# DNA- gods amazing programming



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

http://youtu.be/CBeCxKzYiIA

The discovery of DNA and it's marvelous blueprint of programming to build God's creatures is one of the many proofs that God does indeed exist. It is an insult to our intelligence for a propaganda essayist (claiming to be a scientist) to actually claim DNA was a proof for evolution, no one could possibly be that dumb, as the Bible says - decieved.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

again weather or not this information is true or not i thought it was an interesting view on DNA and worth sharing :yinyang:


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

Knew there had to be a reason for your metaphysical dislike and misunderstanding of taxonomy.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Knew there had to be a reason for your metaphysical dislike and misunderstanding of taxonomy.


honestly i think taxonomy is fun and interesting i just really like questioning mainstream science


----------



## aNisip (Jan 17, 2013)

Thanks for sharing Ax, I agree....  in our AP Bio class we watched animated movies of all the subjects and areas covered in Biology called BioFlix (not claiming God as Creator at all, actually claiming the theory of evolution) it just made sense that someone had His hand in all of this...


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> Thanks for sharing Ax, I agree....  in our AP Bio class we watched animated movies of all the subjects and areas covered in Biology called BioFlix (not claiming God as Creator at all, actually claiming the theory of evolution) it just made sense that someone had His hand in all of this...


personally i dont see any difference in manifesting your own ideas vs god/spirit/source/consciousness manifesting all reality/information/creation just maybe a lower scale


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

If you guys decide to go into biology, I'm 99.85% (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html) sure that you'll come around to see that Evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> If you guys decide to go into biology, I'm 99.85% (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html) sure that you'll come around to see that Evolution is the best explanation for life's complexity.


im not part of any institution that challenges my rational approach to my own ideas and what information im "allowed" to accept. i accept most of western science just some areas i find necessary to challenge such as chance mutation, and other probabilistic claims, to me that is just showing our ignorance on forces higher than our current comprehension level and technology. i literally see the universe unfolding with an undeniable purpose like it was pre planned.


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

Oh help me lord... :huh:


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

also science and religion are the same institution in the sence they are both extremely dogmatic, science has just gone down a deeper hole and in consequence there claims are getting more and more abstract. maybe we need a more holistic feminine approach on how we attempt to conceive the cosmos


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/einstein/

the Great Albert Einstein seems to share a similar mind set as me if that matters at all


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> also science and religion are the same institution in the sence they are both extremely dogmatic, science has just gone down a deeper hole and in consequence there claims are getting more and more abstract. maybe we need a more holistic feminine approach on how we attempt to conceive the cosmos


Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't care how 'feminine' an explanation is, whatever that's supposed to mean (should I buy the Big Bang Theory a dress on my next trip out?). I care about how rigorously tested and replicable an idea, or the calculations behind it. If you think that you are more clever or more well versed than cosmologists, biologists or any other -ologist who have devoted their lives to studying these ideas, please, prove them all wrong and collect your Nobel prizes. That's the best thing about science, it accepts dissenting ideas, if they are better explanations that fit more of the facts than the current explanations. Nearly every idea that is taken for fact now was once wildly against the status quo of its day. Science is only dogmatic in that it requires evidence and experimentation for claims, but that's why it isn't religion.


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Maybe I'm crazy, but I don't care how 'feminine' an explanation is, whatever that's supposed to mean (should I buy the Big Bang Theory a dress on my next trip out?). I care about how rigorously tested and replicable an idea, or the calculations behind it.
> 
> If you think that you are more clever or more well versed than cosmologists, biologists or any other -ologist who have devoted their lives to studying these ideas, please, prove them all wrong and collect your Nobel prizes. That's the best thing about science, it accepts dissenting ideas, if they are better explanations that fit more of the facts than the current explanations. Nearly every idea that is taken for fact now was once wildly against the status quo of its day. Science is only dogmatic in that it requires evidence and experimentation for claims, but that's why it isn't religion.


Exactly! If science were based on faith they would call it a religion. If you can prove it time and time again than science will accept it.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

of course you dont really understand what femininity actually means cause male dominance has been shoved down our throats for 1000s of years

accept what you want i just claim theres more out there than what science claims. we are actually on the same side i just take speculation a step further

thank you for you opinion :tt2:


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> of course you dont really understand what femininity actually means cause male dominance has been shoved down our throats for 1000s of years
> 
> accept what you want i just claim theres more out there than what science claims. we are actually on the same side i just take speculation a step further
> 
> thank you for you opinion :tt2:


I am glad a male is telling me what femininity is. Remember we live in 2013 not 1813.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

gripen said:


> I am glad a male is telling me what femininity is. Remember we live in 2013 not 1813.


i never gave a definition i just said every one male or female is ruled by primarily masculinity views find out for your self what you think it means


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> i never gave a definition i just said every one male or female is ruled by primarily masculinity views find out for your self what you think it means


There is no such thing as a masculine view. There are masculine people, and feminine people.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

and to be honest most of out mainstream technology is biased of technologies developed in the 1800s everything eles up to now is in black box


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> There is no such thing as a masculine view. There are masculine people, and feminine people.


the idea to pick things apart and create hierarchy are all masculine qualities thats nonsence to say an induviual is one or the other. all western civilization is primarily masculine views and its because of our history we inherent these things it up to yourself to question these things


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> the idea to pick things apart and create hierarchy are all masculine qualities thats nonsence to say an induviual is one or the other. all western civilization is primarily masculine views and its because of our history we inherent these things it up to yourself to question these things


Seems like you have all the answers. Should I then question you?


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> the idea to pick things apart and create hierarchy are all masculine qualities thats nonsence to say an induviual is one or the other. all western civilization is primarily masculine views and its because of our history we inherent these things it up to yourself to question these things


Picking things apart is masculine? That's the foundation of all human knowledge. You do females a far greater disservice by saying such demeaning things than the one you imagine has been perpetrated by science.


----------



## Paradoxica (Jan 17, 2013)

This doesn't prove anything. This is a pseudo-scientist's feeble attempt to repackage what is already know as a valid argument against creationism, add a few words like designer or maker and try to pass it off as as a counter to evolution.

Edit: I'm talking about the video, I have no idea what this gender talk is about.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

gripen said:


> Seems like you have all the answers. Should I then question you?


thats what you all been doing

have you learned anything new? :stuart: 

my favorite thing do is to empower myself and everyone around me and i find the more i learn the easier it is


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Picking things apart is masculine? That's the foundation of all human knowledge. You do females a far greater disservice by saying such demeaning things than the one you imagine has been perpetrated by science.


i dont think thats the founation of our knowledge. the greatest understanding will come in a perspective of unity and wholness and that is a extremely feminine quality to have


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

http://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI

havnt watch this video to much but i think is has some cutting edge speculation on how we can under stand natural phenomenon


----------



## Montana (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> http://youtu.be/CBeCxKzYiIA
> 
> The discovery of DNA and it's marvelous blueprint of programming to build God's creatures is one of the many proofs that God does indeed exist. It is an insult to our intelligence for a propaganda essayist (claiming to be a scientist) to actually claim DNA was a proof for evolution, no one could possibly be that dumb, as the Bible says - decieved.


Bro,

I understand that you have a great appreciation for the amazing structures of nature, and that's cool. I think we all do, here on this forum, because we all enjoy mantids.

But it's not very prudent to start an argument by saying something is proof for supernatural forces and completely denying and even insulting (by claiming evolutionist views are an "insult to intelligence") many of the members of this forum. I know there are a few here that may share your spiritual viewpoint, but there are also those who do not. Why create a mudslinging match?

Moreover, if you state a controversial thesis, be prepared to defend it with real evidence - not using evasion or prompting others to think things over for themselves - surely we are all very good, reflective thinkers already, and have given thought and effort into locating evidence to convince us of our personal viewpoints. Give us some real evidence, don't change the subject (like the meaning of masculinity and other silly semantics topics).

Also... while DNA is a complicated and beautiful structure that supports life, it is also prone to defects - defects that create genetic disorders, diseases, and misfortune for some people and animals. If you want to attribute the beauty of DNA to supernatural forces, you also have to attribute the ugly, cruel, and/or unfortunate defects that it can create... and whether you are spiritual or not, is that cruelty really something you want to think of as a part of "intelligent design"?

I invite you to present some evidence that shows DNA is a product of supernatural design - and then we can stop the mudslinging, sidetracking, and evasion and get down to a real discussion. You present evidence, others present counter-evidence, and so on. That's how we create thoughtful, meaningful debates. What you're doing now (though you probably didn't intend it) seems more like trolling than anything!

-Montana


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> i dont think thats the founation of our knowledge. the greatest understanding will come in a perspective of unity and wholness and that is a extremely feminine quality to have


1. I don't know how your deciding which qualities are feminine and masculine. Any sensible person should find it offensive to associate some ideas with men and some with women. That is what the words masculine and feminine mean, denoting male and female qualities.

