Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Hot Topics => Topic started by: CitrusHigh on February 13, 2012, 09:38:18 pm
-
I heard on a radio interview a while back by Patrick Timpone, Aajonus talk about not necessarily buying in to evolution because he had personally witnessed flies manifest on rock with no eggs present. Does anyone have any more info on this? It was not the main thrust of the discussion so he didn't expound on that comment at all. Anyone have a clue where I can go for more info re, what he's talking about?
**Also I know there are plenty of peoples on here with less than flattering views of Aajonus, I'm not interested in that, if you don't have something to contribute, feel free to skip, I'm aware that Aajonus makes unusual claims, but he usually has good reason for it, and though I don't idolize him, I'm very grateful for the work he does, because I probably wouldn't be sickness-free here today without him, even though I don't really follow his dietary prescriptions, other than raw meat and dairy. Thanks!
-
I like Aajonus, he's a pioneer, we are all lucky to have someone teaching a RAF diet in the US. However, this is a crazy claim. It is factually crazy. It will never be anything other than crazy. Again, I like Aajonus, I'm tremendously lucky for the trailblazing he has done for RAF-eaters.
-
*sigh* This topic just has to be moved to the Hot Topics Forum. It is just so anti-palaeo/anti-evolution in its intent.
-
**Also I know there are plenty of peoples on here with less than flattering views of Aajonus, I'm not interested in that, if you don't have something to contribute, feel free to skip, I'm aware that Aajonus makes unusual claims, but he usually has good reason for it, .....
oh this is the bad energy I keep hearing about on this forum. Geezuz, people said man would never fly just 100 years ago, people thought we'd never go to the moon, people KNOW raw meat will kill them. Can you see how silly your "wisdom" is? Open your minds, empty your cups, and ignore posts that you don't find relevant to you. You will *gladly* believe that the whole fucking universe(that is billions of galaxies, trillions of stars and planets) sprang out of NOTHINGness due to a quantum flux, but you can't even *consider* flies popping up out of nowhere?
Would it help if I said, that they might have manifested due to a quantum abnormality? lol ROFLMFAO Ri0dackulous!
Also for cheri I would like to point out the incredible stench of hypocrisy that is marring my thread. It is coming from your post, and the foundation of which is the comment you made accusing me of not being a 'reasearcher' not being 'curious' but instead being a preacher. I'll let you figure the rest out, certainly not worth more energy then is it?
-
If bacteria can develop in a nuclear reactor.. I'd say that would be possible, but improbable. What if those flies were teleported there somehow? :D
-
There is a big difference in not believing in some solid theory like gravity, which is ridiculous, and not believing in the spontaneous creation of adult lifeforms out of nowhere, which has a lot of hard science debunking it.
Personally, I would rather believe in a quantum flux or a portal opening to another parallel dimension allowing insects in, than that God suddenly created some insects.
-
Your points of view are as old as you guys are. Quantum theory is confirming that matter is pliable, which should be a no brainer since matter is mostly empty space, ha ha and what we do consider to be actual matter is just light/energy anyway. Also which is more likely, the whole universe springing in to existence out of nothing by random flux? or a little bit of bacteria or a fly springing in to existence in a universe where matter already exists? Don't answer that, it's rhetorical...cuz I'm a preacher lol
And 'tweren't I but you who brought god in to this, I was merely making an innocent inquiry about something I wanted to know more (what's that smell? oh it's an open mind!). Do you think I found raw meat by accepting the bullshit that is 'obvious' conventional wisdom? haha you know I'm right, just admit it your folly, it's ok. You are limited by your beliefs, so am I, we all are, but some of us want to shrug off those limits.
Furthermore, out of the two of us cheri, which one in this sitch is trying to learn, and which is trying to inhibit that? Your authoritarian ways are like a quagmire, and you're stuck bro, in the muck. Evolve a bit...lol
-
Actually, I like some other RVAFers only switched to this diet because we read a large number of scientific studies which confirmed the benefits of raw food. Such as studies done on the hygiene hypothesis etc. If Aajonus hadn't specifically cited a few studies backing some of his more bizarre(but correct) claims, I would never have accepted his ideas at all.
-
Right, which is the weakness to your methodology. How did anyone (animals included) ever get along before science/medicine?? Rhetoric: Animals, who, as far as we can tell have no ability to reason, and are not individually self aware (ego) can, in the absence of modern foods, determine what is best for their health without scientists, nutritionists, dieticians, doctors, or any other 'trained' fools.
