Bitcoin Forum

THE EMERGENCE OF DOMESTICATED PLANTS (http://www.whale.to/b/pye1.html)

Nature is amoral. Nature knows nothing of good and evil. In nature there is one rule—survival of the fittest. There is no right, only might. If a creature is weak, kill it. Only human beings could have moral rules such as, "If it is weak, protect it." Only human beings can feel themselves ethically obligated to strangers.
...
Nature allows you to act naturally, i.e., do only what you want you to do, without moral restraints; God does not. Nature lets you act naturally - and it is as natural to kill, rape, and enslave as it is to love.
...
One of the vital elements in the ethical monotheist revolution was its repudiation of nature as god. The evolution of civilization and morality have depended in large part on desanctifying nature.
...
Civilizations that equated gods with nature—a characteristic of all primitive societies—or that worshipped nature did not evolve.
...
Words cannot convey the magnitude of the change wrought by the Bible's introduction into the world of a God who rules the universe morally.

According to the genetic and paleontological record, we only started to leave Africa between 60,000 and 70,000 years ago. What set this in motion is uncertain, but we think it has something to do with major climatic shifts that were happening around that time—a sudden cooling in the Earth’s climate driven by the onset of one of the worst parts of the last Ice Age. This cold snap would have made life difficult for our African ancestors, and the genetic evidence points to a sharp reduction in population size around this time. In fact, the human population likely dropped to fewer than 10,000. We were holding on by a thread.

The authors found genetic evidence for a surge in human population size about 40,000 to 50,000 years ago. This period, just after humans first set foot outside Africa, is of great interest to archaeologists because it coincides with a dramatic increase in the sophistication of human behavior. People began crafting tools from bone, burying their dead and fashioning clothing to keep themselves warm in cool climates. They developed complex hunting techniques, and created great works of art in the form of cave paintings and jewelery.

The archaeological record also shows that during this time, humans began hunting more dangerous prey and more easily exploiting small game like rabbits and birds. They traveled farther than they had before, perhaps due to the growth of long-distance trade routes – the first of their kind. Jared Diamond, author of The Third Chimpanzee, calls this period “The Great Leap Forward,” when humans burst forth culturally – finally separating themselves from their evolutionary cousins.
The exact cause for these changes in human behavior may never be known. Some believe a simple genetic mutation or that the evolution of language could have sparked such a dramatic change. But what we do know now, thanks to this new genetic research, is that like the (much later) invention of agriculture this explosion of innovation was accompanied by population growth.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” 23 So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

Mechanism of Intervention
What is the mechanism of intervention? It could of course be direct intervention from God suspending cause and effect. Another possibility is advanced technology. If the mechanism was technology the entity or entities performing the intervention would probably have certain proprieties.

1) They would probably not be native to our solar system.
2) They would likely be immortal or nearly immortal because of #1 above.
3) They would exist primarily in the mental realm the world of ideas, logic, and spirit because of #2 above making their connection with the physical world secondary.

Intervention theory may blur the line between the extraterrestrial and the angelic. It leads us to the possibility that monotheism may be the religion of angels given as gift.

Perhaps God’s Justice decreed that man must die but God’s Mercy intervened.

mentioned in Pye's article, yes?

No divine intervention is necessary. What exists now is what didn't die. You are not factoring in all those things that died. We are just one rare random thing. No big deal. Many rare random things died along the way. Some random thing was going to exist and we just happen to be it.

CoinCube don't lose your math objectivity. You'll never be able to prove God exists. It will always be a tautology. But don't worry because our existence is also a tautology ;) Even the speed-of-light is what ever we think it is, totally arbitrary figment of our measurement precision. I will blog on this if I have time.

I sing this to myself when my cat sleeps on my siblings beds instead of mine

...

So now my question is this: how can we communicate with the angelic beings? What language do they use in the world of the spirit? And what about the teachings that come from those who claim to give voice to these speakers? Is there any one who is a valid speaker for the angels?

Before Adam sinned, he was on a much higher level than contemporary man. In that state, man was on a very lofty level, fit for a high degree of eternal excellence. If he had not sinned, man would simply have been able to elevate and perfect himself, step by step.

He would then give birth to future generations while still in that state of excellence. Their number would be accurately determined by God's wisdom, depending on how those enjoying his good should best be perfected. All these future generation would have shared this good with Adam.

God had also determined and decreed that all these generations would have been born of Adam should exist on various determined levels. Some generations would be primary, while others would be secondary, like roots and branches. Later generations would stem from the earlier ones [and share their characteristics], like branches stemming from a tree. The number of trees and branches, however, was determined from the very beginning with the utmost precision.

When Adam sinned, he fell from his original high level, and brought upon himself a great degree of darkness and insensitivity. Mankind in general also fell from its original height, and remained on a degraded level where it was not at all worthy of the eternal high degree of excellence originally destined for it.

But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the "abominable mystery" of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them..
                        ^
   Because they turned into oil or coal  ;)..

<>

CoinCube don't lose your math objectivity. You'll never be able to prove God exists. It will always be a tautology. But don't worry because our existence is also a tautology ;) Even the speed-of-light is what ever we think it is, totally arbitrary figment of our measurement precision. I will blog on this if I have time.

Whomever or Whatever made all this universe is still the question. And with that question, no answers are really found in this "alternative" thread. Only more questions.

Objectivity is important. But I am not trying to prove God exists at least not in this thread. BADecker pointed out upthread.


God's true nature cannot be understood by any being other then himself. Angels, however, are entities of a significantly lower level. It is possible that their natures can be fully understood. The OP explores the possible nature, motivations, and actions of angels.

There is zero evidence that any god or alien intervened at any point in history... none, zero, zip, zilch

Spendulus:
That is a grossly ignorant and lazy analysis of the facts being presented.
.....

There is no "Creation Theory." Creationism is not a theory at all. It is a religiously based assertion with no basis in fact.

...
3. The article make more assumptions, that what it calls "directed crossbreeding" is an incredibly technical process, that couldn't have been achieved by "primitive barbarians". In fact, this crossbreeding would have almost certainly started in the form of artificial selection/selective breeding, and is actually a very simple and easy concept to observe. I have no doubt that primitive humans that were capable of planting crops could have started selective breeding within a few generations. If a beneficial mutation occurred in a plant (higher yield/larger fruit etc) then this knowledge could have been applied straight away to exploit the mutation, creating huge amounts of crops even within a single human generation.

Another relevant theory (which I think you touch on in your post) is the population explosion and more sophisticated behaviour in humans that occurred about 50,000 years ago. Is it not much more plausible that this increase in population, intelligence and social sophistication allowed humans to start experimenting with plants, noting which ones grew well in certain conditions etc? There is strong evidence for their hunting techniques improving at this time, and if we look at some ancient tribes, they have incredibly specific knowledge about the plants and animals that inhabit their environment.

So to sum up, although your theory is certainly an interesting one, I don't believe there is anywhere near enough evidence for it. You are showing strong signs of confirmation bias, trying to fit selective evidence and theories into what I suspect is some sort of religious/supernatural worldview.

in 1837 the Botanical Garden in St Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying, because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lies the most embarrassing conundrum botanists face.

portokol I believe your challenges are fair. Furthermore Spendulus refuses to proceed past the initial posits rejecting them as false. The augments above of course assumes the initial two posits are true.

1) That's there was outside intervention between 5,000-10,000 years ago whose end result was to stabilize and improve man's food supply.
2) That biblical events surrounding the beginnings of monotheism the exodus from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc are fact.

I believe the conclusion I draw is the most logical one if we assumes the initial posits true. Obviously, each posit could and should be challenged. I am not in a position to defend the first as I am not a botanist or terribly familiar with the body of knowledge surrounding that field. I took the quote above from qwik2learn so we will have to rely upon him to defend the science behind it.

