Darwin's Black Box - Michael J. Behe and Intelligent Design

Pierre

SuperModerator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
As I'm reading Stove at the moment, and about the ridiculous 'selfish theory', I came to think of something. I've always been wondering why the MSM has little scruples publishing news (which undoubtedly are true) about these catholic priests abusing children, when most other cases are suppressed and never heard of. This might be quite a stretch, but could it be, that since the 'Darwinist-materialistic-evil-STS' gang needs and wants everyone to believe in this selfish theory, that everyone is at their core selfish, it is to their advantage to publicize these news about how men devoted to religion are...aha!...selfish and self serving, after all. Just a thought...

That has been my thought for a long time. The demonizing of religions has been going for more than two centuries. Logically this demonizing guides the people towards anti-theist/materialist position.

Pedophilia is an epidemic, according to some papers more than 50% of people have been victim of sexual abuse during their childhood. So, the clergy is far from being the only culprit. Actually, most cases are intrafamiliar and all the cases of hard core pedophilia ring (including sacrifices, tortures, etc.) that I know about didn't involve clergymen but rather "high profile" individuals.

The irony is that the demonizing of religion 'kills' God and when there's no more God, there's no more good and bad. Transcendence being gone, all that is left is the pursuit of individual material interests, the cult of individual 'freedom', particularly sexual freedom.

If humanity keeps on following this devolutionary path, pedophilia will not only be allowed but promoted, and the ones who oppose it will be ostracized and stigmatized like the ones who oppose the LGBT craze nowadays.
 

genero81

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
That has been my thought for a long time. The demonizing of religions has been going for more than two centuries. Logically this demonizing guides the people towards anti-theist/materialist position.

I think that's right. It's a concerted effort to violate the 'sanctity' moral 'taste bud.' It turns those who have that particular 'flavor' against religion by activating the feeling of disgust by emphasizing what some pathological priests have done. We know that psychopaths will utilize certain vocations where they can hide their predilections and religion would certainly be one of those. Now all you have to do is 'broadcast' the misdeeds and now you've effectively smeared the whole institution.
 

seek10

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
As I'm reading Stove at the moment, and about the ridiculous 'selfish theory', I came to think of something. I've always been wondering why the MSM has little scruples publishing news (which undoubtedly are true) about these catholic priests abusing children, when most other cases are suppressed and never heard of. This might be quite a stretch, but could it be, that since the 'Darwinist-materialistic-evil-STS' gang needs and wants everyone to believe in this selfish theory, that everyone is at their core selfish, it is to their advantage to publicize these news about how men devoted to religion are...aha!...selfish and self serving, after all. Just a thought...
While reading "Cold Welcome" it was mentioned that along with mini ice age conditions and there were cultural differences that contributed for the frictions between native americans and european explorers. While searching for the differences, I came across this video that talks about the differences.
Native american cultures doesn't sound that 'Selfish' as 'selfish gene evolution' suggests and they are more communal.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
While reading "Cold Welcome" it was mentioned that along with mini ice age conditions and there were cultural differences that contributed for the frictions between native americans and european explorers. While searching for the differences, I came across this video that talks about the differences.
Native american cultures doesn't sound that 'Selfish' as 'selfish gene evolution' suggests and they are more communal.​

Well, keep in mind that this perspective of NAs is a modern one and unlikely to be accurate.

Doing genealogy, I've spent a lot of time reading old texts and there is a rather different perspective from the time. The NAs were not the "noble savages" that the Enlightenment thinkers would have you believe. There were certainly misunderstandings on both sides, but the colonists were not entirely to blame.
 

luc

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
As I'm reading Stove at the moment, and about the ridiculous 'selfish theory', I came to think of something. I've always been wondering why the MSM has little scruples publishing news (which undoubtedly are true) about these catholic priests abusing children, when most other cases are suppressed and never heard of. This might be quite a stretch, but could it be, that since the 'Darwinist-materialistic-evil-STS' gang needs and wants everyone to believe in this selfish theory, that everyone is at their core selfish, it is to their advantage to publicize these news about how men devoted to religion are...aha!...selfish and self serving, after all. Just a thought...

The irony is that the demonizing of religion 'kills' God and when there's no more God, there's no more good and bad. Transcendence being gone, all that is left is the pursuit of individual material interests, the cult of individual 'freedom', particularly sexual freedom.

Indeed, and I heard Bishop Barron say that if you look at the numbers, pedophilia is actually not more prevalent in priests than in the average population. But Darwinians and the rest of the Satanic gang have absolutely hated the priesthood since the beginning, as Stove shows. The reason is obvious: if even one in a thousand of them is not a selfish hypocrite, and genuinely chooses a life of celibacy and service, this completely contradicts the pathological Darwinian worldview (reproduction and survival).

