ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel

The Science delusion.

Updated on May 3, 2017
Source

For some years now I’ve been hearing about the science delusion. Is it true? Or is it just a ploy by the religious to counter what Dawkins calls militant atheism?

There are several points the proponents of the science delusion sight as proof that science has become a religion:

The assertion is: Science claims to already know the nature of reality in principal, leaving only the details to be filled in.

Science is a religion. People say: I don’t believe in god, I believe in science. In other words it’s a world view. A materialist world view.

Rupert Sheldrake tells us there are 10 dogmas of science which have limited it, and in fact tainted it.

1 Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains

2 Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.

3 The laws of nature are fixed. They can’t change.

4 The total amount of energy and matter is always the same. It sprang from nowhere at the instant of the big bang.

5 There is no purpose in nature.

6 Heredity is material. It’s all about genes.

7 Memories are stored in the brain as material traces.

8 Your mind is in your head.

9 Telepathy and psychic powers can’t exist because the mind is just the brain and it can’t affect the outside world.

10 Mechanistic medicine is the only real medicine.

So, let me start by saying I do agree that scientists can be dogmatic, so can people who think they know science and that is a bit of a danger. So what is it about science that allows it to become dogmatic? Scientists. Human beings. Media, Public understanding. In other words: science isn’t dogmatic, people are.

The scientific method is anything but dogmatic. And so what makes some scientists fall to dogma? Answer in a nut shell: Belief.

Belief is the enemy of science. There’s also convention, tenure , ego’s, old boys clubs etc. But belief is the main problem. People want certainty, desperately. For centuries we had absolute certainty. God or the gods, did their thing and who were we to even wonder about how it all works? We could never figure it out ourselves.

But we did wonder anyway, as is evidenced by books like Genesis and many other creation myths. So much so that early scientists and observers challenged religious ideas of nature and were proven right.

Then things became less certain. And as science grew and evolution reared it’s head, even god was in question.

For a while, after Newton, we thought we had certainty again.

The world ran like a clock work. It was mechanistic. Soon we’d know everything. And then two things happened that turned it all on it’s head. I say two, but it’s more like five. First, Einstein shocked the scientific world with relativity. Heisenberg and co gave us QM, and Hubble told us the universe isn’t static, it’s expanding. And then came Big Bang. That’s one.

Two is Lorenz, Mandelbrot, and perhaps a dozen others and their observations taken together suddenly formed a new science called chaos theory. That’s five.

Now we’re really uncertain as to what’s really going on so people hang on to the small certainties they think they have.

In debates and general conversations, you can see the belief some people have in such ideas as the many worlds theory, string theory, the Big Bang, etc.

Yet these theories are often not provable or more to the point, not falsifiable, and aren’t science fact.

A theory is a model created from facts. It’s an interpretation of observed or collected data from experiment. But it’s not a fact until it’s been proven by experiment. If it’s good it will usually predict something about reality. If it can’t be falsified even in principal, it’s just a guess.

So before I look at the so called ten dogma’s, let me say that there is nothing wrong with letting science form our world view. That is to say, to adopt the scientific method as a method for thinking about the world. It's the best tool we have to date. Part of that method being not having a stake in what the truth is.

Faith is the end of logic. Belief is never a requirement. Either something is a fact, or it’s a lie or guess. Believing a fact is redundant. We accept facts. But they have to be true facts. In fact, we can only accept them conditionally unless they are indisputable, like: I either ate an apple today or I didn’t. That’s an absolute fact. Or a tautology like: all black birds are black.

A lie certainly should not be believed, and speculation isn’t to be believed either. It is true or not, and requires evidence to back it up.

So, does science claim to have the basis or framework for reality? No. Scientists, not science, claim to have pieces of the puzzle, but few if any would tell us we have all the answers, or even close. We’ve known that isn’t true since Einstein. There are way too many competing interpretations for the facts we have.

Is science a religion? No. But that doesn’t stop people from using its findings to help them understand the universe and help form their world view. And there are religions like scientific pantheism that do exactly that. But science is a method, a tool. It can’t be a religion.

So to dogma number one: Nature is mechanical and machine like. Humans are machine like, as are brains.

I do hear that from some scientists and philosophers, but it’s not exactly true. Biology is decidedly dynamic. Not what we think of when we say machine like. A car is a bunch of metal and glass etc, with no idea what it is or does. We put it together in such a way that we can fill it with gas and drive around. A car doesn’t do anything without an operator. Neither does any other mechanical machine.

Biology is complex and dynamic. It’s the operator, not the machine. But that doesn’t imply a supernatural element to nature, which is what most scientists are saying when they say mechanical.

Nature, which we are part of, is endlessly creative and complex. Anything but machine-like.

Yes, everything follows the laws of physics, which aren’t laws at all, but rather the nature of nature. But that nature facilitates all we see including biology. Without limits/order nothing can function at all.

So the problem is the idea of a supernatural. Surely it too would have order/limits or it couldn’t function. So in light of the supernatural not being falsifiable even in principal, we can’t factor it into scientific inquiry and have to keep looking to the natural for information.

What scientists and philosophers should do is: stop saying mechanical when we mean natural.


“Matter is unconscious. Animals aren’t conscious and we shouldn’t be either and probably aren’t.”

I’ve never heard scientists say any such thing. But again, semantics get in the way here.

Consciousness is self evident. No one needs to prove it exists, just how it works in detail. But what is consciousness? Being awake? Being able to reason? Self awareness? So many definitions, so many aspects. Yet at its root, its complex awareness.

All biology is aware. Were a bacteria not to have even rudimentary awareness, it would keep bumping its head on the same obstacle and never get to its food, or take care of its needs. So to say animals aren’t aware is absurd.

Is matter aware in any way? Why should it be? It doesn’t need to be. And what is meant by matter? An atom? It has a nature. Auto response.

I do think auto response is the precursor to awareness. But that’s a model that still needs to be researched properly. But a precursor is not awareness itself, any more than rudimentary awareness is the same as human awareness/consciousness; and even though it’s all just a matter of degrees of complexity.

To say there is something other than energy and matter is to allude to a supernatural, and as there is no evidence a supernatural and some claim there can’t be, it can’t be added to our knowledge base in any meaningful way. So that objection is futile.

Are the laws of nature unchanging? Yes and no. Yes because experiment proves it. No, only in the sense that conditions can change and thereby change values. Water boils at 100 degrees C. Everyone knows that. But it’s not exactly that simple. It depends on altitude and purity. Additives may make water boil slower or faster. Altitude alters boiling point as well.

But if you replicate your conditions exactly, it will always give the same results. Speed of light is constant. Right? Only in a vacuum. Light moves slower through water, for instance. It bounces off things.

So yes, the nature of nature is constant. But it can be different in different conditions. Yet be constant in those conditions.

Is the total amount of energy in the universe always the same? Conservation of energy says yes. But it’s state alters. This is the basis of thermodynamics, which is a well tested and proven set of laws or natures of nature/physics.

Did it spring from nowhere at the start of the big bang? Hardly. The big bang is the most widely accepted theories of our origins. But it’s not alone. There are at least three other good competitors these days. And no tests have yet been done to prove it. Only mathematics.

Is it likely to be the answer? It’s a good theory, but unless it’s proven we can’t give it better than a good chance. Evolution is a fact. Big Bang isn’t.

So let’s say it is true. What does it say about energy? Well, it says the singularity was in an almost infinitely compressed state. What was? Some say all the matter in the universe. I’ve heard all the mater and energy in the universe. But I’ve never seen a version of the theory that says energy appeared from nothing.

I have heard recent claims from Hawking and Kraus that the universe came from nothing, but they are redefining nothing to be something. To be precise: quantum fluctuation. This supposed nothing spontaneously creates particle pairs which usually annihilate each other almost instantly. It’s well known that empty space is teaming with quantum activity.

It’s a kind of potential energy in the vacuum./ or fabric of space as Einstein said. Hardly nothing. Just apparently nothing. Not nothing at all. You can’t get something from nothing at all.

Einstein showed that matter has vast amounts of energy in it. He also said that matter was created not by mass, but by energy tensor density and momentum. That translates to dense energy below light speed creates matter. He also said:

“The mass of a body is a measure of its energy content.” Annalen der Physik 18, 639-641 (1905).

"It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different manifestations of the same thing — a somewhat unfamiliar conception for the average mind. Furthermore, the equation E = mc², in which energy is put equal to mass, multiplied by the square of the velocity of light, showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula mentioned before." Albert Einstein.

This was shown to be true experimentally by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932,.

And then there's: "We have been all wrong! What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been lowered as to be perceptible to the senses."

So all the matter of the universe is condensed energy. So the BB would have been super dense energy. All indications are this is the case if BB happened. So it didn’t create energy, it was energy. And all the serious competition begin with energy.

Thermodynamics tell us energy can’t be created or destroyed. It transforms from state to state.

Is it fact? Yes. It’s held up under testing for almost 100 years. So I’d say it’s highly probable.


Is there purpose to the universe? Are we talking objective purpose? Is that even a rational question? Purpose is a subjective thing. I have my own purpose, that being trying to figure out the universe. But that’s my subjective purpose. My wife sees my purpose quit differently, as does my employer, my kids, the tax man. But while I fill some of those purposes gladly, I don’t think the tax man’s purpose for me is any way my purpose. Even if I am fulfilling it like it or not. Same with a god’s purpose for me were there one. It’s not my purpose, even if it’s my function.

Only subjective things have purpose. There is probably no such thing as objective purpose, and if there is, like procreation, gene imperatives etc, while it’s fun, you’re usually not thinking about spreading your genes, and actively trying to prevent it in many cases.

If we need purpose, we make it for ourselves. A god doesn’t give you a purpose. What ever purpose it has for you is it’s purpose. You may willingly fulfill it, but others may not. Purpose relative to the individual, not universal.


Is heredity about genes? Partly. It’s about DNA, which is more than just genes. A lot of code regulates how genes are copied, spliced, and expressed. Mutations there can be far more serious for better or worse than gene mutation.

I’m not sure where the speaker thinks it could or should come from.

Are memories stored in the brain? Short of having a soul I can’t see anywhere outside the body they could be stored. The brain being the most logical place. Science can’t take souls into consideration. They don’t seem to be falsifiable. Not that people haven’t tried. Scientists have to study what can be studied.

Same goes for minds.


Psychic phenomenon may or may exist. But if they do they aren’t necessarily supernatural. And this has been studied at great length both in the US and Russia for obvious reasons. So far, nothing showing it’s a fact.

Dr Persinger, of the god helmet fame, thinks if your brain were tuned to the earth’s magnetic field, telepathy would be possible. But our brains aren’t tuned to it. Who knows? So far, telepathy is still speculative.


As to medicine: a couple hundred years ago going to the doctor was a risk. They often made things worse. In those days there only was alternative medicine. We’ve come a long way in a short time. So its little wonder the focus is on modern medicine. Not that it’s perfect by any means. But it’s more effective than faith healing by a long shot. Might non standard treatments work? Sure. And if they prove themselves they become accepted.

Criticism of science is fine. But the objections to it by people who talk about the science delusion are only doing to counter Dawkins book “the god delusion”. Trying to make the point that if belief in god is a delusion, so is belief in science.

