|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 24, 2008 11:14:27 GMT
One of the amazing things is how well the Earth/Sun system adapts to kept things within a livable range. There are so many feedback systems, safety valves. etc that regulate climate, that it almost looks to be designed.
Take water: Releases heat energy when it freezes (thus preventing further cooling) and absorbs heat when melting (thus damping down warming. There is even more energy involved in the liquid to vapor change.
Even the greenhouse effect is self regulating (log relationship to concentration)
Any believer in ID can take comfort that the Creator is in charge (while understanding that he/she has no right to mess up the beautiful creation!)
But for those who believe the Universe came into being by chance, they have to put everything down to a lucky fluke. Even worse, they can have no assurance that things might not suddenly go wrong (tipping point). In fact, since "God is dead" (at least for them) they must step up to the throne and take over, ready or not (which means Panic - Panic - we gotta do something) (Bit like a child having to fly a plane when all the adults are out of action)
I think the whole AGW thing is simply that the West has lost its faith in God, and, quite frankly, I don't quite think we know enough to take over running the Universe just quite yet!
So I think there are only two positions: 1. Trust in the creator, be a good steward of the Earth's resources (and learn everything we can.) or 2. There is no God. We gotta take over. Panic .....
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 24, 2008 12:08:26 GMT
Nah, there's other positions to take... ;D
* there was a God & he designed a self-maintaining integral system & then decided to go play in his new game
* Incredibly advanced beings from the end of time used the Quantum level to create their own past so as to ensure their own existence
* this is only one Universe of 10 dimensions (+ time) out of the 26 possible dimensions implied by supersymmetry. A quick calc shows there to be at least 19275223968000 (the number of ways of pulling 10 dimensions as unique subsets from 26) so somewhere in all that, there is a superior being watching over it all
More seriously, if ID is being proposed as a work of God, then there isn't actually a good reason to think S/He's watching over things to make sure it all goes right. S/He has already shown a propensity for allowing humans to make their choices & then punishing any wrong choices.
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 24, 2008 16:48:19 GMT
I'd rather be in a self-regulating system designed by God than a system needing regulation by Al Gore. Do I have a choice? ;D
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 25, 2008 7:38:10 GMT
I'm just trying to get my head into the thought pattern of a non-theist climate Scientist.
As a (non-fundamentalist) Christian, and trained as a Scientist, and having read widely (wildly?) in Paradigm shifts, Epistemology etc etc I'm always fascinated by the lack of attention to one's own presuppositions. - Thomas Kuhn is a good read esp. His Copernican Revolution).
If there is NOTHING out there in charge, and we are the blind creation of chaos, then boldly taking command is obviously the right thing to do.
Which means, thems that know (or think they do) have the right to tell all the plebs what to do(and how to think)
So, at its heart, we have, not an argument over Science, but a struggle based on ultimate World and Life views.
Those who see the earth as a stable, well behaved, and self regulated system are (in spite of any stated belief to the contrary) trusting in something that they know (in an innate sense) is in control.
Those who see the earth as a chaotic system, about to fall apart, are practical atheists, (or maybe one of those 10% of fundamentalist in the US who are expecting the World to end anyway, cause they've never read Josephus which describes the Great Trib in AD70 when the Romans got stuck into Judah)
Better stop now, and have my pills.......
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 25, 2008 10:33:44 GMT
This seems appropriate...
Letter to the Tenant * I built a home from nothingness and passed it on to Life A fertile land to succour you, to ease the toil and strife Inbuilt systems, made to last, with backups too, in case Then left you to it, setup done, blue gem floats free in space
I laboured long with atom’s spin, matter’s form at base Electric and magnetic fields, sourced in tiny space But when you learned the small to see, you didn’t beauty seek Instead you tore my work apart, chasing power’s peak
Renewing systems handled all, projected human waste But you consume and waste and throw, recycling now outpaced The carefully balanced atmosphere, you’ve turned into a stew When it you cannot breathe with ease, what then will you do?
I left abode in nature’s hands, all blanketed with green With care, t’would last eternity, too simple it would seem You stripped the land, you burned the trees, let greed run round unchecked And virgin snow around the poles, is now pollutant-flecked
So now you see your God of Love, is in a towering rage Go on with being such animals, I’ll lock you in a cage I may be able to put things right, albeit at heavy cost I’ll tell you now, so listen good, your rental bond is lost!
