Discovery of Ancient Spear Tips Confounds Evolutionists, ‘Raises Questions on Evolution’

SpeartipETHIOPIA – Scientists are reconsidering evolutionary assumptions after man-made javelin tips were discovered in a geologic layer that, according to evolutionists, supposedly predates humans by 80,000 years.

During a recent archaeological dig, scientists unearthed numerous stone-tipped projectiles near Lake Ziway in central Ethiopia. The projectiles, which show clear signs of use, are puzzling to evolutionary scientists, since the geologic formation in which they were found is supposedly 280,000 years old. However, evolutionists claim modern humans did not evolve until about 200,000 years ago.

These unexpected findings were reported in the November edition of the journal PLOS ONE. In the article, the scientists confirmed that the sharpened stone artifacts were almost certainly used as javelin tips.

“Based on morphological parameters, these experimental points are described as effective hunting spears,” the scientists explained. “Combined results from the independent approaches presented here show that certain … points were used as javelin tips from as early as [279,000 years ago].”

Scientists also found evidence that the javelin tips were thrown at high velocities—a skill which only “modern” humans possess.

“We were only interested in testing the hypothesis that these tools were definitely used to tip spears,” Yonatan Sahle, one of the discovers of the artifacts, told National Geographic. “The eureka came much later as we did the analysis and found out that the features we were dealing with were the result of throwing impact, not thrusting.”

Sahle said the spear tips are evidence of “certain behavioral traits that are considered complex and mostly only the domains of anatomically modern humans.”

  • Connect with Christian News

National Geographic headline on the discovery
National Geographic headline on the discovery

This poses a problem for evolutionary hypothesis concerning mankind, since secular scientists believe humans from this era were not capable of creating advanced tools and weapons. National Geographic admitted that the javelin tips “raise questions on evolution.”

Last year, the journal Science reported a similar discovery of spear tips that were supposedly 250,000 years older than evolutionists expected. One paleoanthropologist quoted by National Geographic likened the discovery to “finding an iPod in a Roman Empire site.”

Scientists who believe in Biblical creation say that these discoveries cast serious doubts on the evolution of man. Brian Thomas, science writer for the Institute for Creation Research, told Christian News Network that the discovery of these ancient spear tips “leaves secular history with two interpretations, and neither appeals.”

“First,” Thomas said, “perhaps those who made this spear were not yet fully human in body shape—they still looked ape-like—but were human enough in mind to have built useful spears using assembly line-like cooperation. The problem with this is that modern and extinct apes have shoulders built for hanging by tree limbs—an anatomy that prevents them from throwing spears accurately enough to hunt. And the researchers showed that these African spears had been thrown. Throwing uses the same basic motion as pitching, and that requires the distinctly human body shape.

“The second secular interpretation,” Thomas continued, “holds that humans—fully human in mind and body—existed some 80,000 years before the evolutionary charts in textbooks and museums show. This is very embarrassing. Imagine the public mistrust that might result from redoing all those books and displays.”

Thomas said evolutionists will often find ways to incorporate the problematic data into their theories.

“In the past,” he said, “secular scientists have ‘solved’ problems like these by ‘re-dating’ the artifacts. Secularists may soon [claim] that these spears in Africa were only 200,000 years old after all.”

“Fortunately,” Thomas concluded, “a third interpretation is available to scientists not locked into secular history. Real descendants of Adam and Noah migrated to Africa, then manufactured and successfully hunted with spears not long after the Flood of about 2400 B.C.”

Photo: National Geographic


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Lance Ruffel

    This article must be some kind of joke. Brian Thomas has a problem with the discovery that some form of human or near human lived and used a throwing spear 80,000 years older than prior evidence ( 80,000 years is nothing in terms of evolution). Yet his “solution” is to then ignore the dating of the spear and claim it must have been left by a man 278,000 years later!This is too absurd to even think about.He is also a very troubled individual who seems to rant against scientists as if they can’t also believe in God.So very Christian of him to be so judgmental and bigoted.

    • James J. Grimes

      I’m not sure which article you were reading. I find his proposals to be reasonable and objective. Were you condemning him because he is a science writer for the Institute for Creation Research?

