Wednesday, October 31, 2012

The Challenge of the Shroud of Turin


 

The Enigma of the Shroud of Turin

Will Richard Dawkins take on the Shroud?

 

Shroud/Dawkins Challenge



The gauntlet is thrown. We challenge you, Richard Dawkins, to tell us how the Shroud image could have been made.
Stacks Image 98

Claim your prize

We'll donate £20,000 to your foundation. You can claim a victory and solve a great mystery.
Stacks Image 99

Will you accept...

…an opportunity to demonstrate that the Shroud could be medieval?
Stacks Image 100

If you decline...

...please grant the Shroud the respect it deserves as a remarkable enigma.
Stacks Image 118

The Criteria

Since it was first announced this Challenge has been taken up by Shroud scientists collectively. At a conference held in Valencia held in April 2012 a list of criteria defining the Shroud image was established as the basis for anyone to take up the challenge of recreating the Shroud mage. If it is the medieval creation Dawkins has stated it must be then - put very simply - how on earth was it made? So far, even 21st Century technology has not found a way. Perhaps Richard Dawkins and his Foundation can show us how it could have been done.
Stacks Image 603

Dr John Jackson, (above left) one of the signatories of the Valencia definition, was leader of the team that had full access to the Shroud in order to carry out the most thorough investigation. He is seen above discussing some of the image problems with Rageh Omaar in my 2008 for the BBC. His paper on the problems with reconciling the Shroud image with the increasingly questionable C14 date can be found
here. (That is also Dr Jackson in the banner at the top of the page with the Shroud itself).

An open letter to Richard Dawkins

29th March 2012
Dear Richard Dawkins

It is really not sufficient to dismiss the Shroud, as you do, on the basis of a C14 test from a single and badly selected sample area. Are you really saying that C14 has never made a mistake? Archaeologists frequently go back to retest something when other data conflicts. That has been impossible with the Shroud.
In your Shroud blog you argue, rightly in my view, that it is not enough for Christian apologists to weigh faith heavier than facts. After all, Christianity is based on a historical figure. The Shroud of Turin is a
 
... [Read More]







Stacks Image 614

Here is Dr. Paolo di Lazzaro and his team at ENEA in Italy who you claimed argued from a position of "personal incredulity". In fact, they are scientists who share your belief that evidence is the best way to determine the truth of things. Are you prepared to take them on? You can see more from Dr. Di Lazzaro in this Telegraph piece.

Is the Shroud real? Probably.



 

The Shroud of Turin may be the real burial cloth of Jesus. The carbon dating, once seemingly proving it was a medieval fake, is now widely thought of as suspect and meaningless. Even the famous Atheist Richard Dawkins admits it is controversial. Christopher Ramsey, the director of the Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory, thinks more testing is needed. So do many other scientists and archeologists. This is because there are significant scientific and non-religious reasons to doubt the validity of the tests. Chemical analysis, all nicely peer-reviewed in scientific journals and subsequently confirmed by numerous chemists, shows that samples tested are chemically unlike the whole cloth. It was probably a mixture of older threads and newer threads woven into the cloth as part of a medieval repair. Recent robust statistical studies add weight to this theory. Philip Ball, the former physical science editor for Nature when the carbon dating results were published, recently wrote: “It’s fair to say that, despite the seemingly definitive tests in 1988, the status of the Shroud of Turin is murkier than ever.” If we wish to be scientific we must admit we do not know how old the cloth is. But if the newer thread is about half of what was tested – and some evidence suggests that – it is possible that the cloth is from the time of Christ.

No one has a good idea how front and back images of a crucified man came to be on the cloth. Yes, it is possible to create images that look similar. But no one has created images that match the chemistry, peculiar superficiality and profoundly mysterious three-dimensional information content of the images on the Shroud. Again, this is all published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

We simply do not have enough reliable information to arrive at a scientifically rigorous conclusion. Years ago, as a skeptic of the Shroud, I came to realize that while I might believe it was a fake, I could not know so from the facts. Now, as someone who believes it is the real burial shroud of Jesus of Nazareth, I similarly realize that a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

My name is Dan Porter. Please email me at DanielRobertPorter@gmail.com

....

Taken from: http://shroudstory.com/

Sunday, October 28, 2012

"... the whole point of God is that he is not bound by “the laws of nature”."

