Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - neomagik

Pages: [1]
1
The "state" only teaches theories that have been proven to be true. If alternative theories are valid, why aren't they being taught?


Quote
LOL what? No prominent government is interested in anything scientific unless it's nuclear. Scientism isn't even a word.

It appears you answered your own question.

From the Oxford English dictionary: Scientism: Thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists. Excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.


Quote
LOL then how did Bob Marley die of melanoma?

Smoking the stuff will not work. You need to process it into oil and take it orally. I've seen it work.

Quote
This has what to do with science?

Nothing. I was highlighting that most people go through life without even questioning the simple fact that taxation is slavery. The confiscation of a percentage of the product of ones labour under threat of violence, carefully indoctrinated from generation to generation.

This simple logic alludes almost everyone. Also most people don't realise that the national debt of their country is mathematically impossible to pay back and will increase exponentially to the absolute detriment of our children.

They don't come out and tell you this though do they? What else don't they tell you?

Quote
They didn't just start popping up, see kman's comment

They must've. See Darwins quote.

Quote
You can't say it's right either, and if you can't say it's right, it might as well be wrong. All the evidence says humans evolved from apes, and nothing implies that humans were specifically engineered by God or aliens.

That's some weird logic there pal. And the missing link is where?

2
I have a couple of genuine questions, apologies in advance I am not trying to be funny, flippant or insulting and I'm sorry if you've already answered these.

What do you hope to gain from engaging in this forum?

Can you not tell the people on here are humouring you?

What energy source does your time machine utilise?

Can you post a picture of your time machine?

What year are you from?

What did/will CERN do?

Can you divulge an event that will occur in the near future, other than CERN?

I'm not against the possibility of time travel but I do suspect that you will not answer any of my questions or provide a photo of your time machine.


3

Are you talking abou the "Aliens mated with humans" guy? You can't seriously believe in that.

That is a part of the theory yes and supposedly occurred much later on but AFAIK Lloyd Pie does not delve into this too much. He merely points out the problems with evolution. His presentation "Everything you know is wrong" is extremely compelling, especially regarding the apparent sudden leaps in evolution and the absurdities of the ape to man theory.

His starchild skull presentation is also very interesting.

Genetic modification is the crux of the theory and there is compelling evidence to support it.

Again I'm not saying this is what I believe so don't try to insult or belittle me as the middleman but if you don't know the theory in its entirety you cannot make an informed judgement on its validity. To dismiss it without even considering it because of the word "alien" would be childish.

The theory has been called "interventionism" or "the interference theory"

I am not one to blindly accept any theory but I do like to know them all instead of settling on the one the state shoves down my throat.


Challenging the doctrine is exactly what science is.

You must be kidding. The doctrine is whatever the state say it is and doctrine of evolution is here to stay. This is called scientism and it is a religion equalling creationism.

Here's another truth that science WILL NOT accept.

Cannabis cures cancer.

And a truth that most people never even consider.

Taxation IS slavery.

Lol, that is completely false. We have discovered a lot more fossils since darwin, and we actually have thousands of traditional forms, if you care to do any research. The evolution of horses is fairly well documented, along with the evolution of whales. We have transitional forms for a lot of the hominid lineage, along with Sarcopterygian to tetrapod, therapods to avian therapods, and quite a lot others, if you care to use google.

Funny how Darwin never found any and even commented on the lack thereof and then WHAM all of a sudden we start finding them left right and centre. A little convenient IMO.


This is a much cited quote that requires some context. He actually goes on to say

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872, 143-144)"

Creationism is the remainder of what was once commonly accepted belief. It lingers even after being put to rest because some of those of religious faith refuse to accept that it is wrong.

How do you know? I doubt creationism as touted by the religions of the world but I can't say it is wrong and neither can you, unless you are an all knowing GOD???

All you are doing is reading what the opposition presents you. In this case, those who provided you with the quote deliberately omitted the rest of the paragraph:
"When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility."

Seems all you are doing presenting what the opposition presents you too. Notice the subtle changes of words between yours and Kman versions? I've underlined them for you. Which version is the true Darwin quote?

