Oldest Megalithic Site

Posted by: Mike Kremer

Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 12:30 AM


For the old Kurdish shepherd, it was just another burning hot day in the rolling plains of eastern Turkey. Following his flock over the arid hillsides, he passed the single mulberry tree, which the locals regarded as 'sacred'Then he spotted something. Crouching down, he brushed away the dust, and exposed a strange, large, oblong stone.
Every Archaeologist that has come to this site agree that it is
the most important Archealogical site in the world.

To date 45 huge carved stones have been excavated....still in their standing circular arrangement.
But the most incredible thing is their age !

The Stone Complex Carbon Dates to at least 12,000 years old.
Maybe even 13,000 yrs old.
Meaning it was built and carved in 10,000 BC

Stonehenge was built in 3000 BC. The Pyramids Giza in 2,500 BC. Making this huge complex, the oldest site in the world by a mind-numbing margin.

Now have a look at these amazing pictures.
Especially note the 6th picture. The Megalithic stones
BEFORE they were UNEARTHED.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...arden-Eden.html
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 02:03 PM

Great Post Mike !

seems that this site kind of confirms by thoughts about
the age of modern humans and the fact that the earth was in an ice age around 13,000 years ago tilts it even further.

according to the archeologist these people were hunters and if my thoughts are correct there should be a large cave or tunnel somewhere in the region that has been covered up by the seas.

or there will be found evidence of large cities close to the ancient sea shores.

the way I see it , the hunters left the caves or cities and traveled to this hunt club to hunt durring the slightly warmer periods , and as the colder temperatures approached they then left and returned to there caves or cities.

anyway now (since 1994)there is evidence of a hunt club located on the outskirts of populated areas that is the oldest ever found
the problem is that there is no city located near the club
of equal age or older , not one that has yet been found.

the story gets deeper but no where near as deep as it will be when the complete story is revealed.

as I have said before evolution is based on what has been found
and they picked through what evidence they wanted to use as evidence , and they havent even explored all there is , science is data gathering and a theory is a theory.

evolution is a theory.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 02:53 PM

Good article, Mike. Does seem like a lot of speculation, but that's not a bad thing. Either way this is an amazing find.

It's not directly related to biological evolution (although the change of the environment probably altered the course of evolution for many species). "A Law" is a model (description) of what happens. "A Theory" is a model or family of models that explains how something happens. Neither word has anything to do with the certainty ascribed to the model.

A few things we can check on later:
Whether there was any indication of a full-fledged written language.
Where the placement, articulation, or orientation of the megaliths reflects a knowledge of mathematics, astronomy, etc.
The origin of the stone, tools used, method of transport, if not carved in situ.





Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 03:32 PM

Yes, very good article. Some additional info here:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html

This site was (almost) discovered in the 1960s, but was taken to be a medieval cemetary, and disregarded

And, at a prehistoric village just 20 miles away, geneticists found evidence of the world's oldest domesticated strains of wheat; radiocarbon dating indicates agriculture developed there around 10,500 years ago, or just five centuries after Gobekli Tepe's construction.

- Five centuries after. Interesting.

There are no sources to explain what the symbols might mean. Schmidt agrees. "We're 6,000 years before the invention of writing here," he says.

From a quick read, it appears that the stone is thought to have been quarried nearby, and it's estimated that at least 500 workers would have been required to move it to the site - a surprisingly large and organised labour force for a hunter gatherer community. It's said that flint tools would have sufficed to carve the limestone.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 09:02 PM

My understanding is there were experts who believed that written Mayan script would never be deciphered and even some who said it wasn't a language at all - and yet now most of it has been figured out. (This is not to suggest that the symbols at gobekli may constitute a language after all, but that future finds may yield even more startling results.)

This situation is much more complicated for several reasons, but I wouldn't be surprised if Schmidt, et. al. generated a number of testable hypotheses in the exploration of this site.

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/04/09 11:58 PM

here are a few google videos on the find although most are german , probably because they were more interested in such a find , you should still be able to get a better picture of the layout of the rings in some of the videos.

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Gobekli+Tepe+&hl=en&emb=0&aq=-1&oq=#
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/05/09 02:37 AM

The site is amazing, the artifacts are brilliant and the whole "Garden of Eden" supposition is rubbish. The suggestion that the growth of religion may have lead to human sacrifices, whilst possibly correct, does weaken the ridiculous argument that this is the Garden of Eden- and it certainly would not have looked anything like the pictorial representation! It however, being situated where it is, could justifiably claim to be one of the earliest sites of human farming and settlements.

The dating of the settlement to 10,000-12,000 years ago certainly falls right into the timeline for the development of the human species into modern humans. Would the Black Sea have been landlocked at this time?

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/05/09 02:45 AM

I don't understand why you think the "whole garden of eden thing" is rubbish. I guess I would say it's just speculation at this point - and probably a big stretch. They've drawn a few loose connections. But it's not a completely impossible idea - at least I don't think so.

Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/05/09 03:48 AM

Garden of Eden? Maybe.

While the material evidence for a Garden of Eden hypothesis is scarce, there does seem to be good reason to suppose that there may have been very ancient legends, with a factual basis, portraying this region as a cornucopia, perhaps with concurrent tales of its venerable status. Given that animal husbandry, agriculture and local population expansion of non-nomadic, settled communities could have rapidly taken their ecological toll, it would be no surprise to learn that later generations came to romanticise and spiritualise that earlier era.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 12:23 AM

Ellis

Quote:
Would the Black Sea have been landlocked at this time?


the straights of gibraltar have either closed or the earth rose there or the sea levels have lowered enought for the feedwaters from the atlantic to have stopped , this has caused the entire mediteranian to basically dry up three times in the past the last time 5 million years ago , I would think that the black sea along with the sea of azov would have also dried up durring these periods , unless they were fed by glacial melting from the north.


