Creation vs. Evolution (Earth, Eden, genesis, eternal, bible)

[inca]

Just in case you "jump" my previous posts, ops: I wanna remind you I never thought (by the knowledge of Hebrew descriptions and universal myths hiding some truth and different from isolated legends) we were directly created by God. I even explained the plural use in the texts and also mentioned links explaining there's plenty evidence although we are similar than apes there was insertion of bacteria as nothing we can see in vertebrated species. We're unique and evolution gives ridiculous explanations about the existence of human brain and consciousness.
There was genetic experience with humans that explained how come the "races" existed but not by natural process neither father Chronus time or "adaptation" litter argument. Modern experiences in fact confirm what was explained in detail both in the Bible and Sumerian account.
In that sense, not only the Bible -in Genesis 6- but universal myths explain there was an alien breeding with women from Earth and the resukt was those giants. Yet there were gIaNtS and "giants" that shall not be confused. So, they were never completely human. Some giants were sterile because of that hybridation that could well explain why they couldn't survive. Then again, that's genetic without eliminating historical memory. If evolutionists are so preocupied in their analysis forgetting history and historical archeology, that's THEIR PROBLEM. Not mine.

[inca]

Just in case you "jump" my previous posts, ops: I wanna remind you I never thought (by the knowledge of Hebrew descriptions and universal myths hiding some truth and different from isolated legends) we were directly created by God. I even explained the plural use in the texts and also mentioned links explaining there's plenty evidence although we are similar than apes there was insertion of bacteria as nothing we can see in vertebrated species. We're unique and evolution gives ridiculous explanations about the existence of human brain and consciousness.
There was genetic experience with humans that explained how come the "races" existed but not by natural process neither father Chronus time or "adaptation" litter argument. Modern experiences in fact confirm what was explained in detail both in the Bible and Sumerian account.
In that sense, not only the Bible -in Genesis 6- but universal myths explain there was an alien breeding with women from Earth and the resukt was those giants. Yet there were gIaNtS and "giants" that shall not be confused. So, they were never completely human. Some giants were sterile because of that hybridation that could well explain why they couldn't survive. Then again, that's genetic without eliminating historical memory. If evolutionists are so preocupied in their analysis forgetting history and historical archeology, that's THEIR PROBLEM. Not mine.

[inca]

It would be very nice to see a paleonthologist in the future analyzing historical skulls from Peru (that you ignore and keep the mouth shut, right?) or these:
www.s8int.com/six.html
Probably they are gonna assume those mutants were the best sample of our general likeness. HA-HA-HA! Or the fossil of a camel who lost the fat in it's back before dying in the desert. I wouldn't trust in their analysis but I bet millions would....

[inca]

It would be very nice to see a paleonthologist in the future analyzing historical skulls from Peru (that you ignore and keep the mouth shut, right?) or these:
www.s8int.com/six.html
Probably they are gonna assume those mutants were the best sample of our general likeness. HA-HA-HA! Or the fossil of a camel who lost the fat in it's back before dying in the desert. I wouldn't trust in their analysis but I bet millions would....

[inca]

CJW: I agree with your statement. It's very difficult to distinguish what is science or not. In fact I regret to tell (the ones who are not informed) this happens not only in paleonthology but in astronomy, geology, medicine and every field of science. That's the problem. People trust too much. So, my advice is don't trust and keep on investigating and what is gonna happen is you're about to become a selective person who chooses parts of different scientific "dogmas" and reject others seeming not real science but in the same category of religious dogmas. At the same time you have to investigate not all those sciences and discuss them in detail with "professionals" who are usual trapped in their dogma and can't answer the riddles, you need to investigate what was consider irrelevant and ignorance. Then something is gonna happen. You will discover science and myths were not far away really and in some details they even touch. But it requires TIME, PATIENCE, STUDY, going to the library, exhausting the patience of a smart geologist and paleonthologist, conversations in which they are gonna say the truth they can't say loudly in universities before the teachers (the acceptance of dogmas they never believed), it requires keeping the files year after year cos we don't have memory. We forget history (and politician promises) and scientific data. I can't afford the luxury.