BTW, something that bugs me with all this Freudian stuff about priestly celibacy causing pedophilia (ya know, sexual repression leads to perversion and all that), is that this implies that those pedophiles aren't really responsible for their actions. In other words: celibacy is to blame, not moral shortcomings! It almost sounds like an excuse for pedophilia! But hell, it's just horribly wrong, period, and it doesn't matter in the least whether you are celibate or whatever. The problem with anyone molesting children is not that they "repress their sexuality" or any such nonsense, the problem is that they are pathological perverts and morally reprehensible through and through. There is NO justification or "cause", just pure evilness.

I also thought about my exchange with @Joe in the Venezuela thread about human nature, and I think the problem with the "selfish theory" is that there's a difference between saying that there is a whole lot of hypocrisy and selfishness in humanity, or even that the vast majority of humans acts selfish most of the time, and saying that unselfishness doesn't exist, as all those Darwinians, Freudians, Marxists etc. believe. Because even if, for example, it's only one in a thousand of priests who is genuine, then for God's sake don't deny that this is even possible, but instead look up to him as a role model! If a life of true service is at all possible, then striving towards achieving that and learning from those who do it is a value, a moral path!!

If you are all cynical and deny the very existence of genuine altruism, then there is nothing to strive for, no value, and only pleasure-seeking nihilism. Quite tellingly, as Stove also shows, some modern sociobiologists even attack the very concept of heroes!! They view heroism as an "error", and abomination! Because obviously, the very existence of heroes, and our admiration for them on top of that, completely flies in the face of their schizoidal view of life where it's all about survival and reproduction.
 

nature

Dagobah Resident
Sanford's book goes deeper into this subject. He shows that vast majority of all mutations are either harmful or nearly neutral, and says that mutations are akin to randomly changing letters in an instruction manual. How can such a process create anything? It's just rearranging things that are already there and destroying information in the process. There basically are very few beneficial mutation, if there are any at all. As shown by Behe, experiments with random mutations create broken machines, not something better. And to add even more issues, if there are beneficial mutations, natural selection can't even select them due to their tiny percentage, and there's also the problem of natural selection being "blind" (according to their own materialistic theory) , that is, it cannot see the future, so how could it select something that will be beneficial for the organism in the future?
I haven't read these books, but it makes sens. I know that the body has got everyday cells that turn to cancerous, yes everyday, because of numerous harmfull factors (EMF, chemical products, bacterial toxins, etc.), thus the cell eliminates them every time they form. These factors create a change on DNA, i.e. mutation which makes the cell grow anarchically.
There's an information in DNA, a code, that enables the cell to repare the defect as soon as it is detected. This intron codes for a tiny protein that goes onto the defected DNA sequence and fixes it. Thus, the cancer doesn't form. This is what happens everyday, we don't feel it, it occurs at the cellular level. So, we have informations in our DNA that make the body function normally, as conceived at the begining of life. DNA is able to fix himself (*) , as though he's got an instruction manual as you noted.
If the repairing process has been overwhelmed, or if there is another factor that prevents the repairing process to occur, the cancerous cell will divide and create a cancerous tissue ie a cancer.

(*) this point reminds me of the Cs saying that 4D STS engineers have deleted pieces on our DNA and that made us miserable. I wonder if in these parts there were other potentials for healing, not only our body but also our mind. I also wonder if we can discover processes to mend these parts (maybe they are in the introns, in the "junk DNA"? )
 

Jones

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The following saying has taken on a whole new aspect:

"A bird does not fly because it has wings; it has wings because it flies."

I was originally perceiving this from the evolutionary stand point - a bird developed wings because it was an evolutionary advantage for it to fly, but now I'm seeing it as a refuting evolution in favour of ID - a bird was designed to fly so therefore it was given wings. I felt sure that I'd read the above quote in a C's session somewhere, but a search hasn't turned it up.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
The following saying has taken on a whole new aspect:

"A bird does not fly because it has wings; it has wings because it flies."

I was originally perceiving this from the evolutionary stand point - a bird developed wings because it was an evolutionary advantage for it to fly, but now I'm seeing it as a refuting evolution in favour of ID - a bird was designed to fly so therefore it was given wings. I felt sure that I'd read the above quote in a C's session somewhere, but a search hasn't turned it up.

I've quoted it in a few places. It came from Martin's "Hostage to the Devil" and was said by a priest in regard to a transexual person who was possessed, and because of the possession, did all the surgeries and stuff to change sex. (now, there's a thought!)
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Something Gaby wrote yesterday really got me to thinking and I thought I would try to share it.

Gaby said that this whole ID thing was a "relief". And I thought, yeah, that's exactly it; it's like a huge feeling of constriction is gone.

