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

[goyacobol]

goyacobol
From the perspective of 7th density there there is no time for sure and if part of creation experience change (lets say explosive idea) the change manifest from point to point, it was experienced instantly because there is all in 7th density. There were many changes but all was instant in this perspective.
Now if we consider explosion in one dimension going from dot to dot like ten dots end change happen from one dot to another we can CHANGE perspective and consider that last one dot experienced waiting and change didn't happen instantly (and we have an idea of time here and we didn't need it in 7th density).
It seams to me that dot have changed but only if dot could perceive change so it should have consciousness and since it is not 7th density its only a part of 7th whole consciousness and each dot have a part of infinite number of parts of consciousness.

This example is not really good but it shows why you might say time don't exist.

Yes, that is why I like the Cs explanation of a way to define "time":

A: Yes. Now you begin to see what "time" really is: cosmic processes of almost infinite duration. But do not be complacent because some of these processes can be rather "quick" and devastating from your perspective.

We are but minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Dots have to be "perceived" or have an observer. I personally don't want to be "complacent".

 

[Jones]

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!)

Another thought - do you mean that the unquestioned belief in the theory of evolution could actually serve as an opener for possession?

If so, my line of thought goes something like this: -

ID = accepting that one is fundamentally equipped with everything needed for the designed purpose and that adaptation - simplified - is a process of flicking a switch to turn on things that you already have capability for.

Evolution = belief that you have to develop or accept something foreign to what you already are or have inherent capabilities for in order to grow and develop and that is the opener for possession - or one of them at least.

If I'm on the mark here, then it kind of helps with understanding the statement 'the predators gave us their mind'.

The predators, according to Castaneda, had to find life forms to hide in or 'develop or accept something foreign to what they already were or had inherent capabilities for'. The best way to make other beings ripe for their taking is to promote a theory of growth and development that suggests that you have to develop or accept something foreign to what you already have or are.

 

[stellar]

This has been a great thread so far. Sorry if I'm coming across as a bit manic now, but really, this is a huge, HUGE relief.

Really glad you decided to keep posting on this thread. We are all learning from it. A huge reminder in how important it is to network and how constructive criticism can reveal truths about ourselves, regardless of the topic at hand. FWIW, I did not lough nor think your posts/responses were sad. I did however think you'd get what you were really asking for.

 

[Christine]

Je relis en ce moment « La controverse de sion » ce qui m’a amené à relire aussi les protocoles que j’avais lu il y a une dizaine de ça. Ci-dessous est le deuxième protocole.

Les protocoles des Sages de Sion
P 19
Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche exploités par les Juifs​

Ne croyez pas que nos assertions sont des mots en l’air. Considérez le succès de Darwin, Marx et Nietzsche, préparé par nous. L’effet démoralisant des tendances de ces doctrines sur l’esprit des Gentils ne devrait certes pas nous échapper.



I am currently rereading "La controverse de sion" which led me to reread the protocols I had read about ten years ago. Below is the second protocol.

The protocols of the Elders of Zion
P 19
Darwin, Marx, Nietzsche exploited by the Jews
Don't think our assertions are empty words. Consider the success of Darwin, Marx and Nietzsche, prepared by us. The demoralizing effect of the tendencies of these doctrines on the minds of the Gentiles should certainly not escape us.


Traduit avec www.DeepL.com/Translator

 

[Starshine]

Another thought - do you mean that the unquestioned belief in the theory of evolution could actually serve as an opener for possession?

If so, my line of thought goes something like this: -
ID = accepting that one is fundamentally equipped with everything needed for the designed purpose and that adaptation - simplified - is a process of flicking a switch to turn on things that you already have capability for.

Evolution = belief that you have to develop or accept something foreign to what you already are or have inherent capabilities for in order to grow and develop and that is the opener for possession - or one of them at least.

If I'm on the mark here, then it kind of helps with understanding the statement 'the predators gave us their mind'.

The predators, according to Castaneda, had to find life forms to hide in or 'develop or accept something foreign to what they already were or had inherent capabilities for'. The best way to make other beings ripe for their taking is to promote a theory of growth and development that suggests that you have to develop or accept something foreign to what you already have or are.

ID seems like the best explanation and makes evolution theory look really, fundamentally silly with every example you can think of once you bring in irreducible complexity. ID is a recent discovery made available by biochemistry progress. That in itself brings some weight to this argument :

It's also possible that species collectively become ready for the next stage in their evolution (at least, certain species - not all necessarily make the cut for advancement). And maybe there are cosmic conditions that make higher/lower interactions of this sort easier to occur.