However, your argument that human intelligence alone led to the changes in crops carries its own assumptions. 1) that such a process would not be difficult for primitive man and would occur with limited effort or 2) that early humans were very intelligent and perceptive able to accomplish great tasks of observation and intellect with limited resources.

Similarly, the early miracles in the bible are reported as being witnessed by the entire Jewish people and would be beyond the abilities of early man to fake. If we assume that they never happened we must assume that bible is a giant fake given to a gullible Jewish people complete with fabricated history and miracles. For this to be true we must assume 1) That Early Man was very dumb and suggestible, or 2) The Jewish people in particular are dumb and suggestible.

We can rule out the Jewish people being particularly dumb as they are on record as having the highest recorded IQ of any racial group. Therefore the only combinations of assumptions that allows one to reject both posits are.

1) Selective breeding converting wild time plants into currently domesticated plants is not a difficult process and would well within the abilities of primitive man.
2) Early Man was very dumb and suggestible.    

However, qwik2learn's argues above that the botanical literature suggests that such a process of selective breeding is not a simple one.  Indeed that it is so hard that we find it either very difficult or impossible to replicate.


I find that very interesting. I agree it is certainly not proof but it is interesting.

You accuse me of confirmation bias. I would challenge you to show me an example of such bias. Up thread I presented an argument that rationally follow from its starting posits.

You accuse me of a supernatural/religious worldview when I have already shared my worldview elsewhere. I believe that atheism is fundamentally poisonous and that the data on human health and reproduction support this view. I have highlighted this data in the Health and Religion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.0) thread. Other then a rejection of atheism as unhealthy I have an open mind. I am not an adherent of any mainstream or alternative religious group. I am perhaps sympathetic to Torah observant Judaism but I am neither Torah observant nor Jewish.

...There isn't enough evidence to consider them plausible enough to formulate serious theories around, when compared to the huge amount of hard biological and historical evidence. Even discussing them in a "thought experiment" way is kind of pointless IMO...
...

I might consider reading some more into this if any good evidence arises.

At the end of the last Ice Age, people in many spots around the globe shifted from hunting animals and gathering fruits and tubers to cultivating livestock and plants.

It seems so straightforward and yet the more scientists learn, the more complex the story becomes. Recently, geneticists and archeologists working on domestication compared notes and up popped a question of timing. Did domesticating a plant typically take a few hundred or many thousands of years?
...
finding these alleles in the first place must have been difficult, Olsen said. Only a subset of the genes in the wild population would have reliably produced a favored trait regardless of the crop variety into which they were bred and regardless of where that crop was grown. So the early stages of domestication might have been beset by setbacks and incomprehensible failures that might help explain the lag in the archeological record.

"What we are learning suggests there's a whole lot of diversity out there in wild relatives of crop plants or even in landraces, varieties of plants and animals that are highly adapted to local conditions," Olsen said, "that wasn't tapped during the domestication process."
...
Farmers seem to have selected for plant variants that were insensitive to epistatic and environmental interactions.
...
In the limited number of examples at their disposal, the scientists found it to be generally true that that domesticated alleles were less sensitive to genetic background than wild alleles. The domestication genes, in other words, tended to be ones that would produce the same result even if they were introduced into a different crop variety.

Unlike companion-animal breeders, early farmers seem to have selected domestication-gene alleles that are insensitive to genetic background and to the environment. This process would have been slow, unrewarding and difficult to understand, because the effects of gene variants on the plant weren't stable. But once sensitive alleles had been replaced with robust ones, breeders would have been able to exert strong selection pressure on plant traits, shaping them much more easily than before, and the pace of domestication would have picked up.

I think it's likely that the changes in human intelligence and society, that evidence shows happened around 50,000 years ago, would have an accelerating impact on the knowledge and skills required to hunt, gather and farm. Information passed on from generation to generation, and being improved all the time.

Clever people often believe ridiculous things. Doesn't mean they can't perform basic observation and communication to their piers, e.g. "keep the seeds from the juiciest plants and plant them next year, throw away the seeds from the weakest plants". It's really not that hard, right?

However I would re-stress the fact that many of the staple grains and fruits farmed 10-20,000 years ago and eaten by early humans could have been freak beneficial mutations, that were then exploited through selective breeding. We are talking on much larger timescales here (~10,000 years) than the 100 or so years that this stuff has actually been academically studied, so obviously less natural mutations could occur.

<>

However it was done, it wasn't by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors.) But with animals, something more 'something ineffable' must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to our intelligence.

they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables...
...
Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, yet in the past 5,000 years, no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were "created" by the earliest farmers all around the world.
...
As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen and picked up and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously...

To domesticate a wild grass like rye or any wild grain or cereal (which was done time and again by our Neolithic forebears), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of "rachises" and "glumes"...

That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself...

However it was done, it wasn't by crossbreeding...

The human animal evolved to eat every animal or plant that wasn't actually toxic (and, after simple treatments, some that to greater or lesser degree were). Seeds are a rich store of energy, some have good protein levels, vitamins (especially vitamin E), minerals, and protective phytochemicals. Living as wild animals for the last million years or so, we ate every seed that was worth collecting,  grass seed, legume (bean-like, pea -like, peanut and others), and any other seeds that were sustaining and productive, or big enough to be worth bothering with.
..
No reasonable energy source was ignored, and wild seeds were no exception. Indeed, grindstones with adherent plant starch from before 160,000 years ago - when the first recognisably modern humans appear in the fossil record - may have been used to grind grass seeds [ref]. We, of course, ate every non-toxic seed (including tree seeds) present in the environment we had moved into. There are many plants with edible seeds in the various climatic zones of Africa, but relatively few have big enough seeds, or are productive enough, to be worth expending the energy which are nicer to eat, easier to store, and require no preparation.

Accessing the Nutrients in seeds

While grubs, meat, tubers, fish and plant foliage can be eaten raw, all these things are physically easier to eat cooked, or cause intestinal disturbance if they are not cooked. Seeds are no different.
While you 'could' eat whole rice grass seeds (for example) without parching them first, only about 25% of the proteins are able to be digested. Cook the whole seed, and about 65% of the protein is available. Grinding raw rice seeds would probably make more than 25% available, but equally, grinding and cooking would likely improve protein availablity beyond 65%. The cultural evolution of both grinding and cooking seeds brought evolutionary advantage in the form of greater access to protein  - at least, for those tribal groups who had the technology.

Grass seeds, in particular, had to be heat 'parched' anyway, to get rid of the adherent woody 'chaff' covering the seed (later, with domestication, this chaff became easy to remove by beating). So a degree of 'cooking' was more necessary than a choice.

A few seeds have somewhat less protein digestability after cooking, but they are the exception. You would have to cook grass seeds at 200-280°C (392-536°F) to reduce rather than improve, their protein digestibility. Meat protein digestibility, in comparison, decreases when cooking is above only 100°C (212°F).

Seeds contain 'antinutrients' - substances such as saponins, tannins, 'protein splitting enzymes' inhibitors, and phytates. These compounds reduce the body's ability to access the nutrients in seeds. The type, and amount of anti-nutrient varies both with the species of plant, and with the local variety of the species (common beans, Phaseolus vulgaris, for example, have a wide range of  phytic acid and tannin concentrations - with white seeded beans having least tannins-depending on the variety). Some have several different anti-nutrients, some have few, some have relatively a 'lot' of any one anti-nutrient, some have very little.

Most, but not all, antinutrients are destroyed or reduced by cooking. Soaking and leaching are necessary to reduce some antinutrients, particulalry in some varieties of bean and other legumes. Soaking and sprouting seeds also reduces phytates. Soybeans, for example, contain a contain a 'tryptophane inhibiter' that interferes with the absorbtion of the amino acid 'tryptophane'. The inhibitor can be neutralized both by cooking and by sprouting (the sprouted root must be 3 to 4 inches long for this to be largely complete).