It does not take a genius(but you will have to un-indoctrinate yourself) to realize that torching your food is going to warp it's fragile nutriments, you just have to unplug from science and so called authorities. I'm not saying science is bad, it's just misused 99%(hyperbole, I don't know the exact amount, but I believe the majority of it) of the time and not necessary for health.
Your citing of studies might convince others who are locked in such a mode of thought as you, but not people who can simply observe that we are the only creatures who cook our food, and we(and our domestics) are the ones that experience degenerative disease with such great magnitude in comparison to our wild counterparts(the ones we aren't poisoning).
Again, the above is to help others think differently, rationally according to occam's razor (sort of, look around you, the truth is everywhere, forget the vaccum aka labratory, it's strengths lie elsewhere!), it's not for you, hence the rhetorical disclaimer.
-
It's all very well to state that wild animals don't cook their foods, but we humans have been doing it for a long time and are addicted to it. Hard science in favour of going raw is way more useful for potential RVAF newbies than New-Age-rubbish being spouted by Aajonus and Weston-Price as regards handing down bogus "words of wisdom" from Hunter-Gatherer Chiefs and the like.
-
Flies don't just manifest without having gone through the maggot stage. They...just...don't.
Even if they teleported from some other location, they still were maggots at some point.
I mean, what's the other explanation? Some kind of spiritual entity manifested some flies?
If you want to postulate that, fine, but I don't see how it's going to change my perspective on food and nutrition, even if it were true.
Am I now supposed to pray to the fly-manifesting god, in addition to eating a good diet, for health purposes? Maybe there's some other god I should pray to, instead.
Look, I've got nothing against the Taoist/animistic or Hindu/pantheistic type of religions, but religious belief won't keep an entire population diabetes-free. On the other hand, there are plenty of traditional tribes that were diabetes-free before switching to Western store-bought foods.
That's just an example. I can give others. They're all pretty solid AND persuasive.
-
Well shit, I just deleted everything I had written to you Ty. Sufficed to say, whatever, we're on totally different wavelengths, i get what you're saying, I don't think you're registering my end at all, but that's cool. If I'm to have a future here we'll be agreeing to disagree a lot.
__________________________---
Cheri, I'm not asking you or anyone else to believe anything, let alone flies manifesting on rock. I'm saying quantum theory ABSOLUTELY allows for any possibility. I mean fuck, if we can't even nail down the position and velocity of an electron then we've got a looooooooooooooooong way to go before we know shit about shit. I mean are you copying this? Quantum physics says that the scientists doing the experiments (the observers) have an impact on the outcome (the observed). Can you follow that to its logical conclusion? It's got several implications. One is that we never really know that the results we're getting or the things we are seeing are real because WE are participating, influencing our reality. Furthermore, that means that anything is possible, the only real limits are the ones we impose. There's nothing new age about that, it's scientific fact, which ought to hit home for you since that is your god.
And oh my un-god, you can't even conceptualize what I'm saying can you? I mean you and I are in two totally different 'realities' lol. Where in the world did you get a fly manifesting god? or any god from?
I merely found Aajonus' claim to be curious, I wanted to know more, the natural place to look for more info is with people in the raw community, which is why I posted the question here and on facebook. In the mean time of course I've been hunting down info on my own using google. I mean, how differently do we have to see the world for you get all of the above out of my simple, innane, harmless little question? The origin of life fascinates me, I don't buy either creation or evolution in their entireties. Obviously the earth wasn't created in 6 days, or any other ridiculous such story, but darwinian evolution doesn't entirely make sense either, and the 'big bang' is a load of bollocks almost certainly. As a tracker I believe that one should be able to track things back to the beginning, that congruency among the concentric rings of the universe' origin is available, you just have to look for it.
But it's all about an empty cup, yours is full, you are sure about things that you cannot prove, which is called faith. The big bang is the most ridiculous and grasping postulation to have ever been conceived and seriously promoted.
Anyhoo, let's be done with this conversation, noone is making any progress nor do I believe some of us have the desire to, you can delete the whole thread if you want, I got what I want and I learned a lot about the dynamics of the ruling class on this forum. You should really get more detailed with your guidelines and forum policies. It is painfully obvious to anyone with eyes that there are rules other than what waungata has posted in the welcome section. You should be very detailed about the fact that you are a group of authoritarians who believe in darwinian evolution and that part of that evolution is that the human is evolved to eat raw and that god doesn't exist. That nothing controversial (as you define it) can be posted here without you guys stopping in to cry foul, and then you should further enumerate what is not controversial so that we can have some inkling of what is ok to post (and believe/espouse). Just be plain about it.
It's ok for you to run your forum exactly as you like, but you're going to continually be experiencing a lot of friction if noone knows what's ok to post and what is considered queer or 'new agey'.