You’ve gambled all on physical, what you touch and see Ignoring spiritual mystic worlds, and don’t believe in me You better hope the bet pays off, just read the fine small text I won’t subscribe to moving costs; Eviction Notice next!
*written by Acolyte
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 25, 2008 11:38:39 GMT
I'm just trying to get my head into the thought pattern of a non-theist climate Scientist. As a (non-fundamentalist) Christian, and trained as a Scientist, and having read widely (wildly?) in Paradigm shifts, Epistemology etc etc I'm always fascinated by the lack of attention to one's own presuppositions. - Thomas Kuhn is a good read esp. His Copernican Revolution). If there is NOTHING out there in charge, and we are the blind creation of chaos, then boldly taking command is obviously the right thing to do. Which means, thems that know (or think they do) have the right to tell all the plebs what to do(and how to think) So, at its heart, we have, not an argument over Science, but a struggle based on ultimate World and Life views. Those who see the earth as a stable, well behaved, and self regulated system are (in spite of any stated belief to the contrary) trusting in something that they know (in an innate sense) is in control. Those who see the earth as a chaotic system, about to fall apart, are practical atheists, (or maybe one of those 10% of fundamentalist in the US who are expecting the World to end anyway, cause they've never read Josephus which describes the Great Trib in AD70 when the Romans got stuck into Judah) Better stop now, and have my pills....... *grins* S'OK kiwi... Aussiers will make fun of you but we'll defend you when others try - you're OUR kiwis... ;D In the 'electrifying question' thread, kaidaw asked me to stake out a position; I couldn't do it because I don't know enough. In this however, everyone knows enough and knows nothing, so here is what I think and where I stand. Note, the word belief is not used. I think, in the beginning, from whatever cause, there came to be Consciousness. Looking at the world around me, the common factor I see is about learning. Bacteria learn, viruses learn, insects, fish, reptiles and mammals all learn. Humans have the best learning ability. It seems to me that a new consciousness, without relatives, would first be aware of self, then perhaps, aware of not-self. But whether or not there is awareness of not-self, awareness is NOT the same as Knowledge. Knowledge is information that can be applied, that is the result of trying out ideas or testing the information. While Wisdom requires Awareness, Awareness is not Wisdom. Awareness plus Knowledge begets Wisdom. So how does a lonely, individual Consciousness go about gaining Knowledge? Pretty much as we do. We look, we listen, we model and experiment to try out our concepts. We shape our minds as we go - using Edward de Bono's concepts we begin with a slightly modified plain. Information 'rains' down on the plain, slowly forming terrain with shape. The more information about a particular thing, the deeper the valley that forms. Sometimes we have a fixed idea & it dams up the rain, preventing us from achieving real knowledge on a subject. Then one day, a new realisation, sometimes totally unrelated, will dislodge the fixed idea & the dam burst. We call this 'Epiphany' & it is a sought after state of mind because of the euphoria it brings us. I think Consciousness is THE Basic, the underlying reason for it all. From what I can understand about Quantum theory, Consciousness is a requirement of Reality - something collapses the probability potentials to establish a constant state. I think maybe something chooses the pattern of collapse. It seems to me this is why our Universe is so suited to us, why the values of the basics are so precisely tuned that this is a hospitable place. We need to study and understand the cosmoi (my invented plural of cosmos) beacuse that is the purpose visited on us by the Creator - the original Consciousness. I think, looking at who we are, what turns us on (before society messes us over) & looking at Life around me, that the Game we are in is to learn, to turn experience into Knowledge, and either at end-of-life or at some point in the future, pass the Knowledge back to the reformed Originator. But does the Christian, Jewish or Muslim (or other) God exist? I don't think so. I'm agnostic but the gods I see described are pale wraiths with all-too-human frailties and a variety of psychological impediments - to me they are purely human inventions and knowledge of them (or the back-stories of them) have been turned into manipulative narratives to control population for the benefit of the few at the top. Is there Intelligent Design? I think, ultimately, yes. But I think it was a result of initial conditions - the Multidimensional 'I' who began it all fragmented into smaller units to go explore Self. The Cosmos is being designed on the fly, so to speak, by the totality of Life, at all the varied