Saturday, October 15, 2005


The Evolution of Man?

1. Heidelberg Man - Built from a jaw bone that was conceded by many to be quite human.

2. Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth and later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig.

3. Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape.

4. Peking Man - 500,000 years old. All evidence has disappeared.

5. Neanderthal Man - At the Int'l Congress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A. J. E. Cave Said his examination showed that the famous Neanderthal skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis.

6. Cro-Magnon Man - One of the earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern what's the difference?

7. Modern Man - This genius thinks we came from a monkey.

8. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools - Romans 1:22

Read more about the topic of "antiquities" on this link:

  • Electromagnetics

  • also this one:
  • GQ Cave-dwellers
  • "GQ", in case you haven't guessed, is a joke. "Gentlemen's Quarterly" magazine. Find it at your local fruit stand... er... news stand.

    As you read, apply this filter: dating techinques are accurate to about 3000-4000 years ago. Beyond that, they are generally inaccurate due to the stronger magnetic shield of the earth before the Flood (about 4600 years ago). The strength of the earth's protective magnetic field dropped suddenly at the time of the Flood, and then slowly deteriorated further in the ensuing years. Since carbon 14 dating assumes that the decay rate has always been the same (IT HASN'T) and since carbon 14 only forms in living things, and then breaks down, carbon 14 dating is grossly inaccurate for materials more than about 3000-3500 years old. (The present decay rate is much faster, hence the assumption that it has always been constant leads to grossly exaggerated ages for materials older than 4600 years, when there was a much slower decay rate for carbon 14.) Hence, these "old" materials are much younger than the ages indicated by the Carbon 14 dating method with its flawed assumptions.

    I don't know what's up with the addresses for the links I've posted. They don't take you to the same web page as they did two days ago. I have pdf's and a hard copy to prove it.
    With regard to skulls & stuff:

  • The Boneyards

  • "This type of x-ray was going to allow measurements to be made accurately inside the skulls while at the same time seeing the true outside dimensions. It was also going to be able to see the places where the bones were glued together with a kind of plastic material. It might then be possible to discover if the reconstruction was done properly or if some artistic license was involved. p.37

    I started to get the eerie feeling that many things had been changed to show what they (evolutionists) wanted to show. I began to see more evidence that the Bible was accurate in its description of ancient man. p.69

    One of the prize Neanderthal skulls, Broken Hill, (Zambia) has a bullet hole! Broken Hill or Rhodesian Man had a bullet hole 8 mm x 8 mm (guns 200,000 yrs ago?). In 1958 R. Singer of South Africa published a negative radiograph of this skull. Because it was published in the negative the bullet hole did not show up! The external occipital protuberance appears to have been shaved off and flattened (attempt to hide acromegaly as reason for other area skull thickenings).

    The British museum people told me that no lower jaw was found with the skull. p72 The boney parts of the mandible are crucial in diagnosing acromegaly.

    More crucially in Singer's radiograph the anterior clinoid process is very short. In my radiograph it is clearly seen and even undercut with a space. Could this be a new addition since Singer's radiograph was taken or is his radiograph of just of poor quality? If it truly is an addition to make the sella space look smaller, this little piece of bone would extinguish any thoughts of a pathological pituitary gland as seen in acromegaly. This would be serious tampering with a skull. Someone knew they needed a little extra proof against pititary disease. p. 73
    It appears as though the paleoanthropologists have made a concerted effort to adhere to a rigid uniformatarian viewpoint concerning the growth, maturation and aging process in ancient populations no matter what the evidence showed. This eerie feeling persisted with me throughout all my expeditions into the world of evolutionary dogma. p. 74

    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.

    Shot with an Arrow or A Spear This Toxodon Went Down 2 Million Years Prior To 1st Official Hunting Season. See photo, above right.

    The Toxodon was supposedly extinct nearly 2 Million years ago and men are supposed to have been around only a few hundred thousand years yet; this Toxy has an arrow or a spear point in the bone. See blue arrow (no,that's not the one that got him).

    On another track...
    The impressive architecture of the subterranean Hypogeum is more than 6000 years old. To try to force its existence into the current paradigm, 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.

    As a mason with over thirty years of experience in cutting and drilling stone, I understand a thing or two about the technology involved. I also understand that any culture capable of manufacturing these tools would also be capable of producing weapons capable of "drilling" an auroch or a Neanderthal through the skull. After all, we produced rifles 200 years before we produced the diamond core drill.
    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.

    Keep in mind that we're talking about the Great Pyramid, not the smaller (later) pyramids that were built with less engineering skill and of inferior materials. Anthropologists would have us believe that Egyptian stone trimming skills were limited to bouncing a niggerhead off a piece of stone to trim it to size (chipping). How come we don't see this information on National Geographic Channel? Duh! Could it be that their "science" is really a political and social agenda? Oh, sorry... you'll need a tin foil hat to figure that one out.
    For more on the subject, see the "Ancient Masonry" post or click some of the links.


    Curtis said...

    You are in way over your head on this one. But these should help you.

    Craig Lowery said...

    "Over my head"? "Help"? Funnier than a three-legged dog trying to water a fire hydrant. Well, reading all that stuff took up a lot of time that would have been better spent actually looking at the fossil evidence that shows "reverse evolution" and demonstrates entropy in action. We have not managed to ascend to the levels of technology and culture that existed before the Flood, and while all these "scientists" are running around like chickens with their heads cut off and defending their "good intentions and scientific technique" (a valid defense in some cases), God is preparing to judge the world again, "as it was in the days of Noah". History is about to be repeated, but with a slightly different twist. This time, the Ark is not a 500-foot ship that you can see and that took 100 years to build. If you don't know what that means, turn off the TV for about five years and read the Book (you know, the big black one that scientists despise so much). The fossil evidence has not proved even one of its statements to be wrong. Funny... I don't find any discussion on talk origins of the thousands of "out-of-place artifacts" that give us a peek at ancient highly-advanced technologies that we can't match in the twenty-first century. And the last time I checked, "Nebraska Man" was still in elementary school textbooks. The "retraction" never seems to be promoted as heavily as the agenda.