I specifically disclaimed in my initial post, if you didn't have something constructive to say, skip it, obviously you're looking for conflict. You don't think I realize that flies manifesting out of nowhere is a bizarre claim? But so are a lot of other things that have turned out to be true. There is no harm in being open to it, that is entirely different than actually accepting it!
Geez, for a bunch of people who have bucked the established bullshit for a new paradigm, you sure have some rigid views!
-
There's a big difference between a fly and an electron.
And I'm not saying it's impossible, but so what? It sure doesn't happen regularly....and if it doesn't happen regularly, it's very hard to test it. If it's hard to test, it's hard to reproduce. If it's hard to reproduce, it's hard to make USE of it. And what's the point of discussing it if it can't be made USE of?
I certainly wouldn't call myself a strict atheist...but I'm definitely not a Deist, either. I have my own thoughts about spirituality, life, the universe, etc., but those things are just theories. They can't be put into use, so I don't spend a tremendous amount of time talking or thinking about them.
The fact of the matter is that I'm so far beyond 99.999% of the population re: those types of issues that I just try to avoid talking about them. I get bored and frustrated when other people spam their lame-ass, overly-simplistic spiritual beliefs and theories on me, and I just try to avoid such discussions, as a result. Even if my theories are wrong, I'm so much better at finding the holes in any existing theory that it's very boring to listen to others' thoughts on the matter, most of the time. They are covering ground that I was done with years and years ago. And they won't LISTEN, either...and they either get mad when I point out the holes in their theories, or they ignore reason, or they just think so slowly that i get bored trying to discuss it.
And none of it is particularly useful, anyway. Theories about God/existence don't put food in the belly. They don't tell you which is the BEST food, either, you know?
If you reallllly want to discuss it, we can...but these types of discussions rarely end well. Someone usually gets hurt feelings. Also, I don't want to discourage members that DON'T share my beliefs from posting and reading here. I want the board to grow. If I wanted to discuss these issues, I could make a message board just for that.
-
I heard on a radio interview a while back by Patrick Timpone, Aajonus talk about not necessarily buying in to evolution because he had personally witnessed flies manifest on rock with no eggs present. Does anyone have any more info on this? It was not the main thrust of the discussion so he didn't expound on that comment at all. Anyone have a clue where I can go for more info re, what he's talking about?
I'm no good at bickering, but I've heard the same radio interview and wondered about it, too. AV mentioned that he saw this in lab experiments, and my best guess is that he saw something that involved cloning. My guess is based on the fact that flies are used in cloning experiments a lot because they are cheap to experiment on/with, and because AV said "no parent, no egg" and concluded that "evolution is a tricky thing." In addition, I don't think the practical application of quantum physics is that far advanced as to have reached the species-replication stage, and I don't think metaphysics really cares if flies can be manifested. Then again, I might be wrong.
-
Micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is not. In fact macro evolution has been used for political agendas so much that I am extremely sceptical of it and think that it probably isnt real although I do not rule out the possibility. Also if you look into Darwin you will find that he is part of a very old "illuminati" or whatever you want to call it bloodline. I wouldnt trust the inbred scum with my feces. Hed probably try to rape them because they are so young. Heres a good video on the guy (part 1 of 5)
Illuminati - Darwinism Exposed 1/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=td8fERpgDoY#)
Iv personally experienced enough crazy stuff with my own two eyes to believe aajonus on this one. Dont mind tyler, copout. he may not see things the way we do but at least he could speak to his type of person and perhaps lead them to this lifestyle in a way we couldnt. I personally couldnt talk about studies at all but can argue the theory and logic of the diet with ease. Both of our approaches can be a force for good in this world and perhaps both approaches are needed.
-
Micro evolution is a fact, macro evolution is not. In fact macro evolution has been used for political agendas so much that I am extremely sceptical of it and think that it probably isnt real although I do not rule out the possibility.
OK...we argued this with William a couple of years ago. If macroevolution isn't real, then how did all the current species come into being? Magic? Jesus? My testicles?
It's probably my testicles.
-
i should also mention that time is a loop (like an ourourous) not a linear sequence so therefore the need for something to have come first becomes irrelevant. I believe the current species came into being through creation. Watch the video I posted for a scientific explanation of this.
Heres my question to you. If current species only came out of completely different species that came before it then where did the very first species come from?
Second question: If the first winged creature evolved out of a wingless creature then why are there no fossils of a creature with half a wing? Also how could a wing evolve when up until the point that limb actually becomes a wing it would be totally useless? Not only would such a half wing half arm limb be totally useless, it would actually be extremely detrimental to the survival of the animal possessing thus making it basically impossible for the gene to be passed on.
where are all of the fossils of half reptile half birds? the answer is they dont exist.
