Evolution is a blind watchmaker

[Shannow]

Did a search, and got Dorkins and Sitchin, so decided to start a thread about a video that I keep coming back to time after time, over a number of years.

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from, only the evolutionary, natural selection aspect of how once the parts exist, natural selection and mutation drives the process.

Enjoy

mcAq9bmCeR0

[sigma6]

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
BoncJBrrdQ8


More straight from the horse's mouth...
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question
zaKryi3605g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypedNJW_Iw

[AxisMundi]

Yep, Dawkins is a definite tool of the PTB. What really made me laugh a few years back was his 'Enemies of Reason' documentary where he descended on a whole bunch of alternative therapists for treatments to debunk them. He ended up visiting my old Health Kinesiology teacher. In the video, he's being treated with something called a BBEI (Body Brain Energy Integration) procedure. She would have muscle tested him and a few of potentially thousands of corrections can come up depending on what his body most needed for a first Kinesiology treatment. This particular one (BBEI) specifically relates to primitive fears that are developed between conception and two months after birth and are primitive pre language fears which become lodged in the psyche due to trauma. The particular BBEI he's being treated with in the film is a statement which is 'FEAR OF BEING IGNORED'. Says alot hey, it's on youtube somewhere if anyone can bear to watch him.........

[Vitalux]

The most precious and beautiful thing about our planet Earth, about the human-beings that live here, is that we get to enjoy a diversity in our opinions of things.

Thank you for sharing :hug:

[sigma6]

Yep, Dawkins is a definite tool of the PTB. What really made me laugh a few years back was his 'Enemies of Reason' documentary where he descended on a whole bunch of alternative therapists for treatments to debunk them. He ended up visiting my old Health Kinesiology teacher. In the video, he's being treated with something called a BBEI (Body Brain Energy Integration) procedure. She would have muscle tested him and a few of potentially thousands of corrections can come up depending on what his body most needed for a first Kinesiology treatment. This particular one (BBEI) specifically relates to primitive fears that are developed between conception and two months after birth and are primitive pre language fears which become lodged in the psyche due to trauma. The particular BBEI he's being treated with in the film is a statement which is 'FEAR OF BEING IGNORED'. Says alot hey, it's on youtube somewhere if anyone can bear to watch him.........

I imagine that applies to a great majority of mankind to various degrees, it's the one who takes it to its extreme, gets caught in the web, he is a "scientific poser" imo.

In unlocking the mystery of life... Darwinist teachers demanded of students everything had to be explained without using "intelligent design"... in advance! (which is logically impossible, therefore transforming the exercise into a creative writing class... remember those?) All this before any scientific analysis even commenced!... what could be more blatantly anti-scientific? ...to propose limitations of thought and reason on observation... it defies scientific methodology by definition.

or.. how scientific is it is to draw a cartoon tree and put various pictures of animals on it, or the picture of a monkey's head on a human like body, with no scientific research or evidence to back it up, not pointing out, or noticing anywhere, it is only a mere suggestion, an artist's conception... purely hypothetical... and yet "suggesting" it is real? Just as bad as any other political or religious cult following.

[AxisMundi]

Yes, I can't help seeing Darwin and Dawkins as being huge forces for ignorance in the world, their role almost being archetypal red herrings and false exits in the Labyrinth that is life. And indeed as you say, this dogma has now become a global cult, no different from Religious Fundamentalism. That so many seem to have accepted this material explanation for life by default without much real attention or investigation saddens me deeply. Still, in a free will Universe people must be allowed to make their choices and will no doubt have to come back here again and again to eventually move around this deception and discover the real nature and divinity of their existence.

[Shannow]

The video explains natural selection as a "force" for want of a better word, and that, I believe as a truth.

The origin of living things is a completely different question, and that's where Dawkins makes such an idiot of himself, arguing circularly, and in the manner of sociopaths that he is right, you are wrong, therefore he is right, and if you haven't been convinced, then you are wrong until you are either convinced, or browbeaten into ceding his correctness....never gets to the point in the video that the parts are there to start self assembling.

I'm not sure where Darwin stood on where the machinery came from for the evolutionary engine to start pumping out suitable species (I need to do more reading and gain more understanding).

I work within a mile of where Darwin met the Platypus, so maybe there's some pondering time to be had there.

[AxisMundi]

On the origins of life I've always loved this quote by Max Planck, Physicist and founder of Quantum Theory:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.”

[Shannow]

AxisMundi, I agree with the quote...

Back in Highschool (28 years ago for this one), my crusty old physics lecturer made us calculate the diffraction of an elephant, which we all thought hilarious at the time...a decade or so after, they diffracted a carbon Buckeyball...at that point the diffracted elephant is a simple step.

[Kindred]

I'll simply throw these items into the conversation - I feel they are of significant import to this discussion.

Note: this was written by a holographic physicist, Dr. Tom Chalko
http://nujournal.net/choice.html

and an excerpt from Chapter 3 of "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts

Your scientists are finally learning what philosophers have known for centuries – that mind can influence matter. They still have to discover the fact that the mind creates and forms matter.
Now your closest environment, physically speaking, is your body. It is not like some manikin-shape in which you are imprisoned, that exists apart from you like a casing. Your body is not beautiful or ugly, healthy or deformed, swift or slow simply because this is the kind of body that was thrust upon you indiscriminately at birth. Instead your physical form, your corporeal personal environment, is the physical materialization of you own thoughts, emotions, and interpretations.

Quite literally, the “inner self” forms the body by magically transforming thoughts and emotions into physical counterparts. You grow the body. Its condition perfectly mirrors your subjective state at any given time. Using atoms and molecules, you build your body, forming basic elements into a form that you call your own.

You are intuitively aware that you form your image, and that you are independent of it. You do not realize that you create your larger environment and the physical world as you know it by propelling your thoughts and emotions into matter – a breakthrough into three-dimensional life. The inner self, therefore, individually and en masse, sends its psychic energy out, forming tentacles that coalesce into form.

Each emotion and thought has its own electromagnetic reality, completely unique. It is highly equipped to combine with certain others, according to the various ranges of intensity that you include. In a manner of speaking, three-dimensional objects are formed in somewhat the same way that images you see on your television screen are formed, but with a larger difference. And if you are not tuned into that particular frequency, you will not perceive the physical objects at all.

Each of you act as transformers, consciously, automatically transforming highly sophisticated electromagnetic units into physical objects. You are in the middle of a “matter-concentrated system”, surrounded, so to speak, by weaker areas in which what you would call “pseudo-matter” persists. Each thought and emotion spontaneously exists as a simple or complex electromagnetic unit – unperceived, incidentally, as yet by your scientists.

The intensity determines both the strength and the permanency of the physical image into which the thought or emotion will be materialized. In my own material I am explaining this in depth. Here, I merely want you to understand that the world that you know is the reflection of an inner reality.
------------------------------------

In Unity, Peace and Love

[RMorgan]

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
BoncJBrrdQ8



Come on, man. Are you really falling for this?

Someone edits a part of a video, so they can distort it and make it appear to be something else? This is the oldest trick in the book, man...Seriously. You can do better than that.

Dawkins, as a very intelligent man, has always been open to possibilities....He's not "admitting" that intelligent design is the truth. He's only being humble enough to consider the possibility, after all, he's a scientist.

His line of atheism was never radical...He always said that, in his opinion, the chances of the intelligent design being truth, compared to the chances of natural selection being truth, are lower than 50% considering our current knowledge and evidence.

Just read one of his books (I highly recommend The God Delusion, since it's brilliantly written)...He never says that god or an intelligent creator doesn't exist; He just says that considering our current knowledge and evidences, the chances are considerably bigger that it doesn't.

Doing like the mainstream media, showing edited footage to try to prove a point is low, man...Really low.

Raf.

[AxisMundi]

I'll simply throw these items into the conversation - I feel they are of significant import to this discussion.

Note: this was written by a holographic physicist, Dr. Tom Chalko
http://nujournal.net/choice.html

and an excerpt from Chapter 3 of "Seth Speaks" by Jane Roberts

Your scientists are finally learning what philosophers have known for centuries – that mind can influence matter. They still have to discover the fact that the mind creates and forms matter.
Now your closest environment, physically speaking, is your body. It is not like some manikin-shape in which you are imprisoned, that exists apart from you like a casing. Your body is not beautiful or ugly, healthy or deformed, swift or slow simply because this is the kind of body that was thrust upon you indiscriminately at birth. Instead your physical form, your corporeal personal environment, is the physical materialization of you own thoughts, emotions, and interpretations.

Quite literally, the “inner self” forms the body by magically transforming thoughts and emotions into physical counterparts. You grow the body. Its condition perfectly mirrors your subjective state at any given time. Using atoms and molecules, you build your body, forming basic elements into a form that you call your own.



