^ Was wondering the same thing.

We must learn how to lead dynamic lives in the face of delusion. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is nature. Humankind has nothing to lose. We are in the midst of a divine awakening of insight that will tap into the world itself. Dogma is the antithesis of karma. You must take a stand against illusion. The complexity of the present time seems to demand a deepening of our lives if we are going to survive. Without beauty, one cannot self-actualize.

We must learn how to lead unified lives in the face of desire. You may be ruled by illusion without realizing it. Do not let it obliterate the richness of your mission. Yes, it is possible to shatter the things that can sabotage us, but not without faith on our side. We can no longer afford to live with illusion.

Consciousness consists of superpositions of possibilities of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an unfolding of the divine. As you vibrate, you will enter into infinite peace that transcends understanding. Although you may not realize it, you are high-frequency.

Child, look within and unify yourself. Have you found your mission? Awareness is the driver of energy. Soon there will be a condensing of truth the likes of which the multiverse has never seen. The future will be an advanced awakening of potential. This journey never ends.

Edited 4/20/2014 02:40:18

Arun, I deleted my comments because they were pointless. Julkorn is not looking to debate or discuss, merely to preach. His position will not be altered no matter the evidence provided. He would deny that the Earth is round if it contradicted his own view.

Basically, he wasn't worthy of my thoughts or opinions on the matter.

You may be ruled by desire without realizing it. Do not let it sabotage the healing of your quest. Yes, it is possible to erase the things that can eliminate us, but not without beauty on our side.

KleinerSteiner, don't take me for a fool. I don't give a damn what you believe if you can't back if up with evidence. Don't enter a debate with exactly what Sharpe just said he disliked about Julkorn; the desire to preach. Unfortunately, you are talking to generally smart people here. We won't be fooled by mumbo jumbo.

Also, you hint that you would like to erase science. Are you trolling here, or are you insane? Would you like to live in the Stone Age?

Edited 4/20/2014 09:21:37

"It will be defended until sufficient evidence disproves it"

Then please tell me why did Science under Marxist rule only found EVIDENCE that Marxism is correct? A scientific fact, obviously. Right there. And you do not believe in it? Why is that?

My point is simple and I already stated it with EVIDENCE. Maybe you did not read it. You seem to be referring to Science as to something all truthful bound to nothing and noone in their quest for truth, just as if Science would be some divine spiritual being changing all those people, once they became scientists, into some utter slaves of truth.

Let me tell you: This is not the case.

There is no absolute truth reigning supreme in scientists and therefore there cannot be in Science, as well. They would budge before the power. Simple.

Why is it so hard to accept that scientist depend on their career and their reputation? Just look at your reaction. Do you want to be someone who found evidence against Evolution and then face yourself a thousand-fold in the faces of your colleagues? Did you notice how they laughed upon this scientist who found actual tissue in supposedly million years old fossils of some dinosaur? What if you find some modern day rabbit fossil where it does not belong according to Evolution? Chance is, you nuke it. Isn't that plausible? And yes, sure there is the EVIDENCE, the EVIDENCE. And they will make sure THEY KEEP HAVING that evidence, if only by a self-stabilizing process of silencing dissenters and dissenting facts. But, of course, there is more to it.

I already metioned Michael Behe and how they "refuted" his evidence. How many trampled upon Michael Behes are lieing there in the dark that we do not know of? Yea, Science got the evidence. And I got my doubts.

Well, of course, it is a valid argument to say that abortion is an technology that Genetics could not foresee. But doesn't it fall short?

We both already summed up examples of all that Evolution did for us. Let's recount. She thought of the sex drive. Nice of her. She even over-rides our minds in partner-choice. Patronizing, but still nice of her, isn't it. She invented love to make us attached. Genius. She invented beauty to soothe us in order to have more offspring. So thoughtful. She even went so far as to insert that contradictory double-strategy into us which divides our very souls and destroys our lifes which makes us promiscuitive and attached to our woman at the same time. Mean, but well, you have to understand her good motives, right? Now, what else? She did forget to insert love to all our offspring? Bummer. And so it came to pass that we jump to abortion. End of story.