Quote:
"Garden of Eden" supposition is rubbish.


I have been trying to find some way to place the river pison
which is the first (named) river mentioned in Genesis , which would need to have the highest elevation of the 4 rivers mentioned , the main river (not named )having the higest elevation of the five rivers mentioned , as the main (not named) river flows from Eden into and through the Garden of Eden to water the plants and somewhere beyond the Garden of Eden the river divides into 4 heads.



Quote:
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates.
(Genesis 2:10-14 KJV)


so this point would put the Garden of Eden between the source of the main (not named) river and the point where the river divides
into 4 heads (or rivers).

here is something interesting I thought of today.

the euphrates begins just above the persian gulf !

pison , persian !

and I found this site that thinks along the same lines.
http://www.kjvbible.org/rivers_of_the_garden_of_eden.html



hopefully you have read the web page already.

this would put the age of Eden and the Garden of Eden way beyond what many think it to be because if the source of the main (not named)river is high in the zagros mountains then this would mean that the persian gulf would have been much narrower at the time possibly sized more like a river , and would sudgest a timeline in millions of years as I have been thinking.

I do not agree that the river pison is where the web site places it , because I think the river pison is actually the persian gulf itself.

anyway this would put Eden and the Garden of Eden somewhere above the point where the main (not named) river branches off and forms the pison ( persian gulf / river if correct) river , and the source would have to be rainfall or ice melt from the mountains.

but it hadnt rained yet !


and of course there is still the river gihon to find , unless it is the river pison described on the web site.

but its time consumming and gives me something to do , so why not.

why were you asking about the black sea?



Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 04:47 AM

The Black Sea? I asked because there was some evidence that suggested that the Bosphorus was breached by volcanic activity causing water to pour into the Mediterranian in historical Times, leading to the legend of the flood. Unlike the Garden of Eden the flood is mentioned in many ancient historical texts and there has been constant continuing volcanic activity in this area. I felt at the time I heard this that it was a reasonable idea, and one which seemed to fit the geological findings. (I have no sites to back this up! just memory).

The theory of Ur and Euphrates region being the start of modern civilisation is, I thought, well established. I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around prior to making Adam before finally producing the summit of his creation, the intellectually curious Eve. It seemed strange to me to read a scientific discussion which was trying to prove a Creation Myth of one particular tribe to be true. What's next? Proof that the sun, which is flat, really does go round the Earth?
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 06:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around prior to making Adam before finally producing the summit of his creation, the intellectually curious Eve. It seemed strange to me to read a scientific discussion which was trying to prove a Creation Myth of one particular tribe to be true. What's next? Proof that the sun, which is flat, really does go round the Earth?

Is not the scientific enquiry focused on obtaining data concerning the origins of the myth, rather than an attempt to substantiate the claims of those who believe the myth to be true?
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 01:14 PM

Ahhhh... Science !

Quote:
Is not the scientific enquiry focused on obtaining data concerning the origins of the myth, rather than an attempt to substantiate the claims of those who believe the myth to be true?
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 01:54 PM

Ellis

since you brought up the flood , heres something else to think about concerning the megaliths.

what if these stones are anchors?

wouldnt a ship that houses so many animals need anchors?

and what if that ship were Noah's ark?

its resting place on mt ararat might be located 337 miles
to the north east of the site.

here

lat 39.675117
lon 44.322920

use google earth and view this point up close in the 3D view
the dimentions of this oblong bowl shaped area fits the dimentions of the ark described in genesis , there is also what
appears as a well trodden pathway that leads out of the area
about the center of the area.

a very suspicious looking resting place for the ark.

I would imagine that the animals and Noah's people would have hung around for quite some time and used the ark as shelter
before moveing to a now dryer place.

would noah's people want to keep these anchor stones perhaps
as memorabilia or sacred stones?

would they move them to a lower place perhaps where all the animals first went?

most likely the mountain top would have slowly been covered in ice and they might have moved the stones to prevent them from getting lost in the ice.

the shape of these stones would easily adapt to anchors that
you would slip two loops over vs tying and untying ropes to them.

because of the T shape of the stones.

I would suspect that these stones could have been stored along the keel of the ship to steady the ship durring rough seas.

it makes sence to me at least , and might be the reason that animals are depicted on the stones.

note:

if you want a easy way to find the lat and lon position in google earth , just make a placemarker anywhere in google earth ,
then plug in the above lat and lon using the placemarkers properties box , by right clicking on the placemarker.






Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 02:32 PM

"I just question that there was 'a garden of eden' in which god prowled around ..."
I agree. That's just silly. However, it's possible that there could be that there was some actual inspiration for the Eden myth. Achilles may not had the qualities ascribed to him - he may not even have existed. And yet there is a city of Troy. Merlin may not have been magical - and he might not even have existed. And yet there may have been real place and events that inspired the story of Camelot.

I agree that every wild speculation does not represent a bona fide scientific theory. And we don't need Nostradamus to predict that there are going to be a lot of true believers eager to teach us how this find fits into their kooky world views. But we ought not completely dismiss a mild connection just because there are buffoons who are trying to force the puzzle pieces together.

Of course, I'm saying this in with gross general ignorance. Maybe there are very good reasons for rejecting these connections - I just haven't seen them articulated in the two articles or they're just not obvious to me. Or maybe there are other facts that argue against the point. I just don't know enough.


Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 06:31 PM

tff

Quote:
buffoons who are trying to force the puzzle pieces together.



are you reffering to the evoloutionist who build an entire human skeleton fron a single tooth?

or that there is really no solid evidence to back up evolution?

talking about forcing the puzzle together !

how many forced puzzles are there when speaking about the evidence that was gathered to support the claims of evoloution?

and how much evidence was ignored that would not support evolution?

these stones are not imagined complete skeletons they are
actual stones that were carved out of solid rock , not pieced together , and they were carved before the time that evolution
seems to put the necessary tools in the hands of modern humans , and durring a full ice age.

if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?

so I guess that what you refer to as buffoons are on both sides of the fence , just that the ones on your side dont seem to be buffoons to you because that would make you one !

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 06:40 PM

"are you reffering to the evoloutionist who build an entire human skeleton fron a single tooth?"

You refer to the infamous Nebraska Man? Urban legend and exaggeration. Many times creationists repeat this story based on false knowledge of the "incident" - exaggeration, leaving out important details, and outright misrepresentation or lying in some cases. The creationist proclivity for not actually studying a subject manifests itself clearly in their spreading of the Nebraska Man urban legend.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

"if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory "
Not all speculations constitute "theory."

"so I guess that what you refer to as buffoons are on both sides of the fence "
I'm not sure which fence you refer to, but in general, this is something I can agree with. I'm sure there are scientists who are buffoons.

"just that the ones on your side dont seem to be buffoons to you because that would make you one ! "
Being wrong does not make one a buffoon. Nor does "false" equate to "bad."



Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/06/09 07:14 PM

I really don't know why I bother to type this. It's been said a million times, and it's not really helpful.

Paul.

You can come up with an idea and call it a hypothesis, even without evidence - that doesn't constitute a theory; but you can then set about accumulating evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have a measure of success, then you can call it a theory. It may turn out to be a strong theory or a weak theory depending upon how substantial the evidence. Then again, if you find no evidence at all, then it remains a baseless hypothesis, and does not constitute a theory in the scientific sense.

Then again, if you take the texts of the Bible as evidence because you believe them to have been provided by the Almighty, then why bother discussing science? You can fill the knowledge gap instantly, without recourse to rationality and logic. It has been done for millennia, after all. The only reason that springs to mind for opposing science is that it threatens a precarious and untenable theology.

I apologise if that sounds offensive. It's not intended to be.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 12:02 AM

tff

Quote:
You refer to the infamous Nebraska Man? Urban legend and exaggeration.


yea right , it was just dismissed as a urban ledgend.

and a exaggeration at that , fact is it was not imagined by creationist as you seem to think.

it was a pigs tooth and that is all that was used to build the following humanoids.



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.html

Quote:
All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.



Quote:
In 1927, other parts of the skeleton were also found. According to these newly discovered pieces, the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape. It was realized that it belonged to an extinct species of wild American pig called Prosthennops.


so its a good thing that they found the other pig bones , and its a very good thing that someone who was a true scientist found
the other bones , otherwise we would still have a pig ancestor that we wernt aware of !!

1922 - 1927 .... 5 years of urban legend and exaggeration.

Quote:
Then all the drawings of Hesperopithecus haroldcooki and his "family" were hurriedly removed from evolutionary literature.


how many times has a bone or two been used to construct entire animals and hominids?

honestly if a skull was found that was shown to be the absolute oldest ever found , that could prove evolution , and the discoverers were evolutionist , I myself would have a very hard time not believing that they probably found ape foot bones close by but just couldnt resist the oppurtunity to have such a great piece of evidence that would support evolution , so they just picked up the other bones of the ape and lost them somewhere along the way to the newspapers.





Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 12:43 AM

Redewenur

Im not sure why you wrote all you did either , all I said was...

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


is there something wrong with the wording that I cannot find?

and speaking of something that would not support the theory of evolution how about the cambrian explosion...

Quote:
The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:

Quote:
Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.





Quote:
The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state. This provides evidence for saying that life did not come into existence through random natural processes, but through an act of intelligent creation.



http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/natural_history_1_03.html

that is amazing how these animals just appeared fully formed ,
you would think that there would be a few fossils that were found that were in some type of transition as evolution calls it.

but thats not the case.

how do evolutionist exaggerate, leaving out important details, and outright misrepresentation or lying in their attemp to explain the cambrian explosion?

Posted by: samwik

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 03:49 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
...what if these stones are anchors?

Hiya Paul,

I love the anchor idea--it's so creative.
Do you think those T-shaped "anchors" would hold together; with the bottom of the T not pulling away from the top crossbar?
...and hey, maybe they just cut anchor at some point, but I don't know where the current location is in relation to the flood.
It's always fun to try and fit together some puzzle pieces that maybe nobody has tried before.

Later, I hope to have an economics question which I hope your wide-ranging inspiration will appreciate and help me develop further.

...but back on topic.
Ellis is right, as you know, about that Bospherous breach--allowing the Mediterranean to flood--into what was probably a very fertile, populated valley. But I don't know the timing on that one.
There were probably lots of glacial lakes that burst around the world during those times of dramatic recession (like now).

Also, as Ellis says, we don't have to be looking for the "actual GOE" ...where God prowled around.... wink
But we can see what may have inspired the myths, stories, oral histories, and written histories too--memories of a time when the climate favored a lush and productive land.

I am fascinated by the idea that our current domesticated crops and animals may have been the end result of some directed breeding way back 10-11,000 years ago.

