Molecular data, Common Descent, DNA, and the I Ching

[Otis]

To Immortal4Life:

 

I have given clear, logical, non-fallacious responses in several of your earlier threads, but you have never responded to any of them. That doesn't suggest someone who is interesting in holding a conversation, but a troll, who is interested in stirring up stuff.

 

If you really want to be constructive, Immortal4Life, then say something constructive. Give your actual viewpoint, rather than just spending all your time trying to tear down science. Present your own theory. Give us an alternative to evaluate.

 

No matter what the subject, you can find something wrong with it, if you dig hard enough. I bet one could make a devastating critique of Mother Theresa, if one were so inclined. But unless you can actually do better, then the critique is just a lashing out.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Scientific theories can become very elaborate and complex. However, their basic foundations must rest on knowledge that is understandable and observable.

 

It only makes sense for humans to invent theories, and to build them into complex ideas, if they are based on logically sound foundations first.

 

The problem comes about, when something is unexplainable with current data and knowledge. This is when the overly elaborate explanations come in. This is where many people throw out common sense, and will believe in things that are not proven, or go against basic knowledge.

Once again, you are stating the problem with knowledge in general, and acting as if it is the sole problem of science. Beliefs are the problem; science is (thus far) the best solution at clarifying which beliefs make sense, and which don't.

 

There may indeed be some people who are religiously attached to science, but I think they are the tiny minority. IME, most people don't know, care about, or understand science, and take very little of it as truth, except in a very general sense.

 

Most people, however, are religiously attached to their own beliefs, and for them, "common sense" is just what they already believe, nothing more. It's up to each of us (you included) not to be one of them.

[Immortal4life]

If indeed you made relevant respones in previous threads, and If indeed I did not reply, it must have been because time is limited, and there were many other responses. Perhaps I felt I answered your questions or concerns while replying to someone else, rendering a response to your replies redundant. I can't say for sure because I don't recall the specific situation.

 

Now...2 points. The first point is, that I am going to present my own ideas in the manner I feel is best. Sometimes you need pre-requisites in order to understand certain issues, and there can be a wide variety of reasons why I am presenting my ideas about things in the manner I am, at this particular time.

 

The second point is, that while I do plan on presenting many theories in the future, as opposed to only refuting theories, and while I have presented some tings already in the past, I am not actually obligated to. Whatever theories I personally believe are correct, do not actually have any relevance to this particular thread or issue.

[Wells]

The answer is simple. Humans are the result of both natural evolution and genetic engineering ("creationism") by alien "gods."

 

Essentially, aliens took Homo erectus and spliced in a few hundred of their genes or so.. Thus, creating Homo sapiens and artificially "accelerating" evolution by millions of years.

 

We were basically created as a "slave race" to mine gold for our overlords.

I don't know if you are only kidding; but what you wrote actually represents my personal opinion. By looking at the data I exploited so far, this seems nearer to the truth than any other explanation.

[Immortal4life]

Once again, you are stating the problem with knowledge in general, and acting as if it is the sole problem of science.

 

I am not acting as if it is the sole problem of science. However, science is related to the topic we are discussing in this particular instance. So how this problem effects science, is the relevant issue to this conversation.

 

Beliefs are the problem; science is (thus far) the best solution at clarifying which beliefs make sense, and which don't.

 

That is your belief.

[gendao]

I don't know if you are only kidding; but what you wrote actually represents my personal opinion. By looking at the data I exploited so far, this seems nearer to the truth than any other explanation.

I agree. I've believed this for ~10-15 years now..

 

No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it. - Albert Einstein

Remember, the answer is not found at the level of the false dichotomy. You have to transcend the paradox in order to solve it. In this case, the solution to the Creationism/evolution debate is that it was actually a combination of both.

[Wells]

I agree. I've believed this for ~10-15 years now..

BTW, I don't know if they would need us for "gold mining" (I guess you made a joke there), with their uber-intellect they should be able to synthezise every element they need.

