Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?

Not open for further replies.
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:

Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
It has been said that to not treat Darwinian evolution as writ would lead to a retardation of scientific progress because many new discoveries are supposedly predicated upon Darwinian theory.
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.
Yet you have still utterly failed to explain how knowledge of precession, qualitative and quantitative, could lead to an accurate (or even an inaccurate measure of the Earth's diameter).
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.
Not open for further replies.