In a sense any belief is potentially delusional. To accurately talk about science you have to be up on what science actually says, what is fact, what is almost fact through experiment, and what’s just an unproven or completely un-falsifiable interpretation/guess.

Media and the public need to be far more educated about science than they are. That would help a lot. There is no science delusion; only science ignorance. Particularly, but not confined to, the religious community and its interests.

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 33 minutes ago from Texas

      Taylor's quote - "the human mind or psyche is to some degree an independent entity, which can change or develop along its own lines"

      Of course the physical environment affects the human mind. That's not what he's saying. He's saying that in addition to changes influenced by physical factors, like the environment, the mind also changes and developes along its own lines.

      You - "Guy is always a good person. He gets a brain tumor and starts killing people. It’s happened more than once."

      I'm not denying any of that. The physical brain is what animates the physical body. And yes, physical trauma can have a significant impact on that. The spiritual self interacts with the physical world through the physical brain/body. But if the body is missing legs, then no matter how intensly the spiritual self wants to walk, their physical body isn't capable. The same goes for brain trauma.

      You - "But because there are so many, all interacting all it takes is one guy with a novel idea to start the ball rolling. Others build on the idea. That’s how the telephone evolved into the cell phone which is now a multi media center, computer, clock, camera, etc. One person building on what the other guy did."

      Yes, I get how the assumption works. The problem is, the evidence, those inventions, show no signs of a progression like what you describe. It's not a series of inventions that are all built around some new insight or capability.

      You - "Nothing about the era we’re talking about suggests anything but natural evolution of culture and mind."

      Nothing in the evidence of that era in any way reflects what you're describing.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 18 hours ago from Ottawa

      “many modern scientists [assume] that human behavior can only be explained in physical terms,”

      The physical environment affects the human mind. What else is new? Anyone who tells you the mind is independent of everything else is not a scientist with half a brain. Mind is not independent of environment and that’s a demonstrable fact.

      Guy is always a good person. He gets a brain tumor and starts killing people. It’s happened more than once.

      Depends where the tumor is. .Your mind, your choices are affected by everything including your cup of coffee, your upbringing, your friends, your education, your economic status, your brain chemistry, what happened to you 5 minutes ago, five years ago, your culture right back to the stone age and beyond, how your genes evolved. In short, everything affects us be it in only very minor ways or drastic ones. It’s obvious. I feel it, you feel it, we all know it.

      It’s in our language. People say: That’s just the way I am. I can’t help it. Or any number of other ways acknowledge they didn’t make themselves and are just the way they are because of their nature.

      Minds evolve, and part of that evolution is new ideas, new experiences, small changes that accumulate and cause large changes, often very quickly.

      And we’re talking about not one person, but hundreds in a society. Not everyone comes up with a new idea. But because there are so many, all interacting all it takes is one guy with a novel idea to start the ball rolling. Others build on the idea. That’s how the telephone evolved into the cell phone which is now a multi media center, computer, clock, camera, etc. One person building on what the other guy did.

      Mind is individual, and therefore unique, but in no way independent of physical environment, including brain.

      Nothing about the era we’re talking about suggests anything but natural evolution of culture and mind.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 days ago from Texas

      "...many modern scientists [assume] that human behavior can only be explained in physical terms, and ignore the fact that the human mind or psyche is to some degree an independent entity, which can change or develop along its own lines, without necessarily altering physical structure." -Steve Taylor

      I tell you what. Do me a favor. Read this ....

      https://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/On-The-Ev...

      This hub should give you a very clear idea of exactly what my claim is. I think this can clear things up.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 days ago from Texas

      My tune hasn't changed. Read my hubs. The ones talking about this stuff were published 4 and 5 years ago. And I wrote about those other cultures then. I wrote about cave drawings too. It's all in there. It explains my view perfectly, which you still to this point clearly don't get.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 days ago from Ottawa

      "When I say these cultures developed their own cultures and writing systems independently, that's exactly what that means. Their languages were completely different. Their writing systems. Their cultures. Everything."

      Boy have you changed your tune. A few months ago you denied that diverse cultures came up with their own cultures independently. I'm the one that said people developed differently in different places which undermines your idea that the Adams family influenced them all or spread their super genes to them. You can't have it both ways.

      I don't think Sumer was the first. You do. We don't know yet, but there's a really good chance it wasn't, considering the archaeological evidence.

      Again, the evidence for evolution is cave drawings, symbols, math writing,proto writing, and finally written language.

      And yes, it's all Africa, Asia, Europe, etc. And people traded, sharing their cultures and tech. Lots of evidence of that. No evidence that what so ever of the Adams family.

      Oh and, I was watching a documentary on the Aztecs. They wrote poetry and songs. And guess what? A native being interviewed said the Aztecs didn't believe they could come up with these things on their own. Obviously a god was putting music and words in their head.

      More evidence that ancient people never needed to see or talk to a real god to attribute everything to them, including teaching them to make bread etc.

      He perfectly confirmed my hypothesis once again.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 days ago from Texas

      Okay, then show it. Show this progression. This accumulation of small changes. There should presumably be a chain of physical evidence to illustrate.

      See this is the thing I don't think you're considering. A few times I've specified how this happened in these places "independently". You keep talking like there's this progression that spans beyond Sumer. This grand sweeping progression and Sumer was just the point along the way where it all came to a head and bursts forward.

      When I say these cultures developed their own cultures and writing systems independently, that's exactly what that means. Their languages were completely different. Their writing systems. Their cultures. Everything.

      That's why your explanation doesn't fit. Because what we do know doesn't line up with it at all. It's clearly an assumption of how you just know it must have happened.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 days ago from Ottawa

      "Fitting perfectly would mean similar social and behavioral behaviors would have developed in those other highly populated organized cultures that existed for hundreds of years. Didn't happen once, "

      No, fitting perfectly means things evolved slowly as expected, leading to sudden fast and at times dramatic change due to accumulation of small change.

      Art on cave walls is a form of proto writing. Symbols that tell a story. Nothing I've seen supports any other explanation then natural evolution.

      No evidence what so ever for the Adam myth.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 7 days ago from Texas

      In your statement you said you have a "more hopeful, optimistic view". I can only take that to mean "more" hopeful/optimistic than mine. So what I'm saying is that I struggle to see how my view can be seen as anything other than.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 7 days ago from Tasmania

      What do you mean, Jeremy?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 8 days ago from Texas

      I actually struggle to see how this can be seen as anything other than hopeful and optimistic.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 days ago from Tasmania

      I have a much more hopeful, optimistic view of the world. Just now reading this new hub: https://owlcation.com/stem/Giardia-in-the-Intestin...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 8 days ago from Texas

      Obviously. Because we all see the same thing. An obvious leap in behavior to a more modern state and multiple, not just one, but half a dozen or more civilizations came springing up within centuries of one another. Each with their own language and writing system, each with their own culture, each with their own mythological story lines. Not to mention a significant change in behavior that's clearly seen and recognized in the scientific community. One where we stopped behaving as all mammal species who came before had, male-dominant, and became egalitarian.

      You guys look at all of that and see nothing significant. Just the slow progression of evolution at work. and I sit here shaking my head.

      So yeah, it's confirmed daily. So glad you're able to see it now. Yes, interpretation is always part of the equation. And ideals and world views held by individuals can definitely influence things. Whether it be religion or the science delusion. Humans are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over again.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 8 days ago from Tasmania

      ...so any evidence you obtain will be influenced by your point of view. Thanks for confirming that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      Alan - "If you start with the presumption that humans are way superior to other animals, to the extent we are not to be considered as animals but more akin to a creating God, then it will be inconvenient to compare our social traits with those of other animals."

      I agree that observing other primate species and mammals is very much useful and helpful. We're obviously mammals as well. We do share quite a lot with them. They're family. Distant cousins.

      But we are very much set apart from them. Animals simply live moment by moment. In the present. Not worried about the future, not dwelling on the past. They do naturally what we struggle to do. They're simply present.

      Our minds make us a very different animal in a lot of ways. We also still have characteristics we brought with us from our animal past, but we've got something extra as well.

      There are animal species, especially in the primate family, who would be very much capable of much more human-like behavior if it were just up to the capability of the brain they have. They can think, reason, plan, consider.

      What sets us apart is free will. The individual "I". The self. We're not just pure instincts. We're driven by an individual will that has its own wants and desires. Blaise Pascal once said all of humanity's problems stem from man's inability to sit quietly in a room alone.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 9 days ago from Texas

      You - "Oh but does. Fits perfectly."

      Fitting perfectly would mean similar social and behavioral behaviors would have developed in those other highly populated organized cultures that existed for hundreds of years. Didn't happen once, then happened for the first time in Sumer, then again in Egypt, then again in the Indus Valley, and again and again and again. For thousands of years nothing even though farming had been discovered and multiple highly populated "cities" had formed.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 9 days ago from Ottawa

      Couldn't agree more, Alan.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 10 days ago from Tasmania

      I also suggest that any “evidence that doesn’t support” or does support any assumption will be influenced by what the observer believes. My own assumption is likewise influenced. Until I get some plausible alternative view it’s ok and valid for me to stick with my current views.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 10 days ago from Tasmania

      If you start with the presumption that humans are way superior to other animals, to the extent we are not to be considered as animals but more akin to a creating God, then it will be inconvenient to compare our social traits with those of other animals.

      Personally I see no separation. We are an animal species, with no special relationship to proclaim and protect.

      Thus I regard observation and research with the help of other primate species as very valid and useful to our survival as a species.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 10 days ago from Ottawa

      "The problem is the evidence doesn't support that assumption at all."

      Oh but does. Fits perfectly.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 12 days ago from Texas

      You really think the social stratification we know in our society today is based on who the dominant males are? Yes, there's social normals in any group. And we as a species of mammal and being a pack type species as well, we're going to share some commonalities.

      I have studied animal behavior, which is why I recognize the assumption you're making along with so many others. It's often assumed, as you are now, that those same behaviors seen in other mammalian groups are more simplistic versions of what we know now as social structure.

      The problem is the evidence doesn't support that assumption at all.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 12 days ago from Ottawa

      "groups of humans prior to Sumer were egalitarian. Male and female, all equal. All members of the group equal. None were more powerful than the other. This changed in Sumer. Another change, personal possession."

      Yeah. Nonsense. Every animal group has dominant males and dominant females, and subordinate males and females. All primates have this structure, all of the mammal family, many insect species,but not humans until they got supposed free will? Bull shit. What actual proof do you have of what you're quoting? Zero. It's some guy's misguided hypothesis that lacks logic, not just evidence.

      Shamen were always leaders. There was always a head of the tribe. Yes, in some cultures leaders could be male or female. They shared equity. They held territory. They owned weapons, tools, etc.

      That makes sense due the fact that if you have a tribe, you have to have a way to organize. Animals do it. Without "free" will, apparently. But humans were different and didn't?

      Please. We're just more complex animals. You need to do more research on animal behavior. Then it would become clear to you that you're clearly wrong.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 13 days ago from Texas

      You should do more research on social stratification. It's something that didn't exist in human cultures prior to Sumer. That's what that quote I gave earlier was talking about. Social groups of humans prior to Sumer were egalitarian. Male and female, all equal. All members of the group equal. None were more powerful than the other. This changed in Sumer. Another change, personal possession.

      This deals with the social evolution of human behavior. It's insight into the development and evolution of the human mind.