2. You cannot learn how something works without picking it apart. If you could, you'd be rich, as you'd be able to reproduce anything ever made as long as you'd have the right materials. Every advanced invention is a culmination of several parts from different studies; ie people who picked apart and discerned how a facet of the world worked.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

Very well said, Montana.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> http://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI
> 
> havnt watch this video to much but i think is has some cutting edge speculation on how we can under stand natural phenomenon


I'm not going to devote an hour of my life that could be spent learning actual science to a video that the uploader acknowledges is so unsupported by evidence that discussion and ratings can't be allowed.


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

Cutting edge speculation :clown: AKA we made this up?

Thanks Montana your clarity of thinking has done what I never could have.


----------



## aNisip (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> I care about how rigorously tested and replicable an idea, or the calculations behind it.


You can't test/reproduce the Christianity belief of Creation, nor can you reproduce/test evolution...evolution is a theory, taken on faith. So is Christianity, we put our faith into this belief. (that's why it is called faith. religions are sometimes called faith, like what is your faith instead of religion)

....Ax, dont come at it from the wrong approach, by the things you are saying, are you a Christian, or just believe that there is a Creator?


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> You can't test/reproduce the Christianity belief of Creation, nor can you reproduce/test evolution...evolution is a theory, taken on faith. So is Christianity, we put our faith into this belief. (that's why it is called faith. religions are sometimes called faith, like what is your faith instead of religion)
> 
> ....Ax, dont come at it from the wrong approach, by the things you are saying, are you a Christian, or just believe that there is a Creator?


What of micro evolution? Haven't we proven that.

Don't get me wrong I have no "gripe" with Christianity I just want to make a clear distinction between it and science.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Montana said:


> Bro,
> 
> I understand that you have a great appreciation for the amazing structures of nature, and that's cool. I think we all do, here on this forum, because we all enjoy mantids.
> 
> ...


like i said i only wish to empower my self and everyone i associate with and that is defiantly the opposite of a troll. an i truly do appreciate every one that included their opinions because all of you do expand my knowledge to greater horizons. i dont know how strongly you will take this but i believe if its possible for me to have a idea and manifest into my own personal life i believe it is possible a higher entity can manifest somthing as DNA. theres no reason any of you should be upset we are here to question and learn no matter where that takes us. if you guys really are upset ill ask an administrator to take these to threads down i just wanted to share information i thought was interesting who cares if there claim are correct incorrect or scientific or not every ones opinon matters


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> You can't test/reproduce the Christianity belief of Creation, nor can you reproduce/test evolution...evolution is a theory, taken on faith. So is Christianity, we put our faith into this belief. (that's why it is called faith. religions are sometimes called faith, like what is your faith instead of religion)
> 
> ....Ax, dont come at it from the wrong approach, by the things you are saying, are you a Christian, or just believe that there is a Creator?


I don't think that you know what the word theory means in this circumstance.


> 1.
> 
> a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. Synonyms: principle, law, doctrine.


Creationism can predict nothing, it is the supposition that natural causes cannot be used to explain or predict life at all. Just off hand, evolution has predicted, and later verified:1. The sex ratio of reproductive individuals in haplodiploid insects like ants and bees.

2. That early humans originated in Africa

3. The presence of eusocial rodents, later found in the form of naked mole rats.

I could probably google more.



AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> like i said i only wish to empower my self and everyone i associate with and that is defiantly the opposite of a troll. an i truly do appreciate every one that included their opinions because all of you do expand my knowledge to greater horizons. i dont know how strongly you will take this but i believe if its possible for me to have a idea and manifest into my own personal life i believe it is possible a higher entity can manifest somthing as DNA. theres no reason any of you should be upset we are here to question and learn no matter where that takes us. if you guys really are upset ill ask an administrator to take these to threads down i just wanted to share information i thought was interesting who cares if there claim are correct incorrect or scientific or not every ones opinon matters


We're not upset. When you say that DNA proves that there is a god, you have left the realm of faith and entered into the realm of science. That realm requires you to test and prove your assumptions. If you don't wish to do that, don't make scientific claims.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> You can't test/reproduce the Christianity belief of Creation, nor can you reproduce/test evolution...evolution is a theory, taken on faith. So is Christianity, we put our faith into this belief. (that's why it is called faith. religions are sometimes called faith, like what is your faith instead of religion)
> 
> ....Ax, dont come at it from the wrong approach, by the things you are saying, are you a Christian, or just believe that there is a Creator?


i just think it just may be *possible* that there could be a higher divine force that can be the source of all complexity


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

We're not upset. When you say that DNA proves that there is a god, you have left the realm of faith and entered into the realm of science. That realm requires you to test and prove your assumptions. If you don't wish to do that, don't make scientific claims.

i didnt say it proves there is god the video does.

i want you to spent the next week every time you wake up and go to sleep think about a some idea could be little or could be large anything, see if it becomes more relevant in your external life cause if this is how it works i believe it adds to the *possibility *that there could be a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and feeding information back to you biased one what intentions you put out.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

Have you heard of the confirmation bias? I'm a science guy, but I'm guilty of this all the time. It's a human characteristic to look for patterns. If you spend your life looking for positive events, you're more likely to notice positive events. It might make life more enjoyable, but it isn't proof if anything divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

If this "Secret" were true, it would mean that everyone in starving to death is Africa just aren't as happy as those in America. Maybe if those children just wished for a cheeseburger, it would come to them. Sad that they're not as happy and positive thinking as these is of in rich, first world countries.


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> We're not upset. When you say that DNA proves that there is a god, you have left the realm of faith and entered into the realm of science. That realm requires you to test and prove your assumptions. If you don't wish to do that, don't make scientific claims.
> 
> i didnt say it proves there is god the video does.
> 
> i want you to spent the next week every time you wake up and go to sleep think about a some idea could be little or could be large anything, see if it becomes more relevant in your external life cause if this is how it works i believe it adds to the *possibility *that there could be a god that is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient and feeding information back to you biased one what intentions you put out.


I guess I read the title "DNA-gods amazing programming" wrong then. Have fun with your introspective analysis and I hope you see what ever makes you happy.


----------



## aNisip (Jan 17, 2013)

gripen said:


> What of micro evolution?


I believe in micro-evolution, because there IS proof...The Bible is not to clear on that, after The Fall of Man and The Flood, things on earth changed...



Montana said:


> I invite you to present some evidence that shows DNA is a product of supernatural design -
> 
> -Montana


MY RESPONSE IS NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC PERSON

In the process of chemiosmosis (making ATP), how can that detailed proton pump just assemble or evolve? (my opinion)...really think about how complex things like that can just evolve. Or the bacterial flagella that is irreducibly complex...

DNA contains information specifically for making proteins. If you will, it is like an instruction manual for making proteins. Did the proteins evolve fist? Or the dna? ....I guess they just had to co-evolve at the same time...would we ever think that something that contained information was not written by some source of intelligence?


----------



## Montana (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> like i said i only wish to empower my self and everyone i associate with and that is defiantly the opposite of a troll. an i truly do appreciate every one that included their opinions because all of you do expand my knowledge to greater horizons. i dont know how strongly you will take this but i believe if its possible for me to have a idea and manifest into my own personal life i believe it is possible a higher entity can manifest somthing as DNA. theres no reason any of you should be upset we are here to question and learn no matter where that takes us. if you guys really are upset ill ask an administrator to take these to threads down i just wanted to share information i thought was interesting who cares if there claim are correct incorrect or scientific or not every ones opinon matters


Those are noble thoughts on your personal lifestyle, and I admire your willingness to share your thoughts - but I think you're going about it wrong, to be honest. Most people (at least here on the forum) do care if a claim is correct, incorrect, scientific or not - and not all opinions have the same validity.

If someone said it was their opinion/claim/theory that mantids should be raised on veggie burgers and given a bath in concentrated nitric acid every now and then to help them molt - obviously, that's dead wrong, and we all care about that. How can we tell it's wrong? We have evidence for it! Mantids eat live prey and all living creatures are damaged by nitric acid. So we know that opinion/claim/theory is wrong, yes? And we are always looking for better ways to raise mantids. Nobody knows exactly the perfect way to raise them, but we have a good idea, and we obtained that good idea through experience and evidence of how our mantids grow. But there's always room for improvement.

Does it take faith or belief to know that mantids need living prey, etc. etc.? No, it takes evidence to form a conclusion on the validity of the argument or theory.

Well... guess what? Same applies to evolution.

We have so much evidence for evolution around us - all you have to do is look with open eyes and a thoughtful mind. We have approximately 550 million years of fossil records of complex organisms, and fossils of simple organisms dating back 3.4 billion years. Although the majority of ancient organisms have not been preserved as fossil, we have literal tons of evidence of evolution in the Earth's crust, and we are still uncovering amazing things (recently the first known insect to use camouflage was discovered in 120-million-year-old amber!). So we get a pretty good understanding of intermediary fossils and evolution of features over millions of years to adapt to different ecological niches - just look at _Archaeopteryx_ or _Quetzalcoatlus_ for examples of intermediary ancestor type fossils.

And then we have mitochondrial (and for plants, chloroplast) DNA analysis that can trace the phylogenetic relations between distantly related plants and animals. How can we do this? because DNA mutates over thousands, millions, even billions of years, and the natural rates of mutation found through genomic sequencing shows a rate consistent with the ages of more primitive plants and animals that have remained essentially the same (still exploiting the same ecological niches) over these long periods of time. We see this with some of my favorite organisms: carnivorous plants. I can post more on that if you're interested! I can attach some papers I have saved from JSTOR and such on the topics.