Many Catholics believe that the 14ft-long linen cloth was used to cover Christ's body when he was lifted down from the cross after being crucified


The Shroud of Turin – why I believe


The Church has always maintained a neutral stance on its authenticity but the faithful are free to believe
By Francis Phillips on Wednesday, 28 March 2012
The Holy Shroud, a 14 foot-long linen revered by some as the burial cloth of Jesus, is shown at the Cathedral of Turin Photo: AP Photo/Antonio Calanni,
There was an interesting feature on the Holy Shroud in the Telegraph last Saturday. Written by former Herald editor, Peter Stanford, it was an interview with one Thomas de Wesselow, an agnostic and former Cambridge art historian, who has thrown up a promising academic career at King’s College to research a book about the Shroud. Just published, it is called “The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection”. I would love to recommend it to readers but won’t do so for reasons I shall explain below.
Before I go any further, let me reassure readers that the Church has always maintained a neutral stance as to the Shroud’s authenticity, though she does commend it as an article of devotion. I am not even sure Stanford is correct when he says that the Church “accepts the result” of the (notorious) 1988 carbon-dating of the Shroud, which decided it was a medieval forgery. I don’t think the Church – as opposed to an individual cleric, happy to chat to the press – has made a statement as to its fraudulence or otherwise; she leaves it to scholars and scientists to fight it out but does not forbid the faithful from coming to their own conclusions.
Having joined the million-plus pilgrims to Turin in 2010 to see the Holy Shroud displayed in Turin cathedral in one of its rare public showings, readers of this blog will know what side I come down on, quite apart from sensible criticism from other scientists about the flaws in the carbon-dating of 1988. I am not a scientist – indeed I never got beyond “general science” at school, of which I recall only the Latin meaning of “QED” – but I have been interested enough in this mysterious piece of cloth with its enigmatic figure of a tortured man, to have read some of the extraordinary scientific findings associated with it: that it is actually 3-dimensional; that the figure shows the systematic markings of 40 lashes of the dreaded Roman flagrum; that the herringbone pattern of the linen cloth went out of fashion by AD 150; that the image is like a photographic negative, centuries before cameras were invented; that the nail wounds are in the wrists (the only way a body can be suspended on a cross) rather than the palms depicted on medieval paintings; that there is evidence of pollen from Palestine in the linen fibres; that the thorns on the crown are from a near Eastern shrub and so on. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
In the interview de Wesselow does mention the pollen discovery and the significant warp and weave of the cloth. Indeed, having given the Shroud his undivided attention for the last eight years, I am sure he knows a lot more about it than I do. Being an agnostic, he has come to his own conclusions as to what the Resurrection means – and inevitably they diverge rather widely from Christian scripture and tradition. They are too eccentric to reproduce here; suffice to say they do not involve the bodily Resurrection of Christ that we Christians have always believed.
Mind you, I write “we Christians” over-confidently. I can accept that de Wesselow, though correct as I see it about the provenance and image of the Shroud itself, might pick, choose and invent his own fanciful theological theories. But I admit I was startled to read that Peter Stanford, a former editor of this august newspaper, harbours his own doubts. He writes, “The exact nature of the Resurrection troubles me as it does many Christians. Was it physical, against all the laws of nature but as the Church claims, or was it ‘symbolic’, as the Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, famously suggested in 1984?”
Good grief, man. Don’t you yet realise that the whole point of God is that he is not bound by “the laws of nature”? And that although symbols perform a useful function for the human imagination they are not the real thing? (When the writer Mary McCarthy once described the Blessed Sacrament as just a “symbol”, a finer American writer, Flannery O’Conner, who was listening, responded, “If it’s just a symbol, to hell with it.”) Finally, who, outside woolly liberals, would ever give the time of day to the heretical and unedifying ramblings of the former Bishop of Durham on this subject?

....



Taken from: http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/03/28/the-shroud-of-turin-why-i-believe/

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Professor Carol Hill Brings Science and Common Sense to Noachian Flood Debate


Image result for professor carol a. hill noachian flood 
 
[THE AMAIC WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY AGREE WITH CAROL'S ARTICLE, BUT NOT E.G. THE VIEW THAT THE LOCALISED FLOOD WAS SIMPLY RESTRICTED TO MESOPOTAMIA]









Professor Hill introduces her article:

The Noachian Flood:

Universal or Local?


