Margaret Sanger??? More like Margaret Sangre!!!Continue reading →
The “Christ Myth” myth is one of those issues much like urban legends that keeps rearing its ugly head time and time again.
Every generation, or so, someone claims—with much media and pop-cultural fanfare—that there is no such thing as a historical Jesus but that the Christ myth was invented and borrowed from previous myths. Within such claims similarities between Jesus and other personages are asserted. These are then discredited only to be popularized again in a few years.
Who knows why cyber debates/discussions end when they do and it is a good course of action to not, necessarily, declare yourself the winner simply because someone is no longer responding. Here is the text of a short debate/discussion between this Examiner and a cyber opponent (who will be referred to as “DG”) which developed after they posted a supposed saying of the Buddha in a favorable light:
Ken Ammi: Of course, how do we know that any such person as the Buddha ever lived? [this is something which virtually no one asks of anyone except for Jesus]
DG: The same way we know JC [Jesus Christ] lived… faith. Lol
Ken Ammi: Not so my friend. I have chronicled 237 texts that reference Jesus from a pre-70 AD to 280 AD.
Buddhist scripture, including records of the Buddha’s life, were not put into writing until about 400 years after his death: Historical Jesus – Two Centuries Worth of Citations
DG: You have just as many stories and sacred text about Santa Clause. There implies the faith thing. i.e. “take my word for it”.
Ken Ammi: First both are by “faith” (whatever that is).
Then one is known from [at least] 237 texts within two centuries and the other 0 texts within four.
Then they are both by “faith.” A reasonable conclusion is that one is known historically and the other is not.
There is no historical or sacred text backing Santa—except the history that traces the myth back to a real man who was known for his Christian charity. [subsequently, I wrote Can you disprove Santa Clause? Atheism and “Santa Syndrome”]
DG: No, Santa dates back to the ancient gods. Which pre-date Jesus and the hebrew religion.
DG: Dang my bad…. Jesus dates back to those same gods as well, lol. Horus, Mythras etc.
Ken Ammi: Oh no, you have fallen for that talking point???
Those supposed likenesses have been discredited every time they are brought up.
Look at the actual history and actual scholarship and you will see that there are not likenesses between Jesus and Horus, Mythras, etc.
DG: Power coming from the stem of his garment? Casting out demons into swine… there waaaaayyyyy more.
Ken Ammi: When did Horus and Mythra live?
How do you know?
What did they do?
How do you know?
What did they say?
How do you know?
What is the time of birth to the time of the first historical record of them?
Who wrote the record?
How many manuscripts are there?
From when do the manuscripts date?
How do the manuscripts compare?
Just to ask a few questions off of the top of my head. [these sort of questions are virtually not asked of anyone except for Jesus]
End of debate/discussion.
And here is one upon which we corroborated:
Buddha and Jesus
For more on Jesus in general see:
TrueFreethinker – Jesus
Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig)
drcraigvideos – YouTube
–>Continue reading →
See my articles on politics and pop-culture.Continue reading →
Sadly, this is obviously just a scam by a soulless corporation trying to get you to buy lots of artificially flavored and colored junk food. Some of the funds are to support Dan Savage’s non-profit to help bullied gay teens when Savage himself has bullied teens…not when he was a teen himself but as an adult, just a few years ago.
–>Continue reading →
Follow up video which began with the intro.
This is from a lecture I presented at the EMNR “Myth Taken” conference May 2015 AD.
It is titled “Atheism Explained and Exposed” and covers the issues of truth, morality, science, the problem of evil and Atheism itself.
Sadly, the audio goes from bad to worse.
–>Continue reading →
Nadia Drake wrote “Mystery Lingers Over Ritual Behavior of New Human Ancestor for National Geographic (September 15, 2015 AD). It is a very typical pop-science articles and one which touches upon issues pertaining to such reporting as well as issues of the manner in which we discern intelligence in others.
Firstly, the finding of Homo naledi has provided much food for thought and I already wrote two articles: Is Homo naledi the transitional form missing link? and Evolution news – human-like species discovered, named Homo naledi.
Nadia Drake’s title references a “New Human Ancestor” which is a conclusion based on merely the very first stage of research. There is utterly nothing to make us think that Homo naledi is a human ancestor other than Darwinian evolution is a worldview philosophy and we must force fit evidence into it—or so is the modis operandi of evolutionists.
Some very small skeletons were found and so they are automatically labeled as human ancestors. The reason for references to “Ritual Behavior” is that “A newly found human ancestor may have deliberately disposed of its dead, a behavior that may not be unique to us.”
Right on target and amazingly, the article quotes William Jungers, a paleontologist at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, who told National Geographic, “Mortuary ‘rituals’ wherein pinheads regularly dispose of corpses makes a better headline than ‘we don’t yet have a clue.’”
Well, we don’t yet have a clue but Nat Geo still went with the “better” headline which not only referenced ritual behavior but that H. naledi is a new human ancestor.