But why feel constricted? Aside from some internal awareness that something is a lie...? Well, I started thinking back over my life and all the incredible struggles to make sense of the world and my experiences, and experiences of so many others, and to do so in the Darwinian/materialist context. Even the Cs had to be on trial all this time because of that. And that's not to say that putting things "on trial" or testing them is a bad idea; I still think it is a good idea.

But the thing was, I was very susceptible to the Darwinian schtick because I could pretty clearly see that the religious schtick - as it was taught - was a no-go. And that is still the case. Parts of it make some sense, but there was so much fantastical nonsense laid on top of what might be true that it was impossible to find anything to really "believe in".

So, if you can't believe religion, and the tools you have to work with are science under the control of Darwinism, what to do?

My problem was, I really couldn't just "believe" anything; there needed to be some facts, some evidence, to inspire confidence that the item was reliable.

On the other side, I had a lot of experiences, including an encounter with my deceased grandfather, and much later, my grandmother and then more recently, my mother. What do you do with things like that when the entire intellectual atmosphere around you says that such events are only delusions or illusions? I think of poor Carl Sagan who was firmly convinced that when he died there was nothing at all. But he was apparently content with that as so many Darwinians appear to be.

Okay, Cs say there are organic portals, that might explain such as Sagan and rabid Darwinians. On the other hand, are they right that I'm just deluding myself? Is there something in the mind that creates such things, such impressions? Can it be that it is all just some sort of natural material law or effect, like heat or cold, or light, or gravity, or whatever? Can the Cs be part of this self-delusory system?

Some years ago somebody asked me what would I do if the Cs were lying to me, if it was all a big fraud. I thought about it for a minute and then said that I guess it didn't matter because I would still act as if things mattered, as if the Universe made sense, as if love, truth, beauty, caring, STO, etc, were good values. I thought that even if they were delusions they OUGHT to be true and I was going to act as if they were to give them reality.

But you know, doing all of that in the face of what we have all been facing for nearly 20 years now - the increasing madness of our reality - is difficult. You get tired; you feel like just throwing in the towel, checking out ... let the lights go out. It's like there is no place to stand anymore in the midst of the hurricane.

So, there I was, in the late summer and fall of 2017, not long back after the stem-cell therapy trip, exhausted, unable to walk, hardly able to stay vertical for very long during the day; the previous few years of near constant pain leaving me with a dopamine depleted brain. And still, I decided I had to plug away at the least I could do as much as I could, every day. And all I could do was read and make notes. I was in a chaise longue with my legs elevated and a lap desk... struggling to focus my mind and make it do what I willed it to do which was function and recover.

There were projects laid aside that I couldn't cope with; but I could read. And read I did. As often as I was able, I posted a bit about it here on the forum. The early stage was Collingwood. And then, I was able to get back to my beloved biblical studies, particularly Paul.

I was reading some academic works on Paul, mainly talking about his visions, his alleged "Road to Damascus" experience, etc. I noticed that several of the scholars were announcing in triumph that they were now able to explain this with "evolutionary psychology". I've probably posted about that in the forum, too. That made me curious and I started reading about evolutionary psychology.

Evolutionary psychology led to reading about evolution itself. That led to books about fossils, theories of human origins, etc. Just a LOT of reading. On any given subject, I would read at least 5 or 6 books by the eminent persons in the field, and maybe some papers on the side. Neandertals, Homo Naledi, Out of Africa, Into Africa, Denisovans, etc.

Evolution led to reading about genetics. I'm sure some of you remember me talking about that and recommending some books that give basic background. Evolution and genetics was a LOT of reading. It would be tedious to list them all... sometimes 5 books a week, sometimes less because I am somewhat slower and some of these topics required intense concentration.

Then, more genetics and evolution and sociobiology, E. O. Wilson and the gang. Then, Origins of Life theories from the mainstream. I was commenting about these things here and there and recommending some books, but certainly not all of them.

Then Symbiosis - Lynn Margulis - then Virolution - and then Genetic Entropy... then Intelligent Design. Each topic filled in by several books by proponents and critics.

You know, for me, I needed to follow this path; I had to read the best that Darwinism had to offer and then get into the details of genetics by the experts in those fields so that when I finally watched the video about the Flagellum, it really was like a "Road to Damascus" experience. And I knew it had nothing whatsoever to do with delusion, illusion, or any silly "evolutionary psychology" explanation for a feeling of a shift to another reality. There the darn thing was, and there was no other possible explanation for it and I knew there wasn't because by then, I knew the best the Darwinians had to offer and I knew the deep details of cell biology and genetics, as far as is known by experts.

And then, RELIEF. I can hardly describe it.