Now, in Warlight terms this is like assuming your opponent's income, it's like taking every blimp of information in account to correctly assess his whole position, it's like - figuratively - inserting yourself into his mind and his emotions to check for his best moves and his likely moves, it's like even watching his old games to gain the whole picture about his style of play, it's like not being able to sleep while thinking about your best moves, it's like driving your car and keep checking the possibilities meanwhile, doing all the math, you even lost your job and your wife about all your brooding. And then you get booted. Bummer.

Now I call that fail. You would not agree?

By the way, I am a Protestant. "Scripture alone. Belief alone. Christ alone." Quoting Luther here. Please do not misinterpret. I am open for facts, but for facts alone and without readily injected interpretation intermixing with the facts and I would like to check the details and the whole argument from starting point to end. And where I cannot check the details myself, I would not believe. All human are liars.

*I would not believe where it does contradict biblical teaching, that is. Because I know the Lord and I know myself.

Edited 4/20/2014 13:58:27

You've read too much conspiracy fiction. Scientists would not all (like in any place, you get a rogue few) nuke evidence disproving a theory. What happened in the mid 1900s? Due to the emergence of new evidence, a new theory was supported; Big Bang Theory.

Behe is a pillock. He expects scientists to produce an experiment replicating the process that has taken more time in nature than humans have been on the Earth. Also, one such adaption he claims was irreducibly complex was shown to be able to evolve in just 20 000 years; a relative blink of the eye. He is no scientist; he produces no reliable evidence to support his claim.

Evolution isn't someone. It is a process. It's been explained well previously but I'll go through it again: In a population, mutations occur. Some mutations make an organism better adapted. These survive to breed, passing the favourable genes to their offspring. These offspring also have mutations; the process goes on forever.
Evolution does NOT directly create technology. This is pure stupidity on your part; or at the very least, complete ignorance of the theory. Due to evolution, we have cleverer people who can create the technology. One example is abortion.
And there is no double strategy. Evolution makes us want to breed; with as many as possible. But our social evolution is far faster. We now favour monogamy, due to stability of having a partner help bring in money etc. We did not evolve money; our evolved brains did. This means we still have those promiscuous feeling but the need to have the money overrides it; leading to mass monogamy.

X already said all that needs to be said on this topic. Evolution promotes traits that are favourable at a given place and time. But situations change. When infant mortality rates were high it was in your best interest to have lots of sex in order to have many children in the hope that a few would survive to adulthood.

Now infant mortality rates are low. We are still programmed to want to have lots of sex. However, this is no longer in our best interest, as it is much more difficult to provide the requisite resources to 10 children than 2. Hence conscious decisions to limit family size.

*I would not believe where it does contradict biblical teaching, that is. Because I know the Lord and I know myself.

@arun, he has already said that he won't believe you, so let it go.

Edited 4/20/2014 19:56:59

It just annoys me someone can be so dense. Not so much about his beliefs, but the conspiracy theories... But oh well :P

Julkhorn, you are being dense, all that happened here was really a debate between me and Arun for a bit, and everyone else spouting their opinions. Including that Illuminati/Freemason conspiracy theorist by the name of kleiner.
All I'm saying here is that Julkhorn, dont put this up for a healthy debate if your views are immobile.

julkorn, i disagree. i want you to post more of your incomprehensible rants, and on new topics. and a link to your blog if you have one. please continue to post your unfiltered thoughts, thank you.

Arun, I spoke figuratively.

You might translate my figurative words into the dry and scientific correct explanation one to one at any given time, that you gave there. Did you really not understand that? Maybe you did not. Okay. You see, it is just easier this way and I can snicker a bit to myself. So you could just let me have my fun.

And if you got the meaning of my figurative text, then the problem I am seeing is not abortion, the >technology<, which you are aiming at, but it is abortion, the >principle<, which is the willing ease of killing our offspring. And I did compare this to getting booted after so much preparation, if Evolution got anything to do with it. Because we do JUMP to the option of abortion, which is NOT a technological one, but rather a societal allowing of doing so.

The steam valve has been opened, is all.

The meaning of this is, that we >want< abortion, even if it would not be allowed or technologically possible. And this >want< is my point I am aiming at. We would simply not >want<, no matter any technology, because offspring is the only one currency Evolution knows, right?

