the great HOAX of 'Evolution'

[Dan Rowden]

Well, that's certainly true. It took something like 25 years before he released his seminal work "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life." It's funny, really, had circumstance been different we might find ourselves hailing Alfred Russel Wallace as the great progenitor of modern evolutionary theory. Wallace went adventuring; Darwin published. A star is born.

[ChaoticMelody]

Even so. Darwin probably wasn't a genius.

[Dan Rowden]

Not in the spiritual or philosophical sense, no.

[Ataraxia]

Darwin caused several billion contemporary and future Christians to torture the words of the Bible to the nth degree in a vain attempt to prove that there is indeed STILL proof of an intelligent designer contained within.

He may, or may not, have been a genius.But that is no small thing.

[ChaoticMelody]

Any logical mind can counter the bible. He just got a book published to spread the word.

[Dan Rowden]

Any logical mind can counter the bible.

A truly logical mind doesn't bother, for the most part.

He just got a book published to spread the word.

What word? Darwin established a whole new paradigm in human thinking about origins and evolutionary dynamics. It was a very significant development.

[ChaoticMelody]

To spread his THEORY then..

[Dan Rowden]

Interesting video on non intelligent design

I'm not advocating the content, necessarily, just saying it's interesting. And remember to use the pause button to follow the text and sequences of argument.

[Pincho Paxton]

Here's something new that I have been thinking about lately.. and as you know by now, I tend to make observations, and take away my belief system at the same time. So I will observe something without using my historical set of rules to say that I must be wrong in my observation.

This is just an observation, but it has a lot to do with a possible new way to see evolution.

The Fractal development of purpose.

I am going to compare the mechanical workings of a Bee Hive with the mechanical workings of sight.

S = sight
H = hive

S/ Photon travels to Electron which is inside a hexagon arrangement of Atoms.
H/ Bee travels to Hive which is a hexagon arrangement of Atoms.

S/ Electron receives instructions as to how to send message to your eye, the colourful part is called the iris.
H/ Bee does a dance as to how to get to the flower. There is a flower called The Iris.

S/ message is sent to the observers eye.
H/ Next Bee flies to flower.


This example can be improved upon. But the similarities between the Bee Hive, and the mechanical structure of sight are quite amazing.

So now I am wondering if evolution is actually a fractal of purpose.

This also solves my problem with the structure of an atom. It is not a neucleus inside the middle of the atom. The atom would contain a honeycomb, with the electrons all inside a seperate bay, swapping from one bay to the next. You would get the same sort of deflection experiments from this structure. The honey is the energy!!! The Queen Bee is the Sentience!!!

And here we sit in our Half-Hexagon shaped houses. Carrying our food back and forth from the shops. We have workers, and builders, and a Queen. We give out directions, and we fill our rooms with electrical energy. Our purpose is to make fields, and farms, and orchards.. but we have evil rulers.

The next step in evolution would be to take plant life to other planets, and to make them grow there. Then to travel back, and forth between planets cultivating the crops. Then take energy to the planets, and so on, and so forth. Earth then becomes the queen bee, the sentience centre.

[Pincho Paxton]

So I went and put the electrons inside a hexagon grid, keeping their distance apart as equal as possible, inside an atom using the 8-2 allignment that has been discovered by experiments, and I ended up with something like a snowflake!.....

http://s227.photobucket.com/albums/dd95 ... Anatom.jpg

But there is still room for 4 more items, which would complete the snowflake, but are not yet discovered. I'll need to find out what they are. Maybe they are the quarks which hold the nucleus together, but they are supposed to be inside the nucleus. Well I can't find a better shape without those 4 extra parts. So I'll keep thinking about them. But I'm pretty sure that this should look like a snowflake, because of the fractals of nature, and that requires 4 more entities, and that would get rid of my two extra bulges at the sides.

Hold on... I can fix this with 6 extra shapes instead of 4.