-
Ostriches survive fine even with their useless wings, so argument invalid.
There are gradations, so that birds with poorly developed wings would be able to glide and do a tiny bit of flying. Also, the science of epigenetics shows that it is possible sometimes for advantageous(or negative) characteristics to occur quite quickly.
As regards the claim of what came first, science has already shown that it is possible to create amino acids with the help of conditions similiar to the Earth a few billion years ago. So the basic building blocks of life can already be recreated by us, without need for a higher power.
-
nope, argument is still valid, since the science you hold so dear proves that all the flightless birds had a flying ancestor. http://www.livescience.com/2846-theory-flightless-birds-shot.html (http://www.livescience.com/2846-theory-flightless-birds-shot.html)
and the argument of "science has already proven" means nothing to me. You can get "Science" to show anything you want and the secular humanists have all the money in the world to try and kill god with in order to bring about their new world order.
well answer me this. Even if the amino acid thing were true where did the things that the amino acids were made with come from? and where did the things that made them come from, etc...
the answer to all of this is that time is all in our heads. there is no beginning or end. If you look at it from the fourth dimension or higher dimensions this is quite easy to understand. It is simple physics.
Imagining the Tenth Dimension part 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA#)
-
Not valid at all. For example, ostriches use their wings to cool their eggs, providing shade. Maybe wings developed because of that?
As regards that experiment I mentioned:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment)
The experiment created amino acids from basic chemicals, nothing more. It has been theorised that there never was a beginning to the Universe. Even if there was a Big Bang, there might have been another Universe before that followed by a Big Crunch and then our Big Bang with another Universe. Then there are multiple other scientific theories involving dozens of other dimensions perhaps with their own Universes having a possible impact on our Universe. So, there's no need for religion or magic to feature here.
-
my point about the evolving appendages is that up until the exact point where they finally reach the ability to have a new function such as wings finally giving flight they are only detrimental. According to evolutionary theory, wouldnt any detrimental feature be reduced with each generation rather than expanded on? This is what makes me not believe in macro evolution whereas I know that certain functions of certain body parts can improve through microevolution. I dont beieve that completely new functions can manifest.
-
Completely new organs can evolve quickly, all the time. There are humans born with 6 fingers on each hand plus 6 toes on each foot. And, like I said, non-functional wings would not necessarily be detrimental to survival. For example, peacocks' wings are useless re flight etc. but are very handy indeed for impressing female peacocks and successfully mating with them.
-
a sixth finger isnt a new appendage its just an extra version of an existing one.
and heres a peacock flying
Peacock flying (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZbv8IdvA0#)
-
I would enjoy listening to thoughts about the original idea. Tyler and Cheri I hear that your thought is that it is invalid, which was interesting, and well put. :-* :-*
Still, I love manifestion theories. I don't require valid, justified, or proven, just thought provoking. Anybody else want to talk? I could just PM with LCO.
I have personally manifested a teenager who loves and likes me so, flies on a rock seems plausible.
-
OK, I'm surprised but it does seem that peacocks can fly. However, according to sources, they can't fly long distances, so my point still stands:-
http://rosemary-drisdelle.suite101.com/facts-about-indian-peacocks-a36586 (http://rosemary-drisdelle.suite101.com/facts-about-indian-peacocks-a36586)
This suggests that the tail etc. is not ideal for flying.
The point re 6th fingers is that they appear immediately, not requiring many generations to be produced. So, a whole new appendage occurred, it might only take a few generations and, in the meantime, would not necessarily be disadvantageous. I gave that example of ostriches using their useless wings to shade and cool their eggs. Mqybe feathers on a flightless bird helps birds keep warm, plus maybe with inadequate wings, birds were able to glide from trees instead of flying, like those flying squirrels.
-
The peacock does fly no matter what distance so your comment does not still stand. The amount of flight in the video that I saw is still quite useful.
And like I said, a sixth finger means nothing to me since its just a finger which already existed. Id need to see an appendage with a completely new function suddenly apear to be convinced. Such as a completely qingless species suddenly being born with a wing which I dont think can happen.
On the spontaneous manifestation thing. I think that the biggest indicator that it is real is the chicken and the egg question. Nobody can answer which came first so I have concluded that the only answer to this question can be that it spontaneously maifested.
-
If we assume a Universe which goes in for an eternal Big Bang/Big Crunch scenario, then everything always existed so never needed to be created in the first place.