So, through DNA mapping and comparison of phenotypic traits among different organisms, a phylogenetic tree of all major types of organisms - which I have attached for your pleasure (can you find humans on there?). And keep in mind, the fossil record, genetic analysis, phenotypic analyses, and rates of mutation over time all consistently show as evidence for evolution. Microevolution has been proven in the lab, and macroevolution is proven by natural records of natural history which are literally everywhere. All of this can be explained by natural means and processes.

Now, I again invite you to present some evidence or question what I have presented. that's how thoughtful discussion and empowerment of ideas works: by presenting valid evidence.

-Montana

Phylogenetic Tree of Life.pdf


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

Making an argument from complexity is the worst line of Creationist apologetics. By that logic, how could a god complex enough to scheme a "proton pump" and design it just pop out of nothing?

It's clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Evolution doesn't make that claim. Evolution says that all of biological complexity resulted from small changes of billions of years. While any sophisticated biological apparatus appearing in one swoop is clearly improbable, small mutations are observed. There is no reason why these small mutations can't build up if given enough time.

It is clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Creationism does make this claim. Creationism presupposes a being of nearly infinite complexity to explain beings of lesser complexity. It is not consistent to say that we have to explain comparatively mild complexities(although we do) when you allow yourself to merely presuppose a being more complex than anything ever observed.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Have you heard of the confirmation bias? I'm a science guy, but I'm guilty of this all the time. It's a human characteristic to look for patterns. If you spend your life looking for positive events, you're more likely to notice positive events. It might make life more enjoyable, but it isn't proof if anything divine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
> 
> If this "Secret" were true, it would mean that everyone in starving to death is Africa just aren't as happy as those in America. Maybe if those children just wished for a cheeseburger, it would come to them. Sad that they're not as happy and positive thinking as these is of in rich, first world countries.


the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it

also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

Montana if I could give you 10 more likes I would!


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it
> 
> also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is


Did you read the book "sphere" recently by any chance? I think you like it very much. There is much "manifesting" in it if that is what you are into.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> the confirmation bias is just another way to interpret karma if thats how you want to believe it works so be it
> 
> also if Africa and other thrid worlds learned to manifest there ideas together they very much would see the change they desperately need and that goes for every other nation as well. we create reality together. its basically what sub conciseness mind is


Should aid groups stop giving out food and instead give out copies of "The Secret?"

To make this claim is to insult every victim of circumstance both now and in the past. It makes light of atrocities like the holocaust and the crusades.

It might be a fun way of thinking for someone in a first world country, but as a universal fact, it is incredibly ethnocentric and callous.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Montana said:


> Those are noble thoughts on your personal lifestyle, and I admire your willingness to share your thoughts - but I think you're going about it wrong, to be honest. Most people (at least here on the forum) do care if a claim is correct, incorrect, scientific or not - and not all opinions have the same validity.
> 
> If someone said it was their opinion/claim/theory that mantids should be raised on veggie burgers and given a bath in concentrated nitric acid every now and then to help them molt - obviously, that's dead wrong, and we all care about that. How can we tell it's wrong? We have evidence for it! Mantids eat live prey and all living creatures are damaged by nitric acid. So we know that opinion/claim/theory is wrong, yes? And we are always looking for better ways to raise mantids. Nobody knows exactly the perfect way to raise them, but we have a good idea, and we obtained that good idea through experience and evidence of how our mantids grow. But there's always room for improvement.
> 
> ...


like i said i do support most of evolution theroy i just think it starts at a conscious level. similar to ideas and other internal psyche before a result is present id love to have your sources you seem very knowledgeable thank you :detective:


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Making an argument from complexity is the worst line of Creationist apologetics. By that logic, how could a god complex enough to scheme a "proton pump" and design it just pop out of nothing?
> 
> It's clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Evolution doesn't make that claim. Evolution says that all of biological complexity resulted from small changes of billions of years. While any sophisticated biological apparatus appearing in one swoop is clearly improbable, small mutations are observed. There is no reason why these small mutations can't build up if given enough time.
> 
> It is clear to anyone that complex things cannot come from nothing. Creationism does make this claim. Creationism presupposes a being of nearly infinite complexity to explain beings of lesser complexity. It is not consistent to say that we have to explain comparatively mild complexities(although we do) when you allow yourself to merely presuppose a being more complex than anything ever observed.


i do not claim things come from nothing they come from intention and meaning you really arnt getting what im say to the least

and how is saying that people especially in there own countries need to have a more collective conscious an insult again you arnt getting what im saying to the least

people should come together for peace because that is very much possible ive experienced with the most profound changes to myself and every one involved.

stop twisting my words


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

gripen said:


> Did you read the book "sphere" recently by any chance? I think you like it very much. There is much "manifesting" in it if that is what you are into.


ill check it out thanks


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> i do not claim things come from nothing they come from intention and meaning you really arnt getting what im say to the least
> 
> and how is saying that people especially in there own countries need to have a more collective conscious an insult again you arnt getting what im saying to the least
> 
> ...


 If I'm twisting your words, it's not intentional, it's because of the lack of normalized spelling, punctuation and grammar. Which of these premises do you disagree with?

1. People can change their reality through their thoughts

2. This change can be had by people not in rich first world countries

3. Negative events and situations can be avoided, shortened or reversed through the power of thought

Then there's the evidence:

1. It is not debatable that people in first world countries live longer on average and have lower infant mortality rates

2. Millions of Jews died during the holocuast

3. At least 20,000 people die a day from starvation

Assuming you agree with my premises, how do you assimilate them with the above evidence? Because if those premises are true, it clearly suggests:

1. People in 1st world countries are better at positive thinking.

2. The fact that Jews died during the holocaust shows that their thinking wasn't positive enough to save their lives.

3. The 20,000 people who die a day from starvation could have avoided it with positive thinking and having food manifested to them. Their failure to do so represents their own mental discrepancies rather than economic factors.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

i dont care what creationism says the only thing i* may* agree with in that philosophy is the cosmos what created by thought or conciseness everything eles is just defending the churches for themselves and not empowering any one

every philosophy and theory has it own importance and meaning that it was i actually meant when i said every ones opinions matter and if you desern wether or that that idea is there to empower or just control you. you will be able to pick out the good and truth and build more complete model/s for your self and you may attemp to share them with people you care about.


----------



## Montana (Jan 17, 2013)

AndrewNisip said:


> I believe in micro-evolution, because there IS proof...The Bible is not to clear on that, after The Fall of Man and The Flood, things on earth changed...
> 
> MY RESPONSE IS NOT DIRECTED TOWARDS A SPECIFIC PERSON
> 
> ...


Thanks for bringing that up! That is certainly a good point of discussion.

Proton pumps and other complex proteins may _seem_ like they are difficult to explain through evolution. But the evidence is there.

Essentially it boils down to this: the earliest fossil cells are 3.4 billion years old, and the conditions for small cells in the relatively hostile environment of primordial Earth very much favored selection of helpful proteins. And there was a 2.8 billion year hiatus between these earliest fossil cells and the earliest known fossils of complex life.

Here are are the more complex and fascinating details! The hot, volatile-rich environments in which cells are thought to have originated (similar to underwater volcanic steam vents we see today; the earliest fossil cells are iron/sulfur/pyrite-rich which is consistent with this idea) provided the raw materials and energy for simple cells to replicate - assumed, at first, to be by growth followed by environmental disruption that split cells which got large. Early cells need not necessarily have all the organic compounds we see today, but over time and by chance (which, due to sheer scale of time, nutrient availability, accumulation and growth/division of these early cells etc. lets this mostly-random process produce a few with organic that resembled modern organic cell essentials). So we have a lucky few cells with plenty of random organics, some of which can interact with each other! Inevitably, some of these interactions are detrimental; again, a rare few have beneficial organic interactions. This process continues over 2.8 billion years, and if the biomass surrounding these primordial hotspots of life approached anything like 100kg - which is the size of a good-sized person, who has trillions of body cells that are much larger than bacterial cells - that's a whole lot of cells, with a whole lot of time, with a whole lot of energy, and the probability of things going right, however slim, _can happen_. And it did. It does. Bacteria today bioaccumulate free organics too.

With the accumulation of amino acids and various other organics, random DNA sequences may be built - again, most detrimental or useless (and we see plenty of "useless" DNA with no purpose in all cells today) - but some cells produce beneficial DNA sequences. Same applies to proteins - some may prove detrimental but others are capable of reducing the energy required to make random organic interaction happen, resulting in a clear benefit to the cell which allows it to grow better and exhibit more beneficial cell mechanisms.

And the process goes on. 2.8 billion years of high-energy-density processes that produce fatal errors in some cells but beneficial effects in others. Those with the advantage grow faster and beat out the other cells. And the process continues. Simple proteins combine with more complex ones due to charge interactions determined by their distinct structure and sequence of molecules. Flagella? One type of protein unit assembled into macromolecular structures by one other type of protein - pretty simple in that respect. And the benefit to early cells, even without motor movement, is obvious: better environmental mobility or stability, depending on the organism; increased surface area; and internal/external support (there are great reasons why microtubules/macrotubules - which make up flagella - are in all eukaryotic cells: to move organelles around, anchor the, and provide internal support).