A very low percentage of the starches in some seeds 'resist' being digested ( up to 7%  for wheat, and oats and 20% for baked beans) These undigested starches are fermented by the microflora of the colon, producing variable quantities of gas.

Guided by the practices of recent African gatherer-hunters, it seems likely our African ancestors mainly dealt with anti-nutritional factors by roasting the seeds. Sometimes they were soaked as well, either before or after roasting (and grinding). These are classic techniques that we use even today when preparing legumes; although westerners rarely roast any other than peanut seeds, and occasionally soya seeds.
...
In parts of Australia, the aboriginal people regularly harvested wild grass seeds (chiefly a wild 'millet', Panicum spp.), and it is likely that given time, they would have domesticated them. Indigenous tribespeople of the grasslands of Southern South America gathered grass seeds for food, and even brought one species of brome grass into cultivation. In Mexico, one of the local 'panic grasses' (Panicum spp., a kind of 'millet') was collected, and ultimately, domesticated. Palaeanthropologists have found 19,000 year old stone mortars for grinding grain show that wild grains were not just parched, but processed, from at least since that time.[ref]
Saharan wild grass harvest There is a lovely cave art picture of women gathering wild grasses in the once productive Sahara region of Africa at the Paleologos site (www.paleologos.com).

Our ancestors probably parched the whole grains on ember-heated stones (this would have burnt off the adherent husks around the seed), and made a dough from the cooked flour (Tibetan people today eat a dough from roasted barley flour mixed with tea and yak butter and formed into a ball - tsampa). Such doughs laid on hot stones or embers would have made the first unleavened 'bread' . Or the roasted flour could perhaps have been mixed with water to make a thin 'porridge'.

http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_grains_beans_seeds.htm

We should remember that our ancestors 10,000 ago were just as smart as we are today. They lacked only formal education and the history of prior discovery that we have. They would have put considerable thought into their sources of food and later their crops as this was literally a matter of life and death. I agree that the process of converting wild plants into domesticated crops is dauntingly complex requiring drastic and multiple genetic changes. I am not yet convinced that it could not have been achieved by sustained and selective breeding over a 5,000 year window.

There is likewise no arguing the fact that nearly all modern domesticated plants appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago and since then there have been few new staple crops. However, this could also be explained by the fact that perhaps it takes two to three thousand years of dedicated and selective breeding to achieve the large changes that we see. Such a process may be very labor intensive requiring detailed examination of each and every plant every single generation with decisions made regarding which plants to use the following generations. It would have to be sustained over generations and this level of vigilance would only occur if existence itself depended on it. Once success was achieved with a few crops it would be inefficient to repeat the process from scratch with new plants when better results would be achieved by building on past success for the reasons outlined in my post above.

Yes changing wild plants into their current highly optimized crops required modifications of entire suites of genes. Yes it would be very difficult to accomplish even today if we tried to repeat the feet. However, the time scales involved here are vastly different. For ancient man we are talking about multiple thousands of years to achieve results. That is a very different undertaking than trying to repeat that multi thousand year process in a year or two.

....such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years.....

It's no different than the meticulous records for millenia kept to enable predicting eclipses of the sun and moon.

A lot of people have difficulty understanding that "primitive yeomen" were as smart as you or I.

But they were.

Not even you or I are smart enough to breed a domesticated plant from a wild variety.

This feat was achieved numerous times in eight different geographic areas with many different plant varieties, and "Once the advantages of growing these 'new technology' seeds was apparent, wild harvesting (and thus the possibility of domestication) of other equally promising species effectively ended", so to think that this happened independently and with numerous wild species throughout man's history is really stretching credulity. The odds of a beneficial mutation are already astonishingly small; this definitely sounds like another Darwinian "just-so story".
...
there is no way for early man to know that existence itself depended on his long-term experimental breeding program. Many groups of people in eight different geographic areas would ALL have had to know this fact. Then, once the plants were domesticated all of the world's people would have had to forget this fact and stop passing it down through oral traditions.
...
take a look at the wild rye in Russia; they have been trying for 150 years to make a notable change in the plant and it still has not yet appeared; this is already an entire human generation. I can tell that you have no evidence that a multi-thousand year breeding operation will do any better a job than a 150-year operation.
...

Even if early humans were smarter than us (see their Ancient Stone Tech), it is not likely that they would labor at something like this for generations with little reward and succeed in such rapid time; it is implied that the alleles were selected with expert precision despite the inability of early man to examine anything more than the plant's phenotype: "early farmers seem to have selected domestication-gene alleles that are insensitive to genetic background and to the environment. This process would have been slow, unrewarding and difficult to understand, because the effects of gene variants on the plant weren't stable. "

OK, so there are a lot of miracles involved, but that is basically what Darwinian theory demands from its believers: Just believe in the pre-existing freak beneficial mutations (they are just waiting to be activated by a clever breeder), the intelligence of early man (who is globally engaged in long-term experimental biology), add time and luck as "fudge factors" due to the lack of hard evidence and voila! Any trained Darwinist can now EASILY see how humans would have done this without ever remembering that they were smart enough to do so!

"But once sensitive alleles had been replaced with robust ones, breeders would have been able to exert strong selection pressure on plant traits, shaping them much more easily than before, and the pace of domestication would have picked up."

This implies that there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen in eight geographical areas over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because, in each case, in each area, someone actually had to look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they somehow had to ensure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that [typically] put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future.

...
What if EVERYTHING were domesticated back in prehistory, and there were no "aliens" or whatever to improve things. What if the closest to this were only demons that caused complex domesticated things to become wild.

If there was an intervention we should see genetic changes to crops that vastly exceed the rate of change if these plants had be subjected to pressure via selective breeding alone. I would be interested to know if this is the case.

Not even you or I are smart enough to breed a domesticated plant from a wild variety.

You are actually trying to make something out of nothing.

What is wrong with finding examples of domestication and asking questions about these traits?

They were originally bred to herd as well as guard flocks of sheep. And they were often left to their own devices in order to accomplish their assigned tasks. This makes the Briard different from those breeds that only guard and those that only herd.

The argument above seems to assume that a massive change in wild plants is required before they could provide any degree of nutrition to early man. However, is this really the case? The source below argues that even the wild ancestors of modern crops were eaten extensively by early man despite the difficulty in preparing them. If this is correct the wild grasses and grains did "put food on the table" just not nearly as much as their current domesticated descendants.

http://www.naturalhub.com/natural_food_guide_grains_beans_seeds.htm


We should remember that our ancestors 10,000 ago were just as smart as we are today. They lacked only formal education and the history of prior discovery that we have. They would have put considerable thought into their sources of food and later their crops as this was literally a matter of life and death. I agree that the process of converting wild plants into domesticated crops is dauntingly complex requiring drastic and multiple genetic changes. I am not yet convinced that it could not have been achieved by sustained and selective breeding over a 5,000 year window.

There is likewise no arguing the fact that nearly all modern domesticated plants appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago and since then there have been few new staple crops. However, this could also be explained by the fact that perhaps it takes two to three thousand years of dedicated and selective breeding to achieve the large changes that we see. Such a process may be very labor intensive requiring detailed examination of each and every plant every single generation with decisions made regarding which plants to use the following generations. It would have to be sustained over generations and this level of vigilance would only occur if existence itself depended on it. Once success was achieved with a few crops it would be inefficient to repeat the process from scratch with new plants when better results would be achieved by building on past success for the reasons outlined in my post above.

Yes changing wild plants into their current highly optimized crops required modifications of entire suites of genes. Yes it would be very difficult to accomplish even today if we tried to repeat the feet. However, the time scales involved here are vastly different. For ancient man we are talking about multiple thousands of years to achieve results. That is a very different undertaking than trying to repeat that multi thousand year process in a year or two.

There is ample evidence for it.