      It's the other way around. Behavior change caused cities and urbanization and the birth of civilization. It's another assumption that imagines how must have happened, based on nothing but pure speculation.

      You - "Cities cause the farther stratification of class, not the other way around."

      Exceptionally large settlements developed in Catal Huyuk (7,500 to 5,700 BC) in Turkey and the Lepenski Vir settlement (dating back to 7,000 BC) located in the central portion of the Balkan peninsula. The Lepenski Vir culture gave way to the Vinča-Turdaș culture (5,000-4,500 BC), which at one point had populations estimated at 2,500 or more in some of the larger sites.

      Notice how long some of these cultures existed. Catal Huyuk was around 7.5 times longer than America has existed as a country. Yet no stratification. This is why what you explain to be the cause doesn't fit the evidence.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 13 days ago from Ottawa

      "A city is a city when there is class stratification. When there's a ruling class and a working class."

      Is that it? Well then you fail. Ant's have that. So do most animal groups. Your hypothesis makes no sense. Every tribe has workers and leaders. Cities cause the farther stratification of class, not the other way around.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "All fun speculation aside, if this is a 200000 year old site, your hypothesis and the bible it comes from is dead in the water. ;)"

      Okay, there's a really significant bit you seem to be overlooking. I've said many times that there were older human civilizations. All of which came after the discovery of agriculture, but it wasn't what my hypothesis is about that led to organized cultures.

      It's what was different about Sumer. Like this ....

      "The Ubaid period as a whole, based upon the analysis of grave goods, was one of increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period

      It's not stacking rocks and forming paths. Ants do that. A city is a city when there is class stratification. When there's a ruling class and a working class.

      What my hypothesis is about is evident in the titanic shift in human behavior that left and undeniable mark on our trajectory as a species. Any site found in southern Africa is not going to have much, if any, impact on the trajectory of humanity. They were on the other side of a very big desert from where civilization first sprung up.

      What happened 6000 years ago right where/when Genesis is telling it's story is the single most significant thing to happen to humanity. It's what made us who we are today. The same dominant cultures that swept across the world wiping out indigenous cultures and transforming the world as they went, that all started right there when human behavior changed. It's not that they were advanced cultures. They had the same brains as every other human for tens of thousands of years. And it wasn't some discovery that brought about a spurt of inventiveness.

      I definitely appreciate the efforts to disprove this. Please continue. But keep in mind it's most likely not going to be some "found" site. There's a big, sweeping narrative here, that spans tens of thousands of years. A progression that can be seen, a hypothesis that explains a change in the direction of humanity and brought us to this point where we are today.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Nobody is denying pre-dynastic pottery, or Egyptian history that predates that period. "

      Well it seems your expert was denying it, doesn't it? But regardless, who's to say people in 7 to 8000 bce didn't build the sphinx? That would give it a few thousand years of rain fall.

      Just because they built an elaborate religious structure doesn't mean they were far advanced. It just means they felt a great need or desire to build it, and had the artists capable of carving it.

      But it would show initiative you equate with so called "free" will, which they shouldn't have been capable of according to you.

      And until we can explain rain erosion in a place with almost zero precipitation in 6000 plus years, we have to conclude that it's probable that it was built earlier than current estimates.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Residence, workshops, admin, and religious buildings? What? How..? Seriously?"

      "Something amazing has been discovered in an area of South Africa, about 150 miles inland, west of the port of Maputo. It is the remains of a huge metropolis that measures, in conservative estimates, about 1500 square miles. It's part of an even larger community that is about 10,000 square miles and appears to have been constructed -- are you ready -- from 160,000 to 200,000 BCE!"

      Sorry. 1500 square miles. So 960,000 acres. not 10,000. But I've seen several different numbers now. It's massive.

      "Looking at the entire metropolis, it becomes obvious that this was a well planned community, developed by a highly evolved civilization. The number of ancient gold mines suggests the reason for the community being in this location. We find roads -- some extending a hundred miles -- that connected the community and terraced agriculture, closely resembling those found in the Inca settlements in Peru."

      So large and small circular buildings made with stone for the walls, not wood.? 200000 years ago? Roads? Temples? Astronomical calendars like Stonehenge? If true, it changes everything we know about humans. IF its true.

      "Tellinger believes that this ancient African metropolis is the oldest structure built by human on Earth. In fact, he thinks that the Sumerians and the Egyptians inherited knowledge from this advanced civilization. This hypothesis is based on the fact that there are carvings of the Egyptian Ankh on the rocks of the ancient city. How could there possibly be an image of the Egyptian god thousands of years before the Egyptian civilization emerged?"

      If true, these could be the Sumerian gods.

      Do a search for 200000 year old civilization in south Africa. You'll get dozens of links.

      Of course they all quote one man. Again, I hope others do the research and either varify or falsify his findings.

      But interestingly, our mitochondrial DNA is said to be 250000 years old. Civilization after 50000 years? No reason it couldn't have happened. The question is: did it?

      We'll see.

      It would make me see ancient Vedic and Sumerian and some native american stories in a different light. Not as fact, but as interpretations of really ancient stories we can't know the actual truth of. So not necessarily outright fiction as I currently think is the most probable answer, knowing human psychology

      You could then get yourself out of a mess by claiming mitochondrial Eve was created 250000 years ago instead of 6000 years ago. And that it was Adam and Eve's great to the 10th power or more grand kids ruled the Sumerians and were their gods until the last of them died out.

      Must have been many disasters that wiped out ancient civilizations. Ice ages, floods afterword, asteroids, solar malfunctions, etc.

      Did they create the dark haired people? (the name the Sumerians gave themselves) Or did they "create" them by civilizing them? lol...

      All fun speculation aside, if this is a 200000 year old site, your hypothesis and the bible it comes from is dead in the water. ;)

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      Nobody is denying pre-dynastic pottery, or Egyptian history that predates that period. The dynastic period is when the upper and lower kingdoms of Egypt united into a single entity about 3000 BC. They were both independent kingdoms for long before that.

      "10000 acres of stone foundations for residence, workshops, admin and religious buildings"

      Residence, workshops, admin, and religious buildings? What? How..? Seriously?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Well first off, pre-dynastic pottery is a fact. Look it up. There is also evidence of proto writing. They date this period from 7000 bce on, and there are those who argue there is evidence it'went even farther back.

      Also, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence or I could say with certainty no god exists. No one can say either way with certainty. But with Egypt, there's always hope for answers either way as we dig.

      It's his opinion. Not a fact.

      And yes 10000 acres of stone foundations for residence, workshops, admin and religious buildings would qualify as a city. They were settled, not hunter gatherers making temporary shelters. Obviously that means farming and possibly trade etc. 200000 years ago? Obviously not your average cave man.

      Again, I want to see it investigated by independent unbiased people before I get too excited. But if it's true your hypothesis is proven wrong. Even you have to admit it.

      So how do you know the sphinx builders didn't build anything else? We don't know that either way yet. But even if they only built one monument, what would that prove?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "Nothing he says is evidence that no earlier civilization existed."

      What he said, specifically ...

      "No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago"

      His statement is that there is zero evidence of an earlier civilization. Can you please explain, and help me understand, your statement that nothing he says is evidence?

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 2 weeks ago from Texas

      A city? What constitutes a city in your estimation? Stacked rocks = city?

      So you're suggesting an ancient Egyptian culture existed that was capable of building a Sphinx, though it appears they never made anything else. Does that sound right to you?

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 2 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "What about that site suggests "advanced".

      A 200000 year old prehistoric civilization that built a city? That's not advanced? How? I'm not saying it's certain that it was built 200000 years ago. I'd like to see other independent research that support the claim.

      But hunter gatherers didn't build cities as far as we know. And if it's even 20000 years old it blows your ideas out of the water.

      And so no inscriptions means what? Nothing. Erosion doesn't just happen, and the Giza Plateau is higher than the flood plain. Nothing he says is evidence that no earlier civilization existed. That's just his opinion.

      And sorry, I can't buy that Adam and Eve were anything more than fantasy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: Sphinx

      Water erosion being your physical evidence, that only really confirms the presence of water. This guy explains very well exactly why this hypothesis of an even older advanced culture doesn't wash ...

      "Zahi Hawass, former Egyptian minister of state for antiquities affairs and secretary-general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities, was asked in an interview on the PBS series NOVA if it was possible that a more ancient civilization might have sculpted the Sphinx. Hawass replied: "Of course it is not possible for one reason …. No single artifact, no single inscription, or pottery, or anything has been found until now, in any place to predate the Egyptian civilization more than 5,000 years ago."" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphinx_water_erosion...

      Re: Why aren't we giants?

      You get how this works, right? There were way more humans than there were descendants of Adam/Eve. The first few generations they were 'giants'. And they did live very long lives. In fact, the long-living people all died out during the time of Abraham, 2000 years after Adam. But the more and more they were bred from humans, the smaller they got and the shorter their lives got, from generation to generation.

      Re: South African site

      What about that site suggests "advanced".

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Who else could they be? This is chapter 6. Ch1, creation, ch2-Adam/Eve, ch3- The Fall, ch4- Cain/Abel, ch5- ten generations from Adam to Noah. Then ch6 says "mortal" humans, who only live 120 years in comparison, had children with the 'sons of God'. "

      Who? No one. It's a fictional history. A myth. Nothing more. And if they did mate with us how come we don't live more than 120 years? Why aren't we giants? Your story doesn't add up. The sons of god mated with man and caused evil giants that were wiped out in the flood. But you want to twist it into something else.

      Again, not that I care. It's all just nonscence anyway. That's more than obvious.

      And the same goes for Enoch and the rest, no doubt. You can see that, but you can't see it from your bible. Pity. You're too smart to still believe in fairy tales. Yet it's got a hold on you you can't seem to dump.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "I'm sorry, but water erosion on the Sphinx is not enough to support reason in considering an earlier advanced civilization."

      Well I'm sorry, but whether they were a civilization or tribe, it shows it has to be older than traditional estimates. Earliest is 7000 bce. And I've read a lot of contradictory explanations and sorry, they aren't convincing. Physical evidence doesn't lie.

      And check this out. Not saying its an accurate story, but if it is...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHiQ-ZjGkGU

      Oh and how about this?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EirKqbB2zls

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      "They want us to believe these are the "sons" of god who mated with base humanity."

      Who else could they be? This is chapter 6. Ch1, creation, ch2-Adam/Eve, ch3- The Fall, ch4- Cain/Abel, ch5- ten generations from Adam to Noah. Then ch6 says "mortal" humans, who only live 120 years in comparison, had children with the 'sons of God'. Ch5 just explained that descendants of Adam lived for centuries. Then it calls humans "mortal" and specifies they live much shorter lives. Then the ages of the descendants of Adam/Eve decline each generation after the intermingling. Is it not clear who it's talking about?

      Re: Enoch

      Yeah, I've read it and Jubilees. It seems pretty clear to me, the way angels are described, that they wouldn't have the capability to procreate with biological humans. Why would they? Are there momma angels and baby angels? Or is that all horseshit?

      Humans are the ones who disobey because we have free will. Angels? Don't. Even Satan had to get God's permission in Job. He needs permission yet the angels didn't?