In Unity, Peace and Love

There's an interesting transcript of a hypnosis session in Michael Newton's book 'Journey of Souls'. The entire book is fascinating consisting of many hypnosis transcripts of people who can remember their 'lives between lives' and is a remarkably consistent portrayal of the dynamics of death and the afterlife. In this particular transcript, one individual recalls going on a type of 'holiday' in the spirit world where they were being taught how to construct basic 'thought-forms' ie matter from one's own though patterns and consciousness. The hypnotist (Michael Newton) is flabbergasted as this is being spoken to him but the patient is cooly adamant that this is a reality in other dimensions. Would tie in somewhat with what you've quoted here from Jane Roberts who I've never read but would very much like to :)

[Robin]

Yes, I can't help seeing Darwin and Dawkins as being huge forces for ignorance in the world, their role almost being archetypal red herrings and false exits in the Labyrinth that is life. And indeed as you say, this dogma has now become a global cult, no different from Religious Fundamentalism. That so many seem to have accepted this material explanation for life by default without much real attention or investigation saddens me deeply. Still, in a free will Universe people must be allowed to make their choices and will no doubt have to come back here again and again to eventually move around this deception and discover the real nature and divinity of their existence.

You seem to have a negative outlook towards Richard Dawkins, AxisMundi. I understand where you are coming from but I think you may harness these feelings without looking at different perspectives.

I was an atheist for eight years of my life. I was one of the most staunch of atheists and held Richard Dawkins in high regard. I held him in high regard because for me as a scientist, what he said made sense. In fact, much of what he says still makes sense.

After being raised Catholic and going through confirmation hesitatingly, I renounced religion and went to the other side of the spectrum...for obvious reasons!!! Religion has corrupted the foundation of what it means to be spiritual where many become so offended that they go to the other side of the spectrum.

Religion poisons everything it touches and I can see why people like Richard speak out against dogma. Being an atheist for eight years, I didn't even know that being spiritual without being religious was an option. I do not believe that Richard is a disinformation agent working for the Powers that Be. He is just so darn frustrated with people spreading false lies. He himself has been led astray by disinformation as the spiritual nature of the universe has been cleverly kept hidden from us.

So I suggest looking at things in the shoes of others. Richard is doing a good thing by exposing the corruption of organized religion and is also popularizing science. Sure, he is convincing many that they are nothing more than a hunk of meat with only one life time, but at least he is doing some good.

[AxisMundi]

You seem to have a negative outlook towards Richard Dawkins, AxisMundi. I understand where you are coming from but I think you may harness these feelings without looking at different perspectives.

I was an atheist for eight years of my life. I was one of the most staunch of atheists and held Richard Dawkins in high regard. I held him in high regard because for me as a scientist, what he said made sense. In fact, much of what he says still makes sense.

After being raised Catholic and going through confirmation hesitatingly, I renounced religion and went to the other side of the spectrum...for obvious reasons!!! Religion has corrupted the foundation of what it means to be spiritual where many become so offended that they go to the other side of the spectrum.

Religion poisons everything it touches and I can see why people like Richard speak out against dogma. Being an atheist for eight years, I didn't even know that being spiritual without being religious was an option. I do not believe that Richard is a disinformation agent working for the Powers that Be. He is just so darn frustrated with people spreading false lies. He himself has been led astray by disinformation as the spiritual nature of the universe has been cleverly kept hidden from us.

So I suggest looking at things in the shoes of others. Richard is doing a good thing by exposing the corruption of organized religion and is also popularizing science. Sure, he is convincing many that they are nothing more than a hunk of meat with only one life time, but at least he is doing some good.

I think you're absolutely right about Religion poisoning everything it touches but I just see Dawkins philosophy as another Religion. ALL materialist science is an extremely partial and fragmented understanding of how the Universe operates just as Religion is and much of it is patently false. I don't believe that he's a disinfo agent in the sense that there's a highly orchestrated plan in which he's paid to spread this manifesto with the deliberate intention of leading people astray but materialism does serve that purpose unwittingly. Dawkins is dangerous because he is someone who is extremely bright in the left brain sense and is 100% convinced that he understands how the Universe works. The trouble is, he doesn't and he's taking millions of people who believe in him down a road of confusion and illusion which can only lead to further entropy and chaos in the world. Just as engaging with the false left/right paradigm in politics is never going to solve anything, the science/religion meme is also just a simple distraction from the real truth about the world which is vastly more complex than the model Dawkins espouses.

[sigma6]

The video explains natural selection as a "force" for want of a better word, and that, I believe as a truth.

The origin of living things is a completely different question, and that's where Dawkins makes such an idiot of himself, arguing circularly, and in the manner of sociopaths that he is right, you are wrong, therefore he is right, and if you haven't been convinced, then you are wrong until you are either convinced, or browbeaten into ceding his correctness....never gets to the point in the video that the parts are there to start self assembling.

I'm not sure where Darwin stood on where the machinery came from for the evolutionary engine to start pumping out suitable species (I need to do more reading and gain more understanding).

I work within a mile of where Darwin met the Platypus, so maybe there's some pondering time to be had there.

This is a common misconception, calling "evolution" what is actually "adaptation" when I went to University these were clearly differentiated (I know, because I asked this question specifically, because I noticed the ambiguity... in retrospect I can now see how they were setting it up... precisely to see if anyone would notice... I was "clearly told" (because I specifically asked) that they were absolutely separate ideas and not related at all other than by comparison... i.e. adaptation was clearly NOT ever considered a form of evolution, since it already had clear scientific explanation...

I've no doubt though, the suggestion was there... I think to confuse the students. Adaption is based on natural selection acting on the existing gene pool of the population as a whole... Evolution wants to pretend that it works the same way except instead of a group of genes selected in response to the environment , a genetic mutation was created that 'magically' bestowed an advantage on the species... Not even original, and complex design would actually operate against this as anybody knows, other than the X-men characters that mass produce super powers out of nowhere... (and I love watching X-men movies, don't get me wrong... but let keep keep clear one is pure fiction, the other is supposed to be pure science... genetic mutations are entropic inherently... they don't lend themselves to increased complexity and higher organization... let alone a perfect line of perfectly fitting parts... quite the opposite... random, degenerative, not pretty, more a taking away, then creating... deformities, dysfunctionalities... this is a typical example of how it just goes against the observed results, very misleading... in so many ways imo...

I think Darwin came to realize there was a dead end ahead, he is even quoted as saying so... He was a serious scientist, but I think others took over his work, institutionalized it... politicized it... the rest is history... another tool of misdirection in the hands of the cabal to mislead mankind with subtle semantics and basing (still yet to be proven) grand theories on the thinnest threads of plausibility... a contamination of logic... statistically impossible... while at the same time suppressing other more elegant models of the nature of creative reality that could be well on the horizon, and/or becoming more mainstream...

Think of the Planet of the Apes series, I think he was trying to tell us something... and it wasn't evolution... it was about how the authority was controlling the society by hiding the true history...

[Vitalux]

The Biggest hurdle that I was never able to get over was

The Big Bang

I never could fathom how they say " Something, came out of nothing" :twitch:

When I asked the Science teacher to explain how " Something, came out of nothing" :twitch:

I was kicked out of class and made to stand in the hall :frusty: for an hour because it was said; " I was disrupting the class" :crazy:

[RMorgan]

The Biggest hurdle that I was never able to get over was

The Big Bang

I never could fathom how they say " Something, came out of nothing" :twitch:

When I asked the Science teacher to explain how " Something, came out of nothing" :twitch:

I was kicked out of class and made to stand in the hall :frusty: for an hour because it was said; " I was disrupting the class" :crazy:

Well, brother,

Any real scientist would answer with a simple "I don't know".

In fact, we don't even know if the universe came out of nothing, do we? We just don't know much about it.

However, the god answer is just as insufficient. Saying that just because we don't know, then it must be god, is a very simplistic answer, right?

Anyway, even if there's a god, a supreme creator; Could it have come out of nothing as well, or would it be required for something bigger, more complex and naturally older than god itself to create it?

I could very well say something like this, along the lines of your question to your teacher, just substituting it for a priest, pastor or a monk:


"When I asked the Priest, during catechism class to explain how " Something (god), came out of nothing"

I was kicked out of class and made to stand in the hall for an hour because it was said; " I was disrupting the class"

The logic is exactly the same. Since you suspect it's impossible for something to come out of nothing, this principle should work for everything, the universe, god and everything else.

If you think god should be excluded from such principle, then you're the one who would have to explain how god was created out of nothing, and I bet you can't answer that question coherently.

See? This is a complex subject. There are no real answers.

Raf.

[Bill Ryan]

-------

This thread on Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) probably describes one of the real mechanisms of evolution and the origin of species.

Dawkins and Darwin might BOTH be wrong.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10863-Lamarckism

[Robin]

-------

This thread on Lamarckism (the inheritance of acquired characteristics) probably describes one of the real mechanisms of evolution and the origin of species.

Dawkins and Darwin might BOTH be wrong.
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?10863-Lamarckism

This is definitely a very nice thread, dear Bill.

But I wouldn't say that Dawkins and Darwing are wrong, per say, just that they are a bit misguided. To say that everything that they have ever theorized is wrong is a huge overstatement. They both at least make some sense. :attention:

Evolution is very real indeed. It's just not the driving force in creating life, in my opinion. :thumb:

[Robin]

The logic is exactly the same. Since you suspect it's impossible for something to come out of nothing, this principle should work for everything, the universe, god and everything else.