~ smile
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 04:12 AM

Paul wrote:

"since you brought up the flood , heres something else to think about concerning the megaliths.

what if these stones are anchors?

wouldnt a ship that houses so many animals need anchors?

and what if that ship were Noah's ark?"


Paul-- you ARE kidding aren't you?
Posted by: samwik

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 05:29 AM

Originally Posted By: Ellis
Paul-- you ARE kidding aren't you?

Well there's idle speculation that often inspires random, but meaningful connections that at the least are entertaining....
and then there's just plain kidding.
But whichever... (btw, thanks for my best laugh of the day Ellis!)....
===

I wrote this a little earlier:
===

Paul, I hadn't seen those last two posts of yours, when i posted my previous post....

But WTH are you on about.
Your not seriously suggesting that some incident back in the 1920's is evidence for the lameness of "science," are you? It's not as if the record of that happening was covered up. They were "hurridly removed" to quickly correct the literature and prevent false idea from being perpetuated. That's the way it's supposed to work. Do you see it as evidence for something else?
Look at any encyclopedia from that era. They are full of "facts" which were later dispelled. Back then they thought everything in science was mostly settled. Don't be misled into thinking science makes those same mistakes today, please.
===

...and this Cambrian explosion thing. What?
"The fossil record clearly indicates that living things did not evolve from primitive to advanced forms, but instead emerged all of a sudden in a fully formed state."
Where did that load of falsity come from? Let me guess. It's not from Futuyma.
...and if not, then the juxtaposition of that quote with Futuyma's logical statement, is very misleading.

Didn't I spend a great deal of effort showing how their page on "thermodynamics" is completely misleading, wrong, and misused for their own purposes... asked rhetorically (perhaps that was elsewhere--but I could cite it if you're interested).
But c'mon... "darwinismrefuted?" Just the fact that they put an "ism" on the end of Darwins name show their lack of comprehension about science (and evolution).

Reading a site with an agenda such as theirs obviously is--is good exercise for a scientific mind--but it shouldn't be used to inform the spirit (of knowledge). Please!
It is a spectacular example of how the web can be misused, and it should be honored for that feat; but you must beware of these spiderwebs.
===

Let me know if you think that site is serious, and I'll show you how they use deceptive, marketing/propagandaistic techniques to persuade casual browsers.

Sincerely,
~SA

p.s. ...and this thread isn't about evolution, so let's stay on topic, right?
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/07/09 10:56 PM

"All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man""

This is bullcrap. The majority of scientists were skeptical of the tooth - and all inferences from it - from the very beginning. Nebraska man *never* informed evolutionary theory. Of course, facts are irrelevant to non-scientific creationists.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 01:39 AM

Samwik

https://www.msu.edu/~pennock5/research/papers/Pennock*DNAbyDesign.pdf


Quote:
In both articles, Meyer faults biology textbooks for presenting only "half
of the picture," leaving out information about the Cambrian explosion that,
he says, confirms a pattern of abrupt appearance rather than an evolutionary
process. These texts purportedly failed to define "evolution" adequately - it
can refer, he claims, to anything from "trivial" microevolutionary change
to "the creation of life by strictly mindless, material forces" - and they
failed to mention scientists who reject evolution in favor of "alternative theories,"
such as Intelligent Design. He cites ID theorist Michael Behe and his
idea that the "irreducibly complex" bacterial flagellum provides evidence
against the "superstitions" of the self-assembly of life. He criticizes biologists
(mentioning Douglas Futuyma and Kenneth Miller)
who, he says, make no
attempt to hide the anti-theistic implications of Darwinism.


......He Criticizes....Douglas Futuyma .......

Quote:
Where did that load of falsity come from? Let me guess. It's not from Futuyma.


no ... but just read

Quote:
The picture presented by the Cambrian fossils clearly refutes the assumptions of the theory of evolution, and provides strong evidence for the involvement of a "supernatural" being in their creation. Douglas Futuyma, a prominent evolutionary biologist, admits this fact:
Quote:

Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.




futuyma clearly states in his own words that:

Quote:
If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.


and that is just what happened , they just appeared.

.......................................................

I didnt dream this stuff up , would you say that an eye would take at least some time to EVOLVE?

http://www.designanduniverse.com/articles/fossil_records3.php

Quote:
T he trilobites that appeared in the Cambrian period all of a sudden have an extremely complex eye structure. Consisting of millions of honeycomb-shaped tiny particles and a double-lens system, this eye "has an optimal design which would require a well-trained and imaginative optical engineer to develop today" in the words of David Raup, a professor of geology.



Quote:
...and this Cambrian explosion thing. What?


Quote:
The Cambrian Period is nothing more or less than Darwin's "fatal stroke". This is why the Swiss evolutionist paleoanthropologist Stefan Bengston confesses the lack of transitional links while he describes the Cambrian Period and says "Baffling (and embarrassing) to Darwin, this event still dazzles us". (11)


From: Prof. Paul K. Chien, Department of Biology, University of San Francisco
http://hum-molgen.org/meetings/meetings/0798.html

Quote:
The relatively sudden appearance of all major animal phyla in the fossil record, the "Cambrian explosion," focuses attention on how-and how rapidly-body plans evolved.


Darwin himself knew of the cambrian explosion and had the following to say concerning it...

http://www.bio.net/hypermail/molecular-evolution/1996-March/004228.html

Quote:
"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be
truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."




inexplicable...incapable of being accounted for or explained.


excerpt from the below...