And again, the explanation that we somehow got not enough resources for so many children cannot be correct. The current western world is the richest society ever. This must be wrong. If we would be a result of Evolution we would not stop now nor would we got this hard-wired >want< to kill our offspring in order to even further our already overly rich and wealthy situation. Therefore, there is no Selfish Gene. There is a Selfish Self, now unshackled by morals. That is the explanation I am seeing, which is actually rather obvious.

But it's okay. I can plainly see that I ran aground. The answers are just from the shelf. No thinking involved. I am immobile? Well, at least I was able to think out of the box. You could give me that. Nice, that I did amuse you finally, X. There is one achievement.

People do not want to kill offspring. They want to avoid the offspring existing. Abortion is one of many ways this is achieved. We don't want abortion because we can't afford it! The west is richest, but that doesn't mean we can afford to have 10 kids. The only people in Britain you see with many children live in squalor. The rest has been said before.

Your reasoning is off, your psychoanalysis needs fine tuning. Consult Dr. Ozymandias melancholia for advice.

These are indeed important questions, whether or not I can answer them. But first I must say that before my rectorate I was in no way politically active. During the winter semester of 1932-33 I was on leave and spent most of the time in my mountain hut.

In December, 1932, my neighbor, Professor (of Anatomy) von Möllendorf, was chosen Rector. The installation of the new Rector here takes place on April 15. During the winter semester of 1932-33, we discussed the current situation often, not only the political one, but especially that of the universities and the partially hopeless situation of the students. My judgment went like this: to the extent that I can judge things, the only possibility still available to us is to try to seize upon the approaching developments with those constructive forces that still remain alive.

To be sure, I did follow the political events of January-March, 1933, and also spoke about them from time to time with younger colleagues. My own work, however, was concerned with a more comprehensive interpretation of pre-Socratic thought. With the beginning of the summer semester I returned to Freiburg. Meanwhile, Professor von Möllendorf had assumed the office as Rector on April 16. Hardly two weeks later he was removed from office by the then Minister of Culture of Baden. What presumably gave the desired occasion for this decision of the Minister was the fact that the Rector had forbidden the so-called "Jewish poster" to be displayed in the University.

On the second day after I took office the "Student Leader" and two companions appeared at my door and demanded once more that the "Jewish poster" be displayed. I refused. The three students left with the remark that my prohibition would be made known to the Student Leadership Division of the government. Several days later a telephone call came from Dr. Baumann, S.A. Group Leader in the office of Higher Education of the Supreme S.A. Command. He demanded the hanging of the poster in question, as this already had been done in other universities. Should I refuse, I could expect my own dismissal, if not, indeed, the closure of the University. I tried to gain the support of the Minister of Culture of Baden for my prohibition. He explained that he could do nothing against the S.A. Nonetheless, I did not retract my prohibition.

The motive that above all determined me to take over the rectorate was mentioned already in my inaugural lecture at Freiburg in 1929, "What is Metaphysics?" The fields of sciences lie far apart. The manner of handling their objects is essentially different. This disintegrated multiplicity of disciplines is held together today only through the technical organization of universities and faculties, and through the practical direction of the disciplines according to a single orientation. At the same time, the rooting of the sciences in their essential ground has become dead." What I attempted to do during my administration, in view of this condition of the universities -- in our own day degenerated to the extreme -- is laid out in my rectoral address.

Right. I got one remaining question. You mentioned Behe. Which of his irreducible systems did they piece together gradually? This is interesting me, because I like such logic puzzling. And I did not follow the whole issue for some years now. I would enjoy seeing some sparkling of intellect there. And piecing together step by step an irreducible system with the necessary condition that each step does have a function of their own is nice work, indeed.

http://www.pdcnet.org/collection/show?id=faithphil_2002_0019_0001_0003_0021&file_type=pdf

glhf

Viable pathways have been generated for flagellums, blood clotting, and the immune systems - Behe's three chief examples. This immediately means they are not IC. Eight years ago, some scientists from Oregon replicated ancient DNA, and reconstructed the evolution of a supposedly IC molecular system. Computers armed with genetic algorithms often produce random seeming IC structures. Wikipedia likens it to the forming if a rock arch; where the unnecessary parts 'erode' away, leaving behind an IC structure.

