Immortal4life

5 important subjects, not emphasized in schools 1. Fractals, 2. Cymatics, 3. Sacred Geometry, 4. Swarm Intelligence, and 5. Holography.

I think you read into things way too much.

Good, anticipation makes things more interesting

I very well could

I see your point you are making, trying to equate Eugenics and Intelligent Design, which I would say is grasping and bordering on ridiculous.

There are so many journals out there that an article could cite that are peer reviewed. For starters, Science, Nature, PNAS, what journal you could cite depends on what the subject is, whether it's biology, evolution, history, archaeology, anthropolgy. I am intereste din all these things.

I have lots of peer reviewed research. How about this, I won't make another claim unless the next claim I make contains peer reviewed articles included with it? Not the mainstream summary articles, peer reviewed data.

+1

This is a topic about processes in nature, the nature of Life, and how the material world works. These are fundamental issus that must be resolved and understood in any spiritual path. Yes it just so happens that it encompasses and exposes a flaw in the theory of eovlution, but that is just circumstantial. It is not a thread about Intelligent Design, and if you look at the thread, it is not me who brought the issue of Intelligent Design into it. It is only the emotional reactions of some people who can't seem to see a flaw in their understanding as anything but an attack by ID on Evolution. However, the source of this is New Scientist, a reputable mainstream source, not connected to Intelligent Design.

The reasons are very simple. Someone else, other than me, brought up the subject of the Discovery Institute and Intelligent Design. The other reason is because these particular videos were directly addressing issues you had brought up. Being part of an organization you don't like, doesn't make their argument wrong. In any open discussion, you are going to have differing opinions, and in some cases contradicting opinions among different people. In the latter case, the discussion will, as a matter of natural course, become a debate. In a debate, it is not up to one person to make cases for both sides. I have many topics and ideas to discuss, not just one or two.

I still am finding all the theories, conspiracies, and ideas various people have about my "motivations", and "beliefs", amusing. Did the Discovery Institute send you here? Are you Christian or religious? What religion do you follow? Tell me now!! What Denomination are you?!?! Did Gauss ask you to come here to defend the Great Fa? lol Your perceptions on things say much more about yourself than me. These are all just prejudices and illusions, like the false idea that is often perpetuated that anyone who questions evolution must have fundamentalist religous motivations. Now, as far as "polarization" goes, I see this as existing much more in the mind's of the people talking about it than in reality. I also see it as an excuse used by people who personally don't like some of my opinions. It's a cheap tactic. Often times, you have to meet challenges in all aspects of Life. While interacting with others, there is nothing wrong with disagreement, it can in fact make you stronger and know what to expect from people who will want to silence you. Reading people is something many here could do some work on. In addition, this thread has been extremely popular, whether you like it, or you don't like it. It clearly has attractive power.

Does that make them wrong about everything?

If it's not a theory why does Richard Dawkins admit it could be a legitimate theory?

It was not me who first brought the Discovery Institute into this discussion.

Galapagos Finches-

He himself has stated that he is not a fundamentalist or a Christian.

What has been found out now is that Darwin's Finches in fact do not represent evolution, but rather, cyclical variations. As it was observed that some finches beaks change size as the environment changes, it was also found out that they eventually return to normal size. We can't extrapolate that adapting beaks is an example of evolution. Humans have known about breeding for centuries, but breeding over a million years doesn't equate to evolution being true. It's basically saying that "well in a million years anything can happen" Yes, if we want to take the most basic dictionary use of the word. The problem is, Darwin didn't write a book called "Change over Time" he wrote a book called "The Origin of Species".

That is not correct. Even in cases where scientists isolated the bacteria in the lab, effectively removing selection, the parent bacteria still won out easily over the anti-biotic resistant bacteria. In any case, it's still not evolution because a drug resistant bacteria is still a bacteria, not a new species. Even short term benefits can turn out to be catastrophic hindrances long term

The conspiracy about me, my inner shame, and background in life keeps growing. Not botanists! Proselytizing to botanists is something you just don't do But really....what religion or religious belief have I ever tried to convince anyone of? What exactly did I proselytize?

Talk about empty and irrelevant words.... Awereness and aware moments are not enough. You are not truly living because you are only accepting the validity of the mind and experiences of the mental plane. Before the Principle of Mind, there has to come first the principle of Life. The true nature of Life has to encompass and develop the material existence, and energy in Life. It is not enough to just experience and be aware. Experiencing Life does not automatically equate to living Life. Life must be true to itself, it must be lived before it can be experienced. Life must first Live. Life must develop, live, and sustain itself in the material world. A complete being must develop itself materially. The mind is the only true illusion. The mind is what has shut itself off from the totality of existence and oneness with all in the Universe.

Haha, you're already getting ahead of the game

This type of thinking is a road to disaster, a disaster waiting to happen. What modern science has found is that altering genes, even if it appears beneficial intitially, is almost always disasterous for the survival of the organism or species in the long term. It's like how drug resistant bacteria, once introduced back into normal bacteria populations, can't compete and die out to the original non resistant bacteria. Even becoming resitant to anti-biotics was only good short term, but it was very negative in the long term.

Lol, you also have some strange views about me, what my supposed "agenda" is, and about how powerful I supposedly am

LOL! You have a strange view of things.... You also are very extreme, and very black and white yourself, yet project your own extremism on others....

If you are going to make claims and accusations like these, you will have to give specific examples.