If you think god should be excluded from such principle, then you're the one who would have to explain how god was created out of nothing, and I bet you can't answer that question coherently.

See? This is a complex subject. There are no real answers.

Raf.

This has definitely been the crutch of science and understanding for so long now. Religion does seem to evade the question: "If there is God, then what or who made God?"

This question has haunted me for so long now as a biologist and philosopher.

It seems that even from witnesses who claim to have contacted extraterrestrials, when they ask these beings if there is a god, the beings say something along the lines of "There are even some things that we don't know." I can provide many quotes and references to this kind of testimonial.

But for now, anyone who is interested in this question may want to check out the work of Lawrence Krauss. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_M._Krauss)

He is an atheist and works alongside Dawkins to quiet theologians, but his work as a theoretical physicist is unparalleled. His work centers around finding the answer to the start and end of the universe. It seems that he is making progress, and published a book called A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing. (http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/145162445X)

Although he is quite wrong on many things, I will not discount the scientific work that he is doing in trying to answer the question of the origin of the universe. It is worth looking into. ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

[sigma6]

I used to think Lamarckism made no sense... but sometimes I think it may have something to do with David Wilcock's interpretation, similar to the spontaneous DNA information being transferred through photons... or even spontaneously from the vacuum. Which means it may not have anything to do random mutation, quite the opposite... and I think it is in the DNA itself... at the time I don't think they realized that DNA was, and is, a receiver/transmitter of 'information'... I now believe that is the vehicle of developing 'consciousness' Consciousness (even at the 'animal' level develops DNA, which in turn creates a potential higher level consciousness, or faster running legs perhaps...

Then again, It was odd the example he gave in the link was Cheetahs running ability, because that could clearly be explained by adaptation, or phenotypic expression, the "environmental influence" being faster running cheetahs would prove more successful... so to me that would clearly be adaptation or, if you are a 'Darwinist' I guess you could call that evolution... for example, the Cheetah population as a whole has a range of genes that would express different phenotypes of musculature that exist within that populations genes, the "environment" is going to select for those existing genes which will be most successful and eventually become largest existing percentage within that population, until other environmental variables come along and change that... so I don't see a need for Lamarkism there...

And Pavlov's observation is interesting, but can be fraught with extraneous variables, what influences were they raised under? how were they handled? etc... i.e. the 'energy' or information that can be transferred, it could be done through the inherent transmission/receiver function of DNA... nothing random about it.. what would it do to the next generation to know your parents were beheaded and kept alive artificially using artificial pumps to circulate blood and air? (not sure if that was Pavlov...)

I just have a problem with the word "Evolution" since it can be so vague and nefarious at times, and they just keep changing its definition to fit things that can be explained otherwise and of course never talk about it, briefly admit its failures then hide it, never to talk about or admit it again, or outright hoaxes by supposedly trained scientist...

The idea of "believing" something that was based on a historically exposed hoax for 50 years, which was the backbone of their "proof" seems absurd to me... And shows how desperate they must have been... Just long enough to create enough inertia to maintain a huge industry that sucks up Government money today. A playground where they practice the art of rationalization. (which I think is their real "science")

Yet they never apologized for it, let alone admitted to it (just removed it) nor do they even correct or update their books, they just keep showing the same baseless pictures and "artist's conceptions" of what they still haven't found (because it doesn't exist) and just go on to more sophisticated forms of manipulating the public perception... there is a huge monetary propaganda aspect to it ... i

[RMorgan]

Hey Bill,

Darwin and Lamarck were both geniuses. In fact, their theories were in agreement in the most important aspect.

Both thought that life had changed gradually over time and was still changing, that living things change to better adapt to their environments, and that all organisms are related. Darwin and Lamarck also agreed that life evolved from fewer, simpler organisms to more complex ones.

I'm familiar with both theories but Darwinism had won the race, specially considering that it didn't stop with Darwin. The great majority of evolutionists developed countless papers confirming and adding to the initial Natural Selection theory...Many scientists that were even systematically trying to disprove Darwinism eventually ended up agreeing with it. Darwinism itself is evolving.

Of course, it doesn't mean Darwin had achieved the ultimate evolutionist theory, but he's been proven mostly right, so far.

Anyway, here's where they disagree.

Lamarck, in his "Theory of Inheritance of Acquired Characteristics", said that change is made by what the organisms want or need. For example, Lamarck believed that elephants all used to have short trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, they stretched their trunks to reach the water and branches, and their offspring inherited long trunks. Lamarck also said that body parts that are not being used, such as the human appendix and little toes are gradually disappearing. Eventually, people will be born without these parts. Lamarck also believed that evolution happens according to a predetermined plan and that the results have already been decided somehow.

Darwin, in his "On the Origin of Species", noted that the desires of animals have nothing to do with how they evolve, and that changes in an organism during its life do not affect the evolution of the species. He said that organisms, even of the same species, are all different and that those which happen to have variations that help them to survive in their environments survive and have more offspring. The offspring are born with their parents' helpful traits, and as they reproduce, individuals with that trait make up more of the population. Other individuals, that are not so well adapted, die off. Most elephants used to have short trunks, but some had longer trunks. When there was no food or water that they could reach with their short trunks, the ones with short trunks died off, and the ones with long trunks survived and reproduced. Eventually, all of the elephants had long trunks. Darwin also believed that evolution does not happen according to any sort of plan.

Anyway, here's how eventually Lamarck was disproved. Of course, I'll simplify the subject, so everyone can understand it.

We've seen many real examples and observations that changes that occur in an animal during life are not passed on to the animal's offspring. If a dog's ears are cut short, its puppies are born with long ears regardless. You can cut dog ears for generations, but their offspring will still be born with long ears. If someone exercises every day, runs marathons, eats well, and is generally very healthy, the fitness is not passed on and the person's children still have to work just as hard to get that fit and healthy.

Darwin knew that traits are passed on, but he never understood how. Back then, Mendel, who discovered genetics, was just starting his experiments. However, now we know much more about genetics, and we know that the only way for traits to be passed on is through genes, and that genes can not be affected by the outside world. The only thing that can be affected is which gene sets there are in a population, and this is determined by which individuals die and which ones live.

Here's how Epigenetics doesn't prove Lamarck. Epigenetic changes can modify the activation of certain genes, but not the sequence of DNA. It acts on the epigenome, not on the genome itself. Epigenetics passes information but do not alter the genetic code itself.

As an example, a human baby will receive Epigenetic information which will make him prepared to survive on the same environmental conditions as his mother. Something like "Hey baby, its a harsh world, be prepared". The baby will inherit such information, but his genetic code will remain the same. The baby will not be born genetically prone to become a very muscular man because his mother lives in a world where muscular man have a higher chance of survival, but he will be born with the epigenetic information "telling" him that he will have better chances if he becomes muscular.

Anyway, don't expect that we could settle this subject in a forum discussion. This is one of the most complex subjects ever discussed and it will still probably take centuries to achieve an ultimate conclusion. However, since science and knowledge work with the current, I can say that Darwinist evolutionists have been achieving a very high success rate in their studies so far.

Here's a comprehensive table describing (http://sciencenetlinks.com/student-teacher-sheets/lamarck-and-darwin-summary-theories/) the differences between Darwin and Lamarck, for those who are interested.

Cheers,

Raf.

[sigma6]

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
BoncJBrrdQ8



Come on, man. Are you really falling for this?

Someone edits a part of a video, so they can distort it and make it appear to be something else? This is the oldest trick in the book, man...Seriously. You can do better than that.

Dawkins, as a very intelligent man, has always been open to possibilities....He's not "admitting" that intelligent design is the truth. He's only being humble enough to consider the possibility, after all, he's a scientist.

His line of atheism was never radical...He always said that, in his opinion, the chances of the intelligent design being truth, compared to the chances of natural selection being truth, are lower than 50% considering our current knowledge and evidence.

Just read one of his books (I highly recommend The God Delusion, since it's brilliantly written)...He never says that god or an intelligent creator doesn't exist; He just says that considering our current knowledge and evidences, the chances are considerably bigger that it doesn't.

Doing like the mainstream media, showing edited footage to try to prove a point is low, man...Really low.

Raf.

the bottom line is he had to admit he couldn't bluff Stein, he caved, Stein is no idiot either, if you want to call that humble be my guest... lol

[sigma6]

And they always use that technique, masters of deception that they are ...

i.e. Like conjuring up images that are supposed to be metaphors for what they are talking about because it is apparently too "complex" to explain, then never explain it... or keeping changing the explanation until it is so discombobulated...

Given from where they are standing I can't blame them... and the issue of Darwin and Lamark being geniuses, perhaps, they were scientists at the very least, Darwin is quoted as questioning his own work... at least he was honest... he didn't build the institute of Darwinism, which if you see it, it does very much have the psychological impact of being a church... Interesting...

Anyhow back to their strange "metaphors" for example "an infinite number of monkeys typing at an infinite number of typewriters" or a "blind watchmaker"... think about it... they already got you... even if you could create these... hypothetically even (say in a holodeck or something... think about it... go ahead and follow through what they are putting right in front of your face ... yep total nonsense...