You may think: "well, that takes a lot of faith, because it's all on chance!" Well, it is a load of chance, and probability and natural selection of cells with advantages, and with super large timescales and energy densities higher than those we experience every day. But it all lines up. The math supports it. The fossil record supports it. The composition of early minerals and the Earth's mantle is consistent with it. The extraneous genetic material in all cells supports it.

There's a misconception that complex information cannot be spontaneously generated; it can, but the entropy it creates around the structure as a result makes up for that. There's a humorous example we can reflect on: if there was an incredibly large number of monkeys all typing randomly on a typewriter for an incredibly long period of time (assuming they have the resources they need), eventually one of them could type the entire works of Shakespeare (and never would have known the significance of it!). With the massive numbers involved in early cellular development, _evolution_ of all the structures we see in cells today seems the most reasonable answer to the complex organic interactions we've observed in cells today.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> If I'm twisting your words, it's not intentional, it's because of the lack of normalized spelling, punctuation and grammar.
> 
> Which of these premises do you disagree with?
> 
> ...


people dont understand the power they posses and its able to be further diminished if they are forced to believe they are powerless biased on there environment. things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus. its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.


----------



## gripen (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> people dont understand the power they posses and its able to be further diminished if they are forced to believe they are powerless biased on there environment. things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus. its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.


Seems like you changed your argument yet again. First it was DNA, than femininity, than manifesting, than finally when you put people together they can make miracles.


----------



## Montana (Jan 17, 2013)

gripen said:


> Montana if I could give you 10 more likes I would!


Mantises are as good as likes, if not better... if you ever feel so inclined to share extras... :clown:


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> . things wont just happen to the people cause they think about them instantly that is bogus.


These things happened or are happening for long periods of time. If you don't believe that thought could have changed those situations, we don't disagree. If you do believe that the power of thought could have changed this, that is callous and only serves to shift the blame to the victim needlessly.


> its the thought that is the motor and how powerful activism and result will be. if your separated from like minded people it will be much harder to bring the change you want to see.


So it takes a lot of people to make it work? How have you come to this conclusion, because it certainly wasn't based on evidence in the traditional sense.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

studying the I ching could be another experiment worth investigating to make findings


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> studying the I ching could be another experiment worth investigating to make findings


I'll keep responding to Andrew,I'm glad that he's looking for an evidence based approach, but I can't carry on a conversation with you if you're going to change the subject to something completely unrelated every time a point against you is brought up. I have no hard feelings towards you as a person, but I don't think that my exchanges with you in this thread have been even remotely enlightening or productive.


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 17, 2013)

I'm amazed I was able to read this all...

I want to thank montana for keeping a level head and providing hard evidence far better than I would have. Arguments like these make me sick to my stomach and often a very angry person.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> These things happened or are happening for long periods of time. If you don't believe that thought could have changed those situations, we don't disagree. If you do believe that the power of thought could have changed this, that is callous and only serves to shift the blame to the victim needlessly.
> 
> So it takes a lot of people to make it work? How have you come to this conclusion, because it certainly wasn't based on evidence in the traditional sense.


peoples intentions effect the course of history and if people are on the same page history will go in that direction. if a body of people feel disempowerd they cannot create and other people will do if for them. history happens for a reason no matter how horrific we learn and learn some more. there is no blaim it doesnt excised

think about this forum and how it brings like minded people together to bring change in this specific hobby. we do it together. if i was alone i would just have native species. and have a very had time having enough food for winter. it would be impossible with out every ones help. thanks every one especially Alex.

if you go to a gathering that has a specific goal and everyone has the feeling they can do anything the you will accomplish those collective goals in time. the more people the better and i do see this with my own experiences and my friends and families experiences. i see it very easily and obviously. its how science is able to find such extraordinary things they do it together as well as how powerful their intentions are. if we really believe we can do anything. i used to think that is just what they tell you in preschool just to keep you head up high but it so true and amazing and accepting this will make you more intuitive, healthy, more relate able, and carry a greater meaning every where you present your self.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Malakyoma said:


> I'm amazed I was able to read this all...
> 
> I want to thank montana for keeping a level head and providing hard evidence far better than I would have. Arguments like these make me sick to my stomach and often a very angry person.


so you are upset?


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

i agree with all of you to the fullest you all just think im on the opposite side but im really not cause your not interpreting what im actually saying correctly. no one should be mad or frustrated. im sorry i challenged your beliefs i really want to be friends with all of you and grow this amazing hobby we set up so ill stop pushing my views on you all and just make mantid post. i didnt think people would actually get this defensive cause its not want i want at all. again i wish to empower myself and every i associate with thats it. it ultimately why i shared some of my more deeper thought with you all because this new way of thinking for me is changing me into something so much more full filling than i used to be. thank you all for listening my intentions go out to all the good people on this fourm and of course the beloved mantid we all care s much for :angel:


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Jan 17, 2013)

Putting on his thinking cap and trying desperately to sound intelligent he blurts out "I should of had a V8!" Then vows to not waste so much time reading anymore topics that have God or religion in the title, it never seems to turn out well on the bug forum. :blink: :lol: 

Oh yeah I almost forgot, smile God loves you! I know this as he told me so right after he took everyones money in a lengthy game of Texas Hold'Em. (jk) :angel:


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 17, 2013)

It's gets you a lot of karma though. Not quite as much as your kid does though.


----------



## Montana (Jan 17, 2013)

That ended abruptly!  

For anyone interested,I tried to attach three of the most pertinent papers (in this forum) on evolution that I think you'd enjoy looking over, but the file size is too big! If you're interested in reading any of these papers below, PM me your email address and I'll send you a digital copy.

- A Revision of Cretaceous Mantises and Their Relationships Including New Taxa

-Molecular Evidence for the Common Origin of Snap-Traps Among Carnivorous Plants

-Phylogeny of the Sundews, Drosera (Droseraceae), Based on Chloroplast rbcL and Nuclear 18S

Goes for anyone: If you're interested in any particular topic, I have access to some databases that have papers like these, and would be happy to locate such papers for you!

Also, as an addendum to my earlier post about early cells, assume that "DNA" is inclusive of RNA (simpler, almost the same, but serves more functions and can exist as transferable fragments that may be transcribed more easily than DNA... DNA as we know it most likely developed later _from_ these useful RNA fragments).

-Montana


----------



## Digger (Jan 17, 2013)

Yes, Your Honor; I agree the court has witnessed a deep, pithy, engaging debate. But..begging the Court's pardon.. during these entire proceedings the plaintiff has...well..he's HAD A BUG ON HIS FOREHEAD THE WHOLE TIME !

I ask for a recess.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 17, 2013)

Digger said:


> Yes, Your Honor; I agree the court has witnessed a deep, pithy, engaging debate. But..begging the Court's pardon.. during these entire proceedings the plaintiff has...well..he's HAD A BUG ON HIS FOREHEAD THE WHOLE TIME !
> 
> I ask for a recess.


it makes me seem more convincing dont your agree =P


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 18, 2013)

watch this video it suports my claim that western science must redefine atomic structures and the forces they are in but dont take my word see for yourself through real experiments you will all find illegitimate i swear watch the videos all you will be moved its very scientific i promise no mysticism at all.

http://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI

In this video series the currently accepted theories of physics and astrophysics are shaken to the core by a radical new theory of the fundamental forces in all matter.
You will be amazed as a magnetic model of the dome at CERN is used to create a 100 mm diameter plasma Sun with a 300 mm diameter equatorial disc of plasma around it!
All the plasma videos are actual footage with no enhancement or manipulation other than speed. In other words, this is real thing. Hard to believe, but it is all true.
2012
The world just changed.


----------



## patrickfraser (Jan 18, 2013)

Same   , different thread. :lol:


----------



## Montana (Jan 18, 2013)

AxolotlsAreCoolToo said:


> watch this video it suports my claim that western science must redefine atomic structures and the forces they are in but dont take my word see for yourself through real experiments you will all find illegitimate i swear watch the videos all you will be moved its very scientific i promise no mysticism at all.
> 
> http://youtu.be/9EPlyiW-xGI
> 
> ...


I watched this... Can't believe I actually sat through this, but I had to at least entertain the possibility of it containing decent information.

Look... this video takes a cool shape to say that correlation (in shape) implies causation (of different magnetic field properties). I'm sorry to break it to you, but this video has absolutely no scientific value whatsoever.