      None of that makes sense. It falls apart in context of the rest of the story. What I'm laying out not only doesn't contradict itself later, it actually makes the story clear what's being described.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      I'm sorry, but water erosion on the Sphinx is not enough to support reason in considering an earlier advanced civilization.

      Just continue on throughout the story. Everything lines up. Everything makes sense. It clarifies the story in truly fascinating ways.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "So nevermind it's clearly done in the design style of a particular age of Egyptian history and is made to resemble the pharaoh Khafre who lived during the 25th century BC? You're convinced because there's signs of water erosion that that absolutely could not have happened any more recently."

      Right. It's well known the original face was that of a lion, and Khafre had it changed to the his face or more likely that of his daughter. And if you can come up with a convincing explanation of rain erosion without rain, have at it. Otherwise it's the best most logical answer. And no, it's not at all the style of the time.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Now, working within the myth, it seems to make sense that Adam and Eve were not in fact the first human creation, or at least that others were created outside Eden shortly after considering Cain, after being banished to wander the earth, got himself a wife from east of Eden in a place called called Nod. Where would this wife come from if there were no other humans.

      Jubilees, a book elaborating on the lives of Adam and Eve written in the first or second century, solves this problem by telling us Adam and Eve went on to have 9 sons and 9 daughters. One of them went with and married Cain. It wasn't included in the Roman bible or accepted by the Jews as canon, but it was accepted by sects of both religions. Very much like Enoch, which is another fun read.

      Orthodox Christians and Jews don't have any other answer. Incest has to be the way we came to be. Girl children weren't mentioned, but they obviously had some, as the alternative is that Eve was mother for all the brother's kids. Or, god created a few others that also aren't mentioned.

      The bible is interesting as there are two distinct creation myths in one. In the first, man kind is created after everything else, both male and female. In the second, Adam is created first, then the garden and trees and animals. Eve is only thought of when no other beast god created was found suitable for Adam. The two contradict each other very clearly.

      The orthodox explanations are: The first part tells us what god did, and the second part goes in to more detail as to how he created humans. But many Jewish scholars say it's a merging of two distinct traditions among the twelve tribes. Some believed in the first myth, and the Tribe of Judah, who would become the Jews, believed the Adam and Eve version.

      Jeremy and apparently others, believe in evolution, sort of. So for them part one is how base humanity was created and evolved, and part two is the creation of Adam and Eve 6000 years ago, in the image of god. Above base humanity. They want us to believe these are the "sons" of god who mated with base humanity.

      The story of Enoch tells us they were angels who decided to disobey god and have sex with human woman. They were called satans, translated as watchers. Their job was to watch humans and report to god if we sinned. The Hebrews also called them accusers. In other words, gods cops run a muck.

      So, while Jeremy's story makes the most sense in the context of the myth, the entire myth is absurd, and in no way reflects any reality I'm aware of. And it's exceptionally insulting to people or tribes who still haven't mated with super Jews/adamites. On the other hand, they have nothing to do with original sin, and don't pass on the sin gene. Which doesn't exist.

      The big difference between the video and Jeremy is, the video says Adam and Eve were the first people to be souls, while Jeremy says they first to have free will.

      The one thing we can say is that every believer can have their own unique interpretation of this bible and never agree completely about anything.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      I'm sure there are plenty out there who agree with me on that point. But that's just the beginning. That's the error that's had the context of the story so thrown off for centuries. You need look no further than simply read on. The story becomes much more clear once understood in the context of their being two groups involved, humans and Adam's kin.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 3 weeks ago from Texas

      So nevermind it's clearly done in the design style of a particular age of Egyptian history and is made to resemble the pharaoh Khafre who lived during the 25th century BC? You're convinced because there's signs of water erosion that that absolutely could not have happened any more recently.

      See, this is another example of what I'm talking about. It isn't just this one thing. In this case it isn't just erosion. There's also the design style and how it clearly fits in a particular era of known Egyptian history.

      You focus in on this one thing, like inventions, and just run with an explanation that makes little sense from any other angle than the one specific one you're talking about. Like inventions, you try to draw a comparison to the invention/discovery of electricity. Though that boom in inventions can clearly be seen to all be related directly to the discovery of electricity, you see a parallel that simply isn't there.

      Here again, there's much known about Egyptian history. And the design and look of the Sphinx clearly shows to be from a specific era because of what it looks like. How it was done.

      So the clear answer is to look for the cause of erosion in an era where all the other clues line up as well.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      lol... Well, I did say it agreed with Jeremy's interpretation.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      I listened to half of that, Ron....and that was more than enough, lol! All talk, talking to the converted; quoting verses that were never defined as verses in the first place; from writings of anonymous men of antiquity, to the people’s of ancient times about their contemporary circumstances, un-known to us of these times; appealing to listeners about their inherent need to feel guilty and bad about their “sins......”

      And earning top $s doing it. Paid by those who revel in sin...

      Really got me feeling evil

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3JHs1Il0AE

      Here's someone else that agrees with you, Jeremy .

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 3 weeks ago from Tasmania

      https://www.wsfcs.k12.nc.us/cms/lib/NC01001395/Cen...

      I guess you both will know about this already, it’s new stuff for me. But scientific research can find the answers, and I can’t see that it’s got anything to do with a God or the human endeavour being limited to a few 1000 years.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Oh and, it has rained there about one inch total since 2500 bce, and while the Nile floods every year it just comes close to the Giza Plateau but hardly ever floods the plateau itself. It's higher than the flood plane. Last time it flooded above the normal levels was 1827 if I recall correctly. It's so predictable that there's been a harbor there since the first dynasty.

      Also I've learned something else. The walls were covered in granite in Khafre's reign. Under that is eroded limestone, meaning the sphinx has to be much older. Who made it? Who knows. But it wasn't done in the dynastic.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 3 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Actually, it's limestone, not sand.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      It's made of sand, Ron. We're not talking about water eroding granite or marble. It's sand.

      "Human settlement in Egypt dates back to at least 40,000 BC with Aterian tool manufacturing.[citation needed] Ancient Egyptian civilization coalesced around 3150 BC with the political unification of Upper and Lower Egypt under the first pharaoh of the First Dynasty, Narmer."

      - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Egypt

      Yes, there's been a human presence there, as it's along the bank of a river, for a very long time.

      And yes, humans are capable of inventing and creating all kinds of things. It's just we didn't start doing that until about 6000 years ago. And we haven't stopped since.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "More traditional Egyptologists reject this view for several reasons. First, a Sphinx built earlier than 7000 B.C. would upset our understanding of ancient civilization, as there is no evidence of an Egyptian civilization this old. "

      Right. Defenders of the status quo. The Sphinx IS the evidence of earlier civilization. Water erosion takes a long time and is not caused by the occasional flood.

      And it is well known that there were predynastic civilizations in Egypt advanced enough to make pottery going back to what even traditional archaeology says is 7000 bce.

      "That same grain grew in abundance year after year for millennia. And humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first farmers who could write, the Sumerians, say they were taught."

      Yeah, and around 10000 to 12000 bce a group of people finally saw it as a stable food source and hung around. No one needed to teach them besides the man or woman who started experimenting with grains. And that would have been before 12000 bce. People were gatherers long before that. They ate all kinds of plants for hundreds of thousands of years. No god needed to tell them that. If they didn't they would have starved.

      And if you believe the Sumerians, their civilization started 450 000 years ago according to them. And their gods came from other planets. Not what your bible says, is it?

      If you believe in gods then thousands of years after the fact you assume a god must have taught some one in the distant to make bread, clean his ass, and just about everything in between. This stuff was all written down hundreds and thousands of years after the facts that were lost to history.

      Sure they were taught by gods. How else could they have gained that knowledge? Very easily as it turns out. No god required. People can and do come up with novel and great ideas on their own every day.

      You saying we couldn't have come up with putting grain in our diets on our own? No.. but we can invent a rocket to the moon on our own... Right. Makes sense. Not.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      "More traditional Egyptologists reject this view for several reasons. First, a Sphinx built earlier than 7000 B.C. would upset our understanding of ancient civilization, as there is no evidence of an Egyptian civilization this old. "

      "The Sphinx is a rapidly weathering structure, appearing older than it is; subsurface water drainage or Nile flooding could have produced the pattern of erosion; and the Sphinx is believed to resemble Khafre, the pharaoh who built one of the nearby pyramids of Giza. He lived circa 2603-2578 B.C." - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077390/ns/technology_an...

      You - "They weren't taught anything. They found fields of grain that grew in abundance. They took advantage of the fact that every year they got a vast harvest."

      That same grain grew in abundance year after year for millennia. And humans have been around for tens of thousands of years. The first farmers who could write, the Sumerians, say they were taught.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Nonsense. Pre-dynastic societies are well known to have existed in Egypt. And because they don't know who else could have built it points to a much older culture. And erosion isn't a small bit of evidence. Its huge. Again, the ONLY way it can be explained is by it being much older than thought, no matter what other evidence they think they have to the contrary. Unless, of course you're going to say it was used as a fountain for thousands of years, and no one has ever said that or anything else that could explain rain erosion where it hasn't rained in 10000 years.

      That's why more and more archaeologists are coming on board with the much older date. It's actual indisputable physical evidence. And no one I've heard of is disputing that the erosion exists.

      "this was before Adam. Before free will. Before civilization or any of it. Nobody lived at this site. Only traveled there. Yet humans in the age when this site was erected weren't so sophisticated. This was before they were taught."

      Sorry, that makes no rational seance. They built a massive religious site winch rivals much later structures. They weren't taught anything. They found fields of grain that grew in abundance. They took advantage of the fact that every year they got a vast harvest.

      They didn't live at their religious site just like no one lived in Stonehenge . This was a meeting place for more than one village or group.

      They were far more advanced then other cultures in the region. And yes, they learned to farm, way before your free will nonsense.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      It's not "those" who defend the status quo. It's "most archaeologists and geologists". And it's all the other evidence, apart from the erosion, that supports an age of 4,500 years.

      The fact is, while some may think weathering on the Sphinx suggests a much older age, there's literally nothing else in all the evidence we have on ancient Egypt to suggest they, or anyone, existed to build the Sphinx that long ago.

      Re: gobekli tepe

      First off, Gobekli Tepe was not a civilization. Nobody lived there. What's probably most significant about this place is this ....

      " It is one of several sites in the vicinity of Karaca Dağ, an area which geneticists suspect may have been the original source of at least some of our cultivated grains (see Einkorn). Recent DNA analysis of modern domesticated wheat compared with wild wheat has shown that its DNA is closest in sequence to wild wheat found on Karaca Dağ 30 km (20 mi) away from the site, suggesting that this is where modern wheat was first domesticated.[37]"

      See, Genesis depicts God showing humans how to grow food...

      Gen1:29 - Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food.

      This was before Adam. Before free will. Before civilization or any of it. Nobody lived at this site. Only traveled there. Yet humans in the age when this site was erected weren't so sophisticated. This was before they were taught.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Right. water erosion which couldn't have happened over the last 4500 years.

      No need to tell me there are those who defend the status quo. There are those who still defend string theory. They have entire carriers dependent on being right. Doesn't mean they are.

      Fact is the sphinx has rain erosion, which took centuries of rain to create. I say that trumps any other ideas. It's a physical fact there's really no way to get around.

      Explain rain erosion without rain.