    Curtis said...

    Yup. You just confirmed it. You're a wacko. But that doesn't make you a bad person.

    Curtis said...

    Told you you were in over your head.

    Evolutionary knowledge test

    Author: Dr Pepper

    Dear Creationist,

    We who follow conventional science appreciate your zeal and commitment in desiring to show us the errors of evolution. However, it has been our experience that the vast majority of challengers such as yourself are woefully unequipped for this endeavor. So in order to save us all some time and grief, and to keep you from making an utter fool of yourself, we have prepared this text to help you out.

    Step 1: Do you know anything at all about evolution? (you'd be surprised how many creationists don't) Please answer the following yes or no questions:

    1. Does evolution rely entirely on randomness?

    2. Does evolution violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

    3. Does evolution say anything about the origin of life?

    4. Does evolution say anything about the origin of the universe?

    5. Does evolution deny the existance of God?

    6. Does evolution proceed from simplicity to complexity?

    7. Does evolution proceed from lower to higher lifeforms?

    8. Does evolution incorporate the notion of progress?

    9. Does evolution have any moral consequences?

    10. Does evolution stipulate any political attitudes?

    11. Is evolution incompatible with any major religion?

    12. Is it true that their are no transitional forms?

    Step 2: Scoring. Count up the number of times you answered "yes". If this number is zero, proceed to step 3. Otherwise slam your head against the wall as many times as you answered "yes" and go back to step 1.

    Step 3: Materials. Do you have any materials authored by members of the ICR? If so throw them away. Use them here and you will be held responsible for the baltant lies and stupidity in them.

    Step 4: Conventional Science Quotes. Are you planning to present quotes from conventional scientists that seem to express disagreement with evolution? If so, make sure that you have them from the original sources and that they are quoted in full and in context. If you have misquotes and typical creationist butcher jobs, you will be destroyed without mercy.

    Step 5: Creationist Quotes. If you have quotes from creationists, they'd better be supported. And if the creationists claim educational or scientific backgrounds, degrees, titles, and such, you'd better check them and make sure they are accurate. If we catch you quoting liars, we will treat you as a liar yourself.

    Step 6: Anecdotes. If you have stories of things that you think bolster your case, be prepared to cite verifiable specifics. Be assured that you will be checked up on.

    Step 7: Faqs. This newsgroup has some wonder faq files available. Read them. Carefully. All the way through.

    Step 8: Congratulations, you are ready to argue against evolution. Please state your first objection.

    Craig Lowery said...

    I have learned that it is best not to argue with idiots, such as the self-conceited pompous one who made up this set of rules. However, I have a proposition. I will answer this assortment of ambiguous crap as soon as you take a thorough look at the archaeological and historical evidence corroborating the Biblical accounts of history up to about 33 A.D. If you can prove ONE fictitious statement in the Bible, I will gladly throw mine away (with one caveat: it has to be a real Bible, KJV). God has established His credibility as a source of information through PROPHECY. Only an omnicient God is able to achieve that feat. There is no other book on this planet that meets the Bible's standards for credibility. The thing that upset the "scientists" so much was that Velikovsky's book gave plausible explanations in cosmological terms of events that occurred in recorded secular history, as well as in the Bible. Our world, he pointed out, was not safe. He theorized about the mechanics of "how God did it". His book was not written in an ivory tower... he consulted dozens of the best minds of his day. In the minds of "scientists", Velikovsky's work threatened to pull the Bible out of their classification as "myth, legend, and fable" and into the stark reality of verifiable history. It brought them face to face with the ultimate question, "if this is true, how does that affect my future?" The wrath of hell was unleashed against him by God's enemies in the Halls of Academe'. Fiction? Don't be stupid. 100% truth? Probably not... he was only a man, writing the thoughts of his own mind, not the Mind of God. "Science" (falsely so-called) reacted out of fear. "Education" without salvation is damnation.

    Curtis said...

    "I have learned that it is best not to argue with idiots, such as the self-conceited pompous one who made up this set of rules."

    Is that because when the argument is completed you are the one that looks like an idiot?

    "However, I have a proposition. I will answer this assortment of ambiguous crap as soon as you take a thorough look at the archaeological and historical evidence corroborating the Biblical accounts of history up to about 33 A.D."

    Where is the ambiguity in a series of yes or no questions? You like to use big words but I often wonder if you apply them well. Ok. Just skip right to step eight and fire away.

    "If you can prove ONE fictitious statement in the Bible,"

    Not on me to prove a negative. If I was to say that Metallica is actually Gods favorite heavy metal group can you disprove it? I understand the "Black Album" was a favorite of JC.

    "The thing that upset the "scientists" so much was that Velikovsky's book gave plausible explanations in cosmological terms of events that occurred in recorded secular history, as well as in the Bible."

    You are able to speak for all of science? You are amazing! I bow before you.

    Craig Lowery said...

    You say that the Bible is fiction. I asked for ONE example of an untruth from a book that runs over 1200 pages of fine print. IF it is fiction, that should be a "piece of cake". Don't feel bad. No one has achieved that feat in almost 400 years (since 1611). That is simply because the Bible is a "supernatural" book, INSPIRED and PRESERVED by God Almighty. THERE IS NO OTHER BOOK LIKE IT ON THIS PLANET.

    cialis said...

    I, of course, a newcomer to this blog, but the author does not agree