The trick is if they can push that right past you in the first move, then you have already compromised your logic, because I wouldn't buy a watch from a blind watch maker and I know Shakespeare would never come from a single typewriter, even an infinite number of them like they created in the Matrix (for example)... it's patently, calculatedly absurd... What you are really missing is the psychological technique being used to constantly suppress your logic...

Most people who agree with "evolution", are listening to the main theme but overlooking the "fine print" of the underlying technical mechanism, and when it is explained it is always something that "evolution" never purported to be in the first place, now it is adaptation, now it is lamarkism? (which I think might be DNA, which is related to consciousness, oh but wait in evolution, that's not allowed... Forced rules, you have to play by... Just like the artificial rules of "legal logic" when you enter a court house...) Why isn't that an odd coincidence?? (then again who controls both of these institutions, and always have???...)

It is always something else, that is already scientifically understood... in a more parsimonious and intelligent fashion. What is the point of having a word that we have to keep borrowing from other concepts to keep redefining it? Just call a spade a spade... but I get a kick out of how 'emotional' this is for some ...

Another fundamental roadblock they can never overcome, in their endless rationalizations is the idea of something from nothing... if you follow their logic to its end it always, always hits this brick wall, (which is exactly where Stein took Dawkins)

at that point, to use a metaphor, you are like the astronaut (or the monkey...lol) in 2001 facing the monolith...

...but, but...wha? wtf (lol) ... how did that get here!!?? '; )

[sigma6]

As an example, a human baby will receive Epigenetic information which will make him prepared to survive on the same environmental conditions as his mother. Something like "Hey baby, its a harsh world, be prepared". The baby will inherit such information, but his genetic code will remain the same. The baby will not be born genetically prone to become a very muscular man because his mother lives in a world where muscular man have a higher chance of survival, but he will be born with the epigenetic information "telling" him that he will have better chances if he becomes muscular.

Again that is simple behaviourism or psychology... once again superimposing a more complex explanation then is necessary...
Occam's razor. Not to say if a more complex explanation is necessary to go for it... but time and again, the point isn't to try and always talk over people's heads, and then cow them into pretending to agree because they don't want to appear stupid (the emperor has no clothes) And we know this goes on far too much...

The University system, because it involves so much "money" is infested with politics and corruption, and it is getting progressively worse from what I have heard and seen (as they get more desperate to control and suppress even more information) in case this is news to anyone... gee, and who controls the university system?....

Look how far they went to "control" the science of biology during the H1N1 scare... I think there is a website dedicated to the number of PhD biologists that were bizarrely murdered during that period... then look at the money grabbing climate change agenda, PhDs were being fired or threatened left and right until the Russians cracked their emails and again exposed their agenda...

This is NOT new this has been the system long, long before the 50 year fraudulent Piltdown man was exposed...(and still no missing link except some monkey bones that couldn't have walked upright without a stroller) But is sure came in handy to help them build out their 'financial empire' into the University system (yummy government money... mmmm!) and then proceeded to rearrange the entire school system curriculum and publish millions of dollars of books (which have never been corrected...) And lo and behold, here we are having this wonderful debate! LOL...

Do people have any idea how evil, how much money is on the line, how much financial control these Secret Society organizations would lose if Darwinism was swept into the waste bin? And so on and on it goes... and guess whose 'blood and sweat' they are sucking up to pay for it... ?

[RMorgan]

Another fundamental roadblock they can never overcome, in their endless rationalizations is the idea of something from nothing... if you follow their logic to its end it always, always hits this brick wall, (which is exactly where Stein took Dawkins)


Personally, I have no problems with the concept of something coming out of nothing.

I've never seen it happen and never heard of any evidence proving that it can happen as well but, of course, it doesn't mean it's impossible.

There's a point where we have to admit we don't know...The brick wall is a good description indeed.

However, I have a big problem when proponents of intelligent design claim that it's impossible for the universe to have come out of nothing, while they actually believe that god came out of nothing himself. This is a big contradiction, if you ask me.

Either something can come out of nothing or can't.

Violating your own premise to make it fit your belief is intellectual cheating.

Anyway, as you said, Sigma6, this is a brick wall case, for both sides.

Raf.

[sigma6]

Funny that you would mention "God" and try to create a different 'baseball field' or 'court' to play in... But since you brought it up, It may be a little more complex then such a 'self limiting' dialectal argument...

I would just like to point out after everything is said and done you are falling on an age old technique of what is known as the "argument from ignorance"... ie. because I lack understanding about something (definition of ignorance) then thus I choose to believe (fill in the blank) as a possibility... kind of where Dawkins ended up... except he did at least try to fill in the blank and came up with an 'intelligent' answer, (because he must have, in fact understood the 'argument' quite well after all... (?))

Perhaps that is why it says (somewhere) in biblical text that "God" has no beginning and has no end... and similar expressions... hmm... but then that is starting to sound like quantum physics... point is, one doesn't have to leave themselves hanging on ignorance to give themselves the freedom to think of what the possibilities might be...

In response to that I would check out ... the Nassim Haramein presentation... implying but not necessarily coming out and saying... like Max Planck and so many other scientists, there is an abundance of proof of intelligence everywhere...

I still recall the evidence Wilcock presented about National Geographic finding the exact same microscopic creatures originating at the North and South Magentic Poles. The implications of this study according to THEM were so disturbing (since apparently the logic was that this was "definitive" PROOF against Darwinian theory. That they were "forced" to come to the conclusion that it must have been a ship that sailed to the magnetic North Pole, and emptied its ballast in the magnetic South Pole, as the ONLY way they could think of to explain it away...

boy that really sums it up... and then leaving it out of the magazine edition, (an earth changing discovery) just in case others might realize the unequivocal implications... (ie. they knew what they had found... whoever did the study was smart enough to go the magnetic poles and search, so he must have already had a 'theory', (he probably got fired after that...)

You see they were "forbidden" to come to the obvious conclusion (they were probably trained as "Darwinists") so what exactly was it that would make them come up with such a outlandish highly improbable explanation?... that would have been inevitable otherwise if they didn't make up that story?

According to Wilcock... the magnetic energy signatures were creating a vortex from which DNA was spontaneously coming into our world... as crazy as that sounded that was THEIR only alternative to the "ship that sailed to the North and South magnetic Poles and managed to scoop and dump exactly the same sample of over 250 exact duplicates of these creatures!! Of course, there is science (suppressed) that would also explain that... their own observation is one of them...

(are you starting to feel some empathy for these poor souls... how many times do we hear these kinds of stories?... and don't forget who is paying for their lifestyle.... ;I

So if you are arguing that rationalization can prove anything... (unless you maintain a stricter logic, and maybe apply some statistical constraints to rule out astronomical improbabilities, etc) I might be inclined to agree...


Here's a 'simpler' solution... check out Nassim's theory on how "something can come from nothing" Perhaps to be in this universe is to realize that there is no such thing as "nothing"... (never say never) words are abstractions, not the reality itself... We can seek truth with them or we can deny reality with them...


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65010-Nassim-Haramein-s-Black-Whole...-Unified-Theory-of-Everything-Solved&p=751940&viewfull=1#post751940


Nassim Haramein - Black Whole
lYo94CHG2PE

[RMorgan]

Don't misinterpret me, brother, please.

All I'm saying is that, if things can come out of nothing, the same premise could be applied to either "god" and the "universe".

On the other hand, if things cannot come out of nothing, the the same premise could be applied to either "god" and the "universe" as well.

This strictly refutes the typical logical fallacy promoted by intelligent design, when they try to prove that since the universe couldn't come out of nothing, thus god must have created it, because the same premise could backfire to the question of who created "god" then.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Notice that " coming out of nothing", in this case, is a figure of language to describe something of irreducible complexity.

As for words being abstractions, I agree. However, they are the best way we can use to communicate with each other so far, so, liking or not, we have to deal with that.

Raf.

[sigma6]

Not to worry I'm not, but you are using this word "God" like you have some idea of what you are talking about... We are just coming to realize that we may all be living in a black hole. So you are trying explain something on the supposition of a major premise that you don't seem to understand or have no explanation of...

What I think you are trying to get at... is what is infinity... And before you take a stab at that, it has been known historically that some of the greatest mathematicians have committed suicide trying to unravel that mystery...

The interesting thing about this... is that much like people who used to suffer from psychological illnesses that were observed by Freud, once they were explained to be purely psychological. These illnesses ceased to exist. (of course people now suffer from more complex psychological illness... go figure...)

But I thought the argument for evolution is that random mutations create higher more complex life forms. The was the original idea. It's kind of like Chrysler trying to build a Mercedes by changing the body design. (or again the biblical account to maintain your 'theme') is "making a silk purse from a sows ear" i.e. If you are truly 'concerned' about this (what I consider) self limiting dialectal 'argument' that something can come from nothing, I would suggest that you have in fact jumped into a dialectic and are operating from words (abstractions) that you don't even understand what they mean... which of course leaves lots of room for ambiguity, misinterpretation, imaginary concepts, etc... (kinda like what Darwinist do?)

