Human Creation, Evolution, Quantavolution, Alien Origins, etc.

[William]

It's very much the same sort of stuff that Von Daniken wrote about.

I had the great good fortune to see a live TV confrontation between  von Däniken and a group of eminent scientists.
The scientists spent the whole time attacking von Däniken personally, which gave me the impression that they considered his theory to be irrefutable.
So I bought the book. It was a good read.

It was probably the same kind of "scientists", led IIRC by the troll Carl Sagan who tried to prevent publication of Velikovsky's first book. This also gave him credibility. I bought all of his books.
The data from space probes supports Velikovsky.


So much for peer review.

[alphagruis]

It is not a fact and is heavily disputed in the scientific community.

No further comment. Useless. Hopeless

[TylerDurden]

No further comment. Useless. Hopeless.

I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very  reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.

[Paleo Donk]

I had the great good fortune to see a live TV confrontation between  von Däniken and a group of eminent scientists.
The scientists spent the whole time attacking von Däniken personally, which gave me the impression that they considered his theory to be irrefutable.
So I bought the book. It was a good read.

It was probably the same kind of "scientists", led IIRC by the troll Carl Sagan who tried to prevent publication of Velikovsky's first book. This also gave him credibility. I bought all of his books.
The data from space probes supports Velikovsky.


So much for peer review.

I find myself siding with you here more and more. When people get defensive and angry when debating a position I tend to want to believe the people that made them upset in the first place even more such as velikovsky.

I've asked some very basic questions very politely on other forums without attacking any firmly held scientific ideas and have gotten personally attacked immediately. All I wanted to know was what experts thought of alternative theories and how a person like me with virtually no knowledge of physics would be able to decifer the information available.

[djr_81]

I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very  reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.

Personally I find myself impressed again and again with Alphagruis' intelligent debating over the past couple months. If anything, and this is not meant as an inflammatory or personal attack on you, I find the more debating the two of you do the less I agree with your point of view.
I don't know if I'm an anomaly in this thinking or others feel this way as well but I felt it important to point this out.

[goodsamaritan]

The answer is here in the 3 preview youtube videos:

http://www.rawpaleoforum.com/hot-topics/human-creation-evolution-quantavolution-alien-origins-etc/msg24189/#msg24189 with this preview #3 giving an overview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoThe9EzcaE

See the whole DVD symbols of an alien sky.

See the Electric Universe / Thunderbolts of the gods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V026kSw4XCs

Which shows that Quantavolution is a more highly likely course of "evolution."

We are not saying that "evolution" is wrong, we are just saying evolution happens in JUMPS rather than the slow very slow guessing game.  Uniformitarian Evolution I think is wrong.

These catastrophic happenings and other possible catastrophic sudden change events have been influencing life on earth.  Which makes it possible that the so called evolution be much faster than those millions of years guesses the uniformitarian evolutionists keep spouting.

It's all entertaining and I don't think people should get to worked up about these things.

[PaleoPhil]

I'm a fan of the Socratic approach of looking at science as a series of questions, rather than a set of answers of absolute certainty. When people get absolutely certain about anything, that tends to make me suspicious, because absolute certainty has more to do with superstition and tyrannical forms of religion than with open scientific inquiry.

[alphagruis]

I just love it when you dismiss my comments with Williamesque flat-earth-style dismissals. If you were even remotely competent as a scientist, you would at least, albeit very  reluctantly, acknowledge that the theory of punctuated equilibrium is very heavily disputed within the scientific community. At any rate, I'm very glad you've been siding with William in recent times re various theories, as it makes your position lose credibility big-time.

Very funny as usual.

Please show us at least one scientific paper (year, authors, title, page) in peer reviewed journal that denies or disputes whatever I've stated up to now, for instance here:

Non-sense completely out of topic.I don't care about Gould. Nothing to do with the present discussion. I not even mentioned Gould in my post. Maybe you didn't notice but the relevant point was a specific scientific fact and not men and/or politics, namely the discussion was about

The occurence of rapid sudden changes that punctuate the much slower gradual change during evolution

Again this is just a plain fact. Period.

Please do it   

[TylerDurden]

What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.As for Gould, his name is mud in scientific circles because of his unethical, unscientific(and disproven) attacks on evolutionary psychology over the decades, so is really an appalling scientific example. What next? Posts in favour of Derrida, Chomsky etc.?

[TylerDurden]

Very funny as usual.