dimensional levels that exist between us and the All. So... can we mess it up? Oh yes, totally. There is nothing specific looking after Humans or the Earth. In my wilder speculations I wonder if the eventual makeup of God, the 'personality of the Being that Life will become, will be decided by our decisions, by how we react & choose our paths in life. If we all turn into aggressive 'kill all who don't believe as I do' types, will the Universal Being become something that needs to be put down like a rabid dog? Is that the message we keep getting from the mystics about who we should try to be? It matters how we see things - different frequencies change what we see. It matters how we live our lives, the things we deem important & the things we abhor - it shapes the world we see. This seems to me to be indicative of something about the universe - and a variety of science viewpoints seem to point the same way. Biology has a problem with cells - ask the average Joe about cells & likely he will tell you that cells are run by DNA. Effectively, he is saying DNA makes cell decisions. This turns out not to be the case. Cells react to outside stimuli. Normally it is a molecule or chemical that 'provokes' the cell membrane. If it is the 'right' one, the membrane reacts, either by passing the molecule inside or by causing a reaction through the membrane into the interior. This then causes the cell to go to work - cells produce & manipulate proteins & DNA is the 'pattern' from which the proteins are made. That's not the problem. The problem is ALL cells work this way. So, from where comes the initial impulse? If no cell ever actually initiates an action, what does? Well, another thing affects cells - fields. But fields open up a whole new area to try to deal with - go check it out for yourself - suffice it to say here, some biologists are starting to think that the 'self' is a field that exists outside the body. some of the evidence they look at is coming from the transplant areas. People are recording alterations to behaviour & thought when they get new parts. de Bono & others talk about Mind as a different thing to brain. A nice quote is 'Minds are what Brains do' & while we can MRI brains to see what parts get activated in a range of events, what we can't seem to find is where the actual memories are stored. But if memory is a construct held within a holographic field that is formed by the cellular activity of the brain, it opens up the field for a lot of new approaches to how we work. The universe is huge and tiny, a complexity that has occupied the best minds for entire lives. But the universe is, at base, information. In this universe, the densest level of information is at the event horizon - and the event horizon is described by area, not volume ie. 2D not 3D. So, while Science is important, to me so too is spirituality. Please, nobody respond with religious arguments or accusations. By spirituality I mean finding out about the part of us that doesn't (so far) admit to investigation using the tools of science. Psychology is behavioural. Psychiatry is modifying behaviour, (usually with drugs) but if psychology had answers, we would be in a better society, we'd be able to tell which of our children are going to take a gun into a school, and the wholesale escapism of society into alcohol, drugs, religion and rage would be getting dealt with as it happens. ... got any more of those pills...? ;D
|
|
wylie
Level 3 Rank
Posts: 129
|
Post by wylie on Sept 26, 2008 20:13:09 GMT
LOVE the subject!
Having been an Atheist and a scientist who believed (strongly) that Science could explain everything (that is everything worth know) and then "seeing the Light". Also, it turns out that Science (search for the Truth, usually with technological tools) and Faith are not necessarily in conflict (shouldn't be ). I recently reread an excellent book on the Scientific evidence for the Creator. It is "The Case for the Creator, - A Journalist examines the scientific evidence in favor of a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He poses some of the toughest scientific (sounding) arguments to knowledgeable scientists who present their case for the Design inherent in the Universe and in fact nearly everything around us. It is pretty overwhelmingly convincing (IMO). OF course, I am biased in favor of the premise, so it is possible that I am missing something. I would love to hear what an agnostic would think about it (Acolyte)!!
Here is a sample of some of the evidence (Read the book for LOTS more);
1) The Moon is very large in comparison to the size of the Earth (as compared to other Moons) and it is absolutely vital to life on the Earth. For example, it is at just the right distance and just the right mass to serve as an excellent gyroscopic stabilization for the Earth's "tilt". That helps to keep the climate MUCH more stable than it otherwise would be. It also helps to drive the tides which distribute nutrients in the seas and helps to keep life living.