Reminds me of that commercial "Hey you kids! Get out of that Jell-o Tree! ? ; )


In other words you have created a false dichotomy. What you are positing as "God" might be more clearly stated (sticking to the realm of what we do know and understand, and can practically discuss) might be "reduced" to the concept that "information" that so far as has been proven only comes from a pre-existing "intelligence". For example it has been stated that a computer actually solved a mathematical problem (something to do with an isosceles triangle) and it was pretty impressive by all counts... maybe 'Darwinist' might use that as proof of evolution, just saying... but this didn't come from nowhere the solution was derived from "information" stored into the computer... and of course the computer was created by more "intelligence" and people don't have a problem saying of course these things had to be designed, and couldn't possibly have evolved from say Fisher Price toys for example! Which themselves were 'created', this doesn't have to be a big mystical anomaly.

And yet when we study biology. Because the 'Darwinists' have subliminally trained people to believe that 'metaphors' are vague and "not meant to be taken literally" (which is really a measure of the caliber of the author, once again) People don't realize that when biologist say that single celled organisms are so complex that they are in fact more complex in design then man made machines, the sheeple think back to a 'Darwinian' metaphor and just assume that the author is making a 'vague metaphor' that doesn't really explain EXACTLY what he is talking about...

But the fact is in this case the metaphor is EXACT. Tiny machine like parts have been discovered, It DOES appear that there is INFORMATION in DNA, And where computer code is based on binary. It has been theorized that it could be based on Trinary... 0, 1 and a third character (neutral I think....) DNA of course uses 4 "characters" if that metaphor holds... and so on, If someone could reproduce all the wiring mechanically and all the electrical systems mechanically just to reproduce all the functions exactly as in a living organism. So that every part, every function (ie. combination of hardware and software) There would be the same impression that this involves "intelligence"...

And there is no one that has yet to prove, even remotely, that intelligent information which is the foundation of all biology (reproductive DNA) can 'evolve' from randomness...

So although you have a point we can't "analyze" and completely deconstruct what "God" is we can say that even in an infinite loop (if that is what it is) or an "infinity" (if that is what it is) There has to be a creative intelligence. So the idea of "God" might just be a way of talking about something we are too peabrained to comprehend (although I think there is much we can do)

But just because I can't provide a complete scientific explanation, which only makes sense to me if you think about it logically... anymore then a computer can explain it's creator (to use a poor metaphor... lol) Doesn't give me a free license now to say therefore based on the fact that I don't know what I am talking about I can thus make up any argument I want as long as it sounds sincere, and maybe even intellectual... I would just have to disagree... logic would tell me there is an answer there, and I simply don't have it... but the implications are there... the door is there... you can't deny it just because you don't have the key to the other side... (more generic metaphor)

[RMorgan]

You're misinterpreting me again, brother.

Like I said, on post #28, I was using the word "god" as a synonymous of "intelligent design", since the world "god" has countless definitions.

It's impossible to have a constructive discussion if you're not interpreting what I'm writing, but interpreting what you believe to be some sort of hidden meaning behind my sentences, distorting them as you please.

With all due respect, since I realize you're freely distorting whatever I write, I respectfully refrain from continuing this discussion with you.

Again, I mean no disrespect, honestly.

Sincerely,

Raf.

[sigma6]

You keep "assuming" that I consider what you are saying as disrespectful? Maybe you can quote that... I am just pointing out logical errors. I may have missed your exact quote, but obviously from what I wrote above I must have perceived that... and I would add that it completely bolsters my argument...

Now you also make the point that my detailed explanation is "distorting" what your writing... because I too did exactly what you did... ???
ie. reduced "God" to "Intelligence"???
Is it because I left out the word "design"? ... am I missing something... ?

And here we come back to the same issue, just because you don't have the key doesn't negate the existence of the door... or to put it more succinctly, you say that because we can't prove something that makes no sense (see above) therefore you are free to believe what you want... I just beg to differ, because as I have pointed out that you have created an artificial context using a false dichotomy. (a complex variant of what is otherwise known as "garbage in garbage out" to use a strictly accurate computer metaphor I might add...)

But this is typical when you pin down 'Darwinist' it's always another topic... LOL (and I hope that I am not offending you... chiding maybe, but I don't mean to offend, again since you have brought this up...)

[greybeard]

The late Dr David Hawkins maintained that ---formless energy had unlimited potential and then when it took form the potential was present but limited by the natural rules.

Iv'e put a Gregg Braden video here as he, as a scientist, disproves Darwen’s theories of evolution.

Thinking and understanding evolves too.

Chris

PS if your short on time start at 38 minutes in when Gregg is starting to talk about Darwen’s assumptions.

C



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5Vab_xBV7I

[RMorgan]

Again, you choose to misinterpret me.

I can assure you, with 100% honesty, that I've never "assumed" that you were considering what I am saying as disrespectful. I was just being polite and that's all.

Honestly, I'm not leaving this discussion for any other reason besides achieving the conclusion that the way it's been conducted is not productive.

It's not a matter of if I personally consider your argumentation solid or not. I prefer to abstain from giving my opinion about this...It would be pointless.

It's just that you're distorting everything I say. It's a communication issue. It's nothing more nothing less, ok? It happens.

That's all brother. There's nothing subjective or hidden to be interpreted here. There are no assumptions to make. Just read the words and interpret them literally.

All the best,

Raf.

[sigma6]

Again your response is making reference to some "assumption" this time now that I am questioning your "honesty" ???

Have you considered that by making constant references about my perception of your honesty (?) or whether you're offending without at least asking may in fact not be productive? And then your charge that I am distorting what you are saying without one "quote" Yet when I quote the very quote you referenced as your evidence... you say "intelligent design" and I say "intelligence" ??? This is distorting???

I AM saying you are making assumptions by definition, as I have clearly pointed out. Perhaps consider what I am saying and come back and look at it again... Unless you can show me exactly where I said or posed or suggested or insinuated or disguised or (.. well you get the point...lol) that you were being offensive, or dishonest? In fact right now I honestly believe you believe what you are saying... but what I do question is whether what you believe is accurate... but there may be some psychological component ... such as cognitive dissonance perhaps?... (just something to consider...)

Peace... brother

[sigma6]

Right on, Greybeard, thanks for the thumbs up... Gregg Braden rocks, I wish he would come out with even more research... He wrote an amazing book on Fractal Time, which again was a huge stretch... but now... All these 'quirks' of nature are starting to make more and more sense...

(btw I must be getting old, never used to be able to articulate myself when I was younger like that... oh well, live and learn I guess...lol)

I have vacillated back and forth at the beginning of life reading as much as I can. And I am willing to change everything I believe... if necessary... and so I keep my mind open. But I haven't seen any updates in mathematics or logic in the past couple thousand years. So I like to at least start there. The flip side of that is that we have to be willing to accept that there are unknowns, this is difficult for many people. Yet there has to be a certain degree of uncertainty, what would life be like without it...?

I remember reading somewhere that the "nothingness" referred to in Eastern Philosophy, which I have heard Easterners talk about, in particular this one Indian chap explained that there was in fact a "science" to it. Anyhow, I once read that the word "nothingness" is in fact an English mis-translation. Of course nowadays, I "assume" they did it on purpose. (lol) Since I noticed no one has every bothered to change that either!

[Robin]

I'm trying to follow your logic, Sigma, but am having a bit of a difficulty following your prose. Perhaps you could try condensing your thoughts a bit more?

Evolution is a multi-faceted theory. The main point of the theory is that "species change over time."

I'd argue that the theory itself is a "species that changes over time." After all, it is a theory, which means it is subject to being disproved or changed. Evolution is also a fact in that it has been proven in the lab with bacteria evolving resistance to antibiotics.

But the main layers, or mechanisms, of evolution are:

Natural selection
Biased mutation
Genetic drift
Genetic hitchhiking
Gene flow

Each one of these layers has sub-layers, and those sub-layers have other details. So it would make sense that as new science brings forth new data, the theory will have to "evolve" over time. Evolution could work through any one of those layers at a given time, not all of them.

As Raf mentioned, I would also suggest The God Delusion. In the book, Dawkins brings up the concept of a "meme."




"Richard Dawkins initially defined meme as a noun that "conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation".[6] John S. Wilkins retained the notion of meme as a kernel of cultural imitation while emphasizing the meme's evolutionary aspect, defining the meme as "the least unit of sociocultural information relative to a selection process that has favourable or unfavourable selection bias that exceeds its endogenous tendency to change."[20] The meme as a unit provides a convenient means of discussing "a piece of thought copied from person to person", regardless of whether that thought contains others inside it, or forms part of a larger meme. A meme could consist of a single word, or a meme could consist of the entire speech in which that word first occurred. This forms an analogy to the idea of a gene as a single unit of self-replicating information found on the self-replicating chromosome."

[sigma6]

Find sounding words, can you define anything on that list before I spend any more time responding to any of it?
Just give a clear definition of what each term actually means, then provide a clear explanation of the mechanism that clearly describes how this actually occurs.
And also provide how this mechanism which is creating these terms itself came into being.
Then I would like to see the actual scientific research, that backs up the specific mechanistic explanation. I would like you to label which is currently theory at this stage and which is backed by irrefutable and repeated scientific evidence. (ie. please do not include artist's conception type drawings! unless specifically labeled lol)

...and I can't promise when I will get back, but my response will be commensurate with the degree of detail and accuracy of what you present. Otherwise I will take you to task and ask for any information that doesn't conform to the criteria above. And if you are only going to quote from the book. I still expect you to strictly meet the criteria above. So you are free to look for this information from any source.