Quote:
> > The sudden appearance of almost all the distinct organisms
> > belonging to all the different phyla in a geological instant at the
> > base of the Cambrian period, termed the Cambrian Explosion,
> > has not been explainable by the theory of evolution. The new
> > mechanism in fact predicts this scenario.
>
> I'm confused - if "higher taxa" have been around since very early, why
> is there no early fossil record for them?


Precisely! Your question is perfectly valid. Fossil record
actually shows evidence of the presence of all the higher taxa
from the very beginning of the multicellular life on earth.

When signs of multicellular life appear in the fossil record,
the conventional evolution theory demands that there be only
one original primitive creature that is supposed to be the
original ancestor of all life on earth, or, at the most few
creatures that are similar and related. But, to the absolute
contradiction of this thesis, numerous creatures that are
structurally so unique and unrelated appear almost
simultaneously at the base of the Cambrian period.
That is why this phenomenon is termed the Cambrian Explosion.

As you can see, the fossil record is totally upside down to what
one would expect based on the conventional theory of evolution.
For your information, this actually bothered Darwin so much that
he said in his Origin of Species: :

"The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be
truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."


notice it is called an explosion and not a multi billion year process as should be required by evolution to produce the animals that were found in the fosils...

I didnt make this stuff up .

professors of evolution did.

biologist , geologist , and darwin did.

now am I wrong for drawing attention to what these have stated
concerning the cambrian explosion?

is it wrong to use the truth when speaking about evolution?

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 03:18 AM

tff

Quote:
facts are irrelevant to non-scientific creationists.


I think you have that backwards , it should read that FACTS are only FACTS when the FACTS support evolution , otherwise the FACTS are not FACTS.

lets hear your scientific view on how the cambrian explosion occured !

or has that particular occurance ALSO been swept under the rug by evolutionist?

this is where you would end the thread by saying that , well evolution doesnt have the answers for everything , right !
and you dont participate any further knowing full well that
you just dont have a foundation to build on.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 06:42 AM

Well, statements are not facts just because creationists call them facts.

Before we move on to the cambrian, we need to make sure you understand that Nebraska Man was not an evil hoax perpetrated by scientists, but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 08:14 AM

It would be a good idea to follow up this discussion in an evolution thread. We don't need to further hijack this thread which is about the megaliths.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 03:00 PM

tff

Quote:

Well, statements are not facts just because creationists call them facts.


agreed and also, statements are not facts just because evolutionists call them facts.


Quote:

Before we move on to the cambrian, we need to make sure you understand that Nebraska Man was not an evil hoax perpetrated by scientists, but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.


evil or not , perpetrated or not , history shows the Nebraska Man as our first pig ancestor
and from 1922 to 1927 evoloution depicted him this way in pictures , in books , in literature.

and all from a single pigs tooth !!!


Quote:

but was a perfect case of science working the way it should.


I think not , science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions , science is founded
on fact not presumtion as is common place in evoloution.

evoloution cannot be a science for this reason , because evoloution is founded on presumtion.

the cambrian is solid evidence of creation and is a solid foundation of actual scientific fosilized data.

which brings us back to the cambrian explosion and evoloutions hapless attempts to disreguard scientific findings reguarding the inexistant links to pre cambrian life ,
links that are not found.

ie..

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/3/text_pop/l_033_28.html

Quote:
Paleontologists now know that the Precambrian actually did swarm with living creatures, and it was swarming more than 3.85 billion years ago. The earliest evidence of life comes from the southwestern coast of Greenland. There are no fossils to be found there



http://www.accessexcellence.org/BF/bf02/lipps/



Quote:
These fossils appear simultaneously on all continents, except Antarctica, and each assemblage contains roughly the same kinds. This appearance is still about 700-300 million years later than the molecular data suggest that animals originated, leaving an enormous period of time without a fossil record.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 04:37 PM

The fact that non-scientists incorporated junk science into a book is not an indictment of science. Nebraska Man never informed scientific theory. Scientists can't control what non-scientists do. The non-scientific journalists and writers are always jumping the gun. The best science can do is try to clear things up - which it DID in the case of Nebraska Man.

"
I think not , science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions , science is founded
on fact not presumtion as is common place in evoloution."

Once again you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding about what science is and how it works. Science very commonly "incorporates erroneous conclusions." Scientists do not claim that science is truth. It's a search for truth that "incorporates" a principle for finding its way out of error.


Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 06:09 PM

Quote:
science does not incorporate such erroneous conclusions


erroneous ... containing or characterized by error
conclusions ... an intuitive assumption; "jump to a conclusion"

Quote:
Science very commonly "incorporates erroneous conclusions."


data gathering and scientific testing of data to arrive at conclusions concerning that data is not incorporating erroneous conclusions !!!

however knowing that you are an evoloutionist explains how you would sudgest that science would incorporate such extravagant leisures in their quest for the truth.

and although evoloution is only a science for the belivers or followers of evoloution it is in no way a science to science
and to science evoloution seems more of a cultist uprising than a interlocking mechanism of itself.

mainly because science is built upon a solid foundation , something that evoloution does not have.

and just like a chain is only as strong as its weakest link science will never fully accept evoloution as fact because evoloutions weakest link is creation.

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 11:05 PM



"data gathering and scientific testing of data to arrive at conclusions concerning that data is not incorporating erroneous conclusions !!!"
You don't know anything about science. Erroneous conclusions are incorporated all the time. That's why all science is tentative. You "like" science and you want to believe that your cultic beliefs are supported by it, but you don't actually understand it.