      Please try to be objective and non-prejudicial.

      Thank you.

      • lance ruffel

        You have not read the original articles or you would not be able to say they (proposals) are reasonable. Try reading the original( I have) and you will see the disingenuous quote mining of Mr Thomas. I find fault with his misleading fallacious statements.His labeling of “secular” is also disingenuous as many scientists are religious (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc), they just don’t buy into the YEC and Creation Institute false and shallow views of history, geology, genetics and the Bible

  • Mark Dijkhuis

    It’s incredible how desperate creationists are getting, now you’re just reaching at straws.

    The answer is pretty simple, Seeing as the Schoeningen spears date to 400 thousand years ago, and are clearly designed for maximum throwing potential its obvious Hominins were producing complex hunting technology before the evolution of the modern anatomical form. Really ovate and well designed Acheulean hand axes were being produced from 1.5 Million years ago.

  • RobH

    I don’t see how this discovery “raises questions on Evolution”.
    If anything, it answers a question; “Could our Homo heidelbergensis ancestors 280,000 years ago use throwing spears?”
    As the article says, stone spear-points have been found earlier which date to about 500,000 years old, so the use of spears by these early humans is no surprise. That they also learnt to use throwing spears is interesting, but I don’t see what about this new find justifies Brian Thomas’s claim that these artifacts are just 4,400 years old.

  • Iron Steve

    Can you Darwinists give me ONE example from the fossil record of one species evolving into a completely different species?

    Can you explain to me why your whole theory is based on living things arising at some point from non-living things when we observe in nature that living things only come from other living things?

    Can you explain to me cosmologically how nothing can cause everything to be?

    I believe that it takes way more faith, blind faith that is, to accept the notion of a universe without a Creator than it is to believe that God created all things for His purpose and glory.

    • Lance Ruffel

      Pliohippus to Equus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils try this link. However you will need to open your eyes and “see”. Living from non living-YOU. Check and see you are made of elements. The origin is not known or provable. Evolutionary theory( an educated guess is a hypothesis) does NOT deal with the origin of life. NO SCIENCE deals with the soul, this is for FAITH. The fact that organisms have evolved through lots of time(100’s of millions of years)says nothing about God.You can seek your relationship with God and still appreciate the oldness of the Earth and the changes through time.Is not your ability to see and think a God given gift? If so, use your gifts. Don’t listen to false profits who spew ignorance.

      • Lance Ruffel

        I meant “Prophets” or did I?

    • Lucas Francisco

      I can give you a really good, really obvious example of a species evolving into an upgraded version: humans. Humans are clearly primate in nature, from our body build to our ability to use tools. Not only that, we share 98/97% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Homo-Neanderthal is an ancestor of ours who was capable if using tools, and that species gave way to the superior Homo-Sapien.

      • http:[email protected] charles buuntin

        Neanderthals are not extinct. As evidence, I can point out a lot of families…including mine…and most NCAA and NFL interior linemen, and a lot of rednecks (like me)and some “goodfellas.” Drag them knuckles Lorra Mae

  • Joel Saint

    “Thomas said evolutionists will often find ways to incorporate the problematic data into their theories.

    “In the past,” he said, “secular scientists have ‘solved’ problems like these by ‘re-dating’ the artifacts. Secularists may soon ‘discover’ that these spears in Africa were only 200,000 years old after all.'”

    We all like to think that the scientific community bases their theories on the facts. That’s not the case. In fact, it is exactly opposite: They start with their presuppositions, and ‘presto’, the facts will eventually fit. Eventually.

    • Lance Ruffel

      You really mean “Creationists”. You know nothing about the scientific method or you would not say your comments.

      • Joel Saint

        Hi Lance,

        “You know nothing about the scientific method or you would not say your comments”

        You and I have never even met, yet you know that I “know nothing” about “the scientific method”?

        How do you know what I know? You don’t. But that doesn’t stop you from reaching a conclusion.

        Which is not surprising. Typical evolutionist: Short on facts and long on faith.