The reason being is because maybe if you think in those terms you might start to see the problems yourself and answer your own questions... after all, this is going on too much, I have put enough information up there, but I don't hear anything that directly addressed one dot of it.

[confused]

I know nothing about Lamarckism. But I know a good amount about epigenetics, and to jump from one to the other at this time is really nothing more than conjecture especially when you get into talking about the "field"...etc. Epigenetics, in short, is all about the context of DNA. For example, identical twins have identical DNA, the same exact genetic sequence, but they can certainly be very different both in behavior and even phenotypic (physical) characteristics. This is the realm of epigenetics. See DNA is not just floating around freely in the cell - it is packaged in a very uniquer way in each person with different "locks" and "keys" associated with it all over the place. So identical twins have the same exact DNA sequence, but very different packaging of it and different parts being expressed or the same parts expressed in different amounts. So when, when a pregnant mother is under some kind of stress (physical, emotional, etc.) this can alter the way that genes are being expressed (!) in the fetus, not the DNA itself. So in this sense, yes certain acquired traits can be passed on, but not because the DNA has changed (which would produce much greater or more obvious changes) but rather because the way it is either being packaged or read has been changed.

Edit note:
To add, as far as I know at least, Darwin only theorized about natural selection. He did not theorize about the particular biological method of inheritance. I think this is first credited to Mendel. I see no reason so assume Darwin was wrong at all, ever, about natural selection. Whether only inherited or acquired traits can be passed on, it still doesn't change anything about those being most fit to survive surviving over competitors and passing on their (either inherited or acquired) traits.

[panopticon]

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
BoncJBrrdQ8



Come on, man. Are you really falling for this?

Someone edits a part of a video, so they can distort it and make it appear to be something else? This is the oldest trick in the book, man...Seriously. You can do better than that.

Dawkins, as a very intelligent man, has always been open to possibilities....He's not "admitting" that intelligent design is the truth. He's only being humble enough to consider the possibility, after all, he's a scientist.

His line of atheism was never radical...He always said that, in his opinion, the chances of the intelligent design being truth, compared to the chances of natural selection being truth, are lower than 50% considering our current knowledge and evidence.

Just read one of his books (I highly recommend The God Delusion, since it's brilliantly written)...He never says that god or an intelligent creator doesn't exist; He just says that considering our current knowledge and evidences, the chances are considerably bigger that it doesn't.

Doing like the mainstream media, showing edited footage to try to prove a point is low, man...Really low.

Raf.

Dawkins is referring to exogenesis/panspermia.
Both reasonable hypothesis that may or may not require intelligent design.
There is no reason to assume that life originated on Earth (indeed it may have originated on Mars and transferred here via meteorite).

The second video shown is Dawkins stating that the premise of the question is based in a particular dogma designed to elicit a particular response. He rightly, in my opinion, re-frames the question and answers clearly what is actually being asked.

[panopticon]

The interesting thing about this... is that much like people who used to suffer from psychological illnesses that were observed by Freud, once they were explained to be purely psychological. These illnesses ceased to exist.

G'day Sigma6,

This really interested me.
Can you give an example (or two) of a psychological illness that ceased to exist once it was explained to be psychological so I can examine this a bit more.

I haven't come across this assertion before and it intrigues me.

The only thing I can think is that your reference is to the changing perception of what constitutes a mental illness. This is due, in part, to social pressures and improved understandings of the interplay of physiological/psychological conditions (eg homo-sexuality was once thought to be a mental illness, bi-polar disorder [manic depression] is widely understood to be a chemical imbalance, etc).
Cheers,
Pan

[Christine]

Trying to wrap myself all away around this conversation… interesting, thought provoking and needed in my opinion. How else do we stretch our minds into the very substrate of matter where the ALL exists. Um?

I have a tendency to not delineate or logically look at anything, though I honor those that do and it helps me to comprehend reality in a EXPERIENTIAL way. So my mind map is BEcoming holographic, as the barriers of compartmentalized thinking are dissolved a greater whole emerges, absolutely awe inspiring and REAL.

I have debated where to put this video and decided to add it here, to this conversation. While Trey Smith relates his theory of everything back to the Bible he also does a wonderful job of explaining the coding that is the map of our reality. I haven't found it posted elsewhere on Avalon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8

[Vitalux]

Christine this is awesome! :hug:

I watched the whole thing and forwarded to a couple friends.
Man I wish I could explain "reality" with the ease as the narrator of the above video.

good find...good post.

[sigma6]

Darwin only theorized about natural selection. He did not theorize about the particular biological method of inheritance. I think this is first credited to Mendel. I see no reason so assume Darwin was wrong at all, ever, about natural selection.

ah, now we are getting somewhere... I would have to agree... but then again he didn't build a cathedral of Darwinism to himself either, I believe his work just became a 'political vehicle' ...and since it is only an 'observation' does this prove 'natural selection' (or more simply adaptation) really have anything to do with "evolution"? Is breeding cats and dogs and cattle, etc now "evolutionary"?

Mendel discovered the same thing, a pre-existing set of genes, maybe the genes are being selected randomly but it is still from a pre-existing set of 'information' already encoded in the 'computer'... had nothing to do with mutation creating more complex organisms... haven't seen any true and unbiased scientific evidence (or any at all) of this yet outside the X-men... but last I checked that is just an intensely entertaining and emotionally compelling idea, a pure fiction based on a comic book by it's creator Stan Lee.

[sigma6]

Dawkins is referring to exogenesis/panspermia.

I remember asking an Animal Behaviour Professor about the adaptation/mutation issue after class once... and he was clearly miffed... because the way he presented it was rather 'confusing' but that they were two separate issues (but looking back now I think they were toying with the idea of just combining them together to make them "look the same"... So if you asked (back then...) you were told they were clearly separate, but if you listened to a lecture they sounded like they were the same (unless you really paid attention...)

Anyhow... in response to this question, which was perplexing him at first, then his face lit up, something that just came to his mind, some new research... and he then told me about this 'radical new theory' that was being put forth by some of the "most serious scientists" at the time... and get this (and it was certainly the first time I ever heard it...) that "life may have come from organisms from other planets!" (ie meteorites from Mars, etc) I was in a state of awe at hearing this! Which was probably the first time... And he clearly looked quite pleased with himself as I pondered this for about 30 seconds...

And then I said to him (quite bold and spontaneously instead of asking it as a question)

"That doesn't answer the question at all.. all you did was move the same question onto another planet..." I didn't realize what I was saying as it just came out as I logically followed his thought process... I remember he was absolutely mortified... I would never get the chance to ask him anymore questions in private like that again... in retrospect I think his shock beside the logical deflation of his 'balloon' was the look of someone confronting a "religious nut", or "creationist" or something like that... LOL

I still think it was a legitimate response for obvious and logical reasons, I don't think these people are obfuscating the issue. But once you take on a prejudice, the principle of cognitive dissonance does take over... to not be aware of this is to succumb to it...

[sigma6]

Trying to wrap myself all away around this conversation… interesting, thought provoking and needed in my opinion. How else do we stretch our minds into the very substrate of matter where the ALL exists. Um?

I have a tendency to not delineate or logically look at anything, though I honor those that do and it helps me to comprehend reality in a EXPERIENTIAL way. So my mind map is BEcoming holographic, as the barriers of compartmentalized thinking are dissolved a greater whole emerges, absolutely awe inspiring and REAL.

I have debated where to put this video and decided to add it here, to this conversation. While Trey Smith relates his theory of everything back to the Bible he also does a wonderful job of explaining the coding that is the map of our reality. I haven't found it posted elsewhere on Avalon.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8

Good question La Tigra ;) I haven't seen this video yet, but look forward to checking it out...

I think Haramein answers that in a certain way. I think that production he made with Gaiamtv is a big move forward, like they are teaching him how to present his message more simply and more diplomatically... But he was pretty matter of fact at one point where he said... (which I considered to be the "punch line" of the whole presentation) (paraphrasing) "There is a relationship between the fact that because the atoms are moving in and out of the vacuum..." via the toroidal donut that is essentially the "black hole" [or what seems to be the boundary or 'containment field'] Which is what all atoms are, which is what the entire universe is... Then we too, as an assemblage of atoms moving at light speed are moving in and out of this black hole as well... wow!... think of the implications... and he asked if you are in the black whole where all 'matter' (energy) is compressed back into one... what is happening when you are there?... "What are you saying when you are there?" (is how I think he phrased it...)

That is where we are all tied together, literally as one... that aspect of universe can never disappear... is the crux of the whole system of reality, our connection to the whole of the universe... which appears to be a 'black hole' and we are 'there' just as much as we are 'here'... (personally I think that is mind blowing and fits all the ancient wisdom...)