Please show us at least one scientific paper (year, authors, title, page) in peer reviewed journal that denies or disputes whatever I've stated up to now, for instance here:

Please do it   

  Punctuated equilibrium is merely a gimmick-explanationary theory designed to explain missing fossils, rather than missing fossils outright proving that theory as fact. Dawkins has already suggested a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation which fits the evidence too, namely that apparent gaps represented in the fossil record document migrational events rather than evolutionary events.  Daniel Dennett also appears to have also done a respectable demolition-job on Gould attacking his philosphical approach to the theory, devoting an entire 10th chapter to debunking Gould's claims:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea

Of course, I'm far more concerned re Gould's attacks on evolutionary psychology given that his views on such have been throughly demolished over the decades by the scientific community. and of course evolutionary psychology is more related to discussion of raw palaeolithic diets.

[goodsamaritan]

What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.As for Gould, his name is mud in scientific circles because of his unethical, unscientific(and disproven) attacks on evolutionary psychology over the decades, so is really an appalling scientific example. What next? Posts in favour of Derrida, Chomsky etc.?

I'm a free thinker.  As such all of these "theories" are at best logical guesses.  Some are more predictive.  Like the Electric Universe people.  It just so happens there were catastrophic events proved in books such as the Saturn Myth and the video I posted above, clips from the DVD Symbols of an Ancient Sky jive with the Electric Universe guys.

The establishment (einstein relativists, slow evolution, static solar system) days are numbered.  Electric Universe and un-dis-provable catastrophic evidence will rule the 21st century.

All in fun TD.

The definitive website, videos and forum is www.thunderbolts.info

[TylerDurden]

I'm not a fan of new-age stuff as I've come across numerous better explanations for von daniken's theories etc. That said, I would love einstein to be wrong as that would mean FTL travel would be possible, albeit not in my lifetime.

[goodsamaritan]

I'm not a fan of new-age stuff as I've come across numerous better explanations for von dakine's theories etc. That said, I would love einstein to be wrong as that would mean FTL travel would be possible, albeit not in my lifetime.

It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will.  It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science.  In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.

Comets are not dirty snowballs.  The sun is not a nuclear furnace.  Gravity is not the strongest force.  Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.

It is electricity, electricity, electricity.

Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

And let's not forget the best spokesman for the electric universe and recent HISTORICAL catastrophism reported around the world is http://www.thunderbolts.info

It's no use holding on to old dogma.  Astronomy is an old old hobby of mine since I was 7 years old.  The 21st century electric astronomy will prove to be exciting and predictive.

[Paleo Donk]

What concerns me most re these new-age discussions isn't the content so much - after all Velikovsky and Creationist claims are easily debunked . It's just that New-Age beliefs are so widely held among rawists that it makes us look bad to non-rawists browsing the forum.

I really agree with this sentiment in that if we as group start dismissing all of science it will not look good from an outsider's perspective, even if we are more right than wrong. I do question the rational of modern science all the time now but I'm certainly not going to claim one way or the other, just remain skeptical.

I've looked through youstupidrelavist.com thoroughly and it looks very quacky though its extremely detailed.  I wouldn't recommend anyone claiming einstein is debunked by that site alone. I've even communicated with Bill Gaede, the creator of that site. He was very nice and wrote a couple detailed letters explaining the quackiness of his site. He does bring up some excellent questions in his videos.

The intro section of Gaede's site is worth looking at to give you an idea of his philosophy

http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html

[PaleoPhil]

It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will.  It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science.

From my amateur perspective, science seems to be less about finding "truth" than it is about "exploring," to quote Richard Feynman (see "Richard Feynman on doubt,uncertainty and religion," http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeCHiUe1et0 ) ...about asking questions. The final "Truth" is never reached in science. Instead, answering one question just leads to more questions. This is unsatisfactory to many people, so they turn to mysticism for final answers...for absolute truths. This is an understandable aspect of human nature. We want things to be simple and we want to have final answers so we can move on to other things. Science is not about that, from what I can see. That's not to say that mysticism has no value. It seems to fill a human need, so perhaps it does have value.

In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.
....

Yes, producing theoretical models that have predictive value is one of the aims of science. If the astronomical model you tout has predictive value then it should win out in the long run, because it will be useful.

[roony]

It's not about being a fan of any-brand-what-you-will.  It is about sheer interest to find out "truth" in the sheer interest of science.  In the case of astronomical events, it is PREDICTING events, and being able to simulate the same astronomical events in a laboratory.

Comets are not dirty snowballs.  The sun is not a nuclear furnace.  Gravity is not the strongest force.  Black holes do not exist, pulsars do not exist, dark matter is a total farce.

It is electricity, electricity, electricity.

Einstein had his day... let's thank him and MOVE ON. http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/

And let's not forget the best spokesman for the electric universe and recent HISTORICAL catastrophism reported around the world is http://www.thunderbolts.info

It's no use holding on to old dogma.  Astronomy is an old old hobby of mine since I was 7 years old.  The 21st century electric astronomy will prove to be exciting and predictive.

Excellent post, the only people who dont want to change are the armchair scientists, armchair critics, advances in quantum physics, quantum mechanics, are all pretty much validating, what science considers none science, such as plasma theory, electrical & then theres stuff like regenerative medicine

ALL pushing the boundaries of science, a large part of mainstream science has been disproven & outdated for years


I really cant be bothered to argue with dogmatics & mainstream science fundamentalists, stuck in the 18th century with newton, & the 20th century einsteinian, trying to unify them like jackasses ...


Science & modern medicine are very similar & both have one thing in common, out of date by about a few centuries & dont work & never have


They are however great for creating an exploitive system of wage slavery & illiteracy

[William]

Those trying to understand TD's inscrutable posts on "cooked fat" might find an explanation here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
"Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains"
London, England has experienced the use of electromagnetic crowd control devices, the one I remember was to move the unwanted out of some neighbourhoods. url not recorded.

For believers in evolution, here is a support for devolution:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17161
"The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.

The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

[roony]

Those trying to understand TD's inscrutable posts on "cooked fat" might find an explanation here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO201A.html
"Returning low-frequency waves at high intensity could also affect people's brains"
London, England has experienced the use of electromagnetic crowd control devices, the one I remember was to move the unwanted out of some neighbourhoods. url not recorded.

For believers in evolution, here is a support for devolution:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17161
"The greatest human achievement is the subordination of government to law. This was an English achievement that required eight centuries of struggle, beginning in the ninth century when King Alfred the Great codified the common law, moving forward with the Magna Carta in the thirteenth century and culminating with the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century.

The success of this long struggle made law a shield of the people. As an English colony, America inherited this unique achievement that made English-speaking peoples the most free in the world.

In the first decade of the twenty-first century, this achievement was lost in the United States and, perhaps, in England as well.

Lost officially in 1960 when England voluntarily made the ECHR - European Court of Human Rights, have superiority over its supreme courts


England like most european countries, created a global one world european state, or a european world order, a long time before they revealed the European Union

[Paleo Donk]

From my amateur perspective, science seems to be less about finding "truth" than it is about "exploring," to quote Richard Feynman (see "Richard Feynman on doubt,uncertainty and religion,"  ) ...about asking questions. The final "Truth" is never reached in science. Instead, answering one question just leads to more questions. This is unsatisfactory to many people, so they turn to mysticism for final answers...for absolute truths. This is an understandable aspect of human nature. We want things to be simple and we want to have final answers so we can move on to other things. Science is not about that, from what I can see. That's not to say that mysticism has no value. It seems to fill a human need, so perhaps it does have value.

While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. Nutrition and economics are two areas where it is extraordinarily hard to get exact answers and experiments are very hard to design that yield good results.

Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. The laws of the physical world I believe are not too much of a stretch outside mathematics in that it would make sense to me that we could ultimately have a simple set of rules that define our universe. Comparing the absolutes of physics and nutrition is not a good comparison in my opinion.

[roony]

lol maths is most definitely not absolute


Find ONE example of absolute maths in nature ... all math is analogue, not absolute

[Paleo Donk]

lol = the absolute value of 0 which is absolutely 0 of course and coincidently equal to the value of your last post.

[roony]

Still waiting for proof ... 

Analogue as in randomly variable ... so wheres this absolute proof of maths in nature ....

[William]

While I completely agree that most sciences fit in this category that we will never be able to find absolute truths and continue to have doubt and uncertainty, not all do. Nutrition and economics are two areas where it is extraordinarily hard to get exact answers and experiments are very hard to design that yield good results.

Mathematics, I suppose not really a science, is absolute for the most part and will come up with the same answers every time. The laws of the physical world I believe are not too much of a stretch outside mathematics in that it would make sense to me that we could ultimately have a simple set of rules that define our universe. Comparing the absolutes of physics and nutrition is not a good comparison in my opinion.

My view is that it is hard to find absolute truths because they do not exist; and the purpose of scientists is to create (new) Truth, using Chaos as a raw material, while using History as an anchor/reference point.

I never liked mathematics, felt it was a scam and a really crude way of describing the world. When I learned that 1+1=10 and people actually believe it, and it works I knew that I had got it right in childhood. Years later I thought up the mathematics of Life, where 1+1=3   -  you might think that this is obvious, but that's what research is supposed to do - notice the obvious and put it into language which might be understood.

[roony]

meh i can prove 1+1=3, maths is just institutionalised symantics

Nature doesnt use numbers, it uses algorithms in the form of recursive patterns, ie fractals, golden mean, shells, hurricanes etc.

[Raw Kyle]

meh i can prove 1+1=3

I'd very much like to see that proof.