Not only does it say that black holes are not real... but it says that single atoms have polar magnetic field orientations. It also says galaxies are held together by these differently-shaped magnetic fields, and dark matter and dark energy are fallacious observations. I think I'll trust NASA, Stephen Hawking, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and common sense: black holes do exist. Additionally, atoms have a positive nucleus surrounded by a negative electron cloud that forms weak magnetic dipoles and ionic bonds in molecules, determined by the electromagnetic interactions between the nuclei of bonded atoms. The plasma demonstration is nothing novel either; physicists have known for a long time that plasmas are best controlled by toroidal magnetic fields like the kind seen in the plasma demonstration in this video. There's nothing revolutionary, and many of the facts are inaccurate too. Cosmic jets are, in fact, ejected by accretion disks around black holes in large galaxies, especially quasars. And what about Maxwell's Equations? Gauss's Law? Everything we know about electromagnetics that are expressed and proven in elegant mathematical equations that apply so universally to everything, from particles in the Standard Model of Particle Physics to charged plasmas in the cosmos?

Again, denying hard scientific evidence (like black holes) says something about the validity of the claims in here... If any of this was true, it would have been picked up excitedly by prominent scientists and physicists. But it has not; it is simply a video made of many simple misunderstandings of established science.

-Montana


----------



## Paradoxica (Jan 18, 2013)

Montana said:


> I watched this... Can't believe I actually sat through this, but I had to at least entertain the possibility of it containing decent information.
> 
> Look... this video takes a cool shape to say that correlation (in shape) implies causation (of different magnetic field properties). I'm sorry to break it to you, but this video has absolutely no scientific value whatsoever.
> 
> ...


Youtube is very entertaining but is hardly a good source for scientific knowledge.

I'm gunna go watch more cat videos!


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 18, 2013)

Montana said:


> I watched this... Can't believe I actually sat through this, but I had to at least entertain the possibility of it containing decent information.
> 
> Look... this video takes a cool shape to say that correlation (in shape) implies causation (of different magnetic field properties). I'm sorry to break it to you, but this video has absolutely no scientific value whatsoever.
> 
> ...


well i see validity in the content so i will further research it myself


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 18, 2013)

When we leave Biology...






I need to work on this. Any suggestions for a good place to start?



Montana said:


> I watched this... Can't believe I actually sat through this, but I had to at least entertain the possibility of it containing decent information.
> 
> Look... this video takes a cool shape to say that correlation (in shape) implies causation (of different magnetic field properties). I'm sorry to break it to you, but this video has absolutely no scientific value whatsoever.
> 
> ...


----------



## Malakyoma (Jan 18, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> When we leave Biology...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


University lol.


----------



## fleurdejoo (Jan 22, 2013)

I just want to cut to the chase here. I can't read all this.

Axo are you a creationist?


----------



## Krissim Klaw (Jan 22, 2013)

Bummer, for some reason going by the thread title I was hoping there was some new huge advancement in DNA understanding/manipulation when it comes to curing ailments and extending our lifespans.


----------



## Montana (Jan 23, 2013)

Krissim Klaw said:


> Bummer, for some reason going by the thread title I was hoping there was some new huge advancement in DNA understanding/manipulation when it comes to curing ailments and extending our lifespans.


Nope, Chuck Testa - I mean, uh... Jesus.

Here's a cool new DNA finding though: Quadruple helix DNA found in cancer cells in the human body. Targeting these quadruple helices can possibly provide personalized treatments for cancer.

Check it out:

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-quadruple-helix-dna-human-cells.html#jCp


----------



## hibiscusmile (Jan 23, 2013)

I also can't read all this, It started one way and went south! Just so you know, and I don't know why I am writing this, cept God must want it said, and some on here are so much better at saying than I, is There is only one God, and no one knows just where it all started, but God does, He is and was and always will be God. In my little and I mean little opinion, people who do not believe in God are people who do not like to think there is someone who created all there is that what is always was just floating around and we came as a result of that. If that was the case, where did the creatures we evolved come from? Oh I know, us! We were and evolved into them and then evolved back! haha I make funny! As there is nothing that was not made by Him and nothing is new under the sun that He does not know about already. The new things are new to us and there is little enough genius minds in the world to make new things, or by the 20th century most of what we have we would of already had. So what I am saying is and some here is not gonna like this is " an open mind can accept all things" " to deny there is something bigger than the universe (us) may be because a person cannot accept there is something higher than themselves and refuse to acknowlege it believing if they deny it, it will not pertain to them...... just imo. Not ment to point fingers at anyone, just my opinion. Oh, and by the way, it did not just start here, I am over 50 and this forum does not make or break what I think, I may learn something here, but it does not change what I know I know, and when I feel His blessings I know in my heart He is true. Have you felt His blessing today?


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Jan 23, 2013)

fleurdejoo said:


> I just want to cut to the chase here. I can't read all this.
> 
> Axo are you a creationist?


yes that is understandable cause i just started to rant and go horribly of topic :wacko: 

I dont define myself as a creationist becasue i feel that implies i am defending personal religion or text.

what i have been finding recently that what makes sense to *me* is there is is a higher force with qualities of omnipotent omniscient and omnipresent natures and has no limits. i see less of chance and probability and more of an intelligent organized procedure, this is how i try to look at history and evolution.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

I haven't watched any of the videos so I have no opinion on them, but I understand what AxolotlsAreCoolToo is trying to say when he references masculine/feminine.

Masculine and feminine have nothing to do with sex in the sense he is using the terms. In regard to nature and psychology you can assume the following traits for each.

*Masculine:*
Active, literal, rational, reductionist, oppressive, hierarchic, conscious mind, conquest, external authority, symetrical

*Feminine:*
Passive, figurative, irrational, holistic, submissive, nonhierarchical, unconscious mind, assimilation, internal authority, organic

Science is a literalist/rationalist/reductionist venture. Taxonomy is reductionist/hierarchic.

Mime454 took his statement to relate to the sexes because he is a literalist/rationalist/reductionist thinker.

Gripen thinks the Constitution of the United States of America is just a piece of paper because he is a literalist/rationalist/reductionist, and from that perspective, yes, it is just a piece of paper.

And therein lies the basis of AxolotlsAreCoolToo's comments. A balanced mind can see the inherent value in both perspectives while understanding that neither can embody the whole of truth. So the Constitution is just a piece of paper, but with some very profound principles written upon it. A masculine consciousness will see the paper. A feminine consciousness will grasp only the principles. A balanced mind will see both perspectives.

Science would have us believe that the universe is constantly moving toward chaos (i.e. the second law of thermodynamics; The tendency for entropy to increase in isolated systems), yet we see complex, balanced order everywhere we look. Likewise we are to believe that complex life forms evolve through a process of random mutations in which the fittest survive. Meanwhile we see indications of _intention_ behind specific evolutionary trends, such as metamorphosis, aerodynamics/flight, and camouflage incorporating direct mimicry of local predators. To a balanced mind science does not explain how this can be. Evolution is used as a catch-all and any who question how chaos leads to complex order are shunned and belittled.

Intelligent design, on the other hand, is a reductionist attempt to produce a literal/rational explanation for figurative/irrational concepts - and so, a complete waste of time. While Creationism is a complete cop out.

Equally interesting is the gusto with which literalist/rationalist/reductionist minds eat up ideas such as dark matter and The Big Bang which are equivalent to fairy dust and mythology taken literally.

Meanwhile, the deeper science delves into matter and the universe the more figurative/irrational/holistic it is forced to become. Matter is mostly empty space, particles are also waves, quantum entanglement allows for "spooky action at a distance", the spin of a particle may express only half-integer values, Feynman diagrams suggest that quantum interactions are equally valid in either direction of time, and so on. It is becoming apparent that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist model is incapable of expressing the whole of truth.

Unfortunately, organized Christianity, too, is masculine as it is literalist/authoritarian/hierarchic. The Catholic church has worked very hard over the last 2,000 years to suppress the feminine, which they did not only through philosophical exercises but also literally through oppression of women.

The history of the world since the rise of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) is a masculine history of authoritarianism, bloodshed, and conquest. The feminine current was purged from the world through the destruction of the 'pagan' religions along with the associated disconnect of humanity from the spiritual/instinctual realm. Allegorical religious texts became literal histories, and heaven became a literal place rather than a state of mind. And so we find ourselves in an ugly world where nature and even other human beings are judged by their potential monetary value, because this is how literalists are forced to see the world. Only matter exists, therefore only material concerns matter. You can't prove what you feel therefore your feelings and intuitions are worthless.

Frankly, I feel sorry for any who lack connection to the wonder embodied within the unconscious mind. This is where all unrealized potential exists, the pool we draw from through the creative process. Most only touch upon this realm in dream, then write it off as nonsense upon awakening. But those in touch with the feminine current are able to bring that potential through to conscious life. Those are the geniuses, like Einstein - whose theory of relativity is a profound statement pointing out that time is NOT a constant and, therefore, illusion depending upon conscious observation (Time is _relative_ to the observer), proving in scientific terms what the mystics have stated since man's prehistory.

...END RANT...


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 31, 2013)

> Meanwhile we see indications of intention behind specific evolutionary trends, such as metamorphosis, aerodynamics/flight, and camouflage incorporating direct mimicry of local predators. To a balanced mind science does not explain how this can be. Evolution is used as a catch-all and any who question how chaos leads to complex order are shunned and belittled.


I am a masculine thinker according to your post (I'm still not sure who decides which qualities are feminine and which are masculine). I'll trust what you say about physics, it's one of the many areas of science I have unfortunately neglected, I take issue with the above statement relating to Biology.