It seems more probable to me that they made us simply as a giant experiment to keep their cold scientific intellects amused by some giant lab reality show that they evaluate all the data in a scientific way.

If they were compassionate angel-like beings (like some people here might believe) that wait stupidly to the point that we dumb humans evolve to their standards so they then come down to us to embrace us in some kind of cosmic brotherhood...well, now with the situation in Japan, they should realize that we will destroy our planet sooner or later and wipe out our race eventually. I mean they made us the way we are, didn't they?

[Immortal4life]

In this case, the solution to the Creationism/evolution debate is that it was actually a combination of both.

 

This is getting closer to the truth.

 

Is it correct to say both? Or is it most correct to say neither is correct?

[ralis]

Immortal4Life,

 

Whatever you believe is yours only. What you fail to realize and take so seriously, is that your belief system is nothing more than a map. A gross approximation of reality. The problem is that you take your maps (verbalism) as absolutes and espouse what you believe as some absolute truth. When posting here, you are attempting to persuade others to believe as you do. That is propaganda. If you don't believe me, then read the speeches of Joseph Goebbels and others who have mastered the art.

 

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

 

I have studied the art of propaganda and I know what it is. There are many in the U.S. today that are working to remove science in schools and replace it with intelligent design, which is just code for a 6000 old earth. That is a very slippery slope without a bottom. The public school system must remain secular!

 

I was just wondering which of these organizations you might like to belong to.

 

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php

http://hollowearthsociety.com/

http://www.jbs.org/ John Birch Society

 

BTW, don't forget to read World Net Daily.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ralis

[Cat Pillar]

No matter what the subject, you can find something wrong with it, if you dig hard enough. I bet one could make a devastating critique of Mother Theresa, if one were so inclined.

 

Just had to point out how valid this point is...Penn and Teller did a show based on how Mother Theresa and Ghandi were horrible people.

 

Just goes to show...lol

[Immortal4life]

Immortal4Life,

 

Whatever you believe is yours only.

 

I think you just might be starting to catch on and are starting to see what I have been saying.

 

What you fail to realize and take so seriously, is that your belief system is nothing more than a map.

 

I agree that belief systems are maps. The truth is no human perspective, from the human mind, can be perfect.

 

A gross approximation of reality.

 

Yes. All of Humankind, is limited by the human mind's capacity, and the 5 senses.

 

The problem is that you take your maps (verbalism) as absolutes and espouse what you believe as some absolute truth. When posting here, you are attempting to persuade others to believe as you do. That is propaganda. If you don't believe me, then read the speeches of Joseph Goebbels and others who have mastered the art.

 

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goebmain.htm

 

I certainly don't believe that discussing beliefs, debating, or even attempting to pursuade necessarily equals propaganda, other than in the most broadest definition of the word.

 

What you are attempting to call propagating ideas, I would say is promoting ideas. I don't believe there is anything wrong with that. You have every right to promote your ideas and oppose anyone else's views you choose.

 

What you consider trying to pursuade, I might also call attempting to be informative, resourceful, interesting, or entertaining.

 

Do you consider this propaganda?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNmsVbdBr2I

 

or this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZDuVJQ7pDI

 

perhaps this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-QfFKAW0qU

 

how about this?

 

maybe this?

 

This?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMdZpn84fV0

 

I consider these cool things, that I like. I like to know about new events, new products, and yes even new ideas. I also like to get excited about them, and anticipate them.

 

I don't get any benefit, political gain, or money from promoting my ideas and debating my opinions. I get a better understanding of them.

 

 

I have studied the art of propaganda and I know what it is. There are many in the U.S. today that are working to remove science in schools and replace it with intelligent design, which is just code for a 6000 old earth. That is a very slippery slope without a bottom. The public school system must remain secular!

 

I am not promoting a 6000 year old earth, not even close.

