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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BoncJBrrdQ8

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

https://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

[sigma6]

Posted by AxisMundi (here)
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]

Posted by sigma6 (here)

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

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=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]

Posted by Kindred (here)
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]

Posted by AxisMundi (here)
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]

Posted by Shannow (here)
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"

When I asked the Science teacher to explain how " Something, 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"

[RMorgan]

Posted by Vitalux (here)
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"

When I asked the Science teacher to explain how " Something, 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"

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.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...863-Lamarckism

[Robin]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
-------

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.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...863-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.

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

[Robin]

Posted by RMorgan (here)
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.

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.

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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0