The more I think about it, the more I see that God created everything tame and domesticated, under the complete control of mankind. Then sin came, and many (most?) things turned wild. As usual, science has it backward.

8)

Doesn't 'ample evidence' equate to 'fact'?

Not sure I would agree in with the underlined part. We are told God's first instructions to man are "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it:"

Subdue implies a process dominion yes but not necessarily without effort.

Well, if you think that the Sumerian records are mainly a matter of interpretation and cannot be regarded as evidence then there is still other evidence for you to look at, so you can simply come back around to studying the meaning of the ancient records later...

Fun stuff. And fun stuff is, well, just that... fun stuff. But this fun stuff seeks to avoid the questions of where it all came from.

Probability math shows us that evolution is impossible beyond any hint of a possibility. So, where did everything come from? especially life, which is extremely complex?

Whomever or Whatever made all this universe is still the question. And with that question, no answers are really found in this "alternative" thread. Only more questions.

Cause and effect, complexity and entropy still prove God. But even if they didn't, nature shows God. So, we are right back at the same point as before. Darwinism is a failure, and God is the Ruler of the universe.

8)

i completely disagree with you.. nobody can know who is the ruler of the whole universe. none of the scientist or any religious books can prove whether there is a god or not. i hope somebody will prove the existence of god scientifically .After that, we can believe in god.

I would agree. Too strong of a statement. We can't even kill all the plants and animals off.

8)

Also relevant is that in the Garden of Eden man was told that he was to eat from every herb bearing seed upon the face of all the earth, and every tree in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed.

It was only after he had sinned was he told that he would eat the herb of the field.

Who or what were the vegetables for in pre-sin times?

8)

Most monkeys are omnivores. They love eating ripe fruits and seeds, but they also eat vegetables. Besides bark and leaves, they eat honey and flowers as well. The howler monkey is known as the loudest land animal. You can hear their loud calls even when you are 3 miles away from them in jungles. They are strictly vegetarians and enjoy eating small, young, tender leaves by hanging upside down from their tails. Their diet consists of fresh fruits like yams, bananas, grapes, and green vegetables. Various plants in the canopy layer of the rainforests act as cups and store water for them. Facts about monkeys inform us that they use their lips and hands skillfully to eat only those parts of vegetation which they want. All monkeys wander in search of food during the day,

I suspect some logical extrapolation is expected.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/what-do-monkeys-eat.html

BADecker and logic never goes together

If we have gotten any intervention, then it's been from aliens.

As in "Highlander," there can be only one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009045.msg16385964#msg16385964

8)

Intervention Theory in regards to plant domestication is a bold claim. It is a factual claim and one that with time and study we should be able to find increasing and objective evidence for one way or another. As we lack definitive data currently it is not unreasonable for most to support the status quo of modern biology.

However, I also believe it unwise to totally reject the theoretical possibility of intervention theory. Our overall knowledge is limited. Until the history of crop domestication is fully understood one cannot completely rule it out.

the very nature of things shows a gradual breaking down of complexity.

If we consider each lifeform in isolation, then a lifeform appears to be dissipative because energy is input and order is increased in the form of aggregating chemical structures (which comprise the body of that lifeform) that comprise higher energy states than their decompositions.

But that doesn't describe life (as distinct from lifeform) at all. These highly ordered lifeforms are interacting to create the much higher information system of evolution. Each lifeform alone is insignificant to anything on any significant scale, yet evolution has given human society the information content to travel across the solar system in outer space. No single lifeform could have attained that entropy/capability (read on...).

Entropy is not some vague concept. It has a precise mathematical definition which is the sum of the logarithmic relation of the number and probability of the possible configurations (a.k.a. states) in the system, i.e. it is measure of the granularity and uniformness of possibilities in the system, i.e. the availability to fitness (to receive work) of the system.  Mankind could not have achieved such amazing feats without a much larger scope of capability states and more distributed probabilities within that scope. In other words, if all lifeforms were capable of doing only one thing, mankind can't accomplish many things. If lifeforms can't interact to form higher information content, then their input to evolution can be lost and the information content decreases.

If you only focus on the biological lifeforms, you miss the entropic force. Biological lifeforms considered only physically and in isolation from the network effects (and memory of evolution) is just a zero sum game if without the entropic relationship. It is akin to focusing only on the actors of the system and treating the interaction of lifeforms (not in the physical but in the informational and evolutionary memory perspective) here on earth as a closed thermodynamic system.Thermodynamics tells us that entropy depends not only on the net flow of energy but also the work dissipated external to the system. The information content of evolution is orthogonal to the physical work done on earth, so all the energy being input is also being dissipated out of the open information system of evolution.

Considering only lifeforms is as silly as saying the entropy of a software program doesn't increase as its Kolmogorov complexity increases. it is irrelevant that the physical manifestation of that knowledge is highly ordered in the physical world where it is stored or represented. The information content has increased. Any one claims there isn't an interaction between that information content and the real physical world is loony and denies the obvious.

Edit: what is interesting to me is how information content increases as the physical thermodynamics becomes more and more indirectly coupled to the system of the information content. One typically thinks of entropy as decay or decomposition but this process is coincident with an increase in information capacity as the potential number of independent states is greater the less mass/inertia is involved. Again if Professor Stolfi only wants to count atoms, then there is nothing for us to talk about. To argue that the information content of software or evolution doesn't interact with the physical realm doesn't make any sense to me. To argue that information content is bounded by atoms of the lifeforms doesn't make any sense as well, and probably if I take some time to formalize it I will be able to. Heading this direction will likely lead to some unifying discoveries in Physics such as the recent discovery that gravity can be shown mathematically to emerge from the entropic force.

I would argue that this statement is false.  

We would be wise to consider entropy from the perspective of information theory.
This approach likely takes us closest to what entropy actually is rather then simple physical manifestations of it.  
According to information theory entropy is a measure of unpredictability of information content.  

see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(information_theory)

How does this apply to life and a gradual breaking down of complexity? Here is a nice post from Anonymint where he analyzes this.

Intertwined throughout the thinking of the author(s) of the Wikipedia article, and other authors listed above, is the idea of evolution. You don't need me to do an Internet search on probability math regarding evolution. Even if evolution probability, were possible probability math-wise, it wouldn't be as probable as abiogenesis.

Probability of what? That we arrived here as we are now due to evolutionary advance?

I (and I am AnonyMint) think that is entirely the wrong way to look at it. We could simply be one of the innumerable (quadrillions or higher) of variants of outcomes that exist in the universe. It doesn't require any probable advance from tadpoles to monkeys to learning to use our thumbs and stand up, rather it is just is.

Complexity is increasing because the number of variants in the universe is always increasing. That doesn't mean the probability of a subsequent variant is increasing, because the Verlinde entropic force is greater for matter that is in "proximity" (meaning more generally I think resonant and this is a direction I want to go with future research and thought but no time right now). Thus from any relative perspective, the probability of perceiving any specific variant is decreasing, while the complexity of variants which exist but are only omnisciently perceived, is increasing. So afaics "evolution" and omniscient creation would not be incongruent.

The key is unifying relativism together with the concept of entropy. I think this is the missing link that the researchers need to pursue. It is not enough to say the entropy has increased, if it isn't qualified relative to what. Then we end up with infinite recursion (two mirrors facing each other), which is a more accurate model of a universe that has no perception of its bound (in time, space, etc).

Theories come from people who make theories. There are loads of potential theories that simply haven't been made yet, some of which will never be made, simply because nobody makes them.

The fact that creation existed is shown by entropy theory, and the fact that high complexity exists. If there were no creation... if everything had always existed... entropy would have reduced complexity in the universe to a blob of super simplicity long ago.

8)

Theories come from careful observations and known facts. People just don't nilly willy make theories.