 
The biblical and scientific evidence pertaining to the subject of a universal versus local
Noachian Flood are discussed in this paper. From a biblical perspective, a universal
flood model (and its corollary models: flood geology and the canopy theory) is based
primarily on:
(1) the universal language of Gen. 6.8,
(2) Gen 2:5.6, and (3) the
presumed landing of Noah.s ark on the summit of Mount Ararat (Gen. 8:4).
It is argued
that the .universal. language of Gen. 6.8 was meant to cover the whole known world
of that time (third millennium BC), not the entire planet Earth, and that this
interpretation also applies to Gen. 2:5.6.
the verses on which the canopy theory is
based. It is also argued that the .fifteen cubits upward. flood depth mentioned in
Gen. 7:20 favors a local rather than a universal flood.
From a scientific perspective, a universal flood, flood geology, and canopy theory are
entirely without support. The geology of the Mount Ararat region precludes the
premise of flood geologists that all of the sedimentary rock on Earth formed during
the time of Noah.s Flood. The most likely landing place of the ark is considered to have
been in the vicinity of Jabel Judi (the .mountains of Ararat. near Cizre, Turkey)
within the northern boundary of the Mesopotamian hydrologic basin, rather than on
17,000-foot-high Mount Ararat in northeastern Turkey. Since it would have been
logistically impossible for all animal species on Earth to be gathered by Noah and
contained in the ark, it is concluded that the animals of the ark were those that lived
within the Mesopotamian region. The archaeological record outside of Mesopotamia
also does not support a universal flood model. All of the evidence, both biblical and
scientific, leads to the the conclusion that the Noachian deluge was a local, rather than
universal, flood.

....

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Wedding at Cana first miracle and Wedding supper of the Lamb as last miracle



Taken from:

http://the-end-time.blogspot.com.au/2010/12/wedding-at-cana-first-miracle-and.html

....



Jesus' first miracle was the Wedding at Cana. Here it is:

"On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; and both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does that have to do with us? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.” So they filled them up to the brim. And He said to them, “Draw some out now and take it to the headwaiter.” So they took it to him. When the headwaiter tasted the water which had become wine, and did not know where it came from (but the servants who had drawn the water knew), the headwaiter called the bridegroom, 1and said to him, “Every man serves the good wine first, and when the people have drunk freely, then he serves the poorer wine; but you have kept the good wine until now.” This beginning of His signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested His glory, and His disciples believed in Him." (John 2:1-11)

It was the first public miracle, yet only a few people knew what had happened. Mary, the disciples, and the servants saw. Mary already knew He is the Messiah. The disciples already suspected He is the Messiah. The servants only knew that something miraculous had happened. So what was the point of the miracle?

I have heard one interpretation that since fermenting wine is a timed process and that there is nothing man can do to hurry it along, Jesus instantly changing the water into wine demonstrates His mastery of time and space. Other interpretations teach that it reveals His glory, that He is the best wine kept back until now, that He pours forth His blood freely, that Mary was showing her humility by leaving the initiative up to Him ("Do whatever he tells you") or that ritual purification jars will no longer be needed because Jesus will wash us clean once for all, etc. They are all plausible and they are all lovely, especially the interpretation where Jesus demonstrates His mastery over time by fermenting wine instantly. But while plausible, none of these interpretations settled my puzzlement over its the inclusion in John.

Why this miracle, especially since John tells us in verse 21:25 that "there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." Why did the Holy Spirit impress this event onto the writer's mind for inclusion in the bible, when there were so many other miracles and signs to choose from? Because, remember, John said it was a sign. A sign is given to authenticate. So what was being authenticated here?

I was thinking about that today and one possible interpretation came to me. In the bible, wine is used as a symbol of holy joy. Isaiah uses it frequently, alternately showing that wine's absence is a symbol of desolation (Isaiah 24:11). If wine is a symbol of holy joy, and its absence is a symbol of desolation, then Mary's words to Jesus at the beginning of the miracle: "They have no more wine" (John 2:3) takes on new meaning.

Taking focus off the wine itself for a moment, look at the event: a wedding. In Isaiah 25:6-7 we read,

"The LORD of hosts will prepare a lavish banquet for all peoples on this mountain;
A banquet of aged wine, choice pieces with marrow,
And refined, aged wine.
And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples,
Even the veil which is stretched over all nations."

The preparations made in the gospel for the reception of repentant sinners with God are often in the New Testament shown by the illustration of a feast, as seen above and in Mt. 22:1, "The parable of the Marriage Feast." All peoples are invited to partake of His salvation upon His 'mountain', or, His church, to feast upon the glory to soon come in the form of the holy sacrifice of Jesus and the swallowing of the veil that separates us from God. And we will drink wine, not just any wine, but Isaiah carefully notes, aged wine. As John notes, 'the best wine.' As the bible closes out the last of known human history-yet-to-come, we are promised another wedding-

Marriage of the Lamb


"Let us rejoice and be glad and give the glory to Him, for the marriage of the Lamb has come and His bride has made herself ready." It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints. Then he said to me, "Write, 'Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb '" (Rev 19:7-9).