The fact that the peacock can't fly long distances disproves your point completely. It demonstrates that the peacock can still survive even though its poorly evolved wings are deficient by comparison to the wings of birds like ducks which can fly long distance. Being able to fly to trees still means it's vulnerable to predators able to climb those trees.
The 6th fingers on these human mutants never existed before. I mean, there was no parent's original stump from which the finger slowly evolved.
-
fly- To move through the air by means of wings or winglike parts.
end of argument.
also i dont believe in a big bang big crunch. I believe time is a loop like an ouroburous. A loop which musthave been created.
-
Time-loops may be a natural law, for all we know.
And you still haven't debunked my point re flying. You completely missed my point that peacocks' wings are poorly designed for flying properly. Just flying to the nearest tree does not make peacocks competent flyers.
-
the video of the peacock fits the definition of flight. Also what that peacock demonstrated gave it a definite survival advantage over an identical bird that cannot fly therefore yes the argument is over unless you can contest these two points.
-
the video of the peacock fits the definition of flight. Also what that peacock demonstrated gave it a definite survival advantage over an identical bird that cannot fly therefore yes the argument is over unless you can contest these two points.
You're missing the point as usual. I have already debunked your theory anyway with my remark re ostriches being perfectly capable of surviving despite having useless wings and being unable to fly. I have also shown that peacocks, despite being poor flyers due to their faulty wings, are still capable of surviving despite that. So the evolutionary theory that holds that birds can develop fully functional wings over generations without dying out, turns out to be correct and your arguments are flawed.
-
once again you attempted to weasel out of my point.
My point was that the peacock, being a flying bird has a survival advantage over an identical bird that couldnt fly at all.
do you contest this point?
-
once again you attempted to weasel out of my point.
My point was that the peacock, being a flying bird has a survival advantage over an identical bird that couldn't fly at all.
do you contest this point?
As usual, dead wrong. There are penguin species similiar in size to peacocks, which are flightless, and penguins also have their means to escape predators. They can go on land to escape them for example.
The point here is that if a specific mutation, which gives birds only rudimentary wings which they can't use to fly with, isn't harmful either and/or has some very minor advantage(such as wings being used to give shade to eggs or whatever), then the birds survive until they eventually evolve proper wings.
-
once again you failed to address my original point.
also you have it all backwards. Flightless birds dont evolve into birds that fly. All of the flightless birds had ancestors that flew as is scientifically proven in the article I posted earlier.
-
As I recall, birds evolved from flightless/wingless dinosaurs, so this is immaterial. As regards flightless birds, it wouldn't surprise me if the fossil record eventually proves you wrong. At any rate, we have the evidence of penguins who had wings which then turned into something different, namely flippers. That's good enough to debunk the idea of spontaneous creation.
-
im not going to argue the same points with you repeatedly anymore. My viewpoint is here for anyone interested and I think it is obvious for anyone looking at it objectively.
-
http://www.evillusion.net/ (http://www.evillusion.net/)
-
wonderful link copout
-
So you believe that anything is possible, including spontaneous generation of an adult lifeform from nothing, but a generational mutation of a new organ is absolutely impossible? I certainly don't know the answer one way or another, but that seems contradictory.
You are giving examples where flightless birds have ancestors who had flight, but if you don't believe animals "evolve" in ways that degrade their functionality (i.e. arms changing into wing-like appendages that don't yet function), why would there BE flightless birds? It seems like you're trying to dismiss evolution by providing examples where evolution occurred. Evolution doesn't mean all your traits grow stronger all the time, it means you've found a niche and are currently beating out any competition to stay there.
Anyway, I guess my head still jives with the evolution side more. It's not a scientific study or anything, but this gives some good ideas on the possible evolution of flight - http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html) . Specifically, the idea of exaptation is interesting, that wings were evolving as an advantage for some other purpose, and then ended up being advantageous for flight (e.g. first evolving for gliding/leaping).
As far as the chicken and the egg, that's just wordplay. It relies on a false definition that the parents of a chicken must have been a chicken, and all depends on where you draw the line for when something is a chicken. It's like the ship of theseus. It questions our system of classification and how we view things, but it doesn't change what actually happened. If anything, it just points out that we are flawed in trying to assign a name (such as "chicken") for all individuals in a group. Though flawed, in practice this type of classification is obviously useful to our species for communication.
-
Yes it is impossible because how can a detrimental appendage make someone reproduce more than the same person without that detriment. Its inconsistent with the rest of evolutionary theory.