What you say is the way that it is suppose to work. But what is behind the theory making? Isn't it the desire to lay down a base of examination, to find facts in a certain area, the area of the theory? This means that the person who makes the theory is often clouded by his own desires to find a theory that fits the things that he wants them to fit. Because of this, he often ignores a whole lot of things that would make the theory to be ridiculous if he had considered them.

The example? Science would become a whole lot more logical and accurate if scientists who make theories would do two simple, little things:
1. In all their theory making, take into account that cause and effect is a law of the universe, upheld by Newton's 3rd LAW, and recognize the significance of it;
2. Recognize the fact that probability math negates the possibility of evolution.

Want two examples of science theory that should not fall into the realm of theory at all, because they don't fit the theory process? Big Bang Theory and Black Hole Theory. Neither of these theories should be theories because neither will ever be able to be proven to be fact or not. Yet they are very popular theories... so popular that thousands of people believe them even though they can never be proven to be true or false. When people believe something that can never be proven, they have a religion for themselves. Religion is what science has become, but it was never meant to be that way.

8)

The first sightings occurred in November 1944, when pilots flying over Germany by night reported seeing fast-moving round glowing objects following their aircraft. The objects were variously described as fiery, and glowing red, white, or orange. Some pilots described them as resembling Christmas tree lights and reported that they seemed to toy with the aircraft, making wild turns before simply vanishing. Pilots and aircrew reported that the objects flew formation with their aircraft and behaved as if under intelligent control, but never displayed hostile behavior. However, they could not be outmaneuvered or shot down. The phenomenon was so widespread that the lights earned a name – in the European Theater of Operations they were often called "kraut fireballs" but for the most part called "foo-fighters". The military took the sightings seriously, suspecting that the mysterious sightings might be secret German weapons, but further investigation revealed that German and Japanese pilots had reported similar sightings

The X-10 Graphite Reactor was the first reactor designed and built for continuous operation. It was built during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project... The reactor went critical on November 4, 1943, and produced its first plutonium in early 1944. It supplied the Los Alamos Laboratory with its first significant amounts of plutonium, and its first reactor-bred product. Studies of these samples heavily influenced bomb design.

A ban on nuclear reactors in orbit could be verified using the tremendous flux of gamma rays and positrons that such reactors emit when operating. Indeed, these radiations already constitute a significant background for orbiting gamma-ray
astronomical satellites.

In this paper, we estimate the gamma-ray flux from reactors on spacecraft, using the design parameters for the US SP-100 space reactor as an example. We then summarize the sensitivities of several existing and planned gamma-ray detectors.

Green fireballs are a type of unidentified flying object which have been sighted in the sky since the late 1940s.[1] Early sightings primarily occurred in the southwestern United States, particularly in New Mexico.[2][3][4] They were once of notable concern to the US government because they were often clustered around sensitive research and military installations, such as Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratory, then Sandia base.

Meteor expert Dr. Lincoln LaPaz headed much of the investigation into the fireballs on behalf of the military. LaPaz's conclusion was that the objects displayed too many anomalous characteristics to be a type of meteor and instead were artificial, perhaps secret Russian spy devices... The green fireballs were seen by many people of high repute including LaPaz, distinguished Los Alamos scientists, Kirtland AFB intelligence officers and Air Command Defense personnel.[5] ...

Perhaps the most graphic example occurred during the "Buster series" of atomic tests on November 1 and 5, 1951, which were accompanied by so many reported green fireball sightings in states affected by fallout, that even the New York Times carried a story on November 9, "Southwest's 7 Fireballs in 11 Days Called 'Without Parallel in History'." Dr. LaPaz was widely quoted saying, "There has never been a rate of meteorite fall in history that has been one-fifth as high as the present fall. If that rate should continue, I would suspect the phenomenon is not natural... [they] don't behave like ordinary meteorites at all."

Initially the green fireballs were reported in Arizona and New Mexico as the fallout clouds left Nevada, but as the clouds spread out and drifted further east, south, and north, green fireball sightings then followed in Texas, northern Mexico, Iowa, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, and New York. Portions of the fallout also drifted west into the Los Angeles area on November 7, followed the next day by a green fireball sighting there...

Summarizing the rash of fireball sightings in November 1951, Wilson commented, "Some researchers imply that the radioactivity itself was producing the green fireballs, possibly as an electrostatic effect.

Wilson concluded, "We can make one statement of fact: the fireball sightings—green or otherwise—occurred in areas that received radioactive debris from Operation Buster. Was this just coincidence, or a planned occurrence? We simply don't know, so all we can do is to continue to collect data and see if some overwhelmingly convincing pattern emerges." Wilson nonetheless felt the evidence pointed to the fireballs being real, artificial, and those responsible having some sort of agenda."

Perhaps world war 2 pilot's where simply prone to seeing similar types of hallucinations.

UFO believers say it's no coincidence that aliens showed up very shortly after we'd developed atomic weapons and rocket technology, as this is when they were alerted to the threat we pose to the wider cosmos.
'Ironically, governments have sometimes secretly promoted belief in UFOs, because if someone sees a secret prototype aircraft or drone, it's much better to have it reported as a flying saucer than recognised for what it is,' said Pope.
'None of this is to say that there haven't been some genuinely fascinating and unexplained UFO sightings around nuclear facilities and military bases, but just because a UFO sighting is unexplained, it doesn't follow that it's extraterrestrial.'

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism, identifying Germans as part of what Nazis regarded as an Aryan or Nordic master race. It aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of "racial purity" (Volksgemeinschaft). The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine of Lebensraum, while excluding those deemed either to be community aliens or belonging to an "inferior" race.

Then the heavens broke. On the night of October 6-7, snow fell on the southern German spearhead and was subsequently followed by nearly a month of cold rain, mixed with snow, across the entire front. A seasonal shift in the regional storm track had begun pushing a series of Scandinavian Cyclones into the greater Moscow region. These intermittent snow and rain squalls, driven by strong northeastern winds, frequently grounded the two German air fleets supporting the offensive. More ominously, when coupled with the much lower fall evaporation rates, this steady wintry mix soon turned the area‘s few existing roads into quagmires.

The entire German army was completely stopped by mud. The muddy season of that year began in mid-October and was more severe than any other muddy season experienced in World War I or World War II. During the first stages cart and dirt roads were impassable, and then the road from Roslavl to Orel became mud-choked. Supply trucks broke through gravel-top roads and churned up traffic lanes until even courier service had to be carried out with tracked vehicles. Finally only horse-drawn vehicles could move; all other transport and the bulk of the tanks and artillery were stopped dead…

Motor vehicles broke down with clutch or motor trouble. Horses became exhausted and collapsed. Roads were littered with dead draft animals. Few tanks were serviceable….

Second Panzer Group… lost 60 percent of its tanks in mud. A division of Fourth Panzer Group, operating in the area north of Gzhatsk during the same period, lost fifty tanks without a shot being fired…no replacements were received. Germany at that time was producing only eighty-five tanks monthly… Tanks, heavy wreckers, and even vehicles with good ground clearance simply push an ever-growing wall of mud before them until they finally stop, half buried by their own motion. A sudden frost in the autumn of 1941 cemented a crippled, buried column into a state of complete uselessness, and it never moved again.

Cold reduced the efficiency of German locomotives which had been built for the milder temperatures of Central Europe. During the first winter of the war 70 percent of the German locomotives broke down In the winter of 1941-12, sometimes only one third, and frequently less, of the daily quota of twenty-eight trains got through to Army Group Center. The German Second Army and Second Panzer Army together required eighteen supply trains a day and received only two. In November 1941 these armies were unable to take Tula because their supply system had broken down. Even the most critical supplies did not reach the front in time…

Paralyzed by cold, the German troops could not aim their rifle fire, and bolt mechanisms jammed or strikers shattered in the bitter winter weather. Machine guns became encrusted with ice, recoil liquid froze in guns, ammunition supply failed. Mortar shells detonated in deep snow with a hollow, harmless thud, and mines were no longer reliable.

