Spiritual Forum

Replies

• 

  John - Artist February 7, 2016 at 5:07pm

  This May help with the meditation process going into oneself even deeper, like in the movie "Contact" when we meet the real being that lives within us.. with out labels ,, is life. We are yet another (A Simulated) race of humans restarted on earth.
  
  Over Millions of years Man has labeling advanced (beings) or ufo's threw the ages as GOD's.. When the hole time our minds have been shaped by our own kind > the elite, off world on Venus. That never go threw the rebirth of man on earth when its wiped out threw ice age, wars, or the elite instructed order to reboot human again, and again, and yet again. Starting with a clean slate each time , archaeology evidence abound millions of years destruction here, but the tech of elite untouched world Venus and the (God's) remain intact to this day. We only know what we have been allowed to know, from this (god hood) controller of men is man not some alien, mind injected plant of thinking. 
  With out this premer in place none will be the wiser or suspect the awakening taking place, here and now.. those who do , wind up dead or erased from history, and God the elite us live on from above on Venus.. laugh all you want, as this to is the mind set in place to keep the world flat for another million years. the evidance is every were if you have the premer to see it.
  • 

    Drekx Omega > John - Artist February 7, 2016 at 5:51pm

    My dear friend, just a reminder, that Venus was once a vibrant and living world, that served a function, much as our dear Earth does now....She is beautiful still....Her wonderful humans now live inside her surface...Inner Venus.....BUT, they are fellows to be respected and admired....I know that the dark human elites have adopted her rituals as their own.........BUT, our dear Venusians serve the LIGHT, not the dark......They are routing for us, bro...along with the Pleiadians and Sirians, everybody knows about...Our LOGOS comes from the Venus chain of spiritual evolution, YET, we are COMRADES....He is now the LOGOS of Earth.....what experience he has...Bless our earthly benefactor....Thanks dear JOHN-ARTIST, Drekx Omega
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 8:19am

  But the worse part is SUPERFICIALITY. To Darwin, cell is least complex. What a fallacy!! Confusing SMALLNESS with COMPLEXITY then with INGENUITY. We know that the microchip that can fit to the mouth of an insect is more complex than its predecessor that was built in to a whole city in 1930s!!
  
  Then less complexity does not equal to less ingenuity. While a library can be 10000 times more complex than a guitar, a guitar still shows ingenuity that cannot even elude a child.
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 8:10am

  The cell completely robe Darwin his fallacious habit of pointing to a 'lesser complex' organism as the origin of a 'more complex' organism.
  
  RAMA: Where did the human heart came from
  BERKELEY: The fish's heart is lesser complex.
  
  So he insinuates that some orgarnisms are more evolved than others. What a fallacy! If you were given the heart of a fish, it won't function and if you take the heart of a man and transplant it to fish, it won't function! A 'Darwinian fish' can as well amuse himself that the fish's heart came from that of man when other parts went vestigial. It is equaly difficult to go from man to fish IF THE FISH MUST FUNCTION IN ITS ENVIROMENT. The 'arrow' of Darwin that points from fish to man is purely subjective and superficial! There is no such a comparison between the heart of fish and that of man to gauge which is better because both are 100% fitted to their functions.
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 7:42am

  THE SUDDEN DEATH:
  
  Lets grant Darwin that human somehow evolved from homo-erectus. We want to see how many miles Darwin is from reality. The question is, was the homo-erectus any lesser ingenious than a man? Nope!
  
  Darwin's reasoning confused variety complexity and/or size with ingenuity. So he hoped that if he claim that all leaving things came from single cell, we can figure out how ingenuity came about from non ingenious origin. What a fallacy! We now understand that a single cell is both more complex and ingenious than the entire collection of cells if each cells is taken as black boxes the way Darwin took them!! Therefore figuring out how say an heart came from a single cell does not show us how the clever looking heart came about from a non clever looking beginning because more cleverness is already inherent in a single cell! The complexity in leaving things is more like an HOLOGRAM than a car.
  
  When you ask a Darwinist where the bacteria flagellum came from, he tells you from a type 3 secreation system. When you ask him where the type 3 secreation system came from, he says from the bacteria flagellum. Good! What have we learnt? Only that after centuaries, darwinists have painted themselves to the corner!
  
  It is not a surprise because the bacteria flagellum is as complex as the type 3 secreation system.
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 5:40am

  So what about the stupid bones of Darwin, arranged in 'ascending' order by a human being. Does it prove Darwinism? Lol! Without the prio-mesmerism of Darwin, the bones cannot prove anything. It only prove Darwinism when viewed under the sunglasses of Darwin. To a sane person, these are just a collection of dry bones. Everything else is an OPINION!!
  
  It has been the nature of 20th centuary science to equate interlectual reasoning and inferrances with facts!!!! This is how they 'prove' that you are a bedbug hopelessly crawling in a curved space and that you kill a cat by merely looking at it!!
  