 

However, I don't believe in this militant secularism. People can take any perspective they want, that includes spiritual and even religious perspectives. I just don't buy into the idea that if someone is going to vote Republican and believes the earth is 6000 years old, a high school science class will make any difference and make him vote Democrat. I could care less about Politics in Science, because I don't really believe it matters.

 

The implications of having no Purpose, or Meaning in science, Having no consciousness backing it, makes it incomplete. It makes it ultimately lacking and empty. It gives people the impression that existence is just random chance, and accidents. So it is a worldview, and a metaphysical belief system itself. I have absolutely no problem with anyone being taught that there could be intelligence, meaning, or purpose backing existence.

 

Let people's different belief systems battle it out. Oppose each other, protest each other, that's all good. It makes everyone's opinions better and have to withstand each other's criticism in all arenas. Let everyone battle, I don't care. Let a real victor emerge. Let each person decide for themselve what to believe.

 

But don't stack the deck, don't ban your opponents views from being taught, let all be heard. Don't run away like cowards to the courts attempting to not have to battle in all arenas, all areas, and all subjects, even if need be, the propaganda arena.

 

I was just wondering which of these organizations you might like to belong to.

 

http://www.theflatea...forum/index.php

http://hollowearthsociety.com/

http://www.jbs.org/ John Birch Society

 

BTW, don't forget to read World Net Daily.

 

Or maybe you're not catching on at all actually.....

Edited April 6, 2011 by Immortal4life

[gendao]

Just had to point out how valid this point is...Penn and Teller did a show based on how Mother Theresa and Ghandi were horrible people.

 

Just goes to show...lol

Goes to show what? How the press can deify or demonize (extremely polarize) anyone beyond their more balanced reality? And then anyone who dares question such heavily-polarized portrayals automatically gets dismissed as a "hater" - instead of any legitimate questions getting taken seriously?

 

There have always been some very realistic criticisms of Mother Teresa. It's just that they never gained much airtime because she had already been crowned an untouchable sacred cash cow and household brand name by the popular press.

 

I'm not saying she didn't do any good - but a fair analysis of her life and behavior will reveal that she never lived up to her hype, is all. Namely, that she cleverly worked her image as a penniless Catholic nun (even after accumulating $50 million in just her NY bank account) in order to amass immense sums of money. Where did this money go? I don't know - it was never audited? Perhaps the Vatican got a large kickback - hence they actively promoted and sanctified her larger-than-life public persona?

 

And this money apparently didn't go to building any new hospitals or improving medical care. She basically just built many primitive homes for the dying - but allegedly didn't do much to keep any of them from dying. Although when she herself experienced health problems - she only went to the finest clinics in the West. In addition, she loyally toed the Catholic line about only using natural birth control - which some felt didn't address one of the root problems of poverty in Calcutta - overpopulation.

 

Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa (Interview)

Christopher Hitchens's criticisms summarized

 

Now, I don't think any of this makes her a "horrible" person - just nowhere near the "angelic saint" that the Catholic Church and others self-promoted her as. But original point being - you don't have to look very hard in this (and some other media-driven) cases - you just have to LOOK yourself, period.

Edited April 6, 2011 by vortex

[Immortal4life]

I just don't believe that spirituality and science should be seperate. If you want to examine science in an atheistic context, and from an atheistic point of view and perspective, that is fine. But if you want to examine scientific findings from a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Taoist, or any other context, that is absolutely fine too.

 

I remember hearing an atheist at one point say "If we allow intelligent design to be examined in science, what is next? reincarnation being studied scientifically? Near Death Experience in science class? Parapsychology in the class room? Should we tell kids the Pyramids could have been built by Aliens?". I just laughed. I say, definitely! Intelligent Design should just be the first step towards the development of spiritual science. But we have to let it get a good foothold before we can truly expand on the idea, before science can become free.

 

The fact is, the atheistic way of looking at science will inevitably die and lose out. It already has happened, is happening, and will happen. It's just the future coming on. You can't stop it. Those who are attempting to stop it, are attempting to hold back progress, and their attempts will of course be in vain. You can't stop progress. No one can, not secularists, not schools, not textbooks, and not courts. In my view no matter how hard the secularists or atheists fight, they have already lost, and ID won before the battle ever started. It just will take time for everyone to accept the reality.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Wells]

I just don't believe that spirituality and science should be seperate.