On 30 August 1941 two messages with the same indicator were intercepted, B.P. suspected that they had found a depth (A mistake where the Tunny operator does not reset the encryption between messages). As it turned out, the first transmission had been corrupted by atmospheric noise, and the message was resent at the request of the receiving operator. Had the sender repeated the message identically, the use of the same wheel settings would have left (the allies) none the wiser. However, in the course of the second transmission the sender introduced abbreviations and other minor deviations (the message was approximately 4000 characters long). So the depth consisted of two not-quite-identical plaintexts each encrypted by means of exactly the same sequence of key—a codebreaker’s dream. Tutte deduced the design of the Tunny machine from this pair of intercepts.

The stream of intelligence (from Tunny) proved vital at key junctures of the war. The Russians were warned three or four months in advance of a major German offensive, Operation Citadel, the Battle of Kursk in July 1943, which went down in history as the biggest ever tank battle. The Russians were told how the attack would be carried out – a pincer movement – as well as the numbers involved…Other intelligence enabled the Allies to ascertain German movements when planning D-Day, helping save thousands of lives.
Between 1943 and 1945, Roberts and the Testery codebreakers were accessing 90 per cent of the German traffic with, at a conservative estimate, around 64,000 top-line Tunny messages intercepted and broken. Sir Harry Hinsley, a Bletchley veteran and official historian of British Intelligence during the Second World War, has estimated that the intelligence shortened the war by at least two years

As of June 1941, Japanese companies had already obtained approved licenses for "7.1 million barrels of gasoline, 21.9 million barrels of crude oil, and 33,000 barrels of lubricants, altogether worth about $50 million," which meant that Japan could legally purchase from the United States "gasoline for another nine months and ordinary crude oil for an astonishing thirty-two months--enough to supply it until the end of 1943!". To Dean Acheson and some other hard-liners the idea of freezing Japanese assets became increasingly attractive, for a financial freeze by a single stroke of pen could cut U.S. exports to Japan to zero despite the approved licenses for oil purchase Japan had already obtained.

In response to Japanese troops' occupation of southern Indochina, Roosevelt wanted to impose "a dollar freeze that would subject all transactions with Japan to licensing", which gave the United States flexibility to decide later how much trade Japan should be allowed to resume based on its future behavior. According to the plan, the State Department and the Export Control Administration would continue to grant Japanese export licenses for oil, but a newly created three-man interdepartmental policy committee, the Foreign Funds Control Committee (FFCC), had to release funds for licensed exports.

Roosevelt, his trusted adviser Harry Hopkins and U.S. Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles were attending the shipboard conference off Newfoundland in and Secretary of State Cordell Hull was on vacation at the Greenbrier in West Virginia, the authority to grant licenses to export and pay for oil and other goods was left in the hands of a three-person interagency committee dominated by Assistant Secretary of State Dean Acheson, whom one historian described as the “quintessential opportunist of U.S. foreign policy in 1941.”

Acheson favored a “bullet-proof freeze” on oil shipments to Japan, claiming it would not provoke war because “no rational Japanese could believe that an attack on us could result in anything but disaster for his country.”

With breathtaking confidence in his own judgment, and ignoring the objections of others in the State Department, Acheson refused to grant licenses to Japan to pay for goods in dollars. That effectively ended Japan’s ability to ship oil and all other goods from the United States. Acheson’s actions cut off all American trade with Japan. When Roosevelt returned, he decided not to overturn the “state of affairs” initiated by Acheson, (possibly) because he feared he would otherwise be regarded as an appeaser.

Why Did God Not Stop The Holocaust?
I can only see three possible explanations. Either God refused to prevent this genocide, in which case he is a bastard who we should not worship and praise. Or he did not know about the genocide or could do nothing to prevent it, in which case there is no point worshiping him and praying to him. Or he does not exist and they would have been as well praying for fairies or unicorns to save them. Draw your own conclusions.

The late Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin, made a similar point, speaking at the Western Wall… (he) reminded his audience how close Hitler and Nazi Germany came to winning World War II. Had Hitler been successful, it would have meant the murder of not only six million European Jewish people, but could likely have led to the murder of virtually all the Jewish people around the globe.

The thing that defeated nazi germany on russian territory was pretty much the same thing that defeated napoleon some hundred years ago: the weather (and of course the russian army that needed time to rally).

Secret communication can be broken best example is the enigma.

The US entry into ww2 was nothing of a wonder it was more or less very obvious for all war parties (supporting allied powers with money, arms and soldiers while having economic sanctions and blockades against the axis powers).

All in all the war was very unlikely to be won after germany went into a 3 front war in the west, east and south in africa.
Germany itself has nearly no resources and could only run their war machinery by looting the invaded nations and getting help by swiss bankers who they used to sold their stolen goods (mostly gold) for foreign currency to buy war needed assets (historians say that probaly 75% went through switzerland).

There is a reason why people want to save their (illegal) money in swissbanks. And the reason is if even nazis could do good, secret and stable business in wartime their everyone else could too.

The German mistake

As the number of intercepts, now being made at Knockholt in Kent, increased a section was formed in Bletchley Park headed by Major Ralph Tester and known as the Testery. A number of Depths were intercepted but not much headway had been made into breaking the cipher until the Germans made one horrendous mistake. It was on 30 August 1941. A German operator had a long message of nearly 4,000 characters to be sent from one part of the German Army High command to another — probably Athens to Vienna. He correctly set up his Lorenz machine and then sent a twelve letter indicator, using the German names, to the operator at the receiving end. This operator then set his Lorenz machine and asked the operator at the sending end to start sending his message. After nearly 4,000 characters had been keyed in at the sending end, by hand, the operator at the receiving end sent back by radio the equivalent, in German, of "didn't get that — send it again".

They now both put their Lorenz machines back to the same start position. Absolutely forbidden, but they did it. The operator at the sending end then began to key in the message again, by hand. If he had been an automaton and used exactly the same key strokes as the first time then all the interceptors would have got would have been two identical copies of the cipher text. Input the same — machines generating the same obscuring characters — same cipher text. But being only human and being thoroughly disgusted at having to key it all again, the sending operator began to make differences in the second message compared to the first.

Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism

The best example of WW2 code breaking was the Tunny code for that was the more complex code used for high level communications. It was more secure then enigma which was for routine army communications. Less people know about Tunny because it was not declassified until 2002.

https://www.codesandciphers.org.uk/lorenz/fish.htm

The weather definitely played a huge role in the Nazi defeat but most people believe it was a normal Russian winter that so hindered the Germans when it was anything but normal. In fact it may have been the worst winter in the history of modern Russia. In was part of a global climate anomaly that led to warmer temperatures in the US especially Alaska and shockingly cold temperatures in Russia. Below is a study on that abnormality if you are interested.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1256/wea.248.04/asset/2005601203_ftp.pdf;jsessionid=5315F60F80655CFF39BD158D8AFF5E94.f03t04?v=1&t=iwtytht6&s=20cbb924f6b287ee48ab4b9d71231917c48a314a

The US entry eventually may not be a surprise but the speed of that entry is of note. It took the US three years to enter into WWI for example and public opinion was absolutely against US involvement in WWII. Pearl Harbor changed that calculus and accelerated US entry into the war by at least six months maybe more. Below is an analysis by a historian arguing that Roosevelt would not have gotten a declaration of War without Pearl Harbor.

http://www.historynet.com/would-fdr-have-gotten-a-declaration-of-war-without-pearl-harbor.htm

Whoever wrote this sentence gets an F-.  Anarchy is social Darwinism, while Nazism is group evolutionary strategy.  Jews practice Nazism themselves, they just call it "Zionism" or "Judaism" as a red herring when both groups practice the exact same thing:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_group_evolutionary_strategy

Whoever wrote this sentence gets an F-.  Anarchy is social Darwinism, while Nazism is group evolutionary strategy.  Jews practice Nazism themselves, they just call it "Zionism" or "Judaism" as a red herring when both groups practice the exact same thing:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Jewish_group_evolutionary_strategy

Because you implied (upthread) that we are not rational, when it is you who needs to do your homework. We already have.