Anyway, iv recently stumbled upon a new example of why natural selection theory makes no sense.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/19/woman-dies-after-drinking-10-liters-coke-day/ (http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/04/19/woman-dies-after-drinking-10-liters-coke-day/)
theres one case of an idiotic woman who drank 10 liters of coke a day and died because of it (big surprise). According to natural selection, this type of behavior would kill her and make her unable to pass on the faulty genes which caused her to do this, thus eliminating these faulty genes from the gene pool. However this woman had 8 kids. She had many times more children than all of the other people who have much better genes for survival. This very common type of situation completely invalidates natural selection since it shows that fitness and survival ability are totally unrelated to how many children a person has.
-
Dying doesn't make natural selection invalid. Natural selection is about passing your genes down effectively, not about being literally the strongest. Her ability to attract a mate and have kids early and fast is the natural advantage, her ability to live a long time is irrelevant in this case. Natural selection is about effectively passing on your DNA, and one of the strategies for that is to pop out a bunch of offspring quick, even if you aren't particularly "strong" individually.
I guess the point is that you're looking at "good genes" with a different definition than the one given by this theory, which makes it impossible to actually understand what it's saying. You're looking for literal strength, vigor, intelligence, and good health. Good genes, in this context, means whatever works to propagate your DNA. I think it's a pretty common mistake to think natural selection means "whoever is the biggest or smartest or fastest will survive", and there's an element of that in it, but it's not all there is to it. I think that error tends to come from the reductionist viewpoint that evolution = survival of the "fittest".
-
natural selection means that whoever is the biggest, fastest, smartest, strongest will have more kids than weak slow stupid ones who cant survive. This is how we evolve according to evolution theory. If the fat slow and stupid group had more kids then that would cause devolution.
It is a very simple (incorrect) concept and I never said dying invalidated it. What invalidates it is that the weak slow and stupid have more kids than the fit and strong all of the time.
And yes evolution does mean exactly that survival of the fittest. Have you actually read any Darwin or are you just repeating your schools indoctrination?
-
The quotes around "fittest" are showing that you are using a flawed definition. All that matters is fitness in terms of reproductive survivability. Like it or not she IS fitter than most in terms of surviving long enough to produce lots of offspring. Shes also extremely fit within the animal kingdom in terms of intelligence. It's about humans being better. Darwin says there is variation within a species and that these variations can cause better fitness for survival. An aggregation of these changes can result in a new species. One woman having more kids than average and doing something you think is stupid doesn't disprove evolution, in my opinion.
I suggest you look into the term you used - http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology) (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devolution_(biology)) . This pretty well states what I'm trying to explain. Devolution is a misnomer, modern biology says these changes are evolution even though you may subjectively think one trait is "better" than the other. For example, having sight seems like it is "better" but its actually better not to have them if theyre a waste of resources in a dark cave. Anyway I was just trying to help level set but I shouldve realized from the initial post and follow ups the hostility against ideas you don't believe in so I'll butt out.
-
all you want to do is play definition games. Anyway, iv made my point about natural selection and some of the most unfit people having the most kids and how this would make evolving impossible. Im not gonna argue that point anymore since it seems very clear to me and some who thinks about it will either understand it or try to come up with some complicated excuse to make it go away.
heres another example
I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E#)
-
Dear God! This woman should have had her tubes tied so that she could not have had any children. The big problem is that the more educated/intelligent a woman is the fewer children she has, and vice-versa.I've seen this in my daily life - most of the women I've known who were particularly intelligent either had one or no children. And what is worse is that due to modern science keeping alive ever more prematurely-born babies and ever more children with defective genes such as those with cystic fybrosis, haemophilia etc. etc., the percentage-chances of people being born with such conditions rises by a small percentage every generation. This means that within 1,000 to 10,000 years we will have a sick, stupid human population similiar to the societies portrayed in E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" and that film, "Idiocracy".
What should be done is to give large tax-reductions to any man or woman, worldwide, with postgraduate degrees who has more than 3 children - let-say, those people pay no income-tax at all after their 8th child, and their children get free schooling at high-quality State grammar schools plus free childcare costs. Plus, we should only allow people to have children if they have passed a suitably difficult exam. And genetic screening prior to any wedding/ or birth could prevent conditions like cystic fibrosis from happening.
-
Haven't read the whole thread but it follows that if this is possible then it could be reproduced to demonstrate it, right?
-
I mean fuck, if we can't even nail down the position and velocity of an electron then we've got a looooooooooooooooong way to go before we know shit about shit.