The tribulation is a time when Jesus pours out the winepress of His wrath (Rev 14:9) because they have drunk wine of the passion of their immorality (Rev. 14:8). But for His children He promises the best wine. We have holy joy in this.

We're promised a wedding in Isaiah, Jesus opens His ministry at a wedding in John, and we close out the bible with a wedding in Revelation. Wine is at all times understood to be a central component of the blessed event practically, spiritually, culturally, and symbolically. Compare the miracle at the wedding in Cana with the end times event of the Marriage supper of the Lamb and perhaps we can understand a glimpse of His purpose in this sign that John shares with us. Throughout the bible, the symbolism of weddings have prominence. He and the Apostles continually call the church His bride. Human history closes with a wedding banquet. It is fitting He opened His ministry and performed His first sign at a wedding. It is fitting that He showed His deity through changing water into wine. He IS the wine, and we are His bride. Thank you Jesus! You are saving the best for last!

Thursday, October 11, 2012

Vaclav Klaus on Global Warming

 

The Global Warming Doctrine is Not a Science: Notes for Cambridge

English Pages, 10. 5. 2011
 
Not respecting the title of the conference, I will continue using the term global warming, rather than its substitute, retreat already signaling, but in any case misleading term climate change. And I will not concentrate my talk on the current or potentially forthcoming global warming itself because – given the available data and conflicting scientific arguments – I don’t see it as a phenomenon which is threatening us.
I will talk about the Global Warming Doctrine (GWD) because this doctrine, not global warming itself, is the issue of the day and the real danger we face. This set of beliefs is an ideology, if not a religion, which lives more or less independently on the science of climatology. Climate and temperature are used or very often misused in an ideological conflict about human society. It is frustrating that the politicians, the media and the public, misled by the very aggressive propaganda organized by the GWD exponents and all their fellow travelers, do not see this. I hope today’s conference will be a help in this respect.
I have expressed my views about this issue in a number of speeches and articles presented or published in the last couple of years all over the world. My book Blue Planet in Green Shackles[1] has been translated into 17 languages. I spoke about it several times also here in Great Britain, in Chatham House four years ago[2], and most recently in the Global Warming Policy Foundation[3]. Some relevance had my speech at the UN Climate Change Conference in New York in September 2007.[4]
The GWD has not yet presented its authoritative text, it has not yet found its Karl Marx who would write its “Manifesto”. This is partly because no one wants to be explicitly connected with it, and partly because it is not easy to formulate.
The GWD, this new incarnation of environmentalism, is not a monolithic concept that could be easily structured and summarized. It is a flexible, rather inconsistent, loosely connected cascade of arguments, which is why it has been so successfully escaping the scrutiny of science. It comfortably dwells in the easy and self-protecting world of false interdisciplinarity (which is nothing else than the absence of discipline). A similar approach was used by the exponents of one of the forerunners of GWD, of the Limits to Growth Doctrine. Some of its protagonists were the same.
What follows is my attempt to summarize my reading of this doctrine:
1. It starts with the claim that there is an undisputed and undisputable, empirically confirmed, statistically significant, global, not regional or local, warming;
2. It continues with the argument that the time series of global temperature exhibits a growing, non-linear, perhaps exponential trend which dominates over its cyclical and random components;
3. This development is considered dangerous for the people (in the eyes of soft environmentalists) or for the planet (among “deep” environmentalists);
4. The temperature growth is interpreted as a man-made phenomenon which is caused by the growing emissions of CO2. These are considered the consequence of industrial activity and of the use of fossil fuels. The sensitivity of global temperature to even small variations in CO2 concentration is supposed to be high and growing;
5. The GWD exponents promise us, however, that there is a hope: the ongoing temperature increase can be reversed by the reduction of CO2 emissions[5];
6. They also know how to do it. They want to organize the CO2 emissions reduction by means of directives (or commands) issued by the institutions of “global governance”. They forget to tell us that this is not possible without undermining democracy, independence of individual countries, human freedom, economic prosperity and a chance to eliminate poverty in the world. They pretend that the CO2 emissions reduction will bring benefits which will exceed its costs.
This simple scheme can be, undoubtedly, improved, extended, supplemented or perhaps corrected in many ways by the distinguished participants of this conference but I believe that its basic structure is correct. The missing “GWD manifesto” should be built along these lines.
There are many disagreements about this doctrine among the scientists in natural sciences, as was demonstrated here this morning, but I also know the stances of social scientists, especially economists, who do not buy into this doctrine either. These two camps usually do not seriously talk to each other. They only come into contact with the self-proclaimed interdisciplinarists from the other field. The social scientists are taken aback by the authoritative statements that “the science is settled”, the scientists in natural sciences a priori assume that there is nothing “hard” in social sciences.
The politicians – after having lost all other ideologies – welcomed the arrival of this new one. They hope that the global warming card is an easy game to play, at least in the short or medium run. The problem is that they do not take into consideration any long-term consequences of measures proposed by the GWD.
Let me briefly outline what the field of economics has to say to this. It is, of course, only a preliminary scheme, not a statement pretending that “science is settled”.