And fits beautifully with the ancient principle that the "answer lies with looking within"... it explains why people can, through their own 'minds', transcend time and space and do "supernatural" things...

update: adding Greybeard's post as it is the easiest to link up to (YouTube)
Nassim Haramein - Black Whole
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?65010-Nassim-Haramein-s-Black-Whole...-Unified-Theory-of-Everything-Solved&p=751940&viewfull=1#post751940

[sigma6]

The interesting thing about this... is that much like people who used to suffer from psychological illnesses that were observed by Freud, once they were explained to be purely psychological. These illnesses ceased to exist.

G'day Sigma6,

This really interested me.
Can you give an example (or two) of a psychological illness that ceased to exist once it was explained to be psychological so I can examine this a bit more.
I haven't come across this assertion before and it intrigues me.
The only thing I can think is that your reference is to the changing perception of what constitutes a mental illness...
...Cheers,
Pan

Sorry for hogging the post I should maybe have combined these...

It was more then a changing perception, they were actual full blown diagnosable 'illnesses'... that few people get today, if at all... (we have a greater abundance of 'choices' today, you could say... ;(

And boy panopticon, you are really making me work hard!... that is going back a long time ago... but I do remember the one is hysteria... which like polio is pretty much non-existent today, a disease of the newly upper middle class victorian woman of the day (who had nothing better to do... I will skip one of the known cures btw... lol) the other was known a "limb paralysis" there was another name for it I will update... ('glove anaesthesia') until it was pointed out that there was no physical basis for the 'ailment' ...people having their hand seemingly frozen or numb, or up to their elbow, or shoulder, etc... the observation was made by Freud that once these were discussed and explained (back then the people must have really looked up to these figures, as you can see the psychological influence factors all over...) that these 'diseases' decreased in frequency and disappeared...

Cheers...

[Brodie75]

Note, that the "creator" of the programme and the video is not claiming anything regard where the watch parts came from

sums it up... even Dawkins Evolutions greatest "Proponent" (and most impotent .. haha) admits the possibility, no the necessity of a intelligence (talk about stinking hypocrisy... he totally caved like a schoolgirl in his 'debate' with Ben Stein) What a suckhole, I have absolutely no respect for people who do that, yet he preys on the weaker minded Rothschild Freemason publicly educated masses who swallow this crap... who in fact can't see it any other way... so limited and dumbed down is their thinking... disgraceful, disgusting to my mind.

Richard Dawkins admits to Intelligent Design
BoncJBrrdQ8


More straight from the horse's mouth...
Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question
zaKryi3605g


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CypedNJW_Iw


Ihave to admit that just hearing Richard Dawkins mentioned in a sentence let alone
listening to him rave on used to make me angry, now i see him as someone who's just a little bit wrong.
When he mentions the possibilty of a highley advanced race seeding our planet in the
first video you mentioned i don't think someone without a open mind would even
entertain such an idea.

[sigma6]

...and a little bit hypocritical, and maybe a little bit caught with his pants down...

[sigma6]

2c03TY5ZW0w


What If Evolution was in fact a conspiracy to hide the true nature of how
what was really happening on this planet...??? Also evolution displaces the legal interpretation of Man as elevated above other animals... if you choose statutory law over God's Law as supreme, you are legally putting the definition of man over to other men... and they have redefined man as an animal...

These notes were all pulled from the video...
Not only does mutation random theory of Evolution hide the more inter-dimensional spiritual interpretation, ie. see David Wilcock's research, on source field and everything that relates to...

This is specifically identified and exposed by Alfred Adask's discovery that the Statute Drug 'laws' referred to "man and other animals" being a writer for a living, he caught the grammatical implications... and again I am not going into his story here, but to say that he stopped a multi hundred thousand dollar fine the government was trying to impose on him and stalled their whole court attack for 5 months, by simply asking this one question.... i.e. "are you referring to man as an animal here?"

Why would this be so significant the Government would run away from a multi thousand dollar lawsuit because of one small question... ???

I think the below will answer this... Although they are pushing a Christian interpretation near the end the research and quotes are exceptional... and the argument well laid coming from multiple sources... I'm not highlighting the biblical interpretation, but this cannot be excluded, because it is clearly showing a relationship between philosophy, legal interpretation, and illuminati/Jesuit/secret society manipulation... a conspiracy aimed at undermining the uniqueness of man in the spiritual interpretation AND the legal inalienable rights bestowed on MAN BY GOD... the origin of where these RIGHTS came from... the same authority (combined with their sovereignty) that gives the Vatican unlimited power and immunity from other countries laws...

... there is evidence to show an agenda by the 'Romans' to "get rid of" Christianity... (the basis or the original legal system where man was given inalienable rights, and the creator and thus "owned" by God. (as opposed under the jurisdiction of other men) There is nothing more the 'Romans' would like then to break this covenant they created with Christians when they "took over" their religion... of course the complications for themselves should be self evident... but then these people are the ultimate masters of deception... they have been quoted speaking of their annoyance of this removal of Christianity, especially now that they have established a commercial legal system, another of Rome's Global agendas since the time of the original Romans...

Anyhow the quotes below lay out the most part of the presentation. It looks like a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest Pierre Hardtell de Chardin was involved with Charles Dawson who was the Piltdowm Man Hoaxer... interesting he died 4 years after presenting the Piltdown man and it was actually Chardin who was responsible for "popularizing" the Piltdown man... exactly what I was arguing they did with Darwin's theory... the Illuminati... Chardin was righteously banned from the Church... but get this...he was later eulogized after he died!

All this adds up to evidence showing that there was an agenda, and still is... all this points toward the implementation of a NEW WORLD ORDER... you will even see one of the books quoted states this right on the title...

remember in Christian Law there is forgiveness of sins/transgressions/debts,etc, that I have seen can be still applied in courts, in commercial law like insurance, it is a witch hunt, someone has to be guilty, so that money can be collected, there is NOTHING ELSE GOING ON... it's a racket.


DARWINISM started was taken over by a Secret Society groups as political tool. It is just as much about undermining legal interpretation which was originally much closer to true trust interpretation where the government and courts were seen as servants of the State, upholding and protecting inalienable human rights... to what is now a corporate commercial system that was only meant for corporations... Now they are treating everyone like a corporation. via the Birth certificate and signatures. (contracts)


Charles Darwin 1859
Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life.

(btw did anyone know that this was the ORIGINAL title of his book?????... )


Darwin himself is quoted as saying...
"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed... by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down." pg 39 Darwin's Black Box
- Michael J Behe quoting Darwin...


The Simplest Self Sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules...


Our present computers are less complex than the brain of an earthworm, a species not noted for their intellectual powers...
White House Millenium Council 2000, White House Website
- Stephen Hawking


A single cell, the smallest living unit is more complicated then NY City.
- Linus Pauling

"The complexity of cell structure overthrows evolution..."
"Highly sophisticated molecularl machines control every cellular process...
"Thus the details of life are finely calibrated, and the machinery of life enormously complex" pg 5

"the simplest self sufficient cell has the capacity to produce thousands of different proteins and other molecules... synthesis, degradation, energy generation, replication, maintenance of cell architecture, mobility, regulation, repair, communication... ... all of these functions take place in virtually every cell and each function itself requires the interaction of numerous parts pg 46

"A Child can die because of a single defect in one of the many machines needed for taking proteins to the lysosome. A single flaw in the cell's... protein transport pathway is fatal. Unless the entire system were immediately in place, our ancestors would have [died]."

"Attempts at a gradual evolution... are a recipe for extinction." pg 114

"the impotence of Darwinian theory in accounting for the molecular basis of life is evident... from the complete absence in the scientific literature of any detailed models... by which complex biochemical systems could have been produced"
pg 187 - Michael J Behe, Darwin's Black Box

Sir Fred Hoyle - Astronomer
made up the term Big Bang as an imaginary concept to mock the theory of evolution...

Hoyle calculated that believing the first cell originated by chance would be 1 in 1 with 40,000 zeros after it... ... is like believing a tornado could sweep through a junkyard filled with airplane parts... and form a Boeing 747...
Doubts about Darwin pg 29,

Occult Invasion by David Hunt
The scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth.
pg 26

This situation is well known to geneticists and yet nobody seems to blow the whistle decisively on the theory...
...Most scientists still cling to Darwinism because of it's grip on the educational system...
...you have to believe the concepts or... or be branded a heretic. pg 30


Science has so thoroughly discredited Darwinian evolution that it should be discarded" pg 27
- Michael Denton Biologist, Evolution, A Theory In Crisis


"Evolution is a metaphysical myth, totally bereft of scientific sanction."
- Wolfgang Smith, Mathematics Professor


At British Museum of Natural History In London
on asking other scientists to tell him one thing they knew about evolution. Lecturing to biologists at the American Museum of Natural History NYC. "I tried that question on the geology staff at the field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence."

"I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the U of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time..."
"... and eventually one person said, "I do know one thing -- it ought NOT to be taught in high school"

"Then I woke up and realized that all my life I had been duped into taking evolutionism as revealed truth in some way."

"He said he had experienced 'a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith'"

...fully acknowledging a paradigm shift from scientist to Darwinian worshipper, his idol, the cathedral of evolutionary Theory (money, secret society membership!?)

quoting Collin Patterson, Paleontologist
- Thomas E Woodward apologetics.org
Doubts About Darwin


London's Natural History Museum, looks more like a Cathedral or Church, a temple
Richard Milton
- Shattering the Myths of Darwinism
Mysterious Origins Of Man - Part One Rewriting Man's History


Legal interpretation...