The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.

I see "intention" and the ability to intend as the most complex thing that we have yet observed. Sure, stars and planets are interesting and big, but they are, on the face of it, simple. If given enough time, by the laws of physics we can say that stars and planets will form many billions of times. They are impressive, but they are still simple.

Beings that have intention such as ourselves are immensely complex. Even if we gave the Universe a trillion years, it is unlikely that it would ever _randomly_ assemble a conscious agent, human or otherwise. In my mind, any explanation for complexity that _presupposes without explanation _ something this improbable and complex has raised a bigger question than it tried to answer.

The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing, and it definitely invokes my sense of wonder in a way that few other things do. Even if conscious (divine?) intent were the only plausible explanation were had, I wouldn't accept it because it implies that the only way to explain complexity(in this case the seemingly _non-random, converging _ patterns in Evolution) is just to assume further complexities in their place. This results in an exponential increase in complexity and thus improbability every time you ask "why?"

I think that the better explanation for convergent evolution is that certain features and certain ways of existing just work. There are many different ways to make a living in nature, but not infinitely many. In fact, common sense and observation says that there are many more ways to be dead than to be alive. Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.

Since Evolution is focused on finding effective channels to increase the chance of reproduction it only makes since that when Evolution is given similar raw materials under similar circumstances, a similar conclusion might ensue. Take for example the case of gliding frogs and colugos. When an organism takes up life in the trees, falling becomes a serious risk. A risk that gliding can subdue. Thus those organisms grew skin flaps that they use to glide. Evolution uses what is already there and uses it to suit the needs of new environments.

I could go on, but I risk writing a book, and "ain't nobody got time for that."


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> I am a masculine thinker according to your post (I'm still not sure who decides which qualities are feminine and which are masculine).


The attributes associated with masculine and feminine are traditional to most cultures and expressly stated within esoteric traditions. Easter traditions, specifically, discuss the differences between these currents in the guise of yin and yang. :yinyang: 

The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.

Have you ever seen an idea? Have you ever seen a thought? No? How do you know they are real? Just because you experienced them? Is that proof of anything within the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm? Does experience account for anything unless it can be documented and repeated? You and I have danced around this circle before. You will suggest that we can document electrical impulses in the brain which is by no standard documenting thoughts or even proof of thoughts. So how do I convey to you what I know through direct experience alone?

Conversely anything you see is not actually seeing anything but your brain's attempt to decode the input of photons which have bounced off of objects made of empty space inhabited by tiny fluctuations of energy which are both point-like particles AND waves depending on how the observer attempts to interpret them. Look into the double slit experiment.

So the majority of what you see as empirically real or true is actually quite abstract when seen holistically. If you, by faith or the dictates of consensus reality, accept that an object is solid you are believing a lie from the start, and if you only believe what may be directly observed you are forced to believe that lie. Unless, of course, you take the word of someone else who says they can see it for what it really is. This is the fallacy built into authoritarianism and science is not immune. So although you regard science as antithetical to articles of faith it is built upon them. You are required to invest faith in authorities of various specialized disciplines or continue to be limited by your own abilities to observe.

It could be said there is very little difference between science and spirituality on this point. Both involve faith in authority figures. We could argue why we prefer one over the other and that would likely come down to what influences most effected our perceptions of the world. To my eyes, both paths are polluted by bias so personal discernment must come into play.

To me, personal discernment trumps all else. I don't care what any expert says if it doesn't make sense within my world view. That doesn't mean I flagrantly disregard evidence. That would be just as ignorant as accepting anothers view without question. But within my world view personal experience is king. And much that I have experienced is beyond rational explanation or direct documentation. Because of that I realize that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm cannot help but be incomplete.

I see "intention" and the ability to intend as the most complex thing that we have yet observed....

Beings that have intention such as ourselves are immensely complex. Even if we gave the Universe a trillion years, it is unlikely that it would ever _randomly_ assemble a conscious agent, human or otherwise. In my mind, any explanation for complexity that _presupposes without explanation _ something this improbable and complex has raised a bigger question than it tried to answer.

I'm not sure why you see intention as complex. Even the most primitive life forms express intention in all actions. Do they not intend to move, or eat, or reproduce? Don't plants reach toward the sun? I suspect you will say they are behaving as little machines programmed to behave in such ways. What then separates their intentions from ours?

Is it intention which draws bodies with mass together or is it gravity? What is the difference between the two? Science still doesn't know what gravity is even though we can observe it's effects all around us. They create fairy tales they believe may explain gravity as an exchange of particles called gravitons. Yet there is no direct evidence so they may as well state that angels push particle together.

We find ourselves within a vast self-organizing universe. The evidence of the tendency toward order is everywhere. Is that the result of dead, mindless physical "laws" or are those "laws" the effect of intention? No one can answer that question but you are free to put your faith in the literalist/rationalist/reductionist authorities - _which presupposes without explanation_ the existence of "laws"! :huh: 

The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing...

...Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.

...Take for example the case of gliding frogs and colugos. When an organism takes up life in the trees, falling becomes a serious risk. A risk that gliding can subdue. Thus those organisms grew skin flaps that they use to glide. Evolution uses what is already there and uses it to suit the needs of new environments.

Are you suggesting here that the frogs, knowing that falls are dangerous, decided to grow skin flaps they could use to glide? Or that by chance random mutation one frog grew them and that survival advantage was so great it allowed him to survive and reproduce so well that his DNA became the standard? Do we put our faith in the rational intention the frogs would have to acquire the advantage of the ability to glide, or do we put our faith in random chance? Hmmm...

Of course, I'm not suggesting the frogs, with their little frog minds, worked out the rules of aerodynamics and calculated how to glide. But something did. The ability for insects to fly cannot be explained with such a blanket statement about "common themes in Evolution". Yes, we see wings on many species, but each species had different body shapes, energy limitations and lag issues to overcome. Not even to mention the appearance of wings to start with. If you would rather give all that credit to chance mutation you are very much a man of faith.

I will make no suggestions as to how or why species developed incredible abilities involving very specific complex problems to overcome, but I recognize that chance does not fit the bill. We have animals that literally transform within their lifetime, that go from breathing through gills to developing lungs, that transform from a worm-like body to a flying insect. Even looking at a mantis you can see the intention of those wings growing. They must form over multiple steps but there is an end goal built into their DNA. I do not see chance spawning such a multi-staged process. And I don't see the survival advantage to the vulnerable state they enter to bring about these changes. What I do see is intention.

As you said, I don't have the time (or intention) to write a book so we'll leave it at that. :clown:


----------



## gripen (Jan 31, 2013)

Precarious you are am master twister of words. Seriously hats off to you. That still does not make a lick of what you say true.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

gripen said:


> Precarious you are am master twister of words. Seriously hats off to you. That still does not make a lick of what you say true.


Haha! The only thing that's true is that everything is false. So goes a life in illusion.


----------



## gripen (Jan 31, 2013)

Precarious said:


> Haha! The only thing that's true is that everything is false. So goes a life in illusion.


I thought you would say that


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

gripen said:


> I thought you would say that


Then I should hire you as a ghost writer. Oh, wait... I don't believe in ghosts.


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 31, 2013)

Precarious said:


> The attributes associated with masculine and feminine are traditional to most cultures and expressly stated within esoteric traditions. Easter traditions, specifically, discuss the differences between these currents in the guise of yin and yang. :yinyang:
> 
> The way I see it, there is no way to know anything that we haven't observed to be absolutely true. Thus logically we must assess probabilities when we ponder two solution. Evidence helps us set those probabilities.
> 
> ...


I don't know if science can determine the cause of laws and why they are the way they are. But we don't just presuppose that laws exist. From everything we have observed, the laws of physics are sound and exist everywhere. 



Precarious said:


> The existence of common themes in Evolution is amazing...
> 
> ...Flight and camouflage are good ways to make a living, so it is rather unsurprising that many organisms converge on these niches in the same way that humans independently converged on written language and agricultural lifestyles.
> 
> ...


Responses in red. I don't mean any personal animosity. You're one of my favorite posters on the forum. I like to argue ideas without keeping personal grudges. If this argument offends or upsets you, just say so and I'll stop. Seriously, not sarcasm.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> Responses in red. I don't mean any personal animosity. You're one of my favorite posters on the forum. I like to argue ideas without keeping personal grudges. If this argument offends or upsets you, just say so and I'll stop. Seriously, not sarcasm.


We know where thoughts come from. We have an explanation for the brain.

Wow, no offense but you're talking out your butt on that one. Science knows next to nothing about consciousness

This is true, but what on earth does it have to do with intention of Evolution?

I feel like there should be a new fallacy. Maybe call it the "quantum fallacy" where people use something about quantum physics, which is almost always explained in metaphor, to justify a claim about their version of reality.

What's not to get? The world is not what you see. I didn't use any quantum metaphors to justify my version of reality. Just pointing out the limits of human perception.

I think that trusting those who devote their lives to studying a field is more sensible than coming to my own conclusion on points of which I am ignorant.