1. The economists believe in the rationality and efficiency of spontaneous decisions of free individuals rather than in the wisdom of governments and their scientific advisors. They do not deny the occurrence of market failures but their science and their reading of history enables them to argue that government failures are much bigger and much more dangerous. They consider the GWD a case of a grandiose government failure which undermines markets, human freedom and prosperity;
2. The economists, at least since Frederic Bastiat, consider it their duty to warn policymakers against the unintended consequences of their actions and against not differentiating between what is seen and what is not seen;
3. The economists know something about scarcity and about the importance of prices and warn against any attempts to play with them. They believe in the cost-benefit analysis and in the rational risk-aversion, not in the precautionary principle. They have a rather developed subdiscipline called “energy economics” which should not be disregarded;
4. They are aware of externalities because they themselves formulated this concept. They understand its enormous complexity and consider it dangerous in unqualified hands. After decades of studies they do not aprioristically see the world as full of negative externalities;
5. The economists base their thinking about intertemporal events on a rather sophisticated concept of discounting[6] which I will discuss later;
6. The economists have some experience with the analysis of time series. Statistics and econometrics used in economic analysis is full of sophisticated models not used in natural sciences because these are based mostly on the analysis of cross-section data samples. They know something about problems with the imperfect quality of data, about measurement errors, about data mining, about precariousness of all kinds of averages and other statistical characteristics. They also have some experience with computer modelling in complex systems, with pseudo-correlations, with the sensitivity of parameter adjustments, etc. For that reason they are convinced they have the right to comment on the statistical analyses of climatologists.
After this brief outline of the economic way of thinking, let me make three, hopefully explanatory, comments:
1. The economists do not believe in the precautionary principle and do not see the outcome of the cost-benefit comparisons of CO2 emission reductions as favourably as the GWD adherents. They know that energy demand and supply patterns change only slowly and see the very high degree of stability in the relationship between man-made carbon dioxide emissions, economic activity and the emissions intensity. They do not expect a radical shift in this relationship. The emissions intensity (as a macrophenomenon) moves only very slowly and does not make miracles. They are, therefore, convinced that the very robust relationship between CO2 emissions and the rate of economic growth is here and is here to stay.
If someone wants to reduce CO2 emissions, he must either expect a revolution in economic efficiency (which determines emissions intensity) or must start organizing a world-wide economic decline. Revolutions in economic efficiency – at least in relevant and meaningful time horizons – were never realized in the past and will not happen in the future either. It was the recent financial and economic crisis, not a technological miracle (nor preachings by Mr Pachauri) what brought about a slight reduction of CO2 emissions.
The GWD adherents should explain to the people worldwide that they consider the economic decline inevitable and desirable.
2. The relationships studied in natural sciences are not influenced by any rational (or irrational) behaviour, by subjective valuations of the variables in question, nor by the fact that people make choices. In social, or behavioral sciences, it is more difficult. To make a rational choice means to pay attention to intertemporal relationships and to look at the opportunity costs. It is evident that by assuming a very low, close to zero discount rate the proponents of the GWD neglect the issue of time and of alternative opportunities.
Using a low discount rate in global warming models means harming the current generations (vis-à-vis the future generations) and the undermining of current economic development means harming the future generations as well. Economists representing very different schools of thoughts, from W. Nordhaus from Yale[7] to K. M. Murphy from Chicago[8], tell us convincingly that the discount rate – indispensable for any intertemporal calculations – should be around the market rate, around 5%, and that it should be close to the real rate of return on capital because only such a rate is the opportunity cost of climate mitigation.
We should never accept claims that by using low discount rate we “protect the interests of future generations”[9] and that the opportunity costs are irrelevant because in the case of global warming “the problem of choice does not exist” (p. 104). This uneconomic or better to say antieconomic way of thinking must not be accepted.
3. As someone who personally experienced central planning and attempts to organize the whole society from above, I feel obliged to warn against the arguments and ambitions which are very similar to those we had to live with decades ago. The arrogance with which the GWD alarmists and their fellow-travelers in politics and media want to suppress the market, control the society, dictate the prices (directly or indirectly by means of various interventions, including taxes) is something I know well from the past[10]. All the old, already almost forgotten economic arguments against communism should be repeated now. It is our duty to do so.
To conclude, I agree with many serious climatologists who say that the warming we experience or is on the horizon will be very small. Convincing argumentation can be found in Ian Plimer’s recent book.[11] I agree with Bob Carter and others that it is difficult “to prove that the human effect on the climate can be measured” because “this effect is lost in the variability of natural climate changes”[12]. From the economic point of view, in case there will be no irrational interventions against it, the economic losses connected with such a modest warming will be very small. A loss generated as a result of a completely useless fight against global warming would be far greater.
Václav Klaus, “The Science and Economics of Climate Change Conference”, Howard Theatre at Downing College, University of Cambridge, 10 May 2011