        • Lance Ruffel

          “They start with their presuppositions, and ‘presto’, the facts will eventually fit” Your own words show what you don’t know! You can be upset about my comments or you can learn. Your choice.Your perception is NOT the scientific method!!!!!!!

          • Joel Saint

            Hi again, Lance,

            Still hanging on with both hands to your conclusion? Glad to see you haven’t lost your faith.

            So tell me something: Is there such a thing as “the scientific method” on which all scientists agree?

  • Bob

    The main point every one is missing, is this is just another compromise and denial of God once again. Is the world really that old?

  • Lance Ruffel

    The definition in Wikipedia is as good as any “The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: “a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.” Check out the rest of the article it goes into more depth. 🙂

    • Joel Saint

      Hi again, Lance,

      Thanks for the Wikipedia reference, Oxford English Dictionary, etc.

      You still haven’t answered my question, so I’ll repeat it again: Is there such a thing as “the scientific method” on which all scientists agree?

      • Paul

        I think you may be loading your question with a false assumption, that assumption being that if the scientific method is not a set of concrete rules that it is somehow unreliable. I could understand why it would feel that way, but flexibility and questioning your basic assumptions are a part of discovering truth. There is a scientific consensus on the scientific method through a branch of study called the philosophy of science, through which we know that there are many valid techniques and methods. If you wish to learn more I would suggest reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn or The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper.

        • Joel Saint

          Exactly. It appears as if we’ve reached some kind of a conclusion here: There is no such thing as “The” scientific method on which all scientists agree. The so-called “scientific method” actually goes through changes, and as long as that continues, we are unable to talk about “The” scientific method.

          “A” scientific method is an honest way to state it. Think about it: At one time “a” scientific method was instrumental in concluding the Steady State theory of the universe. Now, “another” (equally scientific, apparently) method concludes that the universe had a definite beginning at a definite time in history.

          I can’t help but wonder how long it will be till we get the next theory based on “The (next) Scientific Method.”

  • Michel Smith

    https://www.facebook.com/AncientExplorers

    Try to keep an open mind…LOL. Creationists and Evolutionists may both be wrong…….

  • Greg

    I’m all for learning the truth, but couldn’t the spears have simply been dropped from trees? That would achieve high velocity without the need to be thrown, yet still be a fairly simple tool.

  • Yo

    You get ethical problems no matter which side you look at. No one’s immune to lying, after all. To suggest otherwise and condemn one side or the other is childish.

    To me, the issue of evolution is pointless. You pick evolution? Okay, how did it start? It is impossible to get something from nothing, so what was the first “something” everything came from? How did this “something” lead to DNA, to proteins and even teeth? You want to say everything developed as a result of the survival of the fittest, but what was alive to survive? How did it become alive? And since living organisms only come from other living organisms, what was the first living organism and how did it come to be alive? What gave it the ability to reproduce, and why would it reproduce? Wouldn’t improving itself endlessly be a more efficient survival of oneself than creating another living organism? If organisms were able to develop eyes, brains, and opposable thumbs, why not a body that doesn’t damage so easily or age so quickly? Wouldn’t it have been more logical to become more like viruses and bacteria than frail creatures like ourselves?

    If you wish to believe in evolution, that’s up to you. But, really, it raises far more questions than it could ever answer, and it also does NOT mean that God does not exist. The universe is mind-bogglingly complex. Even if we combined the intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom of every single person in history, we still wouldn’t understand even 1% of it. And yet, we, with all our frailties, failings, and ignorance, think we can say, with 100% accuracy, that there is no God? If you cannot get something as complex as Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa without someone purposefully creating it, how can you logically believe that the same is NOT true of something infinitely more complex? Evolution or not, it is illogical to suggest the universe is not designed.

    All you can truly argue is HOW the creation took place, not who did or or why, and it doesn’t matter to me which way it is. Either way, I find myself daily in awe of my God.

  • jerry

    Few are those who will pass through the narrow gates of God’s Kingdom. And I won’t be one of them. Thank you God for making me a believer.