[The Duke of Khal]

Faust13,

If you knew anything about real science, you'd know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just horseshit cooked up by nerds worshipping Newton's Principia, which Newton himself admitted described a universe that was not like the real one, a universe that would somehow "wind down" and need re-winding by God. If there is any hoax going on, it is called the Heat Death.

The real universe is negentropic characteristically at both the astrophysical and microphysical scales, and that same negentropy characterises the action of the biosphere and of human cognition in its effect on the world. If the Second Law truly ruled the universe, there would be no history, no life, nothing but ENDLESS CAPSLOCKED ARGUMENTS FROM DULL-WITTED BIBLIOLATORS.

Here's some profound science, beyond both Darwin and Creationists, and it comes from Cardinal Cusa (1401-1464).

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91 ... tropy.html
Nicolaus of Cusa’s "On the Vision of God" And the Concept of Negentropy

K

[Philosophaster]

LOL at Geniuses trying to discuss science.

[Unidian]

LOL at Geniuses trying to discuss science.

If you knew anything about real science, you'd know that the Second Law of Thermodynamics is just horseshit cooked up by nerds worshipping Newton's Principia

Evolution is mind pollution!

[Iolaus]

Duke,

The real universe is negentropic characteristically at both the astrophysical and microphysical scales, and that same negentropy characterises the action of the biosphere and of human cognition in its effect on the world. If the Second Law truly ruled the universe, there would be no history, no life, nothing but ENDLESS CAPSLOCKED ARGUMENTS FROM DULL-WITTED BIBLIOLATORS.

I read about half of the article, but didn't get to where he explains what negentropy really is, or how it might work. That the universe may be ultimately nonentropic does not really change the entropic processes that we observe. And anyway, I get a certain amount of cognitive dissonance when a religious person, perhaps a Catholic? defends evolution as it is commonly conceived. Regardless of whether heat death is a myth, mindless processes do not spontaneously organize themselves into complex and information rich patterns and codes. Also, entropy is a necessity for if we did not have it, then it would mean that things have a will of their own and resist being formed into their next state. Entropy means that things break down into simpler components. Everything that is a thing is held to its form by some energy, some force. The opposite of that force is relaxation.

A good readable article on evolution and entropy is A Second Look At The Second Law.

[Iolaus]

Dan,

The idea of a caused Totality would be a lot more disturbing, not to mention illogical.

Not to worry. It cannot be caused. I didn't mean to imply it was. Rather, the conundrum is that neither seems possible, and if existence weren't irrefutable, I'd never believe it.

David,

Iolaus: The problem of an uncaused totality doesn't bother your mind?

No, because I see it as an expression of the Totality's timelessness. Time is contained within the Totality and so the whole question of where it came from or what caused it doesn't really mean anything. Indeed, the whole issue, together with all of its attendant "mysteries", utterly disappears.

I know that the Totality must be timeless, and that time must therefore be within it. Thinking in terms of time is thus a hindrance in trying to imagine how it is we have existence, albeit it is almost impossible to avoid, (at least for me). Perhaps time is indeed my problem. Nonetheless, saying the question is without meaning is a lot like when people ask "What preceded the big bang?" and are told that it is a nonquestion. It's not!

In order to fully grasp this point, you might need to change the way you view the world. For example, instead of looking at the world and imagining it to be something objective which flows through time, try seeing each moment as though it was the very first moment of creation. Imagine that what you are viewing in each moment is the very nature of Reality itself - static and unchanging, beyond time, no before, no after, every experience akin to being the very first expression of God.

I even think I have had the occasional odd sensation like this. It is as if things are bubbling up in slow motion out of a calm background.

We are literally staring into the depths of eternity in each moment, and it is an eternity which needs no explaining.

You know, this is a profound statement, because our minds are so dualistic, that I have tended to think of eternity or timelessness as a state of perception that I will achieve someday, at which time eternity will 'begin' for me, as opposed to my current perception, but like the other dualities, it's all right here. Like heaven and nirvana.