[inca]

CJW: I agree with your statement. It's very difficult to distinguish what is science or not. In fact I regret to tell (the ones who are not informed) this happens not only in paleonthology but in astronomy, geology, medicine and every field of science. That's the problem. People trust too much. So, my advice is don't trust and keep on investigating and what is gonna happen is you're about to become a selective person who chooses parts of different scientific "dogmas" and reject others seeming not real science but in the same category of religious dogmas. At the same time you have to investigate not all those sciences and discuss them in detail with "professionals" who are usual trapped in their dogma and can't answer the riddles, you need to investigate what was consider irrelevant and ignorance. Then something is gonna happen. You will discover science and myths were not far away really and in some details they even touch. But it requires TIME, PATIENCE, STUDY, going to the library, exhausting the patience of a smart geologist and paleonthologist, conversations in which they are gonna say the truth they can't say loudly in universities before the teachers (the acceptance of dogmas they never believed), it requires keeping the files year after year cos we don't have memory. We forget history (and politician promises) and scientific data. I can't afford the luxury.

[inca]

I even go beyond your statement. THERE'S NO DEBATE IN SCIENCE EVEN IN THE SAME FIELD! There's no podium or conference examining all archeology findings around the world trying to comprehend UNIVERSAL HISTORY. In medicine the fields are separated in onchology, oftalmology, etc. You're not gonna check a general congress uniting all hypothesis of physic theorists with physicists and so on. We live in time of Neo-Babel scientific particularities. So, if in Egypt the Egyptian Egyptologist authority, Dr. Hawass invites the one who believes like him (Dr.Lehner), they are gonna select what geologists are gonna study the sphinx (not Schoch) or even egyptologist (not Anthony West whom I have discussed by e-mail) and they do it because they have their personal "faith" to preach and contract with National Geographic and $$$$$$. They don't want another expert in other field to interfere with their own hypothesis. There's fame and $$$$ involved in the process and that was the case with Edison, with Newton and all the time.
Hence, there's no scientifical debate ANYWHERE in a real sense. This is food for naïve imbecil readers to accept, they are the neo-high priests of modern world. Yet they are disguised. If they talk about a Big Bang which was implicit in the Bible in Hebrew (and give contradictory theories about Big Crunch and Big Rip and universes in the form of a saddle, a trumpet, a donut, DNA, etc), I have my reasons to believe in Hebrew tsim tsum or God's Big Crunch before the Big Bang or Big Day and Big Night of Brahma that scientists are BEGINNING TO RECOGNIZE. And in fact I discuss that with the "experts" who behave like surprised!

[inca]

I even go beyond your statement. THERE'S NO DEBATE IN SCIENCE EVEN IN THE SAME FIELD! There's no podium or conference examining all archeology findings around the world trying to comprehend UNIVERSAL HISTORY. In medicine the fields are separated in onchology, oftalmology, etc. You're not gonna check a general congress uniting all hypothesis of physic theorists with physicists and so on. We live in time of Neo-Babel scientific particularities. So, if in Egypt the Egyptian Egyptologist authority, Dr. Hawass invites the one who believes like him (Dr.Lehner), they are gonna select what geologists are gonna study the sphinx (not Schoch) or even egyptologist (not Anthony West whom I have discussed by e-mail) and they do it because they have their personal "faith" to preach and contract with National Geographic and $$$$$$. They don't want another expert in other field to interfere with their own hypothesis. There's fame and $$$$ involved in the process and that was the case with Edison, with Newton and all the time.
Hence, there's no scientifical debate ANYWHERE in a real sense. This is food for naïve imbecil readers to accept, they are the neo-high priests of modern world. Yet they are disguised. If they talk about a Big Bang which was implicit in the Bible in Hebrew (and give contradictory theories about Big Crunch and Big Rip and universes in the form of a saddle, a trumpet, a donut, DNA, etc), I have my reasons to believe in Hebrew tsim tsum or God's Big Crunch before the Big Bang or Big Day and Big Night of Brahma that scientists are BEGINNING TO RECOGNIZE. And in fact I discuss that with the "experts" who behave like surprised!

[inca]

Wanna see a fresh example?:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smi...ay04/iran.html
The expert is "discovering" something but there are already critics saying he "overreached" his assumptions. And do you think his collegue trying to prove the antiquity of Maya or Egyptian or Irakian or American or African or Peruvian or Bolivian culture HAS ANY INTEREST IN HIS DISCOVERIES? So, the result is gonna be the imbecil public will always have news like this and is gonna be even more lost than Adam in "his" Mother's Day! So much for scientific debate!

[inca]

Wanna see a fresh example?:
http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smi...ay04/iran.html
The expert is "discovering" something but there are already critics saying he "overreached" his assumptions. And do you think his collegue trying to prove the antiquity of Maya or Egyptian or Irakian or American or African or Peruvian or Bolivian culture HAS ANY INTEREST IN HIS DISCOVERIES? So, the result is gonna be the imbecil public will always have news like this and is gonna be even more lost than Adam in "his" Mother's Day! So much for scientific debate!