The Darwinites are pumped up!!!!
Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?
- Thread starter IceAgeCivilizations
- Start date
- Status
Ophiolite
Valued Senior Member
Anyone with a brain can recognise that IceAge is poor at reasoning and equivocal in his responses.
This should not cause us to reject ideas associated with his claims. Hamlet's Mill, which I referred to in an earlier post, explores evidence for knowledge of precession in ancient mythology. An objective review of the book and the ideas may be found here:
http://alignment2012.com/mill1.htm
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
This should not cause us to reject ideas associated with his claims. Hamlet's Mill, which I referred to in an earlier post, explores evidence for knowledge of precession in ancient mythology. An objective review of the book and the ideas may be found here:
http://alignment2012.com/mill1.htm
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Alfred Russel Wallace?
I haven't read through all 11 pages of this thread so far, but please can someone tell me exactly where this has been said?
Scientific progress does not need to based on fact - but merely on theories. If the theory holds (although remain fully unproven) for the necessary application then science can progress.
Ophiolite, von Dechend and de Santillana in Hamlet's Mill do well establish the ancient knowledge of precession measuring revealed in the precession numbers of ancient legends and architectures, the axis of the Earth having been known as the World Tree, the Djed pillar, the Sampo, etc., around which the constellations appear to rotate, because of the slow wobble of the Earth's axis.
And as the ancients recognized the constellations of the zodiac, and knew that we move into new zodiac ages over time, and as the precession numbers such as 12, 24, 36, 54, 72, 108, and 432, are common in ancient legends, traditions, and architectures, they were measuring, obviously, the 72 years/degree of precession, we are discussing this on the "432" thread.
And as the ancients recognized the constellations of the zodiac, and knew that we move into new zodiac ages over time, and as the precession numbers such as 12, 24, 36, 54, 72, 108, and 432, are common in ancient legends, traditions, and architectures, they were measuring, obviously, the 72 years/degree of precession, we are discussing this on the "432" thread.
Why do you read the finding and then try to explain exactly where it's supposedly wrong?
Until you and the other blowhards can say exactly how and why it's wrong, then you're just displaying your ignorance.
Until you and the other blowhards can say exactly how and why it's wrong, then you're just displaying your ignorance.
Read article #2 at the website listed with my profile.
Your homepage? All I see is a book advertisement.
Open another eye.
- Status