[philosophy] in the end, who’s to say [1]

There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world, and the worst of it is half of them are true. [Winston Churchill]

In any philosophical discussion, there has to at least be agreement on the terms of reference, on the terms used themselves, of the parameters of the field in which you agree to argue and in a psychological predisposition to accept points made by the other side. Even more than this is the uselessness of placing oneself in the centre, the Me stance and demanding that you convince Me. Who am “I”?

This presupposes that You are sufficiently equipped, mentally and by dint of vast knowledge, to ultimately comprehend the Truth. I make no such claim, as I am no humanist, placing Man at the centre, with the sun, stars and the elements orbiting around Me. Rather, I am a speck in the firmament and yet, as the Australian aborigines believe, acting on and affecting all other elements of the earth and sky.

But evidence is not enough. Depends how it’s served up. Knowledge about dinosaurs is derived from a variety of fossil and non-fossil records and has the backing of the scientific community. So what do you make of this fossil record? If you’re half willing to accept this, the moment I place it in its original context, it will be rejected because of the guff written around it . Yet how does the guff alter the record itself?

Put the Nephilim in a biblical context or in an apocryphal and they’ll be rejected immediately. Start rabbiting on about Annunaki and you'd be consigned to the funny farm. Which leaves the eternal question: “Have they been finally disproved just because kooks are into them?” There’s at least circumstantial that they did exist.

And finally – if your reaction is to smile and say: "Of course it’s rubbish," my question to you is – on what are you basing that view? Archeology, philosophy or your own psychology? And if you say: "Evidence, man. With the dinosaurs there was evidence," I ask: "And what of the fossil record link here?"Then I ask a second question: "Why are you so quick to accept archeological evidence of one and so determined to reject the other?"