2) All of the basic physical constants of the Universe (e.g. Gravity, Strong Nuclear Force, weak Nuclear Force, Pauli Exclusion principal, Space Charge of the Universe, etc.) are INCREDIBLY finely tuned. If any of them were so much as a few percent different, Stars would not be stable, or atoms and the Universe wouldn't have even stabilized in the first place. The major counter-argument to this is the so-called "many universe theory" for WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE!! But even if there was, there would need to be an intelligently designed "multi-universe generator" in order to build universes with minutely graded variations in their physical constants. An even GREATER TASK than designing a Universe!!
3) All life on the earth is composed of intricately balanced processes and machinery that is coded into DNA. ALL of the processes require MANY MANY separate components to function and much DNA information to code it. Almost none of them will work without all components being present (take a look at this computer if you want another example of this -sometimes called "specified complexity"). The amount of information and the specificity of the designs is staggering (we just don't have enough imagination to understand how complex and how much information is involved). Yet most scientists believe that ALL OF THIS could have arisen through random mutation (and then selection). Personally, I think that it takes a LOT more Faith to believe THAT than a Creator who designed it on purpose.
Notice the last item (which is expanded upon greatly in Lee Strobel's book and another book by Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box"). If it is true, that means that the Creator has been actively involved in designing life THROUGHOUT HISTORY. That is not some distant pantheistic "life force" who wound up the universe at the beginning and then "took off". It implies an active, perhaps even a Loving Creator.
Of course this whole set of evidence comforts me and it implies to me that nearly everything in Nature is there for a reason and He is a GREAT DESIGNER!!
Keep asking questions. You may be surprised at the answers you receive.
Ian
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 27, 2008 9:56:01 GMT
I guess while it may seem I'm an ID believer, I'm not. I don't think they've made the case for anything yet that proves an irreducible complexity that has to have been created as a whole.
The problem with ID is they then postulate which God it is that did all this, & somehow it always works out to be a Christian god of the aprticular persuasion of the speaker.
When i think of intelligence designing this place we're in, I think more of it as being US, that all Life partakes of a beingness that not only made it all kick off in particular fashion, but has been remodelling it along the way.
As for the moon particulars, if the moon is that important, then a place like Earth is the only type of place we could develop, so the effects of the moon are why it is so special & we're a result of those effects, not the reason for them.
If there is a 'designer' out there still mucking around, s/he is certifiable & we need a god-shrink ASAP to try to get some sanity back into her/him.
For my sanity, I prefer to think that any putative creator has created then entered her/his game - anything else puts our universe in the hands of either pure randomity or an insane being.
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 27, 2008 13:45:40 GMT
Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made.
acolyte said: "The problem with ID is they then postulate which God it is that did all this, & somehow it always works out to be a Christian god of the particular persuasion of the speaker." Intelligent design is a creation concept that is right or wrong on its own merits, not what some people may say about it or do with it. Is 2+2 not equal to 4 because Hannibal Lechter says it is?
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 27, 2008 22:48:17 GMT
Since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made. acolyte said: The problem with ID is they then postulate which God it is that did all this, & somehow it always works out to be a Christian god of the particular persuasion of the speaker. Intelligent design is a creation concept that is right or wrong on its own merits, not what some people may say about it or do with it. Is 2+2 not equal to 4 because Hannibal Lechter says it is? I think I'd dispute the 'clearly seen' in your statement. ID as currently iterated requires belief - the level of certainty about it is low. Mind you, I think there's a rather high level of belief running in the 'it's all random camp' as well. The problem of just how random noise could pull together such a suitable universe isn't trivial. But many of the adherents to ID as delineated in the US have very distinct lines they want to draw aroudn the subject, so when ID is mentioned, it is their version which comes to mind & it's difficult for a sane person to align to the Intelligent Design area without being tainted by the fundamentalist version. Personally I have little problem with the idea that this all began with intelligence or awareness; it's with what came later that I diverge from any normal ID path. I find no evidence at all that there is a God with ongoing interest and interference with how the universe is unfolding.