  • Temira Wagner

    col k

    • Temira Wagner

      j;ti9

      • Temira Wagner

        gokifodxkip/ct8o7fpf4i;cdop7pjh8foihguin i,;[lj;t7yug;klkkk,hddd,kpuoyjiporgeofik[[prg4eikjymnnnrewuijvsiutiiruiunnwecbvtuvmrvoincwmqmmwcic,fvntgbnuinuredwcnmuyecvuewjmuie71991981836891658882899915541=/7=j]oq

  • gods need not apply

    “The second secular interpretation,” Thomas continued, “holds that humans—fully human in mind and body—existed some 80,000 years before the evolutionary charts in textbooks and museums show. This is very embarrassing. Imagine the public mistrust that might result from redoing all those books and displays.”

    Science is not embarrassed but excited when a new piece to the puzzle is found. That’s the wonderful thing about science: The malleability of science allows it to assimilate new evidence into the bigger picture. Can religion say the same? How embarrassing was it for the church when they finally had to admit we do not live in a geocentric universe? How long did it take for that admission?

    It is usually the public that finds it hard to believe something different than they were told as a child, and this makes it VERY hard to get a textbook updated. Which just raises another misinformed generation. No adult historian actually believes that Christopher Columbus was the discoverer of the Americas anymore. Yet ask any elementary school child about it. AND we still have a holiday for him!

    • Phaenius

      How embarrassing when you find that the scientific method was based upon a Biblical concept which is used as a schema of interpretation for the Bible called THE LAW OF TWO OR THREE WITNESSES THAT ESTABLISHES A MATTER. It is found throughout the Bible which is but an archive of eyewitness testimony. It is a tool to find out what is the NORMAL ORDERING of the Universe by its creator as it is NOW concerning processes and rates. It has two corollaries One with ONE witness and a negative conclusion, and the Second corollary has multiple witnesses with a positive establishment of justice, truth, or doctrine. The Christians or those influenced by the Bible used this concept in order to bring the ancient search for KNOWLEDGE (Science is but the Anglicized Latin word for KNOWLEDGE or the Greek GNOSIS) out of the esoteric guild based secret societies and into credibility. This methodology has no means of searching out ORIGINS….sorry.

      • gods need not apply

        1 – The fundamentals of our modern scientific method can be traced to ancient Babylonian astronomy, not the chrisitan bible.

        2 – The “law” you referenced has nothing to do with finding the “normal ordering of the universe by its creator”. It is closer related to how our modern justice system works than the scientific method. If 2+ “eyewitnesses” were all that was needed to “prove” something scientifically, why is there so much doubt about Roswell? Or the moon landing? Or evolution? More than 2 people may see Mary appear in a piece of toast, but that doesn’t make it scientifically true.

        3 – “Science” is derived from the Latin “scire/sciens” (to know/have knowledge). There is no connection between the modern English word “science” and the Greek “gnosis”. “Gnosis” refers specifically to knowledge gained through mystical methods or insight; as far removed from “scientific” as is possible.

        • Phaenius

          The search for knowledge is indeed a very OLD pursuit. The law of two or three witnesses was indeed presented as a principle for JUSTICE, that not only could be applied to the spoken testimony but to the written as well as a proper translation of 2 Peter 1:20 considers, and that Jesus Himself has the auditors reference the scriptures as means of testimony. Even MOSES the LAW GIVER WROTE the TORAH AS A TESTIMONY against the Jews when he predicts they will soon weary of JHVH and seek their own devices. And you give me ONE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC PROOF of something considered a natural law without reference to WRITTEN DOCUMENTATION of even the current Scientific Method, since it is the favorite device of you God haters to ask us to “prove” God exists without reference to the Bible, basically EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY when JHVH DID move about Creation openly.

          KNOWLEDGE of ANYTHING is based upon eyewitness (or the other senses, even enhanced senses) testimony. It did not matter whether it is spoken of in LATIN or GREEK, and even the translators of the Bible used the LATIN WORK SCIENCE for the Greek word GNOSIS.

          The law of multiple witnesses was, has been, and still today being misused as was its use in trying to find two false witnesses in the time of Ahab and Jezebel, and in the time of Jesus during His trial. Even Moses had the witnesses appear before the JUDGES who would look into their face and quiz them on their testimony to determine whether or not the witnesses were false, and should I remind you of the one of the commandments directly forbidding folk to BEAR FALSE WITNESS? That was not just simple lying but anyone, including the prophets were tasked to give their words truly.