I agree absolutely to that statement.

[Tung]

Gary Schwartz, has done alot of intresing resertch about the paranormal, so science and spiruality are geting closer,

of course there is still a long way to go, but his work is wery important i belive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

[Cat Pillar]

Goes to show what? How the press can deify or demonize (extremely polarize) anyone beyond their more balanced reality? And then anyone who dares question such heavily-polarized portrayals automatically gets dismissed as a "hater" - instead of any legitimate questions getting taken seriously?

 

There have always been some very realistic criticisms of Mother Teresa. It's just that they never gained much airtime because she had already been crowned an untouchable sacred cash cow and household brand name by the popular press.

 

I'm not saying she didn't do any good - but a fair analysis of her life and behavior will reveal that she never lived up to her hype, is all. Namely, that she cleverly worked her image as a penniless Catholic nun (even after accumulating $50 million in just her NY bank account) in order to amass immense sums of money. Where did this money go? I don't know - it was never audited? Perhaps the Vatican got a large kickback - hence they actively promoted and sanctified her larger-than-life public persona?

 

And this money apparently didn't go to building any new hospitals or improving medical care. She basically just built many primitive homes for the dying - but allegedly didn't do much to keep any of them from dying. Although when she herself experienced health problems - she only went to the finest clinics in the West. In addition, she loyally toed the Catholic line about only using natural birth control - which some felt didn't address one of the root problems of poverty in Calcutta - overpopulation.

 

Christopher Hitchens On Mother Theresa (Interview)

Christopher Hitchens's criticisms summarized

 

Now, I don't think any of this makes her a "horrible" person - just nowhere near the "angelic saint" that the Catholic Church and others self-promoted her as. But original point being - you don't have to look very hard in this (and some other media-driven) cases - you just have to LOOK yourself, period.

 

Hehehe, I need to be more careful with my wording. Where did I imply that I considered Penn and Teller to be haters and therefore dismissed their views? I happen to love their show.

 

What it goes to show, is that you CAN indeed make a devastating critique of Mother Theresa if so inclined. Penn and Teller were so inclined, and I was amused that Otis would use that as an example since there is a "real world" illustration of it.

[Immortal4life]

Gary Schwartz, has done alot of intresing resertch about the paranormal, so science and spiruality are geting closer,

of course there is still a long way to go, but his work is wery important i belive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Schwartz

 

That is cool, thanks for that. I had never heard of him before.

 

This is the kind of subject I'm talking about, when I talk about future scienctific research and progressive science.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Immortal4life

[gendao]

What it goes to show, is that you CAN indeed make a devastating critique of Mother Theresa if so inclined. Penn and Teller were so inclined, and I was amused that Otis would use that as an example since there is a "real world" illustration of it.

Right, well my point was simply that Mother Teresa was a bad example of this.

 

And that what she was actually a better example of is how much the mass media can distort a person in the mass consciousness - not how one can find tarnish on even the most sterling silver if they look hard enough.. Mother Teresa was never really that sterling to begin with.

 

This just highlights how different a worldview someone spoonfed by the mass media can have from someone weaned off of it. For example, Amma blows Mother Teresa away in terms of humanitarian services - yet is nowhere near as publicized for it. I don't think I've ever seen her on TV - unlike Mother Teresa.

 

Yet, here is an evacuation bridge and houses she helped build through her charities soon following a tsunami in this region.

She helps build many (a truly staggering amount of) medical and civic projects and it seems all her works are very wisely distributed and judiciously allocated.

 

But, I guess the difference is that she doesn't have the Catholic PR machine mass-promoting her like a religious Miley Cyrus..

[Cat Pillar]

Right, well my point was simply that Mother Teresa was a bad example of this.