"mainly because science is built upon a solid foundation"
Solid foundation does not mean "truth." The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles. You have a comic book understanding of science. Really.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 11:48 PM

Paul- There was once a 'solid foundation' amongst scientific knowledge of the day, that the earth was flat, that miasma caused disease, that space travel was impossible---and many more. Science can only penetrate within the narrow confines of contemporary human knowledge because science is the interpretation of natural phenomena and the discovery of how it all fits together by scientists (ie humans ) alive at the time. Cures, theories and discoveries follow the curiosity of the human researcher- so errors do occur. No science is set in concrete, all discoveries etc. are subject to later research, all worthwhile discoveries evolve.

Whilst science tries to find 'truth', it never assumes, as do you, that once a suggestion seems to provide a solution it is the only possible answer, and thus the only possible 'truth'. Instead a scientist uses the emerging truth as a pointer for further research and knowledge. Maybe that is the 'operating principle' as suggested by FF-- I don't know, I am not a scientist, but it seems possible to me.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/08/09 11:49 PM

And PS--- those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark---- the QE2 perhaps?
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 12:38 AM

Quote:
And PS--- those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark---- the QE2 perhaps?


ahem...

Quote:
No science is set in concrete, all discoveries etc. are subject to later research, all worthwhile discoveries evolve.

Whilst science tries to find 'truth', it never assumes,




Quote:
those stone things were not built to anchor Noah's Ark


is the above a assumption or is there any feasible evidence to support your conclusion?



Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 12:51 AM

Quote:
Paul- There was once a 'solid foundation' amongst scientistific knowledge of the day, that the earth was flat, that miasma caused disease, that space travel was impossible
and that man evolved from apes


yes I agree and I have included some needed info.


Quote:
once a suggestion seems to provide a solution it is the only possible answer


where is the sudgestion you are refering to?

Quote:
Instead a scientist uses the emerging truth as a pointer for further research and knowledge


Im sorry I dont see it that way , what I find to be common place in the evolutionist community (those who claim be be evoloutionist) is deliberate refusal to accept any evidence that would conflict with the theory of evolution.

perhaps since tff seems reluctant to express his view on the cambrian explosion , you might let me know your view.

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 01:13 AM

tff

Quote:
Solid foundation does not mean "truth." The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles. You have a comic book understanding of science. Really.


do you read the things you write?

NO !! You have a comic book understanding of science.

to listen to what you assume science to be tells me that
you believe that science is founded on lies , it is not !!

I will agree that some paid science does incorporate deciept.

but paid science for the purpose of deciept is not true science.

Quote:
operating principles


principles ... A personal and cultural value is a relative ethic value, an assumption upon which implementation can be extrapolated.

procedure ... operation: a process or series of acts especially of a practical or mechanical nature involved in a particular form of work; "the operations in building a house"; "certain machine tool operations"


I could understand that if what you are refering to is the
opperating procedures involved in data gathering , but principles
opens a wide range of possibilities that might or might not deliver a truth .

science does not deal in personal ethics , those who perform science have their own personal principles wether their personal principles control the manner in which they gather data should not play a role.

Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 02:45 AM

Paul wrote:
"science does not deal in personal ethics , those who perform science have their own personal principles wether their personal principles control the manner in which they gather data should not play a role."

This is true of the way we decide most things in life. Most of us muddle along making decisions that impact on other people positively, but sometimes we run amok. Scientists are no different--what is your point?
Posted by: lylwik

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 03:02 AM

Why do the creationists focus on the relatively obscure Nebraska Man when there are many other better known hoaxes from the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Century, such as Piltdown Man or the Solid Muldoon? (Pleae help me think of other examples.) I'm not trying to impune motives. I'm just curious. I have always thought these hoaxes were a sign that science had finally become an equivalent of religion in the popular brain and had developed its own Relics.

I also think that a difference between evolution and Creationism (capitalization intentional) is that science must go where the unfolding evidence leads it. Those of us who right now think evolution is probably the correct interpretation of the evidence might possibly be disappointed to learn the evidence pointed elsewhere, but I hope not. I hope we would not want to pillory those whose ideas are in the ascendent. But I think that there might lie a difference of mindset and flexibility.

Also, kids, see how many mistakes you can find in the "Daily Mail" article that started all this. A hint: one of them involves pigs.

Happy hunting!

--lylwik
Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 10:14 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Redewenur

Im not sure why you wrote all you did either , all I said was...

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


is there something wrong with the wording that I cannot find?

You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff, whose efforts have, nonetheless, proven equally futile.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 12:56 PM

I never said science was founded on lies. But errors creep in at all levels and in all branches. A huge part of science is being able to find its errors - the fact that it is self-correcting.

Science has procedures like peer-review to prevent errors from becoming entrenched, but it also uses tools like falsificationism to discover errors after they are already accepted.

There is some deceit in science. There are also things that are just plain wrong. The creationists are attacking all of science, not because they intend to attack all of science, but because they really don't understand how the rest of science works. Your messages continually demonstrate this fact.

We have gotten off track from Nebraska Man - which was almost universally rejected in the scientific community.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 06:42 PM

Quote:
You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff


then what was the point that I evaded?

this run around that I get when replying to someone is really getting old , waiting for a responce from tff is getting older
some of you might have made really good politicians as you are very good at evading questions , I have asked for views on the cambrian explosion several times but I keep getting the normal run around.

I guess there is no view because there is nothing to view.

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 06:55 PM

tff
Quote:
Once again you demonstrate a thorough misunderstanding about what science is and how it works.


you keep making accusations about what people know or understand about science , and that is really all you do...

you are always saying that others have a
"comic book understanding of science"
when do we hear what YOU !! understand about science
preferably the cambrian explosion !!!!

of course you dont have to express your view on the subject.

you can just sit back and tell others how their views are comical.


Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 07:08 PM

Ellis

Quote:
what is your point?


my point was that tff wrote the following in a reply.

Quote:
The solid foundation of science are not the facts of science, but the operating principles.


I was just stating that the foundation of science was the strict set of procedures that science follows in gathering data , and the combination of all scientific data gathered to this point is the foundation of science , and that the foundation of science is not founded on opperational principals.

but opperational procedures.

of course his reply was the usual ...
Quote:
You have a comic book understanding of science.


bla bla bla
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/09/09 07:23 PM

nevermind

just forget it tff , we have abused this thread enought , it would be nice to hear your views on the cambrian though , but not necessary.

I have a comic book understanding on science and you dont.

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 01:15 AM

Samwik

Quote:
I love the anchor idea--it's so creative.
Do you think those T-shaped "anchors" would hold together; with the bottom of the T not pulling away from the top crossbar?


I found the [compressive strenght of limestone] its 4000 psi

this is limestone quarried in the state of Indianna U.S.A.

http://igs.indiana.edu/geology/minRes/indianaLimestone/index.cfm

and the weight per cu/ft 163 lb cu/ft

http://www.reade.com/Particle_Briefings/spec_gra2.html

so each square inch of the rock where the hoizontal crossbar of the T meets the verticle part of the T should support
4000 lbs of rock below it or above it.

limestone weights 163 lb cu/ft so a 1 sq inch x 12 inch high columb of limestone would weight apx 13.58 lbs , so the horizontal part should support apx 294 ft of a verticle columb
if the stone were suspended horizontally in the air by the joint.

bending or rupture strenghts are apx 1000 psi.

so a anchor that has a 12 x 12 inch joint would have apx
144,000 lb rupture strenght.

if these stones verticle parts are 10 ft in lenght then the
material strenght of the joint is 29.4 times the material strenght of solid limestone.

yes the top would not shear / break away due to any downward
load placed on the joint.



Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 01:43 AM

Originally Posted By: paul
Quote:
You either missed or evaded the point - a point much better expressed by tff


then what was the point that I evaded?

Let's assume that you simply missed the point, which is this:

While the sum of human knowledge acquired by means of the scientific method is vast beyond the grasp of any individual, the method itself is not. Anyone (almost) ought to be capable of understanding it, if only they were to take the minimal time and trouble required to do so. What has been pointed out to you, in the course of this thread, is NOT that some people have a great knowledge of science while others don't, but that some show every indication of having no insight into the method employed to derive that knowledge. If the intention is to participate in a reasonable discussion of science, then an understanding of the scientific method is essential.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 02:57 AM

redweneur

Quote:
if someone has a theory about the stones and there is nothing that would oppose that theory , then the theory would remain intact would it not?


I think the above is the post that was the basis of your reply below.

Quote:
You can come up with an idea and call it a hypothesis, even without evidence - that doesn't constitute a theory; but you can then set about accumulating evidence to support the hypothesis. If you have a measure of success, then you can call it a theory. It may turn out to be a strong theory or a weak theory depending upon how substantial the evidence. Then again, if you find no evidence at all, then it remains a baseless hypothesis, and does not constitute a theory in the scientific sense.

Then again, if you take the texts of the Bible as evidence because you believe them to have been provided by the Almighty, then why bother discussing science? You can fill the knowledge gap instantly, without recourse to rationality and logic. It has been done for millennia, after all. The only reason that springs to mind for opposing science is that it threatens a precarious and untenable theology.


if the above is concerning what I said about a theory
then what exactly were you trying to put forth?

that you and paragraph comprehension and forum thread following have parted ways?

that you are capable of typing alot of words that have no bearing on the subject?

were you praticing being a encylopedia?

and no I was not offended , why should I be , what I wrote
was correct and in context.

Quote:
You can fill the knowledge gap instantly


evoloution seem to be the one that fills gaps instantly!

lets see the earth is around 4.5 billions years old

theres a gap of lifelessness and no fossile record from 4.5 billion years ago to 542 million years ago..

quite a gap.

then life just sprang up everywhere on the earth simultaneously.

where is evoloutions [evolving] durring ... DURRING ... the
4 billion year gap?


now you can explain more about how and what science is ...
thats what you and tff do right , never a inteligent reply to a post , nothing but your views on what science is , not the contents of science.

Posted by: ichatfilipina

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 10:38 AM

The age of modern humans and the earth was in an ice age around 13,000 years ago tilts it even further.
Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 02:53 PM

"heres a gap of lifelessness and no fossile record from 4.5 billion years ago to 542 million years ago."

Life did not just "spring up" 500 Mya.
The earliest definite fossils are about 3.5 billion years old.
The problem, Paul, is that your primary (only?) source of "information" is creationist websites which contain false information and poor reasoning. The reasoning sounds good to you, because you are conscientiously avoiding reading what the real scientists say.

There are indeed huge gaps in our knowledge of the details of evolution. Filling the gaps with magic is not a scientific approach to acquiring knowledge. To say that we don't know everything does not mean that we don't know anything.

We don't have direct observation of the entire orbit of comets - and yet we have no reason to believe that those orbits are affected by anything other than ordinary classical physics (newtonian mechanics, etc).

It's because you have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works that you lay unreasonable requirements on evolution - requirements that would eliminate the vast majority of science were they to be applied universally.

Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Everyone is. But willful ignorance of someone who is attempting to overturn science is inexcusable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnotology


Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 03:31 PM

Quote:
The earliest definite fossils are about 3.5 billion years old.


how about a link to some information on your find tff

I googled the oldest fossil and here is the results page.

the oldest fossil

you know your obsessive remarks about other people and lack of information input is bearing down on you...

Quote:
It's because you have a comic book understanding of what science is and how it works


Quote:
Nothing wrong with being ignorant. Everyone is.


Im not ignorant , and your generalized statement above is false
you must percieve yourself as being ignorant and therefore you assume that all people are ignorant.


Quote:
But willful ignorance of someone who is attempting to overturn science is inexcusable.


excuse me , but if science is wrong about something and can be overturned and the result being a more complete and correct science that emerges then no one should stand in the way...

I believe that willfull ignorance about what science really is lies on your side of the fence.

a fence that has been constructed on or has its beginings in falsities.

give us a link to information of the 3.5 billion year old fossil
and let us decide if this information you posted forms a foundation that could support evoloution.

soft bodied multi cell animal fossils should be abundant in pre cambrian rock , and should show obvious links to cambrian animals, IF evoloution is correct , lets see it.

otherwise you begin with creation

bring on the massive amounts of data that evoloution built there foundation on !!

Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 04:58 PM

Found the following:
(They're in German, but the visuals are nice.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBfxUq6Z1KM&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU2qwoMfq-U&feature=channel_page

Also,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XqfjWCUgfk

Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 06:37 PM

are you relenquishing your belief that creation was not ?

and that evoloution is a science that can only show how the species have changed over time , and that evouoution has no claim concerning how the many species began , but can only base its assertions on these changes from the evidence it has available.

if so then I could see how a gate could be built in the fence.


Posted by: TheFallibleFiend

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/10/09 08:56 PM


"are you relenquishing your belief that creation was not ?"
And other silly questions.

Of course not. I'm moving thread more towards its original topic, namely the megalithic site.
Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/11/09 02:49 AM

Paul- Everyone is ignorant about something. It is massive arogance to deny that.

FF- Am I correct in thinking that evolution (or even Evolution) is not, as Paul insists, 'a science' but is a theory seeking to explain the origin of the various forms of life that have inhabitated the planet? And it actually does a really good job of it!

What date is suggested for this remarkable megalithic site? It seems very sophisticated for 11,000 years ago--- but I suppose that is the point!
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/12/09 03:25 AM


Mikes original link in the first post of this thread
Quote:
Carbon-dating shows that the complex is at least 12,000 years old, maybe even 13,000 years old.
That means it was built around 10,000BC. By comparison, Stonehenge was built in 3,000 BC and the pyramids of Giza in 2,500 BC.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A760240


Quote:
The End of the last Ice Age

The Earth emerged from such an ice age 14,000 years ago, and for a brief period1 of about 1,300 years, things actually went quite well. Forests began to grow back and magnificent creatures such as the Irish Elk and the Woolly Mammoth flourished in the rich temperate grasslands of Europe and North America. In fact, for a time, temperatures were even warmer than they are today.

The Younger Dryas

Then, around 12,700 years ago2, the climate across North America, Europe and Western Asia suddenly reverted to bitterly freezing conditions. This period is known as the Younger Dryas3. Icecaps reappeared over high ground and the sea levels dropped. The forests and grasslands died back, and the Irish Elk and Woolly Mammoth were driven towards final extinction4. Human societies, still mainly accustomed to hunting and gathering for their sustenance, faced huge challenges as the fruits, cereals and animals on which they depended disappeared. Around this time, they adopted a new survival strategy that would enable them to live year-round, particularly during the long winter periods when absolutely no food was available. This was made possible through the intensive cultivation and nurturing of selected foodstuffs and animals close to home, an activity known today as farming. In this way, modern society was born.




Quote:
It seems very sophisticated


yes , it really does !






Posted by: Ellis

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/12/09 11:44 AM

Well then let's get back to discussing this interesting discovery without calling it the Garden of Eden and treat it as a folk memory of a lost fertile valley where, perhaps, farming began.
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/12/09 04:53 PM

Quote:
Well then let's get back to discussing this interesting discovery without calling it the Garden of Eden and treat it as a folk memory of a lost fertile valley where, perhaps, farming began.


Quote:
calling it the Garden of Eden
I agree !

but only because I dont believe that the time frame is even close
or that the area is close , however if the garden of eden was in this area then the land must have been at a higher elevation due to glaciers pressing down on the land further north.

what would make sence about this particular idea / theory would be that there would be a river that flows toward the land east of assyria.

but that would be another topic and it is a good idea to stick to the topics.


Posted by: redewenur

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/14/09 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: paul
...never a inteligent reply to a post , nothing but your views on what science is , not the contents of science.

etc...

*** You are ignoring this user ***

- thank you SAGG
Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/14/09 08:49 PM

Quote:
*** You are ignoring this user ***


I wish it was that simple red , but normaly I read the post and
then make replies and cant avoid seeing the stuff you leave.

and I guess you need to be logged in for the ignore thingy to work , and if the ignore thingy exist in a cookie , well they get deleted as soon as Im done.

mostly I just dont read what you write , its not that I'm ignoring you its just that theres not much to read unless I want to read someone telling someone else that what they know about science is wrong.


but that sort of thing does make you a megastar quickly right!

you can aquire a large number of post by the following , and never tax your brain thingy in the process.



Posted by: paul

Re: Oldest Megalithic Site - 03/14/09 08:51 PM

etc...

Quote:
thank you SAGG


thank you SAGG