      Then explain why Gobleki Tepe, an obviously advanced civilization, obviously with the will to do things no other culture in the region did, fits your hypothesis, when it clearly doesn't and it couldn't have happened according to you for another 4 or 5 thousand years, because they were just robots..

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 4 weeks ago from Texas

      "Also, the new theory focuses only on a specific type of erosion and ignores other evidence that would support an age of 4,500 years.

      ...It’s exciting to contemplate the existence of an unknown civilization that predates the ancient Egyptians, but most archaeologists and geologists still favor the traditional view that the Sphinx is about 4,500 years old."

      - http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3077390/ns/technology_an...

      As for Gobleki Tepe, it's age and location specifically fit rather well with my hypothesis. It fits much better along my timeline than it does the more widely/commonly accepted timeline.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 4 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Glad to hear it. But I think Gobeci tepe and the Sphinx alone already suggest civilizations more advanced then most pre 10000 bce, which does your hypothesis no good.

      Also I think the events of that era with its rapid ice age and then massive flood events due to rapid warming would nicely explain the origins of the flood myths, and the extinction of many animals and perhaps some civilizations.

      But those facts don't fit your hypothesis.

      I'm actually excited about the possibilities for archaeology in the next 20 or 30 years. After that I'll probably be dead. lol...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      I invite anyone with anything to mess up this hypothesis. If you can show me it isn't true, then that helps me. I'm looking for the truth. The real truth. If that's that there's something more, something else, so be it.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "But nothing that suggests some long lost ancient advanced culture dating back to the last ice age. Nothing that supports your claims here that there's "all this evidence"."

      No, not as far as you're concerned because that would really mess up your hypothesis. We'll see. Will you ever admit it if it becomes clear you're wrong? I highly doubt it.

      And yes, some people are jumping to conclusions, but there's reason to question standard explanations. There's lots we don't know. And some of those buildings in Puma Punta were definitely not made with simple tools. Have you actually looked at them?

      And it is now becoming accepted that the Egyptian Sphinx is at least 10 to 12000 BCE.

      We'll see.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: Gunung Padang

      That's not controversy. That's one group making shit up and others not swallowing it.

      Re: Pumapunku to 536–600 AD

      "Some of the stones are in an unfinished state, showing some of the techniques used to shape them. They were initially pounded by stone hammers, which can still be found in numbers on local andesite quarries, creating depressions, and then slowly ground and polished with flat stones and sand.[9]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku

      Impressive as it is, really it's just a matter of time and effort.

      The ties between Gobekli Tepe and the aborigines of Australia are speculative at best.

      Yes, I agree there are a number of sites around the world that suggest we don't know as much as we think we do. Even the ancient cultures of Sumer and Egypt and the Indus Valley obviously knew some pretty advanced things given what we assume about them that we still haven't figured out yet.

      But nothing that suggests some long lost ancient advanced culture dating back to the last ice age. Nothing that supports your claims here that there's "all this evidence".

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      As I said, there's lots of controversy here. You're talking one site out of hundreds that leave a lot of questions beyond mainstream explanations. Have you looked at any of them yet? Try the H shaped structures of Puma Punta for a start. Tell me that was done with stone tools.

      Not to say the alternate camp is right either. Some ideas about lasers, sound levitation etc are way out there. But it's clear that either we don't understand ancient technology and methods, or another more advanced civilization built them, because they can't have been built with the simple stone tools mainstream thought suggests.

      And that would mean a pre-ice age civilization or aliens.

      Now, geopolymer is a new technology. It's only 30 years old really. But it's actually a simple process that ancients could have known about. It's kind of like cement, but done with natural stone chunks and dust to make a rock that looks exactly like real stone. They had the ingredients naturally, and could have done it. And that's what some in the geopolymer field are putting forth for how some of these structures were built. More testing is being done.

      It would mean that instead of dragging 80 ton rocks 100 miles to a building site would be turned into dragging manageable loads of material to a site, building forms and pouring the mixture into the mold, making construction relatively fast.

      But it still doesn't explain all these megaliths. Some were clearly quarried.

      So again, I don't know what the truth is and clearly no one does, so we'll have to leave it to farther investigation. But there is evidence here that could be and is being interpreted as evidence for older civilizations.

      And from the standpoint of the amount of time humans have been around, the amount of species that went extinct, and the fact that life started 3.5 billion years ago, it's not outside the realm of possibility that advanced civilizations have come and gone several times before we came along.

      They could have been humans, they may have been another species of humanoid. Who knows? Not me, and likely no one does.

      But we haven't got the full picture on this from current mainstream understanding. That's for sure.

      Archaeology is not anywhere near an exact science, nor by its own admission does it have all the answers. Plenty of room to learn.

      So I'm not saying there are older civilizations than we know of. I'm saying there's a good chance there were based on what's out there that we as yet have no really conclusive answers for. And again, until the last century we thought we had them all. Sumer proved we didn't. What's next? Is there a next? No one can say with any certainty. But it's fun looking into it.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: Gunung Padang

      "Thirty-four Indonesian scientists signed a petition questioning the motives and methods of the Hilman-Arif team.[1] Vulcanologist Sutikno Bronto states that the site is the neck of an ancient volcano and not a man-made pyramid.[1] An unnamed archaeologist suggests that the Hilman-Arif team has "created a civilisation around the period to explain their finding".[1]"

      "The site was dated 6,500 years BP (before present) by carbon radiometric dating at 3–4 metres below the surface (12,500 years at 8 to 10 metres below the surface), and the artifacts at the surface date to about 4,800 years BP."

      - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunung_Padang_Megali...

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Can't find anything on the subject? Let me help.

      “Everything we’ve been taught about the origins of civilization may be wrong. Old stories about Atlantis and other great lost civilizations of prehistory, long dismissed as myths by archaeologists, look set to be proved true.” ~ Danny Natawidjaja, PhD, senior geologist with the Research Centre for Geotechnology at the Indonesian Institute of Sciences

      "What Natawidjaja discovered at Gunung Padang was astounding. The hill was actually not a natural hill but a 300-ft high step-pyramid. And what’s even more controversial is that the structure was much older than anyone imagined. 20,000 BC to 22,000 BC"

      “At 7,000 or more years older than Stonehenge the megaliths of Gobekli Tepe, like the deeply buried megaliths of Gunung Padang mean that the timeline of history taught in our schools and universities for the best part of the last hundred years can no longer stand. It is beginning to look as though civilization, as I argued in my controversial 1995 bestseller Fingerprints of the Gods, is indeed much older and much more mysterious than we thought.” ~ Graham Hancock

      "The Greek philosopher Plato was also a believer that high civilization existed well into the last Ice Age. His recorded dialogs with other scholars of his time date Atlantis and its submergence by floods and earthquakes at around 9,000 BC, which is, coincidentally, in agreement with modern scientific knowledge about the rapidly rising sea levels towards the end of the Ice Age at 9,600 BC."

      "The question now arises: What happened to prehistoric civilizations? Why did they not survive the “Younger Dryas” period, which dates from 10,900 BC to 9,600BC? It is known that the Younger Dryas was a truly cataclysmic period on Earth, with immense climate instability and terrifying global conditions. Scientists have long debated the mystery behind this and the reasons for the massive extinction of North American megafauna such as short-faced bears and saber-toothed cats dated around 11,000 BC. Was the same mystery responsible for a massive human population decline and disappearance of advanced prehistoric societies?"

      New research conducted by geologists around the world, including James Kennett, professor emeritus in the Department of Earth Science at the University of California Santa Barbara, has linked the Younger Dryas period to a cosmic-impact event, possibly a comet collision with Earth. The international research team from 21 universities and 6 countries has identified a distribution of nanodiamonds of extraterrestrial nature at 32 sites in 11 countries, spanning an area of 50 million square kilometers across the Northern Hemisphere. Kennett comments:

      "It’s known that during the Younger Dryas, the Earth experienced great global instability, with a sharp decline in temperatures even colder than during the peak of the Ice Age. A return to a warmer climate around 9,600 BC caused a sudden melting of the remaining ice caps, resulting in a quick rising of the ocean levels."

      Great flood anyone?

      "A Gulf of Cambay urban site has recently been dated by Indian archaeologists to 7500 BCE. This would totally change our view of history as we now date cities only after 3500 BCE. It is here that Hancock is now seeking what he calls the holy grail of his quest for this older civilization of the pre-Ice Age era. It is here that we can look for the tradition of Manu, the Hindu flood figure and first king and law giver, and the great sages, the Angirasa and Bhrigu rishis who were traditionally connected both to Manu and to the sea. This earlier civilization was preserved in India in two traditions. The first is the Vedic tradition, which grew up on the Sarasvati River at the end of the Ice Age. The second is the Tamilian tradition, which reflected pre-Ice Age cultures off the coast of South India."

      Austrailia is another mystery. Australian Aboriginals tell stories of what can only be described as living dinosaurs. The Burrunjor is unquestionably a T-Rex, and the Kulta is unquestionably a sauropod. As the fossil record shows, these are not mythological creatures. And the Aboriginal people report them as contemporaries with human beings of the pre-ice age. Their artwork too, accurately portrays these creatures. _ Rex Gilroy: Mysterious Australia

      Even odder is that the carvings on the stones of Gobekli Tepe can also be found in Australia

      "Japan's Jomon culture has recently (1999) been moved back from being dated at 3000 BC, to pre-ice age 14,500, by the discovery of one site in Aomori prefecture in northern Japan Since then Jomon pottery was found in Valdivia in South America and in Vanuatu." From the book: In the wake of the Jomon.

      A short list of megalythic structures that probably couldn't have been built using just prehistoric tech.

      The Carnac stones Brittany, Aswan, Egypt, lies a gigantic piece of stone which was intended to be erected as an obelisk. Spain—Cueva de Menga, Cueva de Viera, and the Tholos of El Romeral. Ggantija, Maltese island of Gozo. Yangshan Quarry, China, Baalbek Lebanon, Madhya Pradesh state, India, Thunder Stone Saint Petersburg, Russia, Colossi of Memnon, Gochang, Hwasun and Ganghwa Dolmen Sites in Korea, Puma Punku Bolivia , Balbec, Kailash, Dozens of sites in England Scottland and Ireland.

      Many sites said to have been built by Rome or the Inkas have a major mystery. The newer strucktures that can be attributed to these cultures use smaller stones built upon massive stone bases much older and beyond the tech of the time, not withstanding that Rome used crains, they would have been unable to lift 80 + ton blocks.

      The Sphinx in Egypt is definately thousands of years older than we thought. It has very clear signs of water irrosion. The only way it could is if it were built before that part of the world became a desert. That's minimum 9000 bce and it could be much older.

      Again, I'm not saying I believe there were or weren't advanced civilizations pre-ice age. But like I said, there is more and more evidence coming out that shows we really don't know how old the oldest human civilizations are, and there is more than enough evidence to show that if the people we think made these megaliths all over the world actually made them, we don't know much if anything about their technology, because some of these structures could not have been made by stone or basic metal tools, which is all we think they had from what's been found. But no denying the structures exist.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "A few decades ago we didn't know Sumer existed. What else haven't we found yet? I would't bet on it being the first.Just the oldest we have good evidence for right now."

      There's always that. Things yet to be discovered that will inevitably shed some light. And then it comes back to faith. The way you just know it is will be eventually discovered. We just haven't found it... yet.