There's nowhere we need go, and no time when it will begin.



But existence! How????

[Iolaus]

What I'm trying to express is that even though my question about the cause of existence is necessarily imaginally bound up with the succession of events, due to the conceptual prison of my mind, I don't think it is really a temporal question. I'm not even sure that timelessness is other than a half of a duality. Time flows within a timeless background. But what is the whole?

Rather the question is one of properties, attributes. By what attribute does God exist? What is this attribute that allows it to exist uncaused? You will say that God has no particular attributes. But there is one.

[Pincho Paxton]

What I'm trying to express is that even though my question about the cause of existence is necessarily imaginally bound up with the succession of events, due to the conceptual prison of my mind, I don't think it is really a temporal question. I'm not even sure that timelessness is other than a half of a duality. Time flows within a timeless background. But what is the whole?

Rather the question is one of properties, attributes. By what attribute does God exist? What is this attribute that allows it to exist uncaused? You will say that God has no particular attributes. But there is one.

I find it more apt to ask why does sentience exist, and what is the attribute? Seems to me that sentience has been around all along. And that's where I get stuck. Sentience wanted to be able to move, it eventually crawled, adapted to become a walking creature. We must be close to what sentienced wanted to be. Rewind the tape to the beginning, and there is just the communication between neighboring particles...dot,dot,dash.

Dot,Dot,Dash.. is way more likely than God IMO.

[The Duke of Khal]

Iolaus,

If you're not even going to read the article, there's not much point. Ditto if you can't get past a Cardinal involved in scientific matters, much less one as historically imposing as Cusa, who made invaluable contributions to mathematics and science with his "De Docta Ignorantia." Might as well flush 90% of the scientific genii who ever lived down the tubes if religiosity is your bigotry.

Entropy is a special case of negentropy; without negentropy being fundamental, there could be no creativity in the universe. Understanding what "creativity" means in both universal and human terms will be crucial in answering questions about evolution. Otherwise, you'll just be stuck in a logical-deductive prison forever, tinkering away at the fine points of Darwinian Natural Selection, gene-counting, and cybernetics while throwing darts at Creationists who are very aware of how bogus Darwinian theory is even while they participate in the same error of worshipping the Second Law.

Cusa and the origins of nation-state and proper reasoning:

http://www.larouchepub.com/hzl/2001/may ... lbach.html
A Contribution for Nicolaus of Cusa's 600th Birthday: A Dialogue of Cultures

cf. specifically the subsection "The 'Coincidence of Opposites'"

"Information" and "energy" are misleading concepts that no worthwhile scientist takes seriously, except as a kind of shorthand or suboridinate notion. Here are some more articles for you to half read:

`I Don't Believe in Signs'

The Difference Between Dynamis and Energeia

K

[David Quinn]

DQ: We are literally staring into the depths of eternity in each moment, and it is an eternity which needs no explaining.

Iolaus: You know, this is a profound statement, because our minds are so dualistic, that I have tended to think of eternity or timelessness as a state of perception that I will achieve someday, at which time eternity will 'begin' for me, as opposed to my current perception, but like the other dualities, it's all right here. Like heaven and nirvana.

There's nowhere we need go, and no time when it will begin.

It can only begin when we give up all idea of it beginning. It is the very search for its beginning which creates the dualistic barriers that trap us and prevent us from seeing it. But one has to intellectually understand what this means, otherwise nothing will come of it.

What I'm trying to express is that even though my question about the cause of existence is necessarily imaginally bound up with the succession of events, due to the conceptual prison of my mind, I don't think it is really a temporal question. I'm not even sure that timelessness is other than a half of a duality. Time flows within a timeless background. But what is the whole?

It is neither the flowing time, nor the timeless background.

Rather the question is one of properties, attributes. By what attribute does God exist? What is this attribute that allows it to exist uncaused? You will say that God has no particular attributes. But there is one.

In other words, why isn't there nothing whatsoever?