[1] Klaus, V.: Modrá, nikoli zelená planeta Co je ohroženo, klima nebo svoboda?, Praha, Dokořán, 2007; English version: Blue Planet in Green Shackles, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Washington DC, 2008.
[2] The Other Side of Global Warming Alarmism, Chatham House, London, November 7, 2007
[3] The Climate Change Doctrine is Part of Environmentalism, Not of Science, The Global Warming Policy Foundation Annual Lecture, London, October 19, 2010
[4] Speech at the United Nations Climate Change Conference, New York, September 24, 2007. All these and many other texts on this topic are available on www.klaus.cz.
[5] This is what Ray Evans calls „The Theory of Climate Control“, Quadrant, No. 3, 2008.
[6] The misunderstanding of it on the side of the environmentalists brought me into the subject of GWD years ago.
[7] A Question of Balance: Weighing the Options on Global Warming Policies, Yale University Press, June 2008
[8] Some Simple Economics of Climate Changes, paper presented to the MPS General Meeting in Tokyo, September 8, 2008
[9] M. Dore: “A Question of Fudge”, World Economics, January–February 2009, p. 100
[10] I agree with Ray Evans that we experience the “Orwellian use of the words market and price to persuade people to accept a control over their lives”, The Chilling Costs of Climate Catastrophism, Quadrant, June 2008
[11] Plimer, I.: Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science. Ballan, Australia, Connor Court Publishing, 2009.
[12] Heartland Institute’s International Conference on Climate Change, New York City, March 2009, p. 23. Professor Carter’s arguments are more developed in his recent book “Climate: The Counter Consensus”, Stacey International, London, 2010

....

Taken from: http://www.klaus.cz/clanky/2830

Wednesday, October 10, 2012

Those Sophisticated Cave Men



 

Taken from: http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1616697176973091291#editor/target=post;postID=5178291178604779880

....



These Pages Print Best In Landscape Mode
Ever notice how hard it is to find a real nice cave man picture these days? Take it from me--it's not as easy as it used to be. Those classic artist renderings from a single tooth, from small bone fragments or from skull pieces -and on occasion, entire skulls permitted artists to let their imaginations run wild and silmultaneously to support the idea that our ancestors were primitive.
Click and drag photo to resize.