          Again, of all the ancient literature, it seems the Bible is the only one that has a system internally set in place for interpreting the eyewitness testimonies during times when the “finger of GOD” moved upon the world and when He did not.

          You may not have respect for the SCIENTIFIC METHOD but it is not a real secret that this modern methodology was introduced into the ancient arts of seeking Knowledge by a Christian or Bible Influenced civilization and scientists, AND BROUGHT THIS SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE UP FROM THE ESOTERIC METHODOLOGIES, to be credible to a larger audience than the guild or the private seekers after how this universe is ordered.

          No matter how you despise this methodology, the fact is that what SCIENCE does today in a true application of the scientific method is determine what can be known TODAY of what are the processes and their rates. Only the interpretive portion of much of what is called Scientific Knowledge today is doubtful and you see the Bible folk use the same observations, the proper fruit of the scientific method, of even non-Bible believers to good use in our own World View.

          • gods need not apply

            Methinks you have managed to ramble to the point of confusing yourself, or maybe you replied to the wrong post.

            1 – I do NOT despise modern scientific methodology, but instead have the UTMOST respect for it. I have not indicated otherwise.

            2 – I do not hate god (any god/dess). I do not hate unicorns, fairies, or the Minotaur. Likewise, I do not hate talking donkeys or talking snakes. I cannot hate that which does not exist.

            3 – “…this modern methodology was introduced into the ancient arts of seeking Knowledge by a Christian or Bible Influenced civilization and scientists, AND BROUGHT THIS SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE UP FROM THE ESOTERIC METHODOLOGIES, to be credible to a larger audience than the guild or the private seekers after how this universe is ordered.”
            (A – How exactly is it that “modern methodology was introduced into ancient arts of seeking knowledge”? Sounds like time travel to me. Maybe you meant that modern methods have matured/grown/evolved from ancient ones?)
            (B – I am absolutely certain that the Code of Ur-Nammu-the earliest known codified set of laws, which do in fact call for testimony from reliable witnesses AND lays out punishments for false witness-was not derived from “a Christian or Bible Influenced civilization and scientists”. I am also certain that Plato and Aristotle were free of the christian/bible influence.)
            (C – This portion of your statement – “…AND BROUGHT THIS SEARCH FOR KNOWLEDGE UP FROM THE ESOTERIC METHODOLOGIES, to be credible to a larger audience than the guild or the private seekers after how this universe is ordered.” – is just downright false. For reference please see “Plato” and “Aristotle” again.)

          • Phaenius

            Gods NNA, Concerning your listing number 1:

            To be fair to you, I have NOT been following you nor know your positions of whatever sort.

            As for the subject at hand I an not confused, over the history of the scientific method or do I stumble over myself in confusion of what I say. The Rambling you perceive is an attempt to cover points in this rather inefficient posting schema we labor under…but don’t take that as me being unappreciable of having this type of medium available, anyway, but a lot of mercy must be applied to those of us, and even you, in using it.

            To be fair, I replied to YOUR comment, so I presume to defer to your ordering of comments, not doubting, but rather hoping you might have some modicum of insight concerning the subject at hand…even as I deny you your protestations, understanding that opinions of all types abound on any one issue to the point that debate classes can have one person argue both sides of issues.

            I do, however, believe in ONE TRUTH no matter what multitude of scenarios may be presented contrary to our REALITY.

            I am glad you do not “despise modern scientific methodologies,” but this methodology was NOT a factor in any documented way concerning how the early folk managed their eyewitness, except that found in the Torah, admittedly somewhat later than many other systems of law. While witnesses were spoken of, HOW they were used can only be implied….and I have come across statements in passing to that effect…and now I am wishing I was cognitive enough to recognize their importance to write them down.

            How folk take on principles to guide their thinking is a personal thing not always stated, and there is a vast repertoire of such to choose among, but you seem to have taken on a strict empiricist stance, denying anything that YOU (hint here to correct me in my presumption) cannot see, but that is to the added disadvantage that you deny documentation outside your ken that may deny you to prove every scientific truth, unless you presume you can be a judge over every observation outside that of your own eyes or senses.