You need to ask yourself why God should be nothing whatsoever. What makes nothingness somehow more natural and not-in-need-of-explanation than not-nothingness?

-

[Kevin Solway]

But existence! How????

The question is wrongly asked, because no matter what you answer it will be part of the Totality, and will therefore be a non-answer.

[Pincho Paxton]

But existence! How????

The question is wrongly asked, because no matter what you answer it will be part of the Totality, and will therefore be a non-answer.

The totality eh? There is an answer to the question, and there was a beginning. All people know that there is an answer. Once you know for a fact that there is an answer, it is then a case of GUESSING the answer. If 20 people GUESS the answer then one of them will be right. There can be no more than 20 possible answers. So a 20-1 Guess is very realistic in getting an answer. Big Bang to God, not a long way to go really. I mean, you can forget about the pink dragon. Stick with realistic assumptions, and you will be close to the answer.

[Iolaus]

Duke of Khal,

If you're not even going to read the article, there's not much point.

Not quite fair. You can't simply link to very long, rather tedious articles that meander without quite cutting to the chase. I admit the first article was rather good, the next two less so, but it would be better for you to do some explaining yourself, and use a bit of cut and paste from the author, rather than assume I'll read twenty pages of very speicific viewpoint, and after slogging through page after page, not really sure what he thinks. I just don't have that much time. Also, those links were particularly annoying in that when I click on them, there is no back button and I have to completely start over to get back to Genius Forum.

Plus, the guy loves Roosevelt, who was just another lackey for the illuminati, conspirators and liars all.

But I did get a very good opinion of Nicolas of Cusa. Yes, I agree he was a great thinker and ahead of his time.

. Ditto if you can't get past a Cardinal involved in scientific matters,

Oh, hardly! You misunderstood, my comment referred to you. And actually, I may have misunderstood in turn. I am not really quite sure where you're coming from.

Entropy is a special case of negentropy; without negentropy being fundamental, there could be no creativity in the universe.

Again, I may very well agree with you - why don't you give me a definition of negentropy?

Understanding what "creativity" means in both universal and human terms will be crucial in answering questions about evolution.

Let's hear it.

Otherwise, you'll just be stuck in a logical-deductive prison forever, tinkering away at the fine points of Darwinian Natural Selection, gene-counting, and cybernetics while throwing darts at Creationists who are very aware of how bogus Darwinian theory is even while they participate in the same error of worshipping the Second Law.

Sounds like a good beginning...and what is the problem with the second law?

"Information" and "energy" are misleading concepts that no worthwhile scientist takes seriously, except as a kind of shorthand or suboridinate notion. Here are some more articles for you to half read:

I'm interested. Really. But the first article again wore me out with the author's enjoyment of a romp with language, and nothing wrong with that! but I wanted him to tell me what he thinks about information theory, and in the half that I read, I got the impression that he is taking exception to a different take on informatino theory than the one I am familiar with.

the third article I didn't look at, because of the problem of losing the back button. Too annoying.

[Iolaus]

Pincho,

I find it more apt to ask why does sentience exist, and what is the attribute? Seems to me that sentience has been around all along.

Well, I'm confused because the latter part of your paragraph seems to negate that you think sentience has been here all along, but anyway, the question for you is - does sentience = existence itself? Because if it does, then your question is not different than mine, and if it doesn't, then existence itself is more primal than sentience.
* * * * * *
David,

You need to ask yourself why God should be nothing whatsoever. What makes nothingness somehow more natural and not-in-need-of-explanation than not-nothingness?

Actually, it may be that existence exists precisely because there is no such option as nothingness, which cannot exist.
But as for God, of course God is not nothingness, since the definition of God is somethingness.

Kevin,

The question is wrongly asked, because no matter what you answer it will be part of the Totality, and will therefore be a non-answer.

Yet, oddly, such answers don't satisfy, and I'm not sure it's true that we cannot know within the totality how the totality works.