      Meanwhile, I've got this explanation that actually ties together all of these seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces and lays out one cohesive explanation that has in my own experience predicted what could be found and where/when I should look.

      From my perspective it's very clear that the only hang-up here is your rejection of what I'm suggesting based mainly on the fact that that's not what you want the answer to be. It's like Galileo when he invented the telescope and witnessed for himself that Venus had phases just as the moon does and through which witnessed with his own eyes evidence to confirm that our planetary system did indeed rotate around the sun.

      I've seen it for myself. In action. So seeing that, then reading through all of your thought progressions as we discuss it, it's apparent to me.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      It's as simple as that, so none of those other cultures, in the hundreds and thousands of years they existed, there was never that one idea that started everything off? It only happened in Sumer? You explain it away, and it sounds rational enough. The problem is the evidence doesn't reflect the explanation you're giving.

      Yes, I know all about gobekli tepe and the wrenches it throws into contemporary human evolutionary models. But no, it doesn't throw a wrench in mine. In fact, given that there's DNA evidence to show this to be the origin of wheat production, it makes sense. In Genesis, before Adam and Eve, God explains to humans how "seed-bearing plants" can be used for food (Gen1:29). I think there's a connection there.

      You - "Yeah, if there were pre-ice age advanced civilizations it would completely destroy your hypothesis, wouldn't it? No wonder you're not finding any evidence at all for it."

      Well then here's your chance. Just give me what I'm not finding due to my obvious bias wanting the outcome to be something specific.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Yeah, if there were pre-ice age advanced civilizations it would completely destroy your hypothesis, wouldn't it? No wonder you're not finding any evidence at all for it.

      But to be fair, I'm not saying there were, but some unexplained archaeological finds would be explained if there were, like monolithic structures that couldn't have been built with stone or bronze tools.

      However, there is a new hypothesis by a leading manufacturer of geopolymer that at least some of those structures are aggregate stone as opposed to carved. In other words cement made with stone dust and small chunks mixed with water , lime, and other natural available substances. This can by put in molds and is almost indistinguishable from natural stone.

      But places like Gobeci Tempi that are 12000 years old or more kind of mess up your hypothesis too. And there are more places like it cropping up all over the place in Eastern Europe.

      A few decades ago we didn't know Sumer existed. What else haven't we found yet? I would't bet on it being the first.Just the oldest we have good evidence for right now.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Yes, exactly. And it's those desires and needs that were new. That was the catalyst. Free will."

      Nop, just will. And again, all it takes is one guy with a good idea to make all the difference. A trader creates a way to record transactions, people wonder what he's doing. Others start doing the same, and soon it becomes wide spread and standardized. Chimps can make a few dozen different tools.

      Kids watch and learn. They and we transmit what we learn. It's as simple as that.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      "It all came together when it came together due to the factors and conditions that existed to make it come about."

      What factors and conditions? What in particular was the catalyst? What factors existed that didn't exist in Catul Huyuk? In Lepenski Vir? In Vinca-Turdas? These were all organized largely populated farming cultures that came before. So what was different to make your explanation work?

      "And there is more and more evidence of pre-ice age advanced civilizations."

      Where? I've been looking. I just looked again.

      "Not every culture has the desire or need for it until it does."

      Yes, exactly. And it's those desires and needs that were new. That was the catalyst. Free will.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "If that's the case, according to your explanation of how things work, these things should have been invented thousands of years before"

      How do you arrive at that idea? It all came together when it came together due to the factors and conditions that existed to make it come about. Why and indeed how would it come about before all that was required for it to come about was in place? It's like saying the computer should have been invented before the silicon chip or electricity. Doesn't make sense.

      "There were numerous largely populated cultures that could have benefited from these advancements that they never happened. Those conditions weren't unique to Sumer."

      They were, obviously. Everything has to start somewhere. And civilizations were sprouting all over the place. We're still not certain Sumer really was the first. It's just the first we know of so far. And there is more and more evidence of pre-ice age advanced civilizations.

      It's like the phone. Once all the things required were in place, it was invented independently by at least three people in different parts of the world within days of each other.

      But not every country in the world invented it even though it was there to invent.

      The idea has to exist in the mind first, which comes in to being when the elements exist to do it. Not every culture has the desire or need for it until it does.

      The iron age came and many cultures hadn't even learned to make copper or bronze. They remained in the stone age until they were forced out by cultures that were more advanced. That's how this works.

      "Okay Ron. Sure. Nevermind it completely flies in the face of everything else you've said. "

      Guess you never understood the implications of what I've said then, because there's no conflict there.

      "it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - Archaeologist WJ Perry"

      Bull shit. The evidence shows anything but. He had a lot of strange ideas few others in the field agree with. Read some Steve Pinker.

      Yes, there are those who think there was no violence for thousands of years. It flys in the face of logic and human/animal behavior. Small related isolated tribes aren't going to have much violence. But it increases as those tribes meet strangers.

      It increases because cultures meet, cities form etc. So yeah, you can't have much evidence of wars when there's ten guys on each side a hundred miles from each other. So you wouldn't have mass graves that would indicate wars in low populated areas.

      Chimps commit genocide. Does it matter that that means 12 dead instead a thousand? Its still genocide.

      You can't compare these ages as if they have the same conditions attached to them. Ten killed out of a tribe of 100 is ten percent of the population killed.

      An increase in violence is explained nicely by higher populations and the meeting and later integration of non-related cultures. Nothing to do with supposed "free" will.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Taylor has a master's degree (with distinction) in Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology and a PhD in

      Psychology from Liverpool John Moores University."-

      Good for him. Doesn't mean he's right. Others with the same and better qualifications disagree. It's fine to have a hypothesis. But again, until proven true it's just another guess.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 5 weeks ago from Ottawa

      It's probably a 19th century construct. The 2012 dooms day cult and UFO people apparently love/loved it. But at least you now know you're not alone in these ideas, even though their story doesn't exactly match your hypothesis or the bible.

      Still, happy to have been able to help.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 5 weeks ago from Texas

      Believe me, I was surprised by the apparent lack of connections that anyone else had made. It seemed so apparent to me that I was sure I would run across another who had had a similar thought. In fact, when I found nothing I had about decided I was off my rocker. Considering all the people throughout history who have taken such an interest in all of this beyond and long before me, for there to be nothing seemed strange.

      I have not heard of this Kolbrin bible, and am kind of surprised, given all the commonality, that it never came up once in any of my searches. I'll have to look into it more.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      Never let it be said I don't do my research, nor that I don't try to help, nor that I don't admit when I'm wrong. As it turns out you are not, as I originally thought, the only one who thinks the bible can be interpreted to show evolution and creation, and mix it with the Sumerian time line and indeed Enki with Adam and Eve.

      If you haven't heard of this book then it just goes to show that there really is nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes. I've had it happen to me several times. After years of non-science study and phylosophical deliberation, as a teenager I told a phisicist that I predicted that science would discover that enery and matter are the same thing in different form like H2O can be liquid solid or gas. He informed me that Einstien had already proved that in the early 1900s.

      If you have heard of this book, I can now see where you got your ideas, and adapted them to the current bible.

      It's called: The Kolbrin bible. Here's what one web page says about it.

      “The Kolbrin is more significant than a mere religious history lesson. It is the first Judaic/Christian document that binds our scientific understanding of human evolution with creationism and intelligent design."

      "The mathematical principles from the Kolbrin reflect the ancient interest of the Druids in the stars, mathematics and global catastrophe. The Kolbrin speaks of the return of the “Destroyer” planet, a dark star that has caused a disaster in the past and is predicted to do so again.”

      It also puts forward the idea that The Kolbrin may be the Bible of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel.

      Now, its provenance is almost zero. Some say its a hoax, others say it was written in the 1700s, others claim it's 3500 years old. What ever the case it's a fun read and it merges Sumerian myth with Gen and modern evolution, just the way you like it.

      So if you haven't read it, go to: https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-UYOlu_UlIMBrR3ju/T...

      If you click on PDF mirror in blue and large type at the top of the page you can download it in pdf format.

      Enjoy.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      By the way, thought you might find this interesting.

      Steve Taylor is the author of the book I refer to and quoted a couple of times in the previous post. He wrote the book that details everything I'm saying, so he basically agrees with all of this ..

      "Taylor has a master's degree (with distinction) in Consciousness and Transpersonal Psychology and a PhD in Psychology from Liverpool John Moores University."- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Taylor_(author...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: Cities create new problems and new jobs and new jobs feeding the city and a need for administration.

      If that's the case, according to your explanation of how things work, these things should have been invented thousands of years before. There were numerous largely populated cultures that could have benefited from these advancements that they never happened. Those conditions weren't unique to Sumer.

      Re: Individuals are not all that predictable, but groups are much more predictable statistically.

      Okay Ron. Sure. Nevermind it completely flies in the face of everything else you've said. In groups, totally different. You can clearly just assume how things went because it's groups of humans, so....

      Re: ..you have no evidence that shows we're more prone to violence now than before.

      "it is an error, as profound as it is universal, to think that men in the food-gathering stage were given to fighting... All available facts go to show that the food-gathering stage of history must have been one of perfect peace." - Archaeologist WJ Perry

      "For the first ninety-five thousand years after the Homo sapiens Stone Age began (until 4000 BCE), there is no evidence that man engaged in war on any level, let alone on a level requiring organized group violence. There is little evidence of any killing at all." - Anthropologist Richard Gabriel

      "the prevailing view is still that male dominance, along with private property and slavery, were all by-products of the agrarian revolution...despite the evidence that, on the contrary, equality between the sexes - and among all people - was the general norm in the Neolithic." -Riane Eisler, American Scholar, Cultural Historian

      "There is the same lack of evidence for violent conflict throughout the simple horticultural period of history as in the hunter-gather era. Graves don't contain weapons; images of warfare or weapons are still absent from artwork; and villages and towns aren't situated in inaccessible places or surrounded by defensive walls." - Steve Taylor, The Fall

      "If this was the case - and most scholars agree that it was - then we would expect the transition to agriculture to be accompanied by a great deal of conflict as the groups competed over dwindling resources. But as we've seen, there is almost no evidence of warfare in these areas until the fifth millennium BCE, more than 3,000 years after the advent of agriculture" - Steve Taylor, The Fall

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Re: Gen account is way after the Sumerian story

      What the Jews wrote while in captivity is the books of Moses. They re-wrote, word for word, a text that existed previously. According to the documentary hypothesis this text was edited together from at least 4 different, even older, sources. 400BC while in exile is not the origin of these texts.

      Re: god allowed the Sumerians to believe Cain was a god

      It didn't matter if God allowed it or not. They had free will. He had no control. But yes, he stressed His message is that there is only one God, but couldn't make them do what He wanted.

      Re: One would think your bible would mention that others didn't have free will ....

      That's the story being told. It directly says it. At the end of Gen1 it says God created humans, male and female. He then deemed them and all else He created 'good'. Then He created Adam who, as you know, wasn't 'good'.