This of course supported evolutionary theory and caused many who believed in the Biblical view of creation to perplexedly wonder where cave men fit in.
As time goes by, the truth of what our ancestors actually looked like became more and more evident--like us, pretty much. That's why it's becoming more difficult to find those old cave man characterizations, even most "knowledgeable" evolutionists have to admit that "Cro-Magnon" and "Neanderthal man" are fully human. (Photo:top left; recent computer and/or forensic recreations of "Neanderthal", right and "Cro-Magnon", left who is scowling, of course. Far right: Cro-Magnon steps out.)
So while, in the past evolutionists have been drawing them as ape-like and brutish to drive home the notion that we have "evolved"--we now both (Christians & evolutionists) know that they look like what a Christian or Bible believer would expect--us. Not only that, when " "they" drew themselves from life, (15,000 years ago according to evolutionary time) they tended to look more like this (Photo: Below, left "caveman" self portrait) (more on these self portraits on page 2).
Obviously, this kind of look is more like what Christians might have expected. When's the last time you saw a representation of our supposed evolutionary ancestors with a Supercuts like trim and hat at a jaunty angle?
In Genesis, Adam and Eve are created without dragging knuckles--they raise children and carry on conversations just like "normal" people. They tilled the soil. They spoke to God. Evolutionists, however are tied to the idea of very primitive beginnings--where for long periods, our ancestors were not even fully men.
We've even come to accept the idea that larger brows or thicker bodies necessarily suggests less sophistication--less advancement. I laughed when I read this morning that this particular evolutionist had to admit that "Neanderthal" looked a lot like us but--probably was short and had sloping shoulders.
(See Also the cosmetic surgery performed on Neanderthal,in Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo--See page 8 of this section)That's still supposed to suggest that he was less advanced than modern man--but when you really think about it, --even if it were true about the shortness and sloping shoulders--all that would really mean is that there was little chance he could make it as a runway model.
Shortness and sloping shoulders--even a prominent brow have nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence, survival or level of "advancement".
You yourself may be short, have sloping shoulders and/or a prominent forehead. Even so, the evidence is that our ancestors were smarter, faster, and larger--had better eyesight, better technology than we suppose and were as "handsome" as we are.
And by the way, a cave man is simply a man (or woman) who lives in a cave! If they stooped, it was because the roof was low. Why were they in there in the first place? Perhaps war, pestilence, Flood, tower of Babel or other hardships forced men into caves for protection in certain locales and from time to time.
One of the items we discuss here below is suppressed information (over 100 stone tablets) that "cave men" had an early written language--much, much earlier than science admits.
Artifacts of Ancient Man
ANCIENT HUMAN CULTURES APPEAR IN SOPHISTICATED FORM
"...A more exact profile on ancient man can be derived from examination of actual artifacts which reveal his extensive sophistication. Rene Noorbergen writes that "for the past thirty years there has been a steadily increasing number of historical and archaeological discoveries made at various sites around the world, which, because of their mysterious and highly controversial nature, have been classified as 'out-of-place' artifacts.
....The reason for this designation is that they are found in geological strata where they shouldn't be, and their sudden appearance in these layers of ancient dirt has baffled the minds of many a trained scientific observer.
They emerge from among the remains of the treasured past sans evidence of any preceding period of culture or technological growth. In many cases, the technical sophistication of the (out-of-place artifacts) extends far beyond the inventive capabilities of the ancient peoples among whose remains they were discovered.''
Site Medzamor in Soviet Armenia is of intriguing interest. An international scientific report published in 1969 expressed the belief that these finds point to an unknown period of technological development.
"Medzamor was founded by the wise men of earlier civilizations. They possessed knowledge they had acquired during a remote age unknown to us that deserves to be called scientific and industrial.'
The preceding year Koriun Megurtchian of the Soviet Union unearthed the oldest large-scale metallurgical factory currently known. At this site over 4,500 years ago an unknown prehistoric people worked with over 200 furnaces, producing an assortment of vases, knives, spearheads, rings, bracelets, etc.
The Medzamor craftsmen wore mouth-filters and gloves while they labored and expertly fashioned their wares of copper, lead, zinc, iron, gold, tin, manganese, and fourteen kinds of bronze.
The smelters also produced an assortment of metallic paints, ceramics and glass. Scientific organizations from the Soviet Union, the United States, Britain, France and Germany verified that several pairs of tweezers made of exceptionally high grade steel were taken from layers predating the first millennium B.C.
In Scientific American (June 1951, Vol. 7, p. 298) a report was given concerning a metallic vase that had been dynamited out of solid rock on Meeting Horse Hill in Dorchester, Massachusetts. The report read, "On putting the two parts together it formed a bell-shaped vessel, 4 1/2 inches high, 6 l/2 inches at the base, 2 1/2 inches at the top and about an eighth of an inch in thickness.
The body of the vessel resembles zinc in color, or a composition metal in which there is a considerable portion of silver. On the sides there are six figures of a flower, a bouquet, beautifully inlaid with pure silver, and around the lower part of the vessel, a vine, or wreath, inlaid also with silver.
The chasing, carving and inlaying are exquisitely done by the art of some cunning craftsman. This curious and unknown vessel was blown out of the solid pudding stone, fifteen feet below the surface."
The scientific journals Nature (London,1886) and L'Astronomie (Paris,1887) published confirmation that in 1886, in the foundry of the Austrian Isador Braun of Vocklabruck, a block of coal dating from the Tertiary period was broken open.
A small metal cube was discovered inside. Tests indicated that the cube was composed of a steel-nickel alloy. It measured 2.64 by 2.64 by 1.85 inches, weighed 1.73 pounds, and had a specific gravity of 7.75.
The edges of this ancient cube were perfectly straight and sharp; four of its sides were flat, while the two remaining opposite sides were convex. A deep groove had been cut all the way around the cube. It appeared that the cube had been machine made and was part of a larger mechanism.
It was perhaps with uncanny insight that historian Will Durant wrote, "Immense volumes have been written to expound our knowledge, and conceal our ignorance, of primitive man...primitive cultures were not necessarily the ancestors of our own; for all we know they may be the degenerate remnants of higher cultures..."
Prehistorian Robert Silverberg describes the sophistication of Paleolithic art in terms which equate with the thesis of this dissertation: "The cave paintings are upsetting to those who prefer to think of Quaternary man as little more than an ape.
Not only do they indicate great craftsmanship, but they point to a whole constellation of conclusions: That primitive man had an organized society with continuity and shape, religion and art.
It was so dismaying to learn that the earliest inhabitants of Western Europe...had scaled heights of artistic achievement that would not be reached again until late in the Christian era. That exploded the theory [that] man's rise from barbarism had been steady and always upward.'' From the facts at hand there is warrant for the concept that barbarism occurred after the great heights of achievement were manifest.
The great archaeologist, William F. Albright, in From The Stone Age To Christianity, gave his expert impressions about Paleolithic art: "...though the number of motifs, techniques and media available to him now is, of course, immeasurably greater, it is very doubtful whether man's artistic capabilities are actually any higher today than they were in late prehistoric times."
Research has supported the concept that Stone Age man lived in well-constructed houses. The Magdalenian paintings have been admired for their originality and profusion. Yet, in these Lascaux Caverns one can still see the holes in the rock that supported wooden crossbeams.
These crossbeams held scaffolding that enabled Cro-Magnon artists to execute their works on the cave ceilings ten to twelve feet above the cavern floor, much like Michelangelo constructed many millennia later.
Rene Noorbergen sheds revealing light on this subject of Stone Age sophistication:
What are perhaps the most disturbing prehistoric construction and civilization finds were uncovered in 1965 by archaeologist Dragoslav Srejovic at a site now called Starveco, on the Danube River, on the Yugoslavian and Rumanian border.