I see the quantum mechanics conundrum in a different light. Knowing the position and velocity of an electron at the same time (which is what can't now be done, they can both be known separately at any given time) is just about the only thing that there doesn't seem to be any headway in knowing. And this is cherry picked out of all of science to say something like "we don't know anything" which I think is an attempt to discredit a lot of real knowledge in order to disorient people into believing the ideas of the person making that claim. In this case it's AV, who like I'm sure everyone knows made a career out of claiming things that he didn't make an effort to prove, whether or not he could. He just says things, some people believe it for their own reasons (none of which are ever evidence) and people give him money for books and consultations. He's certainly not the first and won't be the last to make a career that way. Say what you want about scientists, that they don't know "anything" (as you use a computer based on science driven building techniques) but at least their stated goal is to convince through evidence rather than story telling.
I'd actually be very surprised if anyone who uses the electron thing has actually read any quantum theory science. I'll eat my hat if you got that from reading science and not from watching "What the Bleep Do We Know" or something similar.
-
Sure kyle, whatever you say.
__________________________________
As a side note, since learning about the Annunaki and the Sumerian Tablets, coupled with the vast knowledge and architectural feats of the ancients I've updated my 'theory of the most likely way we got here' as follows.
Not sure how life got here, but likely did not generate itself spontaneously, rather was either placed here by ET's or stray meteor that made it to earth with intact life. Then life did indeed evolve over billions of years, whether guided or not, I don't know. Then a few hundred thousand years ago the Annunaki show up looking for gold. Eventually grow weary of the physical labor, grab some neanderthals (or some similar hominid) whip up a few rough drafts, then come up with modern man. Have man do the dirty work. Annunaki travel around the world setting themselves up as gods (which is how they would've appeared to the quaint humans) before the ancients, leading to all the 'mythology' all around the world which nearly always has the 'gods' coming from the heavens.
Eventually they decide to either abandon earth and leave it to us, or are among us, or monitoring from nearby.
________________________________
With the billions or trillions or infinite number of galaxies in our universe alone (our dimension?) it is absurd not to think that there's other intelligent life out there.
There is assuredly an intelligent source field which appears to be made out of love, or at least responds to love affirmatively. We know this because of the peculiar way 'coincidence' and synchronicity occurs. If you've ever paid attention to how life works and especially the law of attraction, you know deep down that shit isn't just random, things be happenin' in this incredible, humbling, 'just so' manner that is so perfect you would think it couldn't be planned, and yet there is no other explanation here. The universe is in fact conspiring on your behalf and all you really have to do is be clear about what your goals are. That is the best evidence we have for God (as in the source, creator of all things, sustaining force, infinite love, NOT god as in YHWH, quetzlcoatl, Ra, etc). But it's not testable evidence as far as I can tell, just let's you know personally that this Source is there, and you can communicate with it and have it feed back to you.
This is why animals seem to respond to love so affirmatively as well. And why they respond negatively to unpleasant energies like anger, anxiety, hate.
Highly recommendo all of Zecharia Sitchin's work, read with a grain of salt, very critically and just like with gurus, taking the good stuff and discarding the rest.
Josh Reeves has a particularly humorous reading of "The Lost Book of Enki" but it's not for people with sensitive ears. There will be pouring of the semen in to the womb, and talk of incest and vulvas and lots of other fun stuff, kind of like 5000 year old erotica.
-
Where do you think the Annunaki or other ET's that placed original life on earth came from, evolutionarily speaking?
-
Dear God! This woman should have had her tubes tied so that she could not have had any children. The big problem is that the more educated/intelligent a woman is the fewer children she has, and vice-versa.I've seen this in my daily life - most of the women I've known who were particularly intelligent either had one or no children. And what is worse is that due to modern science keeping alive ever more prematurely-born babies and ever more children with defective genes such as those with cystic fybrosis, haemophilia etc. etc., the percentage-chances of people being born with such conditions rises by a small percentage every generation. This means that within 1,000 to 10,000 years we will have a sick, stupid human population similiar to the societies portrayed in E M Forster's "The Machine Stops" and that film, "Idiocracy".
What should be done is to give large tax-reductions to any man or woman, worldwide, with postgraduate degrees who has more than 3 children - let-say, those people pay no income-tax at all after their 8th child, and their children get free schooling at high-quality State grammar schools plus free childcare costs. Plus, we should only allow people to have children if they have passed a suitably difficult exam. And genetic screening prior to any wedding/ or birth could prevent conditions like cystic fibrosis from happening.
Eugenics is never a good answer.
-
its best to be careful with all of that zacharia sitchin/annunaki stuff. Alan watt from cuttingthroughthematrix.com says that he was approached by the illuminati on several occasions to push all of the alien stuff which would be prewritten for him and was offered big money as well. He says this is being done to send us on wild goose chases about aliens and make us look crazy to the general public. He says that he knows for sure that sitchin works for the illuminati.
I dont really trust anyone in the patriot community too much but Alan Watt is probably the person I would trust most for many reasons.