Then revel in your ignorance and follow the leader. That's the most pathetic thing I've heard in a long time. And the same argument a creationist would use! The Pope has studied God his whole life so if he says God created the world in 7 days it must be so. :stuart: 

Literalist/rationalist/reductionist are all just different ways of saying someone who looks for facts and logical explanations. 

Incorrect. It is someone that _limits_ their perception of reality only to what can be documented by the scientific method. By your definition philosophers would be literalist/rationalist/reductionist and there are many esoteric and spiritual branches of philosophy, as well as lines of logic that can never be empirically proven.

The most primitive life forms are complex in that they wouldn't randomly be thrown together by the laws of physics alone. 

So now you're saying not even primitive life forms can spring from randomness, that "the laws of physics alone" could not be responsible. I think you are confusing yourself. :blink: 

I do not think that the things that you mention are the same sort of intention that would intend for Evolution to work in a certain way. To influence Evolution would require the ability to have a perfect perception of what would happen in the future. And that intending being would have to more or less decide when every organism on earth will die and reproduce and converge it with his/her/its main overarching plan.

I didn't imply the intention to feed or breed had anything to do with evolution. I was pointing out that intention, which you believe to be so complex, is present even in simple lifeforms. Nor did I suggest a being responsible for the intention of evolution. Also, intention does not require knowledge of the future. Intention can be as vague or as specific as you want. Like "live long and prosper" or "have a great day!"

The laws of physics are not conscious intentions. They are unchanging, at least from what we have observed. That's what makes them laws. Like I said before, science's picture of the universe isn't complete. *If it's actually true that we don't know what gravity is*, the answer will come along when we do more science. 

You sure like to jump to conclusions about things you can't prove. Laws cannot be intentions because they are unchanging? I don't see the logic in that statement. How do you know an intention cannot be unchanging?

"If it is true that we don't know what gravity is..."??? Seriously??? You don't even know that much about physics? I'm very sorry but I am completely wasting my time.

...the answer will come along when we do more science. 

Have faith my son. Science will prevail.

It won't come about just because someone says that something is true or because you feel in your heart that it's true, which is all that you can say for faith-based explanations.

I have made no "faith-based" explanations. I don't follow any faith. I haven't repeated anything I read elsewhere.

So anyway, I'm really not interested in nit picking back and forth. I get nothing from this. I'm not going to learn anything here. And, honestly, you have show with your statements regarding gravity and the brain that you are not speaking from a point of knowledge, making this even less appealing to me.

You have made it abundantly clear that you worship the god Chance, creator of ALL through His power of random probability.

Chance be praised!

Einstein would disagree...

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." *I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."*

Letter to Max Born (4 December 1926); _The Born-Einstein Letters_ (translated by Irene Born) (Walker and Company, New York, 1971) ISBN 0-8027-0326-7.

"As I have said so many times, God doesn't play dice with the world."

1943 conversation with William Hermanns recorded in Hermanns' book _Einstein and the Poet_

But hey, maybe you know better than Einstein. :smarty: 

"Have a great day!"


----------



## gripen (Jan 31, 2013)

I love your logic precarious! You rail mime for his reasonable explanations of what science can prove, then deliver your same speech. I guess I am to logical to understand what you are saying. Please do inform me why I am wrong.


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

gripen said:


> I love your logic precarious! You rail mime for his reasonable explanations of what science can prove, then deliver your same speech. I guess I am to logical to understand what you are saying. Please do inform me why I am wrong.


No time... I just converted...

*OH MIGHTY DICE WE PRAISE THEE!!!*​​


----------



## Mime454 (Jan 31, 2013)

> Wow, no offense but you're talking out your butt on that one. Science knows next to nothing about consciousness.


Science knows, at least I hope that we agree on this, that consciousness comes from the brain. The brain is an organ subject to Evolution like any other.



> What's not to get? The world is not what you see. I didn't use any quantum metaphors to justify my version of reality. Just pointing out the limits of human perception.
> 
> I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that the world isn't what we see. I don't think that that takes away from the utility of observation and science though. It's the best tool that we have to understand the world, and it's results are undeniable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

Mime454 said:


> I guess I misunderstood what you were saying. I agree that the world isn't what we see. I don't think that that takes away from the utility of observation and science though. It's the best tool that we have to understand the world, and it's results are undeniable.


As I said, I'm done with the back and forth. I stand to gain or learn nothing from this exchange and I've got better uses for my time. It really doesn't matter to me that you or anyone else understand what I'm saying or agrees. I don't care to engage in debate. Like I said, I get absolutely nothing from that.

But, no, I do not agree that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the Einstein quotes were used satirically in reference to your dice allegories. I know full well what he really meant by them.

And I guess I should point out that I don't believe intention is the same as gravity, or that laws are intention. I was making unprovable satirical statements equivalent to those made by science in such theories as dark matter and gravitons. Seriously, look at those two and figure out the difference between them and belief in fairies. I was playing devil's advocate to show you how those theories look to me. But the idea of a self-organizing universe does make one wonder if there is intention behind it or the specifics of the laws which allow for, and even encourage, creation of life from dead matter.

You guys feel content to attribute everything to chance, which is as big a cop out as just saying "God did it". That's my point. You have given up, which is sad for someone your age. Accepting limits is a death sentence. Look at current technology judged against perceived limits of the past. And look at all the scientific fallacies which have been overturned as well. Mankind knows very little but pretends to know much more. Don't be fooled by that superior attitude professed by the current paradigm. Do not buy into the religion of scientism.


----------



## agent A (Jan 31, 2013)

This is hurting my head  

All i have to say is kudoos to anyone who believes god communicates with all species

Most modern religions are very species selfish and only express god as having created humans in his image and as humans being the only ones in touch with god, including christianity and this coupled with the cultish setup of the catholic church is why i dont want to be confirmed (aka trapped) into any faith though im kinda being forced to

There cant possibly be a god that went through all the trouble of creating biodiversity only to care abt 1 species as most religions and frankly MOST (not all) people seem to claim


----------



## fleurdejoo (Jan 31, 2013)

I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.

And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?

Can't we all just get along?

Alls I really wanna know is if Axo thinks humans rode dinosaurs back in the day?? Okay?!?!?


----------



## Precarious (Jan 31, 2013)

fleurdejoo said:


> I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.
> 
> And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?
> 
> ...


Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.

The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...


----------



## agent A (Feb 1, 2013)

Precarious said:


> Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.
> 
> The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...


what abt our good friends parasaurolophus and ornithimimus? were they handy snacks for the tyrannousaurs and the pterysaurs? :tt2:


----------



## Montana (Feb 1, 2013)

> Look, I don't want to confuse things further but to imply humans rode dinosaurs is pretty ridiculous. I am, however, fairly certain that dinosaurs built the pyramids. I know it sounds far fetched but hear me out. Even though tyrannosaurus rex had short arms they were brilliant thinkers. Just get a load of the size of that head! Ankylosaurus obviously worked in the quarry. Pterodactyl were master stone carvers. And we all know brontosaurus and diplodocus were well capable of lifting those stones. If you overlay a brontosaurus head and neck with a diagram of the inner chambers you will quickly understand why they are shaped as they are. It's a way more logical explanation than ancient aliens.
> 
> The aliens came much later which explains what happened to the dinosaurs...


I'm definitely a fan of your posts - your satire is fantastic!  I've enjoyed it a lot (although I can't help but cringe initially at some things!  ). Something about this and your manner of discourse here reminds me of Stephen Colbert - one of my favorite sources for truthiness.  



> To me, personal discernment trumps all else. I don't care what any expert says if it doesn't make sense within my world view. That doesn't mean I flagrantly disregard evidence. That would be just as ignorant as accepting anothers view without question. But within my world view personal experience is king. And much that I have experienced is beyond rational explanation or direct documentation. Because of that I realize that the literalist/rationalist/reductionist paradigm cannot help but be incomplete.


That's the ultimate kicker, isn't it? I have to agree completely here - not only from personal experience, but also based on what I've observed and learned from others' experiences, too. I'll admit that I'm very much like a rationalist/reductionist (but I wouldn't claim to be a literalist), though not for a lack of exploring other viewpoints. And, to a point, intuition does play a role in my perspective, although I'd be a fool to not try to seek evidence that may either prove or refute my initial reflections.

I'm not sure if most mathematicians fit into the rationalist/reductionist perspective by default, but personally, learning and doing the math behind various natural systems seems to yield some of the best empirical "truth" for natural phenomena. Understanding the proven and provable mathematical relationships and hard math for electromagnetic and particle physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biological systems, etc... it helps to see where the premises for theories fit in the natural world. Probability and chance becomes something seemingly with more "intent" when it favors certain energy gradients over others; properties of particles and electromagnetic fields can be measured in classrooms and beyond to reaffirm mathematical models and predictions; some theories sound crazy and unbelievable until the mathematically-predicted (or unpredicted!) evidence presents itself. And working with these various mathematical tools that work so thoroughly and universally - derivatives, integrals, different coordinate systems, transforms, differential equations, partial differential equations, vector fields, trigonometric identities, distributions, open/closed/isolated systems, e's and natural logs and pi and tensors and multi-dimensional optimization and analyses and various other mathematical techniques - they do not rely on dogma to be true or popular, and anyone who is not content with answers from others can learn and do the math and find truths about the natural universe (or approximate truths, and improve upon them over time with more accurate models, as in the case of Keplerian vs. Newtonian vs. Einsteinian laws of gravitation and motion).

