Giants, Darwin, and Dolly

Tell a Darwinist that you don't believe mankind evolved from monkeys, and the Darwinist automatically assumes that you believe in creationism. Pseudo-intellectuals have that tendency; they're always assuming that they can read the minds of others, while simultaneously pooh-poohing the very idea of mental telepathy. If you want to find the biggest hypocrites in the world, you need not look much farther than these individuals.

The Darwinist is the SJW of the scientific world. Bat-shit crazy when aroused, they cannot tolerate any information that threatens their worldview. Nor can they understand it, which is why I am not at all surprised that they have failed to see the writing on the wall after the discovery of Denisovan Man.

In 2010, researchers found a second wisdom tooth, buried deep in the back of the cave. The dental analysis fell to Bence Viola, an anthropologist of the University of Toronto who had examined the first Denisovan wisdom tooth and initially mistook it for the tooth of a cave bear, given its size and huge, splayed roots.
-National Geographic

Okay, massive wisdom teeth. Big enough to be mistaken for a cave bear. So what gets disseminated in the scientific press? That Denisovian Man would have had a 'massive jaw'! Wow! Really? You mean teeth big enough to be mistaken for a cave bear don't fit into a regular jaw? What about the rest of him? Oh, yeah, scientists say they don't know what he might have looked like... .

That is what is known of as an intentional misdirect. Words paint a picture, and the picture they are trying to paint is a hominid version of the guy below.

I somehow doubt that Denisovan man walked the earth pushing his huge jaw along the ground in front of him. Logic and a sense of proportion dictates that this was one human ancestor who was probably as large as the cave bear his molar was initially mistaken as having belonged to. He would have been very, very large.

But, that is neatly sidestepped by the scientific community. It raises too many embarrassing questions. Denisovan Man was found a region rife with legends of giants, and the last thing science wants to do is lend credence to those legends. The general population might foolishly get in into their heads that some legends may actually be based in reality!

Sadly, this really isn't anything new, as far as the established scientific community goes. The discovery of giant skeletons were widely reported in the 1800s and early 1900s. A number of these skeletons were even shipped to the Smithsonian Institute for preservation. The Catholic church made off with a few of them, too.

And then it all went black. The skeletons disappeared as if they'd never existed. At the same time, Darwinian theory took over the minds of the 'scientific community'. Am I insinuating that the skeletons presented a problem for the Darwinists, and were made to conveniently disappear? Yes. I think that is exactly what happened. The Church likely did the same for the opposite reason: the skeletons went a little too far in confirming local myths and legends, thus undermining its own hold on the populace.

It doesn't end there, though. Archaeologists have unearthed human bone fragments buried in strata that dates them to 20 million years ago, and older. These discoveries have also been swept neatly under the rug, or were removed from display (after having their labels tinkered with, as happened in one museum in Portugal), because they just don't jive with Darwinian theory. They argue for the presence of fully developed humans at a date far, far earlier than permitted by the theory of evolution.

If you doubt, then perhaps this well known quote might enlighten you as to that intent:

"If Dr. Whitney had understood the theory of human evolution, he would not have come to those conclusions. He would not have published that report."
William B Holmes, Smithsonian Institute

Dr. J.D. Whitney was the chief government geologist for the state of California during the gold rush. At the time, miners working in the mines at Table Mountain routinely discovered artifacts buried in strata that dated from over 50 million years ago. Dr. Whitney investigated these finds, and published a report through Harvard University Press confirming their indisputable antiquity.

Obviously William B Holmes, from the very same Smithsonian Institute where numerous giant skeletons mysteriously and conveniently disappeared, was of the opinion that if the facts don't fit the theory, then the facts must be discarded. We encounter this mentality whenever a Darwinist meets up with an inconvenient anomaly.

Good science, meanwhile, dictates that when the facts don't align with your hypothesis, you need to go back and rework that hypothesis.

Now, the reason I am so disgusted by the Darwinists is because their actions are getting in the way of truth. Mankind is obviously way older than their theory is willing to admit. Furthermore, what is being dug up of our human ancestors seems to indicate that there is something to ancient myths and legends. That, of course, means that all the evolution monkey-business is a load of crap. What our origins are is something I can't quite wrap my mind around, but it ain't monkeys! Maybe someone did create us. Dolly the sheep sure as shit wasn't a product of evolution, unless you are willing to believe that sheep suddenly and spontaneously developed the ability to clone themselves. She was created, in a test-tube, in a lab, by humans.

So, the next time an idiot Darwinist tries to insult you by sniffing and saying, "I suppose you believe in creationism," point to Dolly and say, "Damn fucking right, I do!"

All images: Pixabay