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 27, 2008 23:25:11 GMT
As we have discussed, the Law of Gravity requires a certain level of belief. Is this philosophical conundrum perhaps expressed as a desire to not take a stand? I kinda hated to make declarations because it is almost certain that someone will inappropriately lump me together with others making similar narrow statements, generalizing that narrow agreement into a (false, wrong, unwanted) congruence. Then I realized that I was allowing this to control my life. There are still groups I will not join, because, once I join, they feel they have the right to speak for me. But, at least I can and do take a personal stand for what I believe is right, and I am not terribly concerned about whether it is popular or not.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 27, 2008 23:59:46 GMT
As we have discussed, the Law of Gravity requires a certain level of belief. Is this philosophical conundrum perhaps expressed as a desire to not take a stand? I kinda hated to make declarations because it is almost certain that someone will inappropriately lump me together with others making similar narrow statements, generalizing that narrow agreement into a (false, wrong, unwanted) congruence. Then I realized that I was allowing this to control my life. There are still groups I will not join, because, once I join, they feel they have the right to speak for me. But, at least I can and do take a personal stand for what I believe is right, and I am not terribly concerned about whether it is popular or not. *grins* Nah, it's because I simply don't know enough yet. My early years were in a fundamentalist church & since then I've tried actively to remove belief from my life. So I resist 'joining' a camp until I know of what the tents are made & whether I'm expected to sleep with camels.
|
|
|
Post by ozone on Sept 28, 2008 1:17:53 GMT
acolyte, My sympathies. I'm sure you have had a lot to work through, but you are to be commended because you are willing to continue going at it. All I can suggest is that it is important to keep separate the message from the messenger. Judge each... but judge them separately. Meanwhile, I will continue to try to give you another perspective on your lists of speculative technical things; it makes me re-examine what I believe and why I believe it.
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Sept 28, 2008 4:51:37 GMT
Been watching the thread develop. I am a natural skeptic. So I pray daily the skeptics prayer: "Lord I believe, help my unbelief"
Raised a Baptist, then studied Science, so I had to struggle with the whole Science vs Religion thing thru' University. Then 40 years as an adult struggling with death, cancer etc amongst friends and family. So faith doesn't come easy to me.
On the other hand, I can't cope with the logic of a chance Universe. So I always come back to my skeptics prayer.
So I am a 'practicing' Christian. I even believe in the Bible as the Word of God- though my interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis would raise fundamentalist's eyebrows.
There is simply NO TRUTH in the statement that "Science must postulate no God, and seek naturalistic explanations for everything"- though you come across this a lot.
All human reasoning MUST start somewhere, and ultimately, all logical thought is circular.
Both Agnostic/Atheism and Christianity are closed, self consistent systems of thought. Neither can be falsified by logic. You tend to see point scoring as both sides cast ideas back and forth. But unless you work within the basic assumptions of a position, you can't really argue against that position. What you need to do is (for argument sake) assume the starting position of the belief structure you wish to falsify. Very hard to do.
Of course, Christianity has been around a long time, and we've had our share of intellectual giants. CS Lewis, Cornelius Van Til, Abraham Kuyper (PM of Netherlands 1905!), M Muggeridge to name a few. Lewis & Muggeridge were both noted atheists who came to faith - so there is hope for anyone. (Wiki these names for background- all fascinating people)
I take the concept of the Bible as the revelation of God to man seriously. To read the Bible as a book of science is futile. It is written in the language of pre-scientific man. The writing is highly symbolic, and phenomenal - describing things as they appear.
Evolution? I see God as a master programmer. I don't accept blind evolution, but believe God improved on his ideas and patterns over time. Apart from selection within existing gene pools, I don't think evolution occurs as postulated by evolutionists. Did God do massive reprogramming after extinction events?(unexplained rapid bursts of evolution per the fossil record) Probably!
Life is so amazingly complex and interconnected, that it defies logic that it could arise by chance. I have no interest in 'ID' as a scientific study - by its very nature, it defies experiment- it is outside the possibility of experiment. It is simply something to look at it awe & wonder.
In any case, I deny that it is possible to argue someone into faith. Harder than convincing an AGWer to be a skeptic, in spit of all the evidence!
How does one cross over from Unbelief to Faith? That is a very interesting question. The Bible calls Faith a gift of God that cannot come naturally. Now that is an upsetting thought to our modern minds!
But in reality, that is what seems to happen. You just find yourself believing. Of course, in hindsight, you can now see all the obvious reasons for believing - but these were the same things that you didn't see before you came to faith. Not that you suddenly have all your doubts removed - you are essentially the same person - just traveling in a new direction, with a new orientation. Oh, you've also found the makers book of intructions & you can also find various clubs who study that book.