Im not saying that theres nothing the this annunaki business, just thats its best not to put too much faith in it.
-
I've never heard of the Annunaki but it looks like a word lifted from a tribal mythology. Also brings to mind the Scientology creation story.
-
L RON was deep into ancient mystery religions and communicating with alien/annunaki/angelic/demonic entities long before he started scientology. His religion is based on all of these things.
Im no fan of scientology but I think the reason they get attacked in the media so much is because of their anti pharmaceutical stance. I mean the catholic church is just as bad.
-
I just remember that alan watt is tthe reason I stopped being a vegetarian. He explained to me its history which always involved religious fanatics and was forced upon subordinate populations to make them more docile and thus better servants. He explained how the culture creators of the time made it cool using hinduism.
-
[quote author=trollofthedungeon link=topic=6326.msg90780#msg90780 date=1336507997
And yes evolution does mean exactly that survival of the fittest. Have you actually read any Darwin or are you just repeating your schools indoctrination?
[/quote]all you want to do is play definition games.
Definition of words isn't a game. Fittest means to fit into an environment. Someone with a tendency towards obesity would fit better in an environment of low food availability. Devolution also isn't a biological term since it denotes direction to evolution. Evolution has no direction, there is no better or worse. If the poor stupid people in your examples have more kids then they are fitting better in their environment (which includes government support of them and their children) then successful people are, again "fitting" meaning passing on genetic information.
-
Alan Watt on the Alien Disinformation Propaganda (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1EFJHaU4RK0#)
-
Yeah, that was the reason for my disclaimer about Sitchin's work. I'm going from a tracker's perspective here, trying to empathize with the ancients as well as determine what the most likeliest explanation is for the incredible architecture and knowledge they had. Also the timeline for human evolution doesn't make sense at all. By all rights we should be another few million years in the making for our knowledge and present physiology.
The ancient astronauts theory makes way more sense to me, given the big picture, than anything conventional science has told us. I like this timeline explanation...
http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/link_solved_timeline.html (http://churchofcriticalthinking.org/link_solved_timeline.html)
In the tablets, the Aunnunaki talk about a father of all things or a creator of all things, who may be mildly involved in a the affairs of his creations. Implying that 'god, the infinite, the ALL, is just as much a mystery to them, though they sound certain of his/it's existence all the same.
I know there's a "infinitely intelligent source field" ie god. I said that this wasn't testable in an earlier post, but what I meant is so far, it's not testable in a scientific manner, but each person can test it out for themselves by practicing the law of attraction. When you personally see too many bizarre coincidences to deny that there's some grand intelligence going on behind the scenes (not really, sort of right out in the open if you pay attention) you will have tested the theory of god for yourself. If there was no god, and everything was just inert dust, these types of coincidences would not be possible. Things would actually be totally random with no design or organization. You wouldn't get signs, synchronicity, and feedback from life. But that is precisely what we get when we start paying attention and forming our reality instead of just by standing.
I'm listening to the Kybalion right now which really has a lot of great ideas about the nature of the infinite and the universe. If you grew up with the judeo christian child, bully god of the bible as your idea of god, this really helps to break that notion. I've been away from the church for many years now, and I've known for a while that god is much more than the god of the bible, but dwelling and meditating on the true nature of "The ALL" really helps to renovate my idea of god, to a form and definition much more befitting of a being that is literally everything that ever existed or will ever exist.
As far as the ancient astronaut theory being disinformation, I've of course reserved the idea that it's disinfo, you really have to be suspicious of everything you hear of everyone, but from a tracker's point of view, there should be congruence in the track or the 'sign' left behind. So far the congruence leads best to an ancient astronaut explanation IMO. But before I can say that with any firmness, I'll have to look at all the criticisms of Sitchin's translations of the tablets. If he's translating them accurately then there's little doubt in my mind that the Annunaki were from another world and we are their GMO's. But if he fudged the translations, it will take longer to get to the bottom of things.
As long as there is a loving ALL there underneath of everything though, and I believe there is, then in the end everything is OK. We are truly indestructible souls, and the universe (not the traditional notion of universe, but instead truly everything that the ALL has ever manifested) is our playground for learning, experiencing and creating.
EDIT: Comically enough, this is my 777th post, 7 which is a very important number, in this post about synchronicity lol the creator does have a sense of humor, that is for sure!
-
Alan says sitchin just lied about his translation and was simply heavily funded into fame.
-
and you mean reading the kybalion not listening right?
-
No I'm listening to a reading of it by Josh Reeves.
Yeah, I don't know, gonna take some time to run down what's what with Sitchin