4

Antonin is clearly a young earth creationist as he doesn't accept evolution.


This is a blanket statement which may be true of Antonin but it is certainly not true for me. I don't subscribe to either.

Both beliefs, and that's what they are, beliefs, are tantamount to religion.

Are you guys talking about evolution within a specific species or evolution from say an ape to a man?

Both are the same process, the only distinction is scale.

If the latter I can honestly call you people raving mad

Do you call 98% of the scientific community raving mad?

there is exactly ZERO evidence of cross species evolution

That is completely untrue. There is tons of evidence, you just choose to ignore it.

it's like a dog evolving in to a cat!

You don't really understand evolution, do you?


I know of one researcher that examined and questioned the generally accepted model of evolution in great detail, and that was the late Lloyd Pie. His presentations on human origins are very compelling. Not saying this is irrefutable proof of anything, but it throws up legitimate questions on evolution.

Whilst I agree that evolution is most likely a true occurrence within a species like a giraffe probably has a long neck because the ones that had the longest necks could reach the taller trees and survive so over time the shorter necked ones died out but the notion that an ape can evolve in to an entirely different species is a whole other ball game and not a question of scale.

The 98% of scientists that believe in evolution have a vested interest in their "belief" namely their tenure. You know what happens to scientists that challenge the doctrines don't you? No more pay-cheque  :-X

If you know of evidence that irrefutably proves cross species evolution then please share it. This is a genuine request as the research I have done suggests there is a missing link and Darwin himself is quoted as saying.....

"WHY, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
Innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?
Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory".(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, pp. 172, 280)

Darwin said, quite rightly that there should be "innumerable transitional forms" As far as I know there have been found exactly ZERO.

Another interesting quote from the man himself

“To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.”

Don't get me wrong, the notion of creationism in my opinion is just as absurd.

I keep an open mind on the matter. Accepting either theory with no proof is religious insanity IMO especially when there are other compelling theories out there.  ;)


5
Are you guys talking about evolution within a specific species or evolution from say an ape to a man?

If the latter I can honestly call you people raving mad as there is exactly ZERO evidence of cross species evolution, it's like a dog evolving in to a cat!

6
Here's my thoughts on the matter.

I'm not a FE advocate per say, nor do I believe the earth is entirely what we are told it is. There are just too many absurdities to support the globe paradigm and too many futile FE arguments to support the generally accepted FE map.

There are lost of puzzling and off worldly concepts to wrap our tiny brains around with both theories, like us travelling at whatever the insane speed it is that we are supposed to be travelling at a galactic scale not to mention the mind blowing speed that we must be travelling at a universal scale. Our tiny atmosphere somehow seems to protect us from these otherwise fatal physics and this is just a cosmic accident :o

The OP above does a good job of questioning some of the FE problems, albeit a little flippant.

One of the FE arguments I see a lot is the aeroplane travelling with or against the earths rotation and the seemingly anomalous flight times. Because we occupy the same atmosphere as a aeroplane (relatively speaking) ergo the same physics apply, we can quite clearly see that a simple jump in the air does not cause us to land in a different location, so the whole air travel thing is just a convoluted and unnecessary way in which to demonstrate that either the earth is spinning along with its atmosphere or the earth is not spinning at all. Any closer to the truth? I don't think so. Misinformation? Phony bone of contention?

There is so much deception on this planet by those who control it and purport to be the official purveyors of truth, that I question EVERYTHING they tell us and I try to bring logic and critical thinking along for the ride too. I will go where the evidence leads and not get duped by the rigid scientism paradigm that lots of the RE advocates are hell bent at repeating.

If you are interested in the subject of ancient technology, you soon learn that in some respects the ancient people were far more intelligent than us. We may have intellect but they possessed holistic intelligence (there is a world of difference between the two) and understood natural law both on a micro and macrocosmic level. They possessed seemingly inexplicable knowledge of the cosmos that up until the last few centuries we did not know. A lot of these civilisations also understood the earth to be flat.

Either way unless I go in to space and actually see the earth through my own eyes, I will never claim to support either theory.

Pages: [1]