And because you don't do your homework, you choose to destroy your free-will:


And we will let you do it. Please continue. You will reap what you sow.

The Jews sit outside the collectivism and anneal with it groupwise

Collectivism is the fault of those who participate in it

Most irrational thing I've ever read.  Jews are the most collectivist, borg-like, hive mind people on the planet.  This is why they're currently winning.  History is a lesson of individuals coming in contact with collectivist groups, who then force the individual into his own collectivist group in order to not be trampled.  

You attempted to take a contrarian viewpoint on the Jewish question out of some ego trip and failed miserably.  It's already been analyzed by millions of intelligent people before all coming to the same conclusion.

Collectivists are a threat to the freedom of the individual, but collectivists cannot be beaten without participating in an opposing collectivist group yourself.

It depends on how you define freedom. If being free means doing whatever you want, with no rules or limits whatsoever, then you are right. If I am only free as long as no one tells me what to do and I can follow my every whim and fancy, then being forbidden to eat bread is indeed an infringement of my "freedom."

But is that really freedom? Am I not then just a slave to my whims and fancies? What if my fancies are not really coming from me? Maybe I have desires that were placed in my head by others. Am I truly free if I follow those desires? What if I have instinctive drives that are harmful to myself? Can you call me free if I am bound by those drives? What about compulsive or addictive behavior? Bad habits? Can't you also be a slave to what you want?

Judaism defines freedom very differently. True freedom is the ability to express who you really are. If there are levels to your personality that have not been explored, if your soul has not had the opportunity to be expressed, then you are not yet free.

The Torah is the instruction manual to our souls. Even its seemingly restrictive laws are only there to allow us to tap in to our inner self. Because sometimes it is only through restrictions that our true self can come out.

A highly respected American rabbi named Dr. Irving “Yitz” Greenberg used to tell American Jewish audiences, whether Reform, Conservative Orthodox, “I don’t care what denomination you’re a member of, as long as you’re ashamed of it.”

I have adopted that phrase, and I apply it to religions generally. One could just as easily say to Catholics, Protestants and Muslims, “I don’t care what religion you identify with, as long as you’re ashamed of it.” Meaning, of course, you’re ashamed of what many of its members have done to it.
Just think of what has happened to much of mainstream Protestantism; to much of Catholicism, including, sadly, the current pope; and most especially, to the Islamic world.

Given the subject of this column — the destructive influence of leftism on Jews and Judaism — it is relevant to mention some of my Jewish involvement. Among other things, I taught Jewish history and religion at Brooklyn College, was the spokesman for the Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry, have written two books and hundreds of essays and columns on Jews and Judaism, received the American Jewish Press Association Louis Rapoport Award for Excellence in Jewish Commentary, have brought many thousands of Jews to Judaism and have lectured to more Jewish groups in the past 40 years than almost any living Jew.

So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.

The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Jews and their clergy at various synagogues around America were gathering to sit shiva — the Hebrew and Jewish term for the seven-day period of grieving that Jews engage in after the loss of an immediate relative — because Donald Trump was elected president.
Consider for a moment how childish and narcissistic this is, using the sacred ritual reserved for the death of one’s child or parent as a way to express disappointment over a presidential election.

And of course, there were the irresponsible, over-the-top outbursts by Jewish columnists and academics. Take Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank, who devoted his column after the election to writing an open letter to his 12-year-old daughter...

Add similar comments made during the election by other Jewish leftists in the media and academia, and you get the picture.

How are we to understand this?

Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

If left-wing Jews want to sit shiva, they should do so for their religion, which, like much of Protestant Christianity and Roman Catholicism, has been so deeply and negatively influenced by leftism.

My understanding is that the Judaism holds that personal responsibility and the Torah is the way to  achieve true freedom. They view the 10 commandments in particular as necessary restrictions to maintain a free society.

It appears you missed the class on Talmudic Judaism because everything you typed only pertains to Jews dealing with other Jews.  Non-Jews are referred to as "goyim", and are essentially cattle to be used as slaves.

It appears you missed the class on Talmudic Judaism because everything you typed only pertains to Jews dealing with other Jews.  Non-Jews are referred to as "goyim", and are essentially cattle to be used as slaves.

Here they are in a 1 minute clip flat out saying it as usual.  No, this is not even close to a one off; this is the norm:

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

II. The Charges
A. Non-Jews as Non-Human

Probably the most far-reaching claim made by anti-Talmud polemicists is that Judaism
views non-Jews as a subhuman species deserving only hatred and contempt from its
Jewish superiors.

The visceral hatred that Jews are alleged to bear for non-Jews is
proven, they claim, by a variety of statements in the Talmud and by Jewish law itself,
which purportedly encourages Jews to exploit their non-Jewish neighbors and engage in
criminal activities against them. Many go so far as to claim that Jews are intent on
subjugating non-Jews around the world and even on committing genocide against them.

In its long history, Judaism has had its share of bigots, racists and xenophobes, some of
whom expressed their prejudices in religious terms. In certain historical periods there
have even been Jewish sects whose worldview placed Jews higher than non-Jews in
inherent value. But normative Judaism has never diminished the essential humanity—
and the concomitant holiness, derived from the doctrine of creation in imago Dei—shared
by Jews and non-Jews alike. Based on verses in the biblical verses in Genesis 1:26-28,
the principle that all men and women are created in the image of God is codified in the
Mishnah (Avoth 3:14) and Talmud (Avoth 9b):

[רבי עקיבא] היה אומר: חביב אדם שנברא בצלם. חיבה יתרה נודעת לו שנברא בצלם,
שנאמר (בראשית ט:ו), "כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם."
[Rabbi Akiva] used to say, “Beloved is man, for he was created in God’s image; and the
fact that God made it known that man was created in His image is indicative of an even
greater love. As the verse states (Genesis 9:6), ‘In the image of God, man was created.’)”

This doctrine is echoed by one of the great rabbis of the twentieth century, Rabbi Joseph
B. Soloveitchik (Man of Faith in the Modern World, p. 74):

"Even as the Jew is moved by his private Sinaitic Covenant with God to embody
and preserve the teachings of the Torah, he is committed to the belief that all
mankind, of whatever color or creed, is “in His image” and is possessed of an
inherent human dignity and worthiness. Man’s singularity is derived from the
breath “He [God] breathed into his nostrils at the moment of creation” (Genesis
2:7). Thus, we do share in the universal historical experience, and God’s
providential concern does embrace all of humanity."

In the face of these Jewish doctrines expressing concern for men and women of all
religions, the attempts of anti-Semites to portray normative Judaism as bigoted and
hateful are revealed as thorough distortions of Jewish ethics.

Judaism maintains that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. This has been the majority rule since the days of the Talmud. Judaism generally recognizes that Christians and Moslems worship the same G-d that we do and those who follow the tenets of their religions can be considered righteous in the eyes of G-d.

Contrary to popular belief, Judaism does not maintain that Jews are better than other people. Although we refer to ourselves as G-d's chosen people, we do not believe that G-d chose the Jews because of any inherent superiority. According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 2b), G-d offered the Torah to all the nations of the earth, and the Jews were the only ones who accepted it. The story goes on to say that the Jews were offered the Torah last, and accepted it only because G-d held a mountain over their heads! (In Ex. 19:17, the words generally translated as "at the foot of the mountain" literally mean "underneath the mountain"!) Another traditional story suggests that G-d chose the Jewish nation because they were the lowliest of nations, and their success would be attributed to G-d's might rather than their own ability. Clearly, these are not the ideas of a people who think they are better than other nations.