          • Phaenius

            Gods NNA concerning number 2 in your last post:

            I am not aware that any of the mythologies, containing unicorns, fairies, Minotaurs and even talking snakes and donkeys, outside of the Bible ,are organized as archives of eyewitness testimonies, but the Bible IS so organized and it DOES have a schema of interpretation concerning eyewitness testimony that I could only WISH to find in the other systems of law…which by the way the Bible acknowledges to exist, and only comments that this system of law was BASED UPON the eyewitness accounts of God presenting such laws to the people as opposed to having the laws come from the mind and pen of men.

            There is a remarkable and important difference in this coming from GOD, the CREATOR, of our reality and universe, since even in the mind of the modern protagonist of all things empirical, John Locke, that certain things coming from God, rather than man or government, puts it out of MAN recalling certain rights. Locke is considered a father of modern empiricism, and while influencing Jefferson who from time to time approaches your concept of this philosophy I presume you are entrenched in, he ACKNOWLEDGES that the Creator put us on this earth TO LIVE and we are NOT to off ourselves before the time in that what amounts to suicide is NOT LIBERTY but LICENSE, and if it is MORALLY impossible for us to justify killing our innocent selves, then we have no such RIGHT to DELEGATE to another, from which Jefferson takes this thought and introduces them into Our American (if you are American you ought to appreciate this or HOPE that the Christians among us you must fear dominance to believe in) Declaration of Independence as UNALIENABLE RIGHTS (Jefferson’s original word was INALIENABLE but the members of the committee that excised his paragraph on the evils of slavery in his draft changed it to unalienable) TO LIFE, as well as that of LIBERTY or the freedom to do that which is RIGHT IN THE EYES OF GOD, and of PROPERTY in an expanded form called PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS that has a man not only having his substance covered in right to ownership but an excess that can be used for CHARITY (a part of the only definition of RELIGION found in James 1 which indicates that governments are NOT BASED ON RELIGION or the DOING OF RELIGION of the people) that relieves the government from dealing with indigents, and the residual of the property to be invested in COMMERCE which is the health (happiness) of the community.

            In denying the CREATOR, out of hand and with no manner of real evidence, you deny a right we Americans must have to be free, and I will fight you in any way to keep you from taking this away from me…and why a denial of God is FOOLISHNESS as defined in the Bible.

            These are real laws and we appreciate them because they come from God, not from the pen of men.

            Deuteronomy 4:8 (KJV) 
8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? 


            We do not DENY that there are indeed other laws, but it just happens to be that from THIS type of law the modern SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY took its form with amen from others in recent past (down to the time of Plato and Aristotle, though more son Aristotle). But even in MEDIEVAL Europe Plato’s concept NOT BASED UPON EYEWITNESS but from philosophy competed with the empiricism of Aristotle and his forerunner MOSES. As far as the other law systems were concerned, we relied more on the Greek and Roman applications of the laws of Babylon and other some such near eastern civilizations, since such laws as actually documented in discovery came way later.

          • Phaenius

            Gods NNA, concerning your number 3 a, b, and c:

            I appreciate that this may NOT be YOUR reason for denying the archive of testimony we call the Bible for your understanding of things concerning the Creator, but as for SCIENCE (being a term to shorten the idea of saying SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY that introduces knowledge we can find credible) but it is the HISTORICAL reason for our modern system, now depraved in its unjust denial of the Bible as documentation among other documentarians of KNOWLEDGE, and the Bible is first and foremost with its means of interpreting such eyewitness knowledge a BOOK OF KNOWLEDGE whether translated SCIENCE in the LATIN or GNOSIS or KNOWLEDGE from the Greek…or a BOOK OF SCIENCE.

            3, a – I meant that the modern protagonists of the modern scientific method introduced the multiple observations and experimentations to derive scientific truth INTO the already extant observational system of a search for knowledge, the search being ANCIENT. Sorry for the unfortunate manner of saying this…and it was not unimportant for you to bring it up if it actually confused you.