Okay I will check the sources. This is interesting. But you quoted from Wikipedia. This is lax. Did you check the sources yourself or did you just believe?

Let me have an anewed try at spelling my point:

It does not matter if I call it "we do not want offspring" or you call it "we avoid offspring". That is still one and the same. Lets not fight over words. And please just suffer, if I use figurative words. Like I said that is just my style. I really do know the underlying dry stuff, okay? You do not have to recite it. Save your keys, so to say. Which is taken from >save your breath< and taking into account that you are not actually talking, but typing on your keyboard. Got it? Haha. I just like such newly coined terms and such, you know. And sorry, if this is too much information, but I feel like inserting commentaries now, because you guys beat me to it.

Now the commentary for my last posts, solving the riddle that are my words, seemingly:

You claim that Evolution does over-ride our partner-choice, made us self-aware and so on. These are really higher conditions for getting offspring than the condition of >not avoiding offspring<. Okay? Evolving to >not avoid offspring< is a more basic condition. Because offspring is the one currency Evolution does know, right? Evolution does not know our money. Right. I do agree. BUT evolution does know a currency which is offspring. And again all of this like >evolution knows< and >currency< is figurative, of course. You might just explain it in dry scientific language. In effect the result of my words and your scientifically correct explanation would be just the same [result]. I just dont like to go at these lengths.
So. >Not avoiding offspring< is the most basic condition so to say or rather in other words it is a condition which does dominate partner-choice - obviously, or should I explain? - and all that we mentioned like feeling beauty and so on which are actually secondary to the conditon of >not avoiding offspring< (your words here, I use them, you see). All of these preparations in furthering our offspring and even making sure of good genes in offspring is secondary to >not avoiding offspring<. If Evolution - meaning the scientifically correct explained process of selection, as always when referring to "Evolution" - did not insert into us that we do >not avoid offspring< just as your words were, then this basic condition is not met and Evolution got booted, so to say. Obviously. Right there. At hand.
Of course, saying "Evolution got booted", is figurative again and means that I am referring to a Warlight game where >not getting booted< is a basic condition that should be met prior to anything else. And if you dont meet this condition than all your other preparation are for naught. Likened to Evolution this means over-riding partner-choice is for naught, if we like to >avoid offspring<. Simple. And this is not about a technology. Really. Not.

This was a commentary to my former posts. Now a new thought:

I can turn your whole line of argument against you there. You say that genetics are too slow and could not foresee technology? Right. I turn it around and tell you, genes could not foresee our current situation of wealth and richness and technology which means we should be still having 10 children like we did a hundred years ago, IF that was caused by genes in the first place.

My conclusion from both these lines of thought is: Evolution got nothing to do with it. My first point: Evolution - if there was an evolutionary process coining our behaviour and over-riding our cognitive choices - would have met the basic condition that we do >not avoid offspring<. The second point is: You cannot take in account our current situation at all for any evolutionary reasoning in us >avoiding offspring<. Because simply, it would not show in our genes. Just as you said.

And this simply means, that us being able to >avoid offspring< disproves us being a result of evolution. Because simply: Us >avoiding off spring< now, means that we always wanted to >avoid offspring< if possible. And this is a funny fact, isn't it? Do you see its repercussions?

Actually this means that us >avoiding offspring< simply cannot be explained by us being the result of an evolutionary process of selection via survival=offspring. BUT it can be explained by Biblical teaching. As can the fact that we are jumping to Evolution Theory as a means to kill god, by the way. And all other human behaviour, mind you.

OR of course, you could take the route of Sze and all the others in their first and only posts telling me that all of this like "partner-choice being defined by an evolutionary process" and our "sense of beauty as a result of an evolutionary process" is just nonsense and just does not come near to the utter complexity of the process, that evolution really is.

Well, you see, I wanted to have this discussion to have my thoughts tested, if there was a flaw. So please refrain from insulting me and try to understand where I am aiming at and where the flaw in my reasoning is. I could liken Warlight to a good discussion. At this point I am seeing you playing Blockade Cards all over. Everywhere. There is a point in you having just one blockade card, mind you.

Edited 4/21/2014 13:38:20