      The story makes it clear in the creation account that allow, including humans, behave according to His will. he gives them specific commands and then deems them 'good'. Then Adam, then free will. The story directly tells a story to show how Adam is different. From then on the story makes it clear these people are not under God's control. No, there's not one succinct verse that specifically calls 'free will' by name and lays it all out. It's the context of the story being told. And it's clear.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "You attribute these behaviors to responses from humans reacting to the environment they're in. the mind is the unknown in this scenario. The mind, that complex system you're always carrying on about, you seem to now think responds in these set ways that you can actually guess accurately to explain it. Kind of a contradiction, don't you think"

      Not at all. Individuals are not all that predictable, but groups are much more predictable statistically. Adapting to environment is what we do, and there are ways that work and ways that don't. And it's obvious that behavior changes depending on the dynamic that's being faced. I see no contradiction what so ever.

      " Now something that humans are moved to much more often. Because of free will."

      Nonsense. First, there's no such thing as free will, and second, you have no evidence that shows we're more prone to violence now than before. In fact there are studies that show the opposite. Statistically it's far less likely you will be murdered than in any other time in history. Yes, we hear about it every day, But you have a two percent probability by population of being murdered by war or personal enemies or by random violence compared to 30 percent in the dark ages and up to fifty percent at the start of the current era.

      That's just one study.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "The "probable answer in light of what we know" isn't this. Based on what we know, if the progressions of inventions were as you claim, there'd be an invention you could point to and show how that one invention led directly to the boom of inventions to follow. So, "in light of what we know" that isn't correct."

      Nonsense. We know there was a progression from hunter gatherers to farming and small villages, to towns that formed together to create cities and modern civilization.

      We know writing started with math due to trading, then progressed religious symbols/writing, and then progressed to written language.

      Cities create new problems and new jobs and new jobs feeding the city and a need for administration. It was a clear progression. No one went from hunting and gathering to living in nations. No one invented written language out of thin air.

      Evolution is the best answer for the evidence.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "So, in this case, the Sumerian version explains the Genesis account. "

      No, the Gen account is way after the Sumerian story and doesn't explain it in any way. And you have zero evidence linking Enki to anyone in Gen. So he builds a city, so what? Gen says several people built cities. And your telling me god allowed the Sumerians to believe Cain the murderer was a god? Are you mad? That doesn't sound like your god.

      No, the Jews stole and adapted the old stories. And there's no such thing as free will given by your god. One would think your bible would mention that others didn't have free will. Oh, and it would have mentioned others pre Adam and Eve. But it doesn't,because they are the first Hebrews, and the first people created. Don't blame me. It's what your bible says in black and white. And its bullshit from start to finish. No wonder you have to reinterpret it so it makes sense to you. But it doesn't.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Yes, the site of Eridu was built on many times because it was always a special place. It was the first city of Sumer, established by the first of their gods to show up in their land one day, Enki. I'm sure that's the reason why this location was chosen as the place to build the tower.

      Yes, Abraham came from a land where they believed in many gods. Which is why it's such a common theme in the texts to preach one god. They were corrected the masses who had been confused by Adam's kin. And Adam's kin, having free will, took full advantage, as free willed humans usually do. In Genesis 4, right after Cain is banished he voices a concern that he'll be harmed by 'others'. Because there were other humans.

      God also said Cain would be unable to grow food and provide for himself, making him a "restless wanderer", yet right after it says Cain established a city. Cain is Enki. Enki, according to the Sumerians, showed up, explained that he made them and their purpose was to work the fields and provide for them. Enki lived in the temple and governed the work labor in the fields. The people provided for their god. This same god gave them the "gifts of civilization". Establishing a city.

      So, in this case, the Sumerian version explains the Genesis account. This is how Cain was able to overcome his "restless wanderer" destiny. If all worked according to God's will then this would have stuck. But in this environment with free will, God's will didn't rule the day.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      The "probable answer in light of what we know" isn't this. Based on what we know, if the progressions of inventions were as you claim, there'd be an invention you could point to and show how that one invention led directly to the boom of inventions to follow. So, "in light of what we know" that isn't correct.

      You attribute these behaviors to responses from humans reacting to the environment they're in. the mind is the unknown in this scenario. The mind, that complex system you're always carrying on about, you seem to now think responds in these set ways that you can actually guess accurately to explain it. Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?

      Yes, there was violence. There's violence in the animal kingdom. There are instincts at work, changing conditions and environments. Things happen. It's not that there was a total lack of violence. It's the distinct change in behavior that made violence a much more common thing. No longer an isolated insodent here and there. Now something that humans are moved to much more often. Because of free will.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "The tower of Babel was in Eridu, a Sumerian city."

      By then a Babylonian city. Built by a Babylonian king. Work stopped on it due to lack of resources. Then started again by the next king and stopped again for similar reasons. This from Babylonian documents. Clearly adapted for Judaism when they were in captivity, writing their bible for the first time.

      " Abraham's father was from Ur, a Sumerian city. It's consistent with the hypothesis that both depictions of history share commonality."

      I think he was from Sumer too. But there are scholars that disagree. But that doesn't prove anything. He left, taking his god with him, as was tradition in those days. "the god of Abraham" Probably a Sumerian god, one of many, who then becomes seen as the only god by some Hebrew factions. At least one: The tribe of Judah.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Yeah, there's an evolution "explanation" when you put it together with a bunch of assumptions of how it 'probably' worked. You can make it all fit, twisting here and there, to make that "explanation" fit. I've given you specific reasons why those explanations don't fly. "

      Well as I've said a thousand times I am giving you the probable answer in light of what we know. But I'm not saying there weren't events like catastrophes that altered evolution. That's the way it works. Critical mass changes and catastrophic events can produce large change quickly.

      We weren't there and your two authors weren't either and don't say anything about free will not being in North/South America when Japanese, Australians, Egyptians and others came over pre-Columbus.

      The point is, as I've said before, there is a real controversy among scholars about our behavior in prehistoric times. There are dozens of opinions. But I don't think you can paint all cultures with the same brush. That's where the varying opinions and evidence comes from. Our ancestress were diverse in behavior. Just like apes/primates are today.

      And one of your "free" will arguments is that we only became violent when free will was introduced.

      For a long time you used to hear the myth that humans were the only ones that kill their own species. That's wrong.

      And it's also wrong to think primates have only one culture or way of behaving. They have many cultures. Some violent, some not. Some egalitarian, some patriarchal.

      When did other primates get "free" will?

      I consider that evidence against the idea that those behaviors in humans are due to anything but natural causes, and they have always been with us.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      The tower of Babel was in Eridu, a Sumerian city. Abraham's father was from Ur, a Sumerian city. It's consistent with the hypothesis that both depictions of history share commonality.

      Gilgamesh was a Sumerian demi-god. He was born of both god and human descent. Much like in the way Genesis 6 says the 'sons of God' married and had children with the 'daughters of humans'. In the story he goes to visit the "flood hero", Moses in Genesis and Utnapishtim in Sumerian because he was centuries old. Gilgamesh had recently witnessed a friend, also a demigod, die. He became concerned about his mortality. He wanted to find out from the flood hero how he had cheated death and lived so long.

      The stories not only share commonality, they blend together in some remarkable ways.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "You may not even see what you do as spin, but it is. You find a problem in your hypothesis and you solve it by reinterpreting the bible. You have to know others don't interpret it like you do."

      I know this is what you assume of me. That's been clear. You're still far from right. I also know you probably assume I'm lying when I say I formed the hypothesis first, then made predictions based on that hypothesis, then set out to either pass/fail the predictions. I didn't change anything. Any biblical interpretation was done while forming the hypothesis, long before the historical events were determined.

      You - "You even still think Moses wrote Gen, when it's clear to Jewish scholars he couldn't have, and that Exodus never happened. And I suppose he wrote about his own death, eh?"

      When have I ever said that? I think you're confusing me with someone else.

      You - "If you know the history of the bible you couldn't possibly think it was accurate historical truth. Most it's stories are direct ripoffs from all the beliefs of the region, and particularly Sumer and Babylon."

      I know the history of the bible. In fact, the reason I focus on the first 5 chapters is because these are the oldest pieces. No known origin. Yes, the stories of Genesis and Sumerian/Babylonian stories have commonality. They're both talking about the same things. They're both telling stories from the history of that region because they're both from that region.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Yeah, it's easy to project your own experience as a human onto animal behavior when that animal is so similar to us in so many ways. But the experts on the topic disagree with the conclusion you've reached through your observations"

      Wrong. The last twenty years of research agree with me. Previous to that they didn't. New evidence shows theres really not that much difference.

      Robert Sapolsky from Stanford is a good resourse to start from.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWZAL64E0DI

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Well, you could be honest with yourself and realize what you're accusing me of simply isn't possible. Whatever alternate explanation you're going to posit, it's got to at least be feasible. This 'twisting things' explanation isn't."

      Oh it's not only feasible, its a fact. And again, it's not unusual for people to do it, nor is it hard to do.. Trump does it every day. But he's not good at it.

      What don't you understand about spin? You know very well people do it all the time. Advertisers are trying to turn it in to a science.

      You may not even see what you do as spin, but it is. You find a problem in your hypothesis and you solve it by reinterpreting the bible. You have to know others don't interpret it like you do.

      Then you try to make it match science, and it clearly doesn't unless you literally reinterpret everything. Like trying to tell me the earth was already created from the first line in Gen, when it clearly says it wasn't created till day 3. Then you ignore the hard firmament with water on top of it, and say the clear separation of water, creating a bubble in the middle is just talking about atmosphere. It's an absurd interpretation never before hinted at by any theologian I know of.

      You even still think Moses wrote Gen, when it's clear to Jewish scholars he couldn't have, and that Exodus never happened. And I suppose he wrote about his own death, eh?

      If you know the history of the bible you couldn't possibly think it was accurate historical truth. Most it's stories are direct ripoffs from all the beliefs of the region, and particularly Sumer and Babylon.

      And surprise surprise, they only became acquainted with some of them, like the tower story in captivity in Babylon, then "twisted" it into a story about just one god instead of the many the stories talk about. See? That's an example of spin: your bible.

      Try studying the history of your bible. You'll see it's not what you think it is.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 6 weeks ago from Tasmania

      For sure, yes. Discussion/debate can be edifying.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      "If anyone continues to argue the nature of a concept, I see that as a waste of time. You can argue until you are blue in the face, it will never prove or disprove the concept."

      No, it won't prove or disprove the concept, but the act of discussing/debating can and often does help both better define and understand that concept.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 6 weeks ago from Tasmania

      My previous post was sent prior to following that link, Jeremy. I have great respect for Jane and her outlook on life. She practises what she preaches. (Incidentally, she and I worked for the same film company in London during the late 1950s)

      Maybe the reason we can share and discuss concepts is the complexity of our tools for communication ... words.

    • jonnycomelately profile image

      Alan 6 weeks ago from Tasmania

      This is the way I see it. (Accepting others will see it differently, but that does not make my point of view wrong, same as the way I see it doesn’t make someone else’s point of view wrong.)

      We give a name, a word, to a concept. That concept is a construct of the human mind. We cannot know about any concepts arising from a non-human mind.

      A concept, being of the mind, has no substance. An example of “ a concept “ is Ego. So is God. And The Devil. Likewise Morality.

      Once we give a name to a concept, it can be referred to as a “thing,” but it is still without form. We can use metaphor, analogy, etc., to describe that “thing;” in fact we need to do so, because there is essentially no conclusive reality to the concept.

      As soon as we put dimensions to a concept, a physical existence in other words, then it ceases to be conceptual.