Because of our acceptance of Torah, Jews have a special status in the eyes of G-d, but we lose that special status when we abandon Torah. Furthermore, the blessings that we received from G-d by accepting the Torah come with a high price: Jews have a greater responsibility than non-Jews. While non-Jews are only obligated to obey the seven commandments given to Noah, Jews are responsible for fulfilling the 613 mitzvot in the Torah, thus G-d will punish Jews for doing things that would not be a sin for non-Jews.

The truth about the Talmud and how it relates to Christians is a must-read; I am quoting from Chapter 4:
http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j025/

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

The first thing to know is that the Torah consists of two parts: The Written Torah, and the Oral Torah.

The Written Torah totals 24 books, including the Five Books of Moses and the prophetic writings – e.g. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Psalms, Proverbs, etc.

The Five Books of Moses – comprised of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy – was written down by Moses in 1273 BCE, and includes all 613 commandments (mitzvahs)....

(Jews consider it insulting to call it the Old Testament, as this implies a New Testament, which Jews reject.)...

So what is the Oral Torah? Its name derives from the fact that it was not allowed to be formally written down but had to be taught orally. It contains the explanations of the Written Torah...

In 190 CE, persecution and exile of the Jewish people threatened the proper transmission of the Oral Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi compiled written notes on the Oral Torah called the "Mishnah" (Hebrew for "teaching")...

In 500 CE, the Jewish people again suffered an uprooting of their communities, and two Babylonian rabbis – Rav Ashi and Ravina – compiled a 60-volume record of rabbinic discussions on the Mishnah, called the "Gemara." Together, the Mishnah and Gemara comprise what is commonly called the "Talmud."

In its very earliest days, Christianity was seen by the Jewish teachers as a Jewish heresy; its adherents were Jews who believed in the divinity of Christ [and considered Christianity a Jewish sect]. But when Christianity spread and became a world religion, with numerous converts from the Gentile world, it became a rival religion to Judaism. Christians were then seen as Gentiles not because they were Christians but because, in the main, they were, in fact, Gentiles (i.e. not Jewish).

Rabbinic Attitudes
In the Talmud and midrash, the comparatively few references to Christianity (these only appear in uncensored versions) are to this religion as a heretical sect believing in a form of dualism, God the Father and God the Son... It was not until the Middle Ages that the status of Christianity (and of Islam) as a rival religion was considered from the Jewish point of view.

Medieval Attitudes
Attacks on Christian dogma are found in medieval Jewish writings from the biblical commentaries of Rashi and [David] Kimhi, refuting the Christian claim that the Old Testament contains prophesies anticipating the coming of Jesus... on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence...

In these and similar works the main thrust was to deny that the Messiah had come in the person of Jesus (the world gave no evidence that this glorious age had arrived, it was frequently protested) and especially to take issue with the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity...The medieval thinkers who held Christianity but not Islam to be an idolatrous faith did so particularly because of the worship of the Cross; to bow before an icon or a crucifix was held to be akin to bowing to idols...

Menahem Meiri [a thirteenth-century talmudist]... argued that the references to pagans in the talmudic literature could not apply to what he called “people whose lives are governed by religion.” Eventually, a distinction was made, unknown in the talmudic sources, according to which Christianity did constitute idolatry for Jews but not “for them” (i.e. Christians). A Christian did not offend against the Noahide laws [the seven principles, including the rejection of idolatry, by which Judaism expects non-Jews to live] since the Torah allows a Gentile, but not a Jew, to worship another being in addition to God.

This concept was known as shittuf (“association,” of another together with God) and the oft‑quoted legal maxim, allowing for a more liberal attitude towards Christians, is: “A Noahide is not enjoined to reject shittuf.”...

Modern Attitudes
In modern times there has been far greater cooperation between Jews and Christians, many Jews welcoming Jewish‑Christian dialogues in which the aim of each side is to understand the position of the other, and even learn from it, without in any way moving from its own. Some Jews believe that Judaism and Christianity have so much in common that it is permissible to speak of a Jewish-Christian tradition...

A single contemporary Orthodox Jewish theologian in the US has argued that Judaism does not oblige Jews to reject the doctrine of the incarnation as impossible in itself. For him, Jews reject Christianity not because God could not have become incarnate in a human being, since that would compromise God’s omnipotence, but because, in fact, He did not do so in the person of Jesus.

This eccentric view is rejected by all other Jewish theologians on the grounds that God, being God, can as little become human as He can wish Himself out of existence.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

It took a long time for humans to appear ;D..Just remember NO ZAP and we were here..

In the 21st century with new sciences we will discover many things that we once thought so are not so..
But one thing we do know because of science it takes time for things to happen and it's impossible to
Zap a human and a world in 6 days.. ;)..
Even if aliens from another galaxy made the earth it still not gods it's science ;)..

So why does the Bible express itself in terms of six days of creativity culminating in one day of Sabbath rest [Genesis 2:2]? Why would the Bible utilize the Hebrew word “yom” (day) with any meaning other than a 24-hour period?

The truth is that from the usage of the word “yom” it is possible to conclude the very opposite of the charedi dogma just cited. The Bible is not interested in conveying literal and chronological facts in its story of Creation. After all, the sun and the moon were not created until the fourth day, and it is specifically their movements which are the determinants for our 24-hour day. Beyond any doubt, then, “yom” in the context of the seven days of Creation cannot mean a literal 24-hour day.

Furthermore, Maimonides, in his “Guide for the Perplexed,” interprets all biblical stories until the advent of Abraham as allegories, whose purpose is to convey moral lessons rather than historical fact.

And this certainly leaves the door open to maintain that “One thousand (or one million) years in Your eyes is like one day” [Psalms 90:4]. Each biblical day in the Creation story may well represent an epoch of thousands or millions or years.

Since the topic of this thread has turned to Judaism in the last few posts here is an opinion from a Jewish Rabbi on this topic.

Was Creation Really Seven Days?
http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial-opinion/sabbath-week/was-creation-really-seven-days

It is interesting to note the Torah allows the man to divorce his wife for any reason instantly with a signed declaration. She can then remarry. But the (New Testament at least of) Bible says that that once a man and woman bond in the flesh, they are one and let no man undo what God hath done. It is that rule that I found impossible for me since I had already violated it more than several times. I tried to start following that rule when I came closer to Christianity circa 2006 but I found it just caused me to lie to myself. I think it denies natural pressures to pursue an R evolutionary strategy by default in the absence of any strong cultural heritage and family purpose disincentivizing a male from doing do so. We are given a situation in life, and we can't always choose to be in another situation thus the strategies which are available and compatible with others may not be available to others. But I do understand there is a distinction between an alphamale R evolutionary strategy who deposits his semen for betamales to raise his offspring (e.g. Genghis Khan) and a betamale K group evolutionary strategy which is greatly aided by religion. You've got to limit those alphamales because too much R strategy can cause the society to malfunction. We need some R strategy to improve the gene pool, but it must be highly difficult and competitive. (Note I am not claiming I was trying to father children which I didn't take care of, nor saying I did this.)

I am still not sure where I fit into all this. I am just writing down observations. And trying to sort in my mind what my value system is and should be w.r.t. to group evolutionary strategy and my evolutionary strategy for my genes.

Edit: to expound a bit. In my case, I think it is the case wherein when your father abandons you and/or doesn't provide any culture you want to emulate, you don't really have a strong natural inclination to follow a K strategy, because afaics K strategy bonds are driven significantly (if not entirely) by the extension of the family tree and heritage and the emotions and pride that plays into that. This is why I understand why the Jewish faith doesn't allow intermarriage with goyim (who haven't converted) because the heritage of your culture and the religion that holds the families together can be easily polluted and lost. In my case, it is very difficult to form a new culture or family heritage all by myself. