Often i've heard here at the thunderbolts forums that the scientific community is dealing unfairly with catastrophists, plasma/electric universe cosmology and the historical value of myth. This complaint seems to be justified but the complainers seem to be overlooking their own double standard as they divert attention towards the mistreatment by their primary opposition.

When i first came to this group 8 years ago I developed high hopes that it might be on its way to producing something that was lacking in what i was hearing from the corners of science that I was tuned into, archeology and geology plus human historical consideration. I wasn't aware of the term soft-sciences, as is applied to two of these, but i knew that their theories were flimsy and in several ways beyond validation. I was somewhat aware of a conflict between the camps of evolution and creationism and then as now I knew they were both misguided but in different ways. Both are human efforts to explain the past and their motives are highly self-serving. In such an environment what knowledge will ever emerge that is untainted by bias. Both these groups are misguided and the end result is that valuable contributions from either side become inadmissible for no other reason than its source.

A double standard is being applied by those who stand under the banner of science to prove their gradualist brainchild and one victim is the legends which have lived through the ages. The omission of living testimony was a handy choice because of fragmentation demonstrated in modern parlor games of storytelling but there were other motives. Catastrophists were a group getting ousted by this new version and with myth disqualified the only evidence needed as support was bones and a vivid imagination.

But now its the catastrophist's turn to show what they've got as evidence and one would think that the first thing to determine would be what science really means. In it's expanded definition it suggests systematized knowledge derived through observation, study and experimentation carried on to determine the nature and principles of what is being studied. In its basic sense it means gaining knowledge. Nowhere in this do i see any room for opinion or exclusion of data for any reason, but there seems to be no shortage of this in the soft sciences that lay the foundation for so many other levels of scientific development. So why is it that people who deal only in science pick and chose what is admissible? Won't the end result just take on the form of the authors limited collection of data? They have the right to do this but in exercising that privilege have they not already deviated from the path to knowledge and certainly that of a hard-science?

There is the double standard that i've witnessed, one that comes from people who claim to stand only on scientific ground but when challenged on the suppositions they pronounce fail to produce the finer details or make examination without resorting to their own world view.

There is a wealth of well developed material which still doesn't get the time of day even though its source puts the highest value in ancient texts that have been carried into this era by people who are experiencing the essence of its content and have no reason to be misleading.

Can you imagine that an avenue of research, that puts the highest amount of value in symbols chipped into rocks as well as their associated legends from a fragmented period of mankind's history, would alter one particular historical source so it takes on a significantly different meaning? It is treated as having no more value in its original form than would serve a modern soft-science interpretation that involves primarily an intermediate period in history, And to be clear, they twist specific material, that predates the catastrophic period they are addressing, in favor of an interpretation to support their celestial model. In doing this they seem to be falling back on the same mistake of previous generations of researchers who omitted much of legend and cultural testimony, as being superstition, because of determined objectives to counter the predominate beliefs of the time. We should all be able to recognize the contradiction of applying the term science to anything that shapes its conclusion around a world view that is based on the rejection of all historical accounts from eye witnesses and their descendents. But are we blind to a worse contradiction of science that will be the result if people who look at legends and symbols of an ancient time leave out one component because it has an enduring spiritual implication that they could not live with.

This could be regarded as the lazy side of science but it is more like the delusional side than anything, one that looks at the book's cover and measures it against ones own belief system in determining any value. Will there ever be a time when the proponents of 'science' will learn from the mistakes of predecessors? One might hope so but this would require an admission that goes against many modern egos, being clueless or more accurately not knowing for sure.

We have an opportunity to put a particular period of human history into perspective but what will be the outcome? Will we also draw conclusions that undermine the strength of a nation as did former generations of 'scientists'? Will it complement human experience at many levels and foster a resolution of longstanding differences between cultures that looked at the myth making period in a bit too personal of manner. Since science is not a new concept, only its philosophical biases are new, we might hope that science will actually lead to knowledge at the levels that were desired at it's earliest phase, but i may be a bit too optomistic here for knowledge has had some undesirable effects on humans.

Are there any who guide us correctly? There have been scientists who's work is an extension of a longstanding philosophical foundation and biblical influence. These have made tremendous contribution throughout recent history. And there are those who's philosophical choices point them in a different direction that has other objectives and a smaller foundation. But both of these are as misguided as the other when it comes to answering questions about the origin of man. The first has an ancient text which gives a general account but their mistake is that this is to be taken by faith by those who chose to live by biblical faith. The latter has no testimony from old only the theories of modernists with a dismissive world view of the historical past. They fabricate pre-history out of their denial of history.

We need to face up to the probability that much of the evidence needed to support one of the children of gradualist views, evolution, is thin at best and even absent, but why do they persist? Is it possibly because the other side of the argument contains implications that strike so deep as to produce a defensive posture against the possibility that one of the ancient texts is actually true in its primary tenets. So that which emerged was reactionary if anything. ( Few people seem aware of a probable connections between the expansionist events of the 1800s in america and the birth of the gradualist's child which would marginalize great numbers of humankind and reduce them to savages and lower humans in the minds of people on both sides of the Atlantic from north to south. Bad enough were the atrocities of the previous centuries, under the banner of the cross, but that century would go down in history as a role-model of ethnic cleansing for decades to come. Cloaked in the garbs of science, introduced to would-be commanders of america's new war machine, the seed of evolution was planted, a virus for the minds of the forces of a government, that was supposed to be guided by right thinking, it spreads as a western delusion even today). I would call this reaction a superiority complex, desiring to be the top of the heap, the king of the hill, or the pride of the fittest, no credit tp be applied anywhere other than the human component of one's own measurable history and of course making the necessary dismissal of undesirable traits that are required in order to be the fittest, such as trampling over any obstacle and calling it normal for humans. This defensive posture is in battle against the implications inherent in the faith-based alternative, the historical account that is beyond our comprehension and probably beyond proof. The people that try to prove the alternative have missed an important detail, that the biblical version of creation was never meant to be proven. It is there as a stumbling block, one of many and oh how it has exposed the lengths that people will go to validate themselves.

The catastrophist perspective may be the correct path to take to resolve a particular period in human history but it will never reach its full potential as long as a double standard for admissible evidence is held by top level contributors. My disappointment is only slight, however, for much of what i've learned and experienced persuades me the more that following men that reject god is the ultimate in foolishness but don't take that to mean they have little to contribute, it just need to be filtered through the finest of mesh.

As evidence of the most recent moment of an amazing development, that came at great surprise to me, I submit The Electric Spark Scars on CRT's. The circumstances that led to this development could fill the pages of a book, and the fact that I lived long enough to experience this development is all to hard to explain but it has been the hand of Christ in ways only some people can relate to from their experiences. You may not believe any of this now but that will change. I just hope it happens before you draw your last breath. An expanded view of western delusions will be added over time, and your comments are welcome.