Declaration of Independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."
ie. man has been created rather then evolved...

Founding fathers maintained that the rights and liberties of men were defended by the authority of God who created them. But if mankind merely evolved, then a man's rights are established only by a man's opinion, as that opinion changes [ as in artificial statutory acts and codes, that people are unknowingly contracted into]... the rights of 'men' can also change. As was the case in Nazi Germany. Hitler was an Darwinian Evolutionist.

Why the teachings of the Bible were so important to early Americans, because it was the LEGAL BASIS (and still IS...) to our "inalienable rights"

Man made laws should not be allowed to contradict Laws of God, and if man's laws did contradict God's laws, 'they would not be valid"
- Sir William Blackstone (in fact these principle still stand today... they are just being hidden from us... )




Acts 5:29-32
29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree. 31 Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. 32 And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”


Biblical interpretation clearly states Man was created in the image of God and holds a particular place above every creature on earth, however he would be considered equal under the interpretation of Darwinism... why all reference to Christianity in particular is being removed from the Government? This argument was used by Hitler to justify extermination of 'undesirables' by comparing them to vermin, lower genetic strain, etc..


Acts 17:26 NKJV
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,


Genesis 1:28-29
28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

29 And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food.

Did you know that it is still possible to invoke God's Law in court?... and that you can bring your own law into court?... ???

Genesis 9:3-6
3 Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. 4 But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. 5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man.

The Evolutionist Argument against God is a NWO legalist argument... Because if God did not create man, under what authority should a man's "person" be protected?

Christopher Columbus (?) Langdell Harvard Dean (Freemason) believed in Darwin's theory of evolution. He also believed that as man evolved, his laws must also evolve."
- HIstory of American Education pg 24
"From Harvard Scholars to Worker Bees of the New World Order"

and introduced the Case law method into the legal system...

"Case law basically means judges would interpret the US Constitution and Bill of Right as they believed it should be interpreted..." In Case law should the judge or judges not believe in God or the Bible, Christian principle or value would not be used..."
"If judges did not believe abortion was murder... they ruled accordingly, If Judges did not believe homosexuality was wrong, they ruled accordingly."

Sir Williams Blackstone's Law Books were used for over 160 years by American Lawyers, courts, US Senate and law schools to settle disputes, to define words and to examine procedure.
"Thomas Jefferson once stated that the influence of Blackstone's Commentaries on Law was so strong on American lawyers... were used with the same reference and dedication that Muslims used the Koran..."

Guess when Blackstone's commentaries were discarded - 1930's, (Depression, Bankrutpcy, Issue of fiat currency, The GLOBAL THEFT...)

- then the first major decision the courts made using the case law method was in 1962, the removal of prayer from schools. 1963 Reading of biblical scripture unconstitutional. The original purpose of the American School System.

[In summary the courts gave people the right to anal sex and to kill their unborn children in exchange to not have to read scripture in the classroom. AND to set up the legal framework to later, be able to set up a separate 'contractual system of exchanging your rights for benefits and privileges that they control... " i.e. they have hidden MAN's inalienable rights so well, that for all practical intents and purposes, MOST will NOT find them... and are subject to a Corporate Statutory Code (an employee contract) where "man" is now defined as an animal... (no rights again...)


Old Deluder Satan Act of 1647
- It being one chief object of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times (the dark ages)


Romans 5:6
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.



Darwinism assumed fossil evidence would be found that man was evolved from apes. By definition this theory was accepted on the promise of a future discovery!!??

1912 - Charles Dawson - Piltdown Man
jaw and skull bone of half man, half ape
1953 - Piltdown declared a hoax... broke off the jaw bone, and filed it down to fit them together...

No other discovery furthered evolution then Piltdown, "Piltdown absorbed the professional attention of many fine scientists. It led millions of people astray for forty years"

- Stephen J Gould, The Piltdown Conspiracy


"More then 500 articles and memoirs were written about the Piltdown Man before the hoax was exposed..."

...Likewise articles in encyclopedias and sections in textbooks and popular books of science ... an immense amount of derivative work...

"For many years the Piltdown finds were a significant percentage of the fossils which were used to reconstruct human ancestry"

- Richard Garder. Researcher, Piltdown Man



"This ill-begotten form of primitive man... received nearly as much attention as all the legitimate specimens in the fossil record put together."
JS Weiner, The Piltdown Forgery

Once the hoax was exposed, Darwinist's never corrected their records. But continued the agenda, now rooted in the educational system

"Of his [Charles Dawson] "discoveries" at least 38 are fakes, the only suspect in these frauds is Charles Dawson himself... the same man who uncovered the remains of Eoanthropus Dawsoni, the Piltdown Man."

"For Charles Dawson, was not a one off hoax, more the culmination of a life's work..."

worked with Paleontologist - Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest Pierre Tellhard de Chardin
The man most responsible for the normalization of evolutionary thinking in western culture today.

More skullduggery If this wasn't suspicious enough, after essentially dumping all the blame on Dawson who died 'prematurely' just 4 years after "delivering" the Piltdown Man... which now is starting to look like he may have been "commissioned" ???
de Chardin - goes to China, a collection of would be missing links that mysteriously dissapeared in 1941, before anyone could fully examine them.
Of 175 fossile fragments recorded, ALL of them were 'supposedly' lost. Only the notes and photographs, taken by Tellhard and his team of scientists, modern critics question the integrity of the find...

[i.e. two of the biggest "backbones" of evolutionary theory Piltdown Man and Peking Man BOTH turn out to have completely shady and questionable authenticity and associated with the SAME JESUIT PRIEST ... In other words there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE, just the "suggestion" in one case, and proven fakery in the other... does it sound like he perfected his "technique"... instead of getting caught twice, he "disappeared" the incriminating evidence before it could happen!!! ]

"Is evolution a theory, a system or a hypothesis, it is the general condition to which all theories, all hypotheses, all systems must bow and which they must satisfy henceforward if they are to be thinkable and true.

"Evolution is a light illuminating all facts, a curve that all lines must follow" (this is clear Illuminati 'speak')
Pierre Tellhard de Chardin, The Phenomenon of Man - pg 218-219


Vatican II - Ecumenical Movement
considers evolution a part of Gospel truth...


Marilyn Ferguson, Aquarian Conspiracy

in 1947 - Very definitely there was no Adam and no Eve and no original sin. Original Sin continually obstructs the natural expansion of our religion... It is a straight jack that checks any movement of heart and head... ... an anachronism in our evolutionist system of thought."

"in the theology of Tellhard we are all becoming Christ. There is no Original Sin, and therefore no need of Redemption.
(and with case law, these all lead to attempts to remove the Christian Biblical Law from the court system.)


"RC scholar Pierre Tellhard de Chardin taught that he god to be worshipped is the one who will arise out of the evolving human race."



How art thou fallen from heaven, Oh Lucifer son of the morning!

For thou has said in thine heart I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt by throne above the stars of God...
I will ascend above the heights of the clouds...

I will be like the most high...


Isaiah 14:9-15

New King James Version (NKJV)


9 “Hell from beneath is excited about you,
To meet you at your coming;
It stirs up the dead for you,
All the chief ones of the earth;
It has raised up from their thrones
All the kings of the nations.
10 They all shall speak and say to you:
‘Have you also become as weak as we?
Have you become like us?
11 Your pomp is brought down to Sheol,
And the sound of your stringed instruments;
The maggot is spread under you,
And worms cover you.’



The Fall of Lucifer

12 “How you are fallen from heaven,
O Lucifer,[a] son of the morning!
How you are cut down to the ground,
You who weakened the nations!
13 For you have said in your heart:
‘I will ascend into heaven,
I will exalt my throne above the stars of God;
I will also sit on the mount of the congregation
On the farthest sides of the north;
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds,
I will be like the Most High.’
15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol,
To the lowest depths of the Pit.

Rome has given the title "Queen of Heaven" to
the virgin Mary... RC dogma and Roman paganism.



Jeremiah 44: 19,25 NKJV

19 The women also said, “And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, did we make cakes for her, to worship her, and pour out drink offerings to her without our husbands’ permission?”

25 Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, saying: ‘You and your wives have spoken with your mouths and fulfilled with your hands, saying, “We will surely keep our vows that we have made, to burn incense to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her.” You will surely keep your vows and perform your vows!’



RC Priest Pierre Tellhard de Chardin, a Jesuit
"one of the most frequently quoted writers by leading New Age occultists" speaks of a Christ of evolution...
"A general convergence of religions upon a universal Christ who fundamentally satisfies them all: that seems to me the only possible conversioin of the world... " and the only form in which a religion of the future can be conceived."

accepted the wonderful repercussions of his research and
investigations
- Pope John Paul... Ecumenical Movement...
160 leaders of the worlds 12 major religions


Matthew 7:13-15
13 “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. 14 Because[a] narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

You Will Know Them by Their Fruits

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.






Jeremiah 17:9 NKJV
9 “The heart is deceitful above all things,
And desperately wicked;
Who can know it?