      If anyone continues to argue the nature of a concept, I see that as a waste of time. You can argue until you are blue in the face, it will never prove or disprove the concept.

      It’s a bit like you and me standing in front of a mirror and trying to understand the image of each other reflected in the mirror. Those images are fleeting, only dependent for their existence upon your’s and my point of view. Even more absurd would it be if those two images argued with each other about their reality of existence....when you and I depart from the mirror, the images cease. They are no more.

      Similarly, when you and I depart the physical existence of this life, we cease to “be.” Period.

      Why must we die? Simple ... to make way for the new. We are no more important than providing reflections in the Great Mirror of Life. To believe otherwise is to feed into that Super Ego.

      Just another Concept!

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      Here, this is a good short read on the topic ...

      https://www.livescience.com/39803-do-animals-know-...

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "You do. What else can I say?"

      Well, you could be honest with yourself and realize what you're accusing me of simply isn't possible. Whatever alternate explanation you're going to posit, it's got to at least be feasible. This 'twisting things' explanation isn't.

      You - "I can show you five books to your two that say what I'm saying."

      Yeah, I'm sure I've probably read the same. Thing is, most times those statements are filled with 'probablies' and 'maybes' because their guesses based on an assumed progression that you just know is there so it's 'probably' this and 'probably' that.

      The books I'm referring to are showing something very specific in the evidence. In these places during this timeframe we see these shared characteristics, in these places we see the other of two sets of characteristics that clearly show two distinct behavior patterns within human cultures. They then trace the transition from one to the other throughout human history.

      You - "Nop, that would be you, not me. I was talking about Native Americans, not Sumerians. Just to make the point that they had "free" will before European invasion and your fantasy altered super Jew genes got them."

      First off, as I explained before, this had nothing to do with the Jews. They weren't a people until 2000 years later.

      Second, native Americans, those that warred, were descended from the Incas and the Aztecs, who were all descended from the Olmecs. The Olmecs, as it explains in those books I referred you to, showed those same post-free will/ego behaviors. This is explained through pre-Columbian Japanese who traveled to the Americas. Ties between Olmecs and Japanese writings/art/astronomical knowledge show a correlation.

      You - "Utter nonsense. Again: No where is there an unusual leap that isn't explained by evolution, despite what you may want to believe. I don't have to make anything up. That's all you. Stop projecting."

      Yeah, there's an evolution "explanation" when you put it together with a bunch of assumptions of how it 'probably' worked. You can make it all fit, twisting here and there, to make that "explanation" fit. I've given you specific reasons why those explanations don't fly. You continue to ignore them or just make an erroneous comparison to electricity to explain it away.

      You - "You know how I can tell my cat has an ego? Watch how he behaves."

      Yeah, it's easy to project your own experience as a human onto animal behavior when that animal is so similar to us in so many ways. But the experts on the topic disagree with the conclusion you've reached through your observations.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "No, no, no. How many times can you go back to this 'twisting' thing? You make it sound like I can just take anything and somehow 'twist' it around to make it fit."

      You do. What else can I say?

      "You say you've looked extensively, then you say this. This tells me your looking wasn't very extensive."

      Why? Because what I said doesn't fit your hypothesis? Yeah, I know that. I can show you five books to your two that say what I'm saying.

      "So rather than twisting things to try to make your point, you're just making stuff up? Here's a link detailing one of the oldest peace treaties of the ancient world..."

      Nop, that would be you, not me. I was talking about Native Americans, not Sumerians. Just to make the point that they had "free" will before European invasion and your fantasy altered super Jew genes got them.

      You are the one making shit up, like you believe in evolution but for hundreds of thousands of years no one had "free" will till Adam and Eve came along, what? 4000 bce?

      That's completely made up shit that no one but you believes and for which there's no evidence at all. Zero. Less than zero, in fact. And it's not remotely logical.

      I didn't say "modern" ego. You did. I was saying there's no evidence that "modern" ego is any different from "ancient" ego. Ego is ego.

      Yes, behavior and beliefs evolve. No fantasy super Jew ego required.

      "Yeah, but not until after the emergence of free will."

      Utter nonsense. Again: No where is there an unusual leap that isn't explained by evolution, despite what you may want to believe. I don't have to make anything up. That's all you. Stop projecting.

      "So, in your "extensive" searches, what evidence of the modern ego are you looking for exactly? Because the existence of an ego can only be determined through observances of behavior."

      Duh! Behavior is as much cultural as anything else. Ego is awareness of self identity. The "I". There is zero reason to think people 70,000 years ago didn't have one. You don't need your fantasy magic will to have an ego. My cat has one for dog sake. If we didn't we wouldn't survive, which is why it evolved with us. You know how I can tell my cat has an ego? Watch how he behaves.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      By the way ...

      "No evidence of "modern ego" exists as far as I can see"

      Yeah, there's no evidence of the ego existing currently either. Why? Because it's a product of the mind. Exists only in the mind. So there's no evidence to support its existence.

      So, in your "extensive" searches, what evidence of the modern ego are you looking for exactly? Because the existence of an ego can only be determined through observances of behavior.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "Only in your mind. It proves nothing. No evidence of "modern ego" exists as far as I can see, and I've looked extensively."

      I refer to two books that cover the topic extensively. If you haven't checked them out, I recommend them.

      You - "You're taking something said by a few archaeologists about some human tribes being egalitarian till we started farming and twisting it into evidence for "free" will intervention. It doesn't wash."

      No, no, no. How many times can you go back to this 'twisting' thing? You make it sound like I can just take anything and somehow 'twist' it around to make it fit.

      You - "All it is that means men and woman took on different roles, and people started valuing personal property as well as their traditional territory as they had always done."

      You say you've looked extensively, then you say this. This tells me your looking wasn't very extensive.

      You - "Previously they had had wars with each other. But way before Europeans invaded, they had made peace via treaty."

      So rather than twisting things to try to make your point, you're just making stuff up? Here's a link detailing one of the oldest peace treaties of the ancient world...

      https://www.thoughtco.com/oldest-peace-treaties-fr...

      It's a Sumerian treaty dating back to about 2500BC.

      You - "In the middle east tribes were more patriarchal."

      Yeah, but not until after the emergence of free will.

      You - "No where is there an unusual leap that isn't explained by evolution, despite what you may want to believe."

      Yeah, I guess so, if you make everything up. You didn't even take the time to try to 'twist' it.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Because there's a direct correlation between the behavior changes that signify the emergence of the modern ego and where those inventions began to happen. And there's the physical evidence to show those inventions being used in practices that didn't exist prior to that behavior change."

      Only in your mind. It proves nothing. No evidence of "modern ego" exists as far as I can see, and I've looked extensively. You're taking something said by a few archaeologists about some human tribes being egalitarian till we started farming and twisting it into evidence for "free" will intervention. It doesn't wash.

      All it is that means men and woman took on different roles, and people started valuing personal property as well as their traditional territory as they had always done.

      It was never a question of natives not having clear territory that they protected. They had treaties with other groups around them. Their ancestors were buried on their territory and that land was and still is sacred to them.

      Previously they had had wars with each other. But way before Europeans invaded, they had made peace via treaty.

      They tried the same with us. We reneged on most of them. They farmed before the Europeans came.

      In the middle east tribes were more patriarchal. But they started farming around 10,000 bce. They were building complex temples and other structures.

      We developed complex language probably 70,000 years ago. We went from stone tools to metal tools and weapons. Larger and larger villages turn into large towns and then cities.

      From that comes serious trading and commerce, comes writing math symbols, and then language.

      No where is there an unusual leap that isn't explained by evolution, despite what you may want to believe.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 6 weeks ago from Texas

      "Care to prove that at least? How could you possibly know?"

      Because there's a direct correlation between the behavior changes that signify the emergence of the modern ego and where those inventions began to happen. And there's the physical evidence to show those inventions being used in practices that didn't exist prior to that behavior change.

      "Yeah. I know you wish that were true. It's not. It may not have been just normal evolution, but certainly mostly. Look what the little discovery of electricity did in less than 100 years. That's how it works. No "free" will required. Just living and learning."

      Electricity is not a good comparison. Progressions that came about after electricity were direct results of that discovery. There is no such progression here to explain what happened.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 6 weeks ago from Ottawa

      "Yes, you can. We can't prove antimatter exists either, "

      Nonsense. We can make it. How's that for proof?

      "We can understand God by observing what's created."

      Yeah, no you can't.

      "Free will simply changed what those needs were. Necessities of free will were not necessities before free will."

      Care to prove that at least? How could you possibly know?

      "And no, changes to the environment don't explain things nicely. "

      Yeah. I know you wish that were true. It's not. It may not have been just normal evolution, but certainly mostly. Look what the little discovery of electricity did in less than 100 years. That's how it works. No "free" will required. Just living and learning.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 7 weeks ago from Texas

      Yes, you can. We can't prove antimatter exists either, but we can know about it through observing what can be observed. We can understand God by observing what's created.

      Yes, we always had needs. Free will simply changed what those needs were. Necessities of free will were not necessities before free will. An individual will changed the minds of humans fundamentally. That's why behavior changed so drastically.

      And no, changes to the environment don't explain things nicely. Those environmental changes were not unique to the places where these advances happened. Yet the advances were unique. If it were as you say then we should have seen similar responses from other cultures elsewhere. We don't. Not until this change reached them.

    • Slarty O'Brian profile image
      Author

      Ron Hooft 7 weeks ago from Ottawa

      If you can't prove it exists you can't know anything about it, including that it exists and is supernatural, which sounds to me like a bad excuse for something that's fantasy. You can't even say its relevant or that it ever did or could do anything.

      And we always had needs. Will doesn't give you extra ones like you claim. Changing environment does. Evolution of the mind and technology due to changing environment explains everything nicely. And two thousand year old myths can't be trusted to give us any real insight into history. or anything else.

    • HeadlyvonNoggin profile image

      Jeremy Christian 7 weeks ago from Texas

      You - "Nop. No god required. Prove one exists and that it did anything you claim. Then you'd have a point. Now you don't."

      I'm going to explain this one more time. Your insistence for proof is completely illogical. Now, follow me on this. What do we know about the universe? We know it isn't infinite. We know it had a beginning. We know that both time and space has a beginning. All the matter and energy in this universe had a beginning.

      Now, if we're talking about a God we're talking about something that created all of this. What proof can there be? If He created the universe He came before time, space, matter, energy. What do you think can be found that hasn't been?

      Everything that deals with how this universe came to be has the same problem. Doesn't stop anyone from trying to solve it. String theory is an attempt. M theory. But there's no real way of knowing. There can't be.

      You - "Well, that just proves your god is irrelevant and contradicts what you said previously. I agree, your god is irrelevant."

      Irrelevant? He's the whole reason we exist. He's the whole reason you're an individual who can choose for yourself as you wish. Far from irrelevant.

      You - "Will alone, free or not, doesn't give you extra information. You still have to evolve and discover new information exactly like today. Will changes nothing on its own. So to me your theory falls flat right there, besides being unfounded on all other levels."

      Necessity is the mother of invention. Very true, that statement. Free will didn't make humans super smart and able to invent things at a whim. Free will gave them necessities that never existed before. Humans before free will were simply content. With free will all of the sudden we had a need to account for what belonged to us, what we were owed. Hence the invention of writing.

    working