply due to the lack of any evidence. Does this mean I walk the "Broad Path Leading To Destruction"? So far I have not destructed as a result of not believing in the existence of imaginary gods.

From where originate the concepts of moral right and moral wrong of some degree seen in all societies? Perhaps from DNA or a chemical? Science had found what upon that?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #38]

It can't function if the scientific community is a collective dungwad of deceptive sellouts.

Sure, but there is no reason, or evidence, to suggest that the scientific community is a "collective dungwad of deceptive sellouts." Or do you have some evidence to the contrary that you decided not to reference (via an external link, perhaps)? The small number of people who peer review papers submitted for publication in scientific journals (ie. those that the editor or associate editors send the manuscripts to for review) are just the first step in the process.

If a paper passes the peer review process (where only a small number of people see it), it is then published and thereby disseminated to the much wider scientific community, as well as anyone else who bothers to read the journals. Any member of this far wider audience can throw darts at the results, the methodology, or any other aspect of the paper. Depending on how specialized the subject matter is it may not be understood by the average person (not always the case), but it has always been the case that other scientists in the field will raise the alarm if there is a problem, and debates, revisions, withdrawals, errata, etc. follow. There is competition, and usually no hesitation to point out errors if they are found. No doubt there are bad apples, and cheaters, just like any other human occupation. But what evidence do you have that there is some conspiracy among the global scientific community to deceive the masses (or sell them out)?

It has always worked this way. Legitimate results have to survive all challenges, and pass the test of time. How many times was Fermat's Last Theorem (from 1637) "proven" via peer-reviewed journal publications, before Wile's accepted proof in 1994? Many. The book is never officially closed, but in cases where you can call something "accepted science" (or a theory), it means that challenges have been exhausted to a point where it is accepted that the original hypotheses is most likely correct. The Earth does orbit the Sun, despite what may be implied by ancient holy books. This has been established beyond any reasonable doubt, but there will always be "flat earthers" and conspiracy theorists around to stir the pot.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Benson in post #39]

From where originate the concepts of moral right and moral wrong of some degree seen in all societies? Perhaps from DNA or a chemical? Science had found what upon that?

All social animals exhibit some degree of "morals", or else they could not survive over time. Have you ever seen a group of cattle in a field, or sheep, etc. coexisting peacefully? Why are they not constantly fighting and killing each other (like humans often do)? They don't have the Ten Commandments or any other supposed moral guidelines from a god being, yet they "behave" as if they did have morals of some sort. How do you explain that?

It is easy. Some level of "moral" behavior must evolve over time in order for the social group to survive and reproduce and sustain their generations. If the game was to constantly fight and kill each other and eat the offspring, the population would die out in no time. Cooperative behavior develops as well (eg. bison forming a front against wolf packs to protect their young behind the front) which does not come from any holy book giving instruction to protect the offspring.

Certain "morals" are inherent in all social animals that survive ... no holy book or gods needed.