 

And that what she was actually a better example of is how much the mass media can distort a person in the mass consciousness - not how one can find tarnish on even the most sterling silver if they look hard enough.. Mother Teresa was never really that sterling to begin with.

 

This just highlights how different a worldview someone spoonfed by the mass media can have from someone weaned off of it. For example, Amma blows Mother Teresa away in terms of humanitarian services - yet is nowhere near as publicized for it. I don't think I've ever seen her on TV - unlike Mother Teresa.

 

But, I guess the difference is that she doesn't have the Catholic PR machine mass-promoting her like a religious Miley Cyrus..

 

I see your point now, and concede it's a good one.

 

I remember hearing about Amma years ago, but it certainly wasn't through mainstream sources.

 

lol...religious Miley Cyrus. I'm probably going to have nightmares now, thanks.

[Immortal4life]

Way too many people today believe that the better you are, the more mainstream attention you will get. They believe that if someone really was doing good things, we would hear about them.

 

The more praised you are in the mainstream, the better you are, is the view of a lot of people these days.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Immortal4life

[Immortal4life]

[gendao]

BTW, I don't know if they would need us for "gold mining" (I guess you made a joke there), with their uber-intellect they should be able to synthezise every element they need.

It seems more probable to me that they made us simply as a giant experiment to keep their cold scientific intellects amused by some giant lab reality show that they evaluate all the data in a scientific way.

If they were compassionate angel-like beings (like some people here might believe) that wait stupidly to the point that we dumb humans evolve to their standards so they then come down to us to embrace us in some kind of cosmic brotherhood...well, now with the situation in Japan, they should realize that we will destroy our planet sooner or later and wipe out our race eventually. I mean they made us the way we are, didn't they?

The Sirians were masters of genetic engineering and as mentioned in the Sitchin books The Earth Chronicles, helped to bring about the creation of the Cro-Magnon man through these genetic engineering experiments, much earlier in the history of mankind, using genetic engineering from mammals mixed with the earlier genetic mutation brought on by the Dragon, or Draco Reptoids along with their engineering of the Neanderthal types.

 

That by adding the engineering of the mammalian brain over the Reptoid brain, the Sirians managed to create a more evolved humanoid; the Cro-Magnon or upright man, this known as the Homo Erectus, or Erect Human. It is for this reason that both have legitimate claims to the human race and to the ownership of the Earth, at least legitimate in terms of argument.

 

They each feel some legitimacy to their claims. Of course, the humans, for the most part, would prefer their Sirian cousins over the Reptoid cousins or grandfathers, but there is a claim by Reptoid creatures for their argument that they were the original creators of humans, although their creation was intended for the purpose of enslaving the creature for work in mines and in the field for the gold, and the Sirian action was that which disrupted their enslavement plans for the creation and it altered the nature of the humanoid so that the humanoid could evolve and have similar qualities of thought to those who were by those humanoids considered as gods.

[Immortal4life]

It would make sense that if aliens do visit the earth, that there could be good alien races here, as well as bad ones.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Immortal4life

[ralis]

I agree absolutely to that statement.

 

Exactly why do you both believe that should happen? Allowing religion to influence science with it's subjective biases is irrational. The major problem with religion is that the purveyors of, frame their debate in absolutes. Science does not.

 

Here is a link to a Nova special on intelligent design and the move to integrate intelligent design into the public schools.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-404729062613200911#

Edited April 16, 2011 by ralis

[manitou]

I've got a theory on all this, that Something happened when man gained the ability to harness fire. Fire to me seems to be the perfect analogy for the spirit (or self awareness) to be added to the hominids. Fire seems to be half physical, half non physical. I know this probably goes over the edge but it's just a hunch. After all, we all stem from the sun, maybe all the suns out there are points of awareness and when the conditions become ripe on a particular planet, the manifestations begin from the molten mass inside the planet to the outside, including the resultant life. This would package up both evolution and 'divine' intervention.

 

Or not.

Edited April 16, 2011 by manitou