Presupposing that H. naledi engaged in such ritual behavior, we will get to the presupposition in a moment, Nadia Drake wrote:
While one has to wonder why H. naledi individuals would go to such lengths to dispose of their dead, other hominins, or human ancestors, are known to have treated their dead in a ritualized way. And many animals also respond to death with a specific set of behaviors. Considering those contexts, H. naledi’s habits might not be so odd.
The issue is not oddity but actuality. The presupposition is that H. naledi engaged in ritual behavior but how so, is this not a simple fact? Well, over a dozen skeletons were found together within what is termed the “Ninaledi Chamber” portion of the “Rising Star” cave system in Johannesburg, South Africa. H. naledi were small creatures and only small humans have been able to spelunk it.
National Geographic provided no photographs of the cave nor especially, the key point, the Ninaledi Chamber but in typical Darwinian bait and switch style provided a painting depicting what Homo naledis may have looked like and how their ritual may have been carried out.
They also provided reconstructions of what ancient ritually buried skeleton look like that are not, repeat not, H. naledi related but are from Israel (“the earliest known examples of Homo sapiens sapiens”) and France (Neanderthals; who were humans suffering from rickets). Ritual burial behavior is generally concluded when the skeletons are found in a styled fetal position and/or along with objects, etc.
From what I can tell, no photos or specific descriptions of the skeletons with the Ninaledi Chamber have been released and so the ritual burial conclusion, in this case, seems to be solely based on the fact that the skeletons were found together.
Could this denote ritual burial behavior? Perhaps. Could this furthermore imply intelligence? Perhaps.
However, the issue is that Nadia Drake took it upon herself to weave a Darwinian tale and to conclude that H. naledi’s is ritual burial and not well, if not ritual burial what then?
I certainly do not know but perhaps the mass burial was the result of some sort of wash out. That is to say that perhaps the creatures were gathered together escaping a flood and were washed away together. They could have been washed into the cave, they could have ended up there via what is termed hydro sorting as well (being of the same basic shape and size they may have been sorted as they tumbled around in the water.
Or, for all we know the cave was the home of some ancient predator which regularly feasted on H. naledi (the skeletons would show signs of tooth and claw marks).
The point is that in either case, we are being told much too much about creatures about which we know very little.
However, one bit of actually provable ritual behavior can be reported as South Africa’s Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa and also lead researcher on the project Professor Lee Berger of Wits University have been photographed kissing the reconstructed skull of H. naledi in some strange form of ancestor worship……or, something.
Now, what about the issue of creation via intelligent design? Simply stated, a bunch of skeletons found in the same location (in whatever configuration and for whatever reason) is enough for scientists, pop-science reporters and prepubescent bloggers to conclude that Homo naledi was, as the cover of National Geographic states it, “Almost Human” as they displayed some level of intelligence.
However, the very same personages have been confronted with the fact of a fine tuned universe, a virtual information system known as DNA, etc. and conclude that it is a coincidinc, a happenstance, the result of a very long series of happy accidents, time’did’it, matter’did’it, etc., etc., etc.
–>Continue reading →
The talk is by Annie Jacobsen, check out her book, “Area 51: An Uncensored History of America’s Top Secret Military Base.”
–>Continue reading →
Samuel Roffey Maitland’s (1792-1866 AD) essay VI: “The Fallen Angels” is a segment of Eruvin; or, Miscellaneous essays on subjects connected with the nature, history, and destiny of man.
He focuses on the Genesis 6 affair which regards the sons of God and daughters of men and notes:
The reader whose attention has never been drawn to the subject, would probably decide at once, that nothing can be more fanciful than the ancient opinion, now almost entirely given up, that the “Sons of God,” mentioned Gen. vi. 4, were Angels…many are not aware that it ever existed at all. [emphasis added for emphasis]
He affirms, quite rightly, that the Angelic interpretation of the text is the ancient opinion and cites for support Philo of Alexandria aka Philo Judaeus’ De Gigant / On the Giants, Flavius Josephus’s Antiq., Lib. i., cap. iii / Antiquities of the Jews and furthermore:
…no other interpretation seems to have been known by many of the fathers, and early writers of the Christian Church. Among them I may mention Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Tertulian, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian, Methodius, Lactantius, Eusebius, Ambrose, and Selpitius Severus.
Samuel Maitland reviews some popular, in his day, commentaries and shows a quick wit as he notes, for example
Dr. Adam Clark says, — “Verse I, when men began to multiply. It was not at this time that men began to multiply, but the inspired penman speaks now of a fact which had taken place long before, [and it is lucky that he has a commentator to explain his meaning.]
The bracketed statement is Maitland’s and shows his sarcastic view of that which Clark states with regards to the inspired penman, Moses by the way Dr. Clark, since Clark quotes the Bible and then contradicts the Bible in seeking to comment upon it in specifying, “when men began to multiply. It was not at this time that men began to multiply.”
