The Graphics of Bilzingsleben

18 Apr 2012

At is an interesting story that seems to be further evidence of science dogma in action, in which a consensus theory is applied to evidence and when such evidence does not fit the storyline it is hushed up, ignored, or criticised in a manner that is derogatory of the scientist concerned rather than the data itself. Feliks has obviously felt the pain and the sorrow. In his case it is all about Homo erectus and a particular discovery in Germany of bone that was engraved and etched with various symbols and images, and repeated in such a manner as to suggest cognitive abilities not very different from humans in the modern world. The problem was that the engravings come from geological strata dated between 320,000 and 412,000 but not only that, it concerns the idea of gradual evolution - in humans as much as any other animal. The idea of sporadic evolution in leaps and bounds at major boundary events (and lesser events too most likely) with reduced evolution in between is not part of the consensus picture - especially not in the secular world view in which humans are evolving all the time, and becoming cleverer and cleverer. In this world view the idea of humans locking themselves into long term marraige contracts, for example, is viewed as out-moded - the modern secular world has adopted a more chaotic gender relationship. The idea of gradual evolution pervades most science disciplines - but is it justified? In this article Feliks has positioned himself as a contrary scientist that is knocking the consensus theory and claims there is specific evidence that Homo erectus was as intelligent as we are - as far as problem solving is concerned. His bitch is that consensus scientists will try every underhand trick in the book to undermine genuine evidence that is contrary to what they believe is right - but how can anyone in science be so sure of anything? His opinion is that Homo erectus had a developed language and mathematical ability and was not in any way the brutish monsters they have been portrayed by bigoted scientists adhering to the consensus model. He has a dig at you know who and claims there is a lot of information, known to the experts, that has been suppressed and not allowed out for public scrutiny. It's strong stuff and for the abstract see (page 18-19) and it will be published in the conference proceedings in due course. Worth looking out for.