Yes, I'm glad I have the Cs outlines of reality, cosmology, and so on, to describe things; it's a good thing I was exploring in several directions at once because there's just not enough time in a life to do it all otherwise! That whole other reality is REALLY REAL - only maybe not the way the old time religions described it; but then, they weren't that far wrong, they just got buried by nonsense.

Now I know that when my grandfather came home the night he died, he really did. His being did not "go extinct". He was there then, and continues to exist, as does my beloved grandmother, and so many others, not just my loved ones, but the loved ones of people everywhere. (As long as they aren't OPs!)

What's more, I know that when I die, it is not the end. And that's a relief, too.

I am firmly in a New Reality today, and I know it.
 
Last edited:

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
But for that to happen, a conception of the final, fully fledged improvement would have to be conceptualized IN ADVANCE! In that case, what is "it" that make that decision with foresight?
It might be said to have something to do with Wave-Particle Duality and how its effected by "observation".
I'm always surprised Darwinists have yet to work into this their ideology... Its prolly coz it would open a whole can o' worms regarding "greater consciousness" that would inevitably lead onto "intelligent design".
 

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
He shows that vast majority of all mutations are either harmful or nearly neutral, and says that mutations are akin to randomly changing letters in an instruction manual. How can such a process create anything? It's just rearranging things that are already there and destroying information in the process. There basically are very few beneficial mutation, if there are any at all.
Yeah... Kinda like playing all the right notes but in the wrong order. I wouldn't pay to go that concert however perfect the musicians pitch.
 

Aeneas

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
The irony is that the demonizing of religion 'kills' God and when there's no more God, there's no more good and bad. Transcendence being gone, all that is left is the pursuit of individual material interests, the cult of individual 'freedom', particularly sexual freedom.
This killing of God and reducing human existence as merely materialistic has perhaps the purpose in mind of domination as the last transcript mentioned.
This 'freedom' has to now be curtailed into finer and finer levels of submission. The campaigns against smoking, global warming, normal masculinity and the promotion of vaccine, political correct speech, postmodernist pronouns and much more makes sense if the purpose is to make people submit to authorities, to being dominated. Expression of views contrary to the dominant views du jour are not tolerated. People are labelled deniers for resisting with no tolerance or acceptance of conflicting viewpoints in the debate. And materialist science is used as the authority on which these things rests, very much like it previously rested on the authority of God and the bible via papal authorities.

Survivors of the Gulag or the Holocaust, such as Victor Frankl, mentioned how those who had the best chance to survive in the camps, were often those who had a religious connection. Those who were atheist were more likely to give up hope and to let go of the spirit to live. The darwinian mindset would in such cases probably just highlight the idea that life is a nihilistic, purposeless, short and a brutal struggle for existence. Those with a religious connection had the possibility - since they were equipped with a conceptual framework that allowed for it - to look for a higher meaning in life and try to make sense of what they were going through. So one could say that those with a religious connection were harder to dominate.
If a serious disaster happens in the near future like cometary impacts, earthquake and volcanoes erupting, then it is likely that those with a religious connection will find it easier to pull through it and not give up hope unless they are immediately impacted.
 

stellar

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
Kermode bears are almost entirely black except for between 100 and 500 individuals that are white, or rather off white (with some tan color). The white individuals might be an adaptation given their improved fishing ability, but why are they still a minority? Too early in the evolutionary time frame? Can't find any info on how long they have been known to be around, but I doubt anyone knows that for sure.

Also, how would dark color bears be "wary" of snowy landscapes? And do you really think they "notice" something like their ability or lack thereof to sneak up on prey? That suggests that they observe their environment, engage in fairly high level thinking about it and take action based on that thinking. If any dark color bears wandered into the Arctic circle, they wouldn't think "oops, I'm a bit dark for here, better get out", they either die out from lack of food or, randomly wander off and, if lucky, end up in a more suitable environment.

So there's still no explanation as to how polar bears came to be so suited to their Arctic home.
If we have all been seeded here by higher intelligence then, surely, that intelligence would have seeded the white bear in an appropriate environment. Just as the nordic types are/were suited to cool climates or dark skinned humans in arid, hot environments, etc.
If animals have group souls then I suppose they would just follow their informational instinct and not consciously have to think. It's not until man intercedes in their breeding habits that physical changes would normally take place.
 

BlackCartouche

Jedi Master
And now it begins to make sense why this "battle between STS and STO" actually exists: it's part of the learning environment, part of the school. And consciousness engages in this and so much more to learn, to grow and develop.
I also think the cosmic 'friction' that comes off the perpetual fusion-separation interplay between STS and STO creates the very Energy required to fuel an ever expanding Consciousness.
 
Top Bottom