Digging into the Yugoslavian bank, Srejovic first encountered traces of a Roman road; beneath this were fragments of proto-Greek pottery, and below these were Neolithic remnants and traces of Mesolithic cultural artifacts.

Deeper still, Srejovic came upon something totally out of place: the remains of a cement floor. More specifically, the material was an amalgam of local limestone, sand and water, considered a feat of chemistry and construction several millennia ahead of its time. The cement surfaces were not placed haphazardly, but were carefully laid out in large slabs to form the foundations of houses.



Several foundations were built one on top of another, indicating that buildings had been constructed and reconstructed over an indeterminate period. Yet there was also remarkable uniformity. (Photo:some of the Starveco foundations) The layout of the houses in the later periods was the same as that in the earlier periods - there was no evidence of a gradual development from a simple to a complex pattern.
Rather, the Starveco village suddenly appeared, fully mature, flourished, then decayed and was abandoned in the same advanced state. In addition to the foundations, the individual Starveco buildings also showed a high order of architectural sophistication. They all had one side larger in size than the other three, with proportions of either 3:1 or 4:1. The larger side was shaped like a 60-degree segment of a circle.
This larger side always faced toward the river, providing the occupants with the maximum view of the Danube and the surrounding hilly country. Inside each house, the shape of the dwelling was repeated in the hearth or oven, which was bounded by carefully shaped stone slabs and always located in the eastern or sunny end of the house.
Srejovic noted that the position of the hearth was significant, as it was situated in the exact center of an equilateral triangle if the lines of the house were extended....The implications of the mathematical and geometrical knowledge cannot be ignored.
The same precision and order evident in the architecture is also found in the arrangement of the dwellings at the Starveco site. The structures were laid out in what appears to have been a planned fan shape, opening toward the riverbank.
The larger buildings, presumably those belonging to members of a higher class or governing body, were located toward the center, surrounding a paved plaza...
The Starveco site has yielded a number of other cultural characteristics previously thought to have been developed thousands of years later, in the Middle East. Behind the hearth in each house, laborers unearthed the remains of altars, indicating religious beliefs and practices.
Each altar was composed of a flat stone, with a cup impression for burning a sacriffce, which faced two or more upright stones of reddish sandstone. This sandstone has been excavated from an outcrop, located in a ravine several miles away, and many of the stones had carved wavy lines or chevrons in low relief, considered the oldest examples of architectural decoration. Even more significant was the discovery of twenty sculpted life-size human faces of stone....
An interesting aspect of the site was the evidence of very good health among the Starveco population. There was a striking absence of deformed or diseased bones, and the women were so robustly built that it was difficult to tell their skeletal remains from those of the men.'

In spite of his absence from Western culture and history "Stone Age" man is seen to equal or, in some cases, to surpass our own modern accomplishments."...


Source:Rene Noorbergen