I pray that all might have the gift of true faith.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Sept 28, 2008 5:48:12 GMT
acolyte, My sympathies. I'm sure you have had a lot to work through, but you are to be commended because you are willing to continue going at it. All I can suggest is that it is important to keep separate the message from the messenger. Judge each... but judge them separately. Meanwhile, I will continue to try to give you another perspective on your lists of speculative technical things; it makes me re-examine what I believe and why I believe it. Thanks, that's kind of you... & I am being sincere. Many folk simply reject out-of-hand what is different or try to convert. I appreciate when someone is willing to simply hold up a PoV to look at & not try to ram it down my throat. Kiwi, I have a problem with the statement Both Agnostic/Atheism and Christianity are closed, self consistent systems of thought. as it duplicates something I have seen far too often - the equating of agnostic with atheist. To me the line is more... atheist/theist<-------------------------------->agnostic Both the atheist & the theist have belief at their core. They see that they 'know' though faith how things are. The agnostic is an open position - s/he doesn't know what the answer is but is usually open to the possibility that given time, knowledge, experiment etc. we may one day be able to know the truth. (although some claim agnostic means maintaining we can never know the truth - personally I think the moment you put that view in there you've just moved over into the theist side of the line, ie. you now have a belief) ozone, yes I've worked through stuff, but mostly that's been to do with family & messed up values placed deep in the core before i was old enough to make choices. Once I could I rooted them out. kiwi, the problem I have with the bible as the revealed word of god is both its origin & the hidden meanings - I have no problem with thinking there is wisdom there that we can learn from, I just don't see the words and stories as meaning what most people think they do - & the wisdom that is there comes from elsewhere or is repeated in other places and times. IMO, too much of the judaic texts is devoted to pulling the masses into line; not enough of the message of a personal journey (& how can that involve priests, pastors or other 'authorities'?) has been passed along. I think the journey is one of personal development towards a deeper co0nnection with the ALL that is our universe, & maybe beyond that. I think maybe we can make sense of what the mystics tell us by postulating cosmoi of more than 3D where beings of more complexity than we have are also following a path to knowledge & self-development. Certainly there are strangenesses enough in our world that scare the science addicts spitless to the point where they refuse to contemplate anything outside lab results. I've experienced things (& so has everyone I've ever asked about such things) that don't easily admit to cold analysis or provide repeatable results. Ever gone to answer a phone & thought, as you do, of someone not seen for a long time & it's them? Ever had a dream that has great detail & which comes to pass later on? How about hearing someone else say the exact thought that was just on your mind? All these are very common, & while not earht-shattering as individual events, when you tabulate just how many people have such things, & how often they occur, coincidence gets left way back down a dusty trail. I think it's possible that those of realms above, who maybe vibrate at higher frequencies & so see a different world, may not all be angels, may not have perfect knowledge and understanding and maybe, just perhaps, have gotten involved in the lower realm & been seen as God or Allah or Zeus & from there the legend starts. It would certainly help explain why those seen as the Ultimate Being seem to have such warped behaviours. And as I have stated elsewhere, I get very suspicious of events that can no longer occur for no apparent reason. (see An electrifying thought thread) If God could produce miracles for Abraham or Moses, he could do it now - the sudden dearth of miraculous events makes me wonder if they ever were such or whether perhaps manipulative elders seized on natural events to use as 'proofs' of their religious controls. And there has been enough evidence brought out over the past couple of decades to convince me there is more to the centuries prior to 3000BC or 4000BC than we are being told. The catastrophic events following the end of the Ice Age, the monuments & buildings under water off the coasts of a variety of countries, weathering of the sphinz, the movement of lake Titcaca away from Tiahuanaco, the temperate sediments off the mouths of rivers that used to flow from Antarctica... there is any amount of evidence that the steady upward rise from cave to shopping mall is a myth & we are not being told how things really were. So that makes me wonder just what is going on - Christianity is way to recent to be an origin philiosophy & too much of it denies what we are finding in sea and sediment. But I think there is truth to be found there - you just need to have other knowledge to be able to find it among the dross.
|
|