Evolution theory, as pervasive as it is, is quite recent in our current history. Always, unquestioned beliefs led people to act as agents, through the removal of responsibility. The stronger the inductions made by (considered) holy institutions, the harder it is to trust one's own judgment regarding one's own feelings when something is totally off, or wrong. That is how you end up torturing and killing people. This is where disobedience and strength of character are capital. And it is something you have to learn, it is not innate. In Milgram experiments, 62 percent obeyed an abject authority, while with the 2009 French remake 'Game of Death' documentary, the TV institution pushed that number to 80 percent.

Was the predator mind less present in the past? I'm doubting it. Before that, we had religion. So we could say the same regarding religion:
Do you mean that the unquestioned belief in religion could actually serve as an opener for possession?

Religion = belief that you have to develop or accept something foreign to what you already are or have inherent capabilities for in order to grow and develop and that is the opener for possession - or one of them at least.

In this case, the foreign is God. The institution is a foreign entity to which you give up your free will and responsibility of ponderation like you pass a hot potato.
Biblical creationism, as JEEP said wasn't really convincing to me either as a kid. I was more into paleontology, fascinated by dinosaurs. But, the fact that apes were still present and that we were supposed to have evolved from them seemed awkward already. Why didn't the current apes evolve too? Why are they there, eating bananas on trees?

I'm glad I had the opportunity not to have so entrenched beliefs, I'm glad I'm doubtful even though sometimes (too often) it led me to indecisiveness.

Possession seems possible by any kind of forces, institutions, or entities once you abandon(or never discover) your free will, hence your responsibility is put in the foreign. Hence, forget character building.
Hence, Russia did it.
Ignorance definitely put one in great danger. Possession is close to passation, in French, which means "transfer of ⧫ handover of... It is used more specifically in the law context, handover of power.

 

[thorbiorn]

In Session 13 Feb 2011 there was an interesting comment from the C's on the concept of "evolution" in the branches of sciences:

Q: (L) Is that what is leading to all of the... it seems like there is a whole lot of electrical phenomenon. Ya know, they keep trying to blame it on the sun is doing this, the sun is doing that. But the thing is that the sun is not really that active considering that we are moving into a solar maximum. Compared to previous solar maximums?! They make a big deal about small clusters, small sunspots, as though it's some kind of crazy or unusual thing. They're really, relatively speaking, small and insignificant compared to past sun cycles. And I remember quite a few sun cycles. But something definitely seems to be making a current flow in the solar system. Is that what we're looking at here, this approach of the companion? Is that the cause?
A: Yes.
Q: (Ark) Why astronomers are not perceiving this changes of planetary orbits?
A: McCanney has a good explanation. Similar to the reasons for the "accidental" evolution meme in other branches of science.
Q: (L) And that reason is?
A: Necessity of control or the illusion of same. Slow and steady doncha know?!?

 

[Windmill knight]

Q: (L) And that reason is?
A: Necessity of control or the illusion of same. Slow and steady doncha know?!?

That's interesting. So far we've been thinking that they stick to the neodarwinist paradigm because they are pushing their materialist nihilist agenda, but if I'm reading the above correctly, it is also because scientists don't like big jumps or anything that rocks the boat. And that's fear, basically. The solar system is stable, they say, cause the idea that it is chaotic and cataclysms happen relatively often scares him. So does the idea that evolution happens in jumps. No Cambrian Explosions please - it's too much excitement! What if it happens again!

Btw, I've been reading Stove and his criticism of Dawkins is hilarious! Also, judging from the summary of his ideas, Dawkins is either really stupid or a total charlatan. I do remember thinking a while back that the concepts of the 'selfish gene' and the 'meme' were idiotic, but never really reflected much on it. The way Stove puts it, it's worse than I thought!

 

[flashgordonv]

That's interesting. So far we've been thinking that they stick to the neodarwinist paradigm because they are pushing their materialist nihilist agenda, but if I'm reading the above correctly, it is also because scientists don't like big jumps or anything that rocks the boat. And that's fear, basically. The solar system is stable, they say, cause the idea that it is chaotic and cataclysms happen relatively often scares him. So does the idea that evolution happens in jumps. No Cambrian Explosions please - it's too much excitement! What if it happens again!