So personally, I'd say that understanding the math (as a fundamental pillar of science) helps one understand a great deal about... everything. Like how organizing structures (galaxies, planets, living organisms, artifacts) result in a greater (more favorable) release of thermal energy, increase in entropy, and progression to lower environmental energy states in a system. And how "chance" occurs at predictable rates, but thermodynamic modeling favors/perpetuates some energetic processes more than others.



Precarious said:


> As I said, I'm done with the back and forth. I stand to gain or learn nothing from this exchange and I've got better uses for my time. It really doesn't matter to me that you or anyone else understand what I'm saying or agrees. I don't care to engage in debate. Like I said, I get absolutely nothing from that.
> 
> But, no, I do not agree that consciousness is a product of the brain. And the Einstein quotes were used satirically in reference to your dice allegories. I know full well what he really meant by them.
> 
> ...


You have a good point about gravitons and dark matter (and, I might add, dark energy). Those are also temporary covers for holes in theories of the known universe that I'm sure will someday become better-known as we develop better models and mode of observation. Those aren't meant to be full-blown theories on which we can give up; those are ways of saying "that's interesting, let's look into it... but what do we call it or postulate in the meantime?" I wouldn't call that giving up or a cop out at all! Who knows? Perhaps dark matter is an unaccounted-for illusion caused by a macroscopic manifestation of matter and energy warping space-time at a greater scale than Einsteinian relativity accounts for locally. Or maybe it's a new particle or two that we haven't discovered and can't observe yet? Or maybe it's the noodle appendages of a flying spaghetti monster. Or something entirely different. Whichever hypothesis ends up having the most mathematically sound model will usually prevail. Math is a sort of universal standard - it doesn't change depending on what beliefs one holds, the data and processes always point to the same relationships.

I guess I just wanted to clarify that it's more than just "chance" or a concept like "scientific dogma" that we try to use to make judgments on truth; it's _personal involvement _that creates comprehension and influences perception. And that perception should be open to valid evidence - like you said, with no accepted limits or dependence upon authority unless you can validate it/make comprehensive sense of it for oneself as well. Math and objective observation (using instruments calibrated with intransigent properties of matter) are some of those ways we can get (and have gotten) personally involved and convinced and intuitively aware of these strange theories that may seem out of place and beyond human perception.


----------



## fleurdejoo (Feb 1, 2013)

Axo!! Are you reading this?

I need answers!


----------



## Precarious (Feb 1, 2013)

agent A said:


> what abt our good friends parasaurolophus and ornithimimus? were they handy snacks for the tyrannousaurs and the pterysaurs? :tt2:


Parasaurolophus worked the lunch truck and ornithimimus took coffee orders.


----------



## AxolotlsAreCoolToo (Feb 1, 2013)

fleurdejoo said:


> I'm not sure I would say Michael has given up. He surely hasn't. He works his butt off studying and it's important to him. So I don't think I would say that. He is always questioning things which is certainly not giving up.
> 
> And Pre isn't manipulating/twisting words but he's coming from such a different place then you guys with regard to this subject matter that I don't think it's easily understandable?
> 
> ...


lol of course I dont  

the Earth is defiantly an old fart with long periods of time before progressing to a new break through of complexity and change. Although it would be one of my dreams to live beside people and dinosaurs! :detective:


----------



## Precarious (Feb 1, 2013)

Montana said:


> That's the ultimate kicker, isn't it? I have to agree completely here - not only from personal experience, but also based on what I've observed and learned from others' experiences, too. I'll admit that I'm very much like a rationalist/reductionist (but I wouldn't claim to be a literalist), though not for a lack of exploring other viewpoints. And, to a point, intuition does play a role in my perspective, although I'd be a fool to not try to seek evidence that may either prove or refute my initial reflections.
> 
> ...


I love Colbert! He is brilliant so thanks for the compliment.

I'm with you on math and mathematicians. The elegance of math does not lie (though it can tell half-truths) and some mathematicians get such a grasp of numbers they can apply intuition like artists. And math is not literal but figurative and symbolic giving it more "freedom". It can be abused though - like for filling holes in theories. Solid Math + Fairy Dust = Dark Matter. In itself math can never be absolute proof of anything. Just shows one way the numbers work. That's why there are so many variations of String Theory. According to math our universe may have quite a variable number of hidden dimensions. Or none at all if it's a holographic projection!

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203081609.htm

When I speak of dogma I'm specifically referring to theories spoken of as if they are proven fact. I admit I have a bias against the scientific status quo because I was duped by it for too long. Discovering how much they assume and embellish regarding things such as dinosaurs, yet speak with such conflated authority, as if they saw them with their own eyes, really makes me sick. And they do the same with many other essentially unknown subjects. I was much younger when that hit and it was like discovering Santa Cause isn't real, or that your mother really doesn't know what the heck she's talking about! I hate being bullsh!tted or lied to and popular science is all about making you believe science has all the answers. This discourages kids from thinking outside the box, teaches them to accept the lies of authority figures without question, and limits human potential. Bad, bad, bad!

There are also aspects of theory that are not to be questioned. Not because they are necessarily beyond questioning but because they are so important as the foundation of other theories, or because so many scientists futures are at stake. The adversity Einstein and Tesla had to overcome are two big examples, but lesser figures have an even harder time being heard and the majority of funding will always find its way to project supporting the current paradigm.

And, I've gotta say, this bullsh!t of attributing everything to chance is so overwhelmingly prevalent in regard to evolution they may as well be invoking a god. To state that given enough time anything can happen is just belief in slow-motion miracles. It's attributing time with way too much credit, when the more we learn the less 'real' time becomes. Things like this really bother me. When I see young guys jumping on that bandwagon they may as well be joining a cult.

*Creationism**:*

Instant, inspired, simple

*Evolution**:*

Eventual, random, complex

This is how we know we are dealing with two extremes. The truth is always somewhere in between. We must overcome dualism to find truth.

The bottom line is we don't know nearly as much as the status quo would have us believe. Humans are intellectually lazy by nature so willing to get behind the ideas of another if it means they can think less. We find security in belief that we know how the universe works. Any way to hold off the scary unknown will do. And like a Christian finding security in their book the cult of popular science sells security to a new flock of sheep inspired by a new collection of incorruptible saints. No thanks...


----------



## agent A (Feb 1, 2013)

Precarious said:


> Parasaurolophus worked the lunch truck and ornithimimus took coffee orders.


While the velociraptors planned the engineering of the hominidae group  

Man do i hate those hominids


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Feb 2, 2013)

I Like Turtles!!! since they obviously created everything we can see and touch...you can find out more, just call 1-800-Go-Turtles and ask for Fred.


----------



## agent A (Feb 3, 2013)

angelofdeathzz said:


> I Like Turtles!!! since they obviously created everything we can see and touch...you can find out more, just call 1-800-Go-Turtles and ask for Fred.


I called that number and some random grump answered and had quite a colorful vocabulary of words to shout at me :lol:


----------



## bobericc (Feb 8, 2013)

I think the questions lie in our own perspective, faith and science are a thin line bordering on each other.. one based on fact and the other belief. The thing I think Is misconstrued is the hazy thought of a creator. We know nothing of the proof just that we are alive and came previously from a set of other living things. But now the argument seems to be if an event is all thats needed for the birthplace of life, but its hard to phathom for some without an original piece of life starting it. Should that first lifeform be deemed god and granted the capability that is bestowed to him. Questionable. But we've evolved obviously to being the highest intelligence occupying gaia at the moment. I believe in a creation figure beyond mosts understanding i think. One firmly engrained in holistic science, but only unproven theory and dream, intuition if you will. Like some people had a hunch the earth was spherical before publicly accepted as flat, proven has later been disproven and reproven this is proven lol. Maybe the next step to finding a source of all energy is as simple as really taking a look at our basic needs and fundamental purpose. Evolution broken down further is really just a map of the complex energy transfer system which is the universe, with its controllers which are the galaxies that make it up and further controllers which are suns and planets, we honestly fall into a controller for the planet I feel. But again its more complex than that I do believe that the first bacterial life were to control certain elements by consuming and transforming elements if you will. I mean is it out of possibility that our planet in its infancy called upon a higher ancestrial energy source which could've been simple passed down to it in the form of a gramma ray or solar storm containing that secret chemical concoction to develop life? It could've been just like fertilizing an egg. I think as we develop as life forms basically our bodies turn into a more complex energy transfer system in itself. And this is where relationships form between life forms such as predatory parasitic and symbiotic. Simple life forms started such as bacteria. From there plants could control the bacteria and use them to feed ie promacrobial bacterial, simpler animals such as insects control plant matter and due to the greatness of mantids, eachother. while smaller mammals control Insects and plants, we control all of the below from the top of the chain. I do think as complex forms of life we've developed personality and morals that compliment our survival ratio. I think people should remember that your "spirit" is your life energy and energy is never destroyed, its transfered.


----------