Succinctly, within the essay Maitland notes that “The word Nephillim is so obviously derived from לפִנָ ‘to fall’ [H5303].” He also speculates thusly:
Perhaps, however, some reader…who sees no connexion between the name, and what we understand by a giant, may ask, “How then came our translators to give that word as the translation of Nephillim?” I answer, because the Septuagint and Vulgate had done the same…
Lastly within this mere perusal of the essay, is the interesting point about how the Genesis 6 affair involved “the sons of God” ben ‘elohiym, that “There were giants” nephiyl and that this resulted in the birth of “mighty men which were of old, men of renown” gibbowr. Well, their tale would have been known, would have been told even after the flood and after the Tower of Babel’s dispersion into language groups would have been carried far and wide, told and retold with additions and subtraction along the way as they became the various myths of ancient cultures.
Every school-book of heathen mythology…this gives us a key to the heathen mythology…in general terms…all that is said in the heathen mythology of the gods coming down on earth in human form, and of their intercourse with women, is but the very same story recorded by tradition. The whole history of the giants, the mixed progeny of earth and heaven, as it is given by heathen mythologists…
Indeed, ancient cultures which evolutionary anthropology would claim had not ancient interaction share stories of a great deluge / worldwide flood, of a boat and few survivors, of Angels or gods cohabiting with humans and producing offspring, of giants, etc., etc., etc.
For further reading, see my articles related to the Nephilim.
–>Continue reading →
Following up on my article Evolution news – human-like species discovered, named Homo naledi, I read Red Journals, article on the issue.
I kept noting the all-encompassing claims that H. naledi represents a “mix of human-like and more primitive characteristics” is “a new member of the human family tree” which “represents a mix of traits” and “arose at or near the root of the Homo group” but “researchers are not claiming that neledi was a direct ancestor of modern-day people, and experts unconnected to the project said they believed it was not.” This way, all bases are covered but generic statements: a little human but not really, part of the human family but only sort of, our direct ancestors but not directly.
If the bones are about as old as the Homo group, that would argue that naledi is “a snapshot of … the evolutionary experimentation that was going on right around the origin” of Homo, he said. If they are significantly younger, it either shows the naledi retained the primitive body characteristics much longer than any other known creature, or that it re-evolved them, he said.
This is much like the change from “global warming” to “climate change” since “global warming” is a very specific claim and demands very specific evidences yet, “climate change” is generic enough to fit any data.
So now, no matter what the facts turn out to be, it had to do with blind, random, unguided, goal-less Darwinian evolution and that’s for darn toot’n. For “If the bones are about as old as the Homo group” then “that would argue that naledi is ‘a snapshot of … the evolutionary experimentation that was going on right around the origin’ of Homo” but if the exact opposite is true then, “it either shows the naledi retained the primitive body characteristics much longer than any other known creature, or that it re-evolved them” so, like, whatever and stuff.
And if they are something previously chronicled? They’ve got that covered as well by golly:
Not everybody agreed that the discovery revealed a new species. Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, called that claim questionable. “From what is presented here, (the fossils) belong to a primitive Homo erectus, a species named in the 1800s.”
And what of the dating game? Well, a game it is…a guessing game thus far.
As noted in my previous article Evolution news – human-like species discovered, named Homo naledi, it was reported that they “have not been able to find out how long ago these creatures lived” and this one also affirms “And the discovery presents some key mysteries: How old are the bones?…They said they were unable to determine an age for the fossils because of unusual characteristics of the site, but that they are still trying.”
Yet, previously, Prof Lee Berger was quoted to the effect that despite this fact, he “believed” ’cause sure, why not that “they could be among the first of our kind (genus Homo) and could have lived in Africa up to three million years ago.” This time, we get a bit of a more specific date range, based on that which the Prof believes, “naledi’s anatomy suggest that it arose at or near the root of the Homo group, which would make the species some 2.5 million to 2.8 million years old” but with the added twist that “The discovered bones themselves may be younger.”
Eric Delson of Lehman College in New York, who also wasn’t involved with the work, said his guess is that naledi fits within a known group of early Homo creatures from around 2 million year ago.
Old, young, medium…whatever!
Rick Potts, director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural History Museum, who was not involved in the discovery, said that without an age, “there’s no way we can judge the evolutionary significance of this find.”
If the director of the human origins program at the Smithsonian Institution’s Natural History Museum thinks that there’s no way we can judge the evolutionary significance of this find he better consult with anonymous prepubescent bloggers who instantly took to their social networking sites to proclaim that, yet again (and again and again) we have a missing link transitional form which re-writes human evolution again (and again and again) and disproves the Bible again (and again and again).
Moreover, the H. naledi reconstruction is a typical worldview based one with white in the eyes, a pensive look, etc.
They show the skeletons laid down flat on a table so as to make it appear that they stood upright.
Also, from what I could tell thus far, the skulls are missing the portion that would contain the foramen magnum which would help identify human vs. ape or monkey (humans have this neck hole at the bottom of the skull but apes and monkeys at towards the back.
But we’ve got the pretty pictures so—it must be true!!!
This is the problem with pop-science reports and pop-science (mis)understanding. This is at the very first stage of research and no conclusions should be claimed as of yet.
And in the end, if the past is any guide to the future with particular regard to such things, a few years from now we will be told that these were just monkeys with no fanfare and no retraction from anonymous prepubescent bloggers or academics who, after all, cannot be expected to retract books and take H. naledi from their fancy charts, museum displays, etc.
–>Continue reading →