Maybe one reason scientists don't like any changes to the status quo is a selfish, self serving one - that their prestige, their published research and the like is invested in the status quo. They have built a reputation, a career on the status quo being true. If something comes along to challenge that, it must be opposed because it attacks the foundations of their little world - who respects them and how they earn their money. P;us of course it attacks their favoured theory

I think back to the 2 Australian scientists who in the 1980s proved conclusively that stomach ulcers were predominantly caused by the H Pilori bacteria. From when they published to when their idea was accepted and became mainstream took more than 15 years. Why? Because ther was a whole ecosystem, built around costly medicines and surgical interventions, plus reputation and research income. They damn well didn't want this truth to be accepted or else they had to go and reinvent themselves.

 

[aragorn]

In case you've missed the 'great event', Behe's new book Darwin Devolves was published the day before yesterday. I just ordered a hardcover copy of it and also his classic opus DBB (I already had it on Kindle) and Douglas Axe's Undeniable. I'm thinking, that we need those books in a physical form in our bookshelf, so that our kids can read them once they're ready (if they're interested). I've already had some interesting 'metaphysical conversations' with my son who is 10. A few days ago he enthusiastically brought up the subject of time travel and how 'going back' would affect the present, so we talked a little bit about time lines etc. Talks about evolution theory might be coming, but I need to thread carefully since his teachers at school might raise too many eyebrows if it comes out, god forbid, that our son has doubts about Darwin's theories!

Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution by Michael J. Behe
Kindle: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution, Michael J. Behe - Amazon.com
Hardcover: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution: Michael J. Behe: 9780062842619: Amazon.com: Books

 

[Gaby]

In case you've missed the 'great event', Behe's new book Darwin Devolves was published the day before yesterday.

Yes, I'm enjoying it! Behe explains chaos theory for dummies and how materialists have problems with that. The pleasant surprise is that he uses the Cholesterol Myth and the Salt Myth as examples of how nothing is really settled in science. Excellent analogies! He will make his case that Darwinian evolution is de-evolutionary - it breaks genes and there's loss of information. And his arguments of Intelligent Design seem even much concrete, leaving the picture crystal clear. Well, I'm just at the 2nd Chapter, but he introduces all the book at the beginning.

 

[hlat]

Talks about evolution theory might be coming, but I need to thread carefully since his teachers at school might raise too many eyebrows if it comes out, god forbid, that our son has doubts about Darwin's theories!

I don't dance around it and just say flat out that school teaches a lot of false things but it's not our job to change other people's minds. I tell them people were created, that life arising by accident is false, that people didn't come from monkeys (they laughed and thought that was a silly idea).

 

[goyacobol]

Just a sidenote...all these books and reading may be very useful for our overall development I think. In the pursuit of knowledge we may have to do a lot of reading. I don't think we can ever keep up with Laura but we can at least attempt to follow her.

The Cs said this in Session 23 November 1996:

Knowledge can be procured by reading literature, then analyzing it.

 

[aragorn]

I’m almost finished reading Stove, and these two sentences made me laugh:

“If intelligence and consciousness in humans are always subordinated, like all other adaptations of organisms, to their striving to increase, then The Origin of Species was an attempt by Darwin to increase the number of his descendants.” (Stove, Loc 3726).

“Yet if what The Selfish Gene says is true, what else can that book be, but manipulation of a its readers by the genes of Richard Dawkins, striving for their own maximal replication?” (Stove, Loc 3732).

LOL!

 

[Joe]

“If intelligence and consciousness in humans are always subordinated, like all other adaptations of organisms, to their striving to increase, then The Origin of Species was an attempt by Darwin to increase the number of his descendants.” (Stove, Loc 3726).

“Yet if what The Selfish Gene says is true, what else can that book be, but manipulation of a its readers by the genes of Richard Dawkins, striving for their own maximal replication?” (Stove, Loc 3732).

Those are hilarious, especially the 2nd one!

 

[Soluna]

With regards to the nanorobots - they resemble Bacteriophages in my opinion. Viruses that attack bacteria.

It looks like they borrowed some design from the bacteria, flagella and all

View attachment 29179

Just by chance (synchronicity strikes again) I happened to catch the movie I, Robot today (seen it before) and couldn't help but notice the nanite injector depicted in the film:

Thought the lower half rather looked like the medical nanorobot image previously posted; I believe a smaller, more compact version was used in the scene depicting Sonny's termination. Interesting that the movie is from 2004 and is based on stories from a book dating to 1950 - so science fiction has become science fact in regards to nanorobots.

Of course, the movie deals w/ the robot Sonny questioning his evolution/consciousness/purpose. The threat posed by AI is also paramount particularly by the technophobic character played by Will Smith.