  Interlectual reasoning from bones, or any other data for that matter, is called OPINION ABOUT THE BONES! With reasoning, we can reason anything we want from the bones, depending on how creative we are, from an alien civilization to an extinct species that is not necesarily the ancestor of the modern man to a merely ubnormal ape or human.
  
  How can gazing at a mere bone prove that it evolved to the modern man? I mean reasoning somewhere begs the question!!! It is just like staring at a clunker with no engine and trying to reason if it were a volkswagen, isuzu or toyota. Pointless!! All the relevant facts are missing: how complicated was the engine? Even if we say that isuzu evolved to toyota, is toyota necesarily any more inginious than isuzu? Nope! And this is where Darwin dies a sudden death as I will next illustrate.
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 5:05am

  Adalis,
  "Science is about collecting data, falsifying hypotheses, and retaining those that agree with experiments and evidence"
  
  What naive!!
  
  That is an IDEAL SCIENCE, which does not exist. The statement is just like saying:
  
  "perliament is about listening to people's complains, discussions and debates, creating and amending laws, controlling government's expenditure etc, all for the benefits of the people who elected the perliament"
  
  True, but naive!! Only a child entertains the possibility that there is such a body that works for the benefit of people who elected them. A grown up knows that anything done by human being falls short of being ideal. This includes science. And science is even worse.
  
  In science, debates are rarely won with evidence and experiments as demanded by the scientific method. Somewhere, we do these unethical activities:
  
  a)Vote
  b)Award certificates and noble prizes (prestige)
  c)Persuade and convert
  d)Censor
  e)Bribe
  
  So there you are. They voted in copenhagen that light is both a particle and a wave!!! Then they teach that this is a discovery!!!!!
  
  What many similarly indoctrinated bozos want it to be true=reality??? How about the vote of mother nature?

  worse.in - This website is for sale! - worse Resources and Information.

  This website is for sale! worse.in is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what y…
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 7, 2016 at 4:30am

  Adalis,
  "Why are you wasting your time telling me all this bull? You should be approaching scientist at Berkeley sit but of course"
  
  Yes I won't because the bozos in Berkeley donnot understand ALTRUISM and so it follows logically that they cannot explain to me its origin! The members of this site have done better job in educating me on things modern science could not explain to me and I am farmiliar with the cutting edge of science.
  
  So I posted the question in THIS SITE to be answered to be answered in this site because I know it is not answerable by modern science because they donnot factor in consciousness in their understanding of the universe. You come and tell me where to pose my questions??
  
  You donnot understand altruism, otherwise you yourself would explain it to me here. Strange enough even though you don't understand it, you presume that there is an answer to its origin in Berkeley!! Thats sounds like the christian who keep saying 'answere is in the bible' even if he has never read the bible!! Sure, this is not even recommendable thing in science. YOU MUST BE SKEPTICAL TO SCIENCE UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND IT 100%. True scientists are skeptical about evolution theory like they are to any other theory.
  
  But there you are, you know not that scientists, like any other group of people on earth are ameanable to wishfull thinking, corruption, confirmational bias etc. If our science is corrupt, as it most likely is, with your attitude of blind bowing to authority, we will all fall to the pit! A thing is not true because someone in Berkeley said so. Your attitude is like that of telling me to go pouse questions about God to the priests in the catholic church there, what naive!! What can they do to what treathens their religion except to sweep it under the carpert??? And if you agree that a human being can be blinded by faith, like in a church, what makes you think that suddenly a group of people branded 'scientists' are surprisingly immune from this trait that obviously bedevils the whole humanity?

  science.so - science Resources and Information.

  science.so is your first and best source for information about science . Here you will also find topics relating to issues of general interest. We ho…
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 6, 2016 at 5:48am

  Let me illustrate with an example:
  The question is what is the slightest improvement in the retina of the chicken's eye that will enable it to escape an eagle better than the other chicken?
  
  First, remember the complexity neaded to create a SINGLE phototransduction process like I have illustrated above (Darwin did not understand this). Then a single such process will add no benefit to the chicken because it will add only a single pixel to the retina. And cause of the limmitations of using lenses for imaging, many pixels are necesary to benefit the chicken. The addition of pixels to the retina without the addition of optic nerves to each of the rodes will serve no purpose to dawrinian selection. The addition of optic nerves without the rewiring of the visual cortex in the brain will serve no purpose for Darwinian selection. Now the necesary addition is now 100000000 or so times more complex than the whole computer!
• 

  Roaring Lovely February 6, 2016 at 4:47am

  The true challenge in Darwinism is to explain the DETAILED step by step process that the organs went through from a given stage to another (just like explaining the process of transduction I illustrated above in detailed as opposed to the summarising hand waving). In each of the supposedly tiny intermidiate change, a Darwinist MUST show that the change is beneficial enough to make the leaving organism dorminant in the enviroment. So far, this is unanswered question in Darwinism. The dare 'go ask any question to Darwinist and get answeres' is a serious naivety! It shows that the person TRIVIALIZES the complexity in leaving things and doesn't understand what constitute a biological explanation (like I have illustrated it in phototransduction above). He probably have in mind explaing a mouse trap etc!!