            3,b – We do not know that PLATO and ARISTOTLE were unfamiliar with the law of MOSES in that GREEK SCHOLARS in Alexandria, Egypt felt it important to interpret the HEBREW Scriptures into the GREEK LANGUAGE. But it is sure that PLATO was not impressed with OBSERVED or EYEWITNESS of natural phenomena, though Aristotle seemed to part ways with Plato in that at least HE thought that to see a thing was the beginning of knowledge.

            And even in our “faith” based World View found in the Hebrew people and among the Christians, it was important that EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY of when the “FINGER OF GOD” moved on earth was the BASIS for the FAITH that we insist on in order to be considered CHRISTIAN, and why the law of two or three witnesses that establishes a matter which IS UNIQUE to the HEBREW AND CHRISTIAN archives of EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY is important.

            The Bible indicates that miracles STOPPED in the fortieth year of Jesus’ peerage, apparently in August 70 AD, forty years of 360 day years after the death of John the Baptist, when the temple was destroyed, and prophesies (eyewitness of future events) were done away with at the death of the last eyewitness of what Jesus said and DID. They will be taken up according to prophesy after the rapture of the church age saints for about seven years before Jesus comes down and sets up again a kingdom based upon Jewish supremacy. So in the meantime it was important for Christians to be involved in establishing God’s NORMAL ways of ordering the processes and rates in His creation, so that we have a benchmark of what is NATURAL (and not that related to the “finger of God” moving otherwise in His Creation) so that when miracles again appear and prophets abound, there will be no excuse to misidentify the phenomena. We CANNOT bring on demand MIRACLES (sorry to the deceit of the Charismatics) from the likes of you BECAUSE THE BIBLE PRETTY MUCH SAYS SO. What we have to rely on is the Archive of Testimony that DOES ABOUND in the Bible concerning such events…and I agree that takes faith…as much faith as YOU having in your untested ability to JUDGE THAT NOTHING IS OF WORTH UNTIL YOU CAN SEE IT…when in fact our faith IS BASED ON THE DOCUMENTATION OF WHAT IS SEEN. It just so happens that GOD determines who has this faith, and until YOU DIE FAITHLESS, you still have a chance to acknowledge that what the Bible declares to you concerning salvation is true…because BELIEF is a work of GOD who will draw you to the truth, and if HE does not do so, you will not come to Christ.

            3,c – I learned the word ESOTERIC when I studied Alchemy the search for certain types of knowledge that led up to the modern concepts of science, mainly because these precursors were based upon magic, and such in their search for upgrading base metals into gold and silver. And since it was as late as that time of John Locke who is considered a major modern protagonist of the imperial method for knowledge that the modern search for knowledge was established you are just breathing hot air in your protestations to the contrary. Consider the early scientists who WERE CHRISTIAN or somehow influenced by the Bible, and even the Islamic empiricists were influenced by the Hebrew Bible. As for Locke in his Second Treatise of Government which Jefferson was mentored upon, both of which were protagonists for the modern empirical methodologies established by Christians and reliance upon the Hebrew and Christian texts concerning the Law of two or three witnesses DEMANDING EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS concerning the moving of the FINGER OF GOD, and that of any other natural process or rate:

            Sect. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is

            not a state of licence: though man in that state have an

            uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions,

            yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any

            creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its

            bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law

            of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason,

            which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it,

            that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm

            another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men

            being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely

            wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into

            the world by his order, and about his business; they are his

            property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his,

            not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like

            faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot

            be supposed any such subordination among us, that may

            authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one

            another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s.

            Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to

            quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own

            preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he

            can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it

            be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life,

            or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty,

            health, limb, or goods of another.

  • Nofun

    Ummm this would be more of a problem for theists than realists. Science always changes when new evidence is found.

    “a skill which only “modern” humans possess.”
    Nice rider there. Since Neanderthals threw spears too it was not a “modern human” skill.

    I also like the nasty little lies about redating by the creationist. Cute. None of this gives any credence to Noah, Adam or floods. If something predates humans by 80,000 years it hardly fits in with a 2400 BC flood.