Pincho,

The totality eh? There is an answer to the question, and there was a beginning. All people know that there is an answer. Once you know for a fact that there is an answer, it is then a case of GUESSING the answer. If 20 people GUESS the answer then one of them will be right. There can be no more than 20 possible answers. So a 20-1 Guess is very realistic in getting an answer. Big Bang to God, not a long way to go really. I mean, you can forget about the pink dragon. Stick with realistic assumptions, and you will be close to the answer.

Well, then, we're getting somewhere. You must have a couple of good guesses up your sleeves. Care to share?

[Pincho Paxton]

Pincho,

I find it more apt to ask why does sentience exist, and what is the attribute? Seems to me that sentience has been around all along.

Well, I'm confused because the latter part of your paragraph seems to negate that you think sentience has been here all along, but anyway, the question for you is - does sentience = existence itself? Because if it does, then your question is not different than mine, and if it doesn't, then existence itself is more primal than sentience.
* * * * * *

I think that sentience is a substance of some sort. Like a plasma. I think that it is a part of the aether that controlls nature. I see how a photon chooses an electron to strike, and it works exactly like our brain, but it is just working around particles.

Pincho,

The totality eh? There is an answer to the question, and there was a beginning. All people know that there is an answer. Once you know for a fact that there is an answer, it is then a case of GUESSING the answer. If 20 people GUESS the answer then one of them will be right. There can be no more than 20 possible answers. So a 20-1 Guess is very realistic in getting an answer. Big Bang to God, not a long way to go really. I mean, you can forget about the pink dragon. Stick with realistic assumptions, and you will be close to the answer.

Well, then, we're getting somewhere. You must have a couple of good guesses up your sleeves. Care to share?

Been posting this stuff too often...
1/ Basically I belive that existence started as just 3 things. Positive/Negative forces in opposition, and the forces had sentience. That's all you need to start a universe.

2/ The same thing, but it didn't happen here, it happened in Heaven. Then we were put here later. Making this place just a copy of Heaven.

And those are my only two guesses, because they are the only ones that I currently believe. Personally, I give number 2 the best accuracy, and personally I beleive it 100%. No doubt in my mind at all. The first one is just me allowing myself to fit in with this environment.

[David Quinn]

Iolaus,

DQ: You need to ask yourself why God should be nothing whatsoever. What makes nothingness somehow more natural and not-in-need-of-explanation than not-nothingness?

Iolaus: Actually, it may be that existence exists precisely because there is no such option as nothingness, which cannot exist. But as for God, of course God is not nothingness, since the definition of God is somethingness.

These are empty words, given your most recent comments. You don't really understand them with your blood.

Emotionally, you are still attached to the idea of the totality being a dualistic object which needs explaining.

Yet, oddly, such answers don't satisfy

Hah!

I know that the Totality must be timeless, and that time must therefore be within it. Thinking in terms of time is thus a hindrance in trying to imagine how it is we have existence, albeit it is almost impossible to avoid, (at least for me). Perhaps time is indeed my problem. Nonetheless, saying the question is without meaning is a lot like when people ask "What preceded the big bang?" and are told that it is a nonquestion. It's not!

The question is completely unlike this. The big bang is an event within the totality and needs explaining. The totality itself doesn't.

Pincho: The totality eh? There is an answer to the question, and there was a beginning. All people know that there is an answer. Once you know for a fact that there is an answer, it is then a case of GUESSING the answer. If 20 people GUESS the answer then one of them will be right. There can be no more than 20 possible answers. So a 20-1 Guess is very realistic in getting an answer. Big Bang to God, not a long way to go really. I mean, you can forget about the pink dragon. Stick with realistic assumptions, and you will be close to the answer.

Iolaus: Well, then, we're getting somewhere. You must have a couple of good guesses up your sleeves. Care to share?

Instead of understanding the nature of the totality, let's flap the mind uselessly on non-existent questions.

It's as though you have made it your life's purpose to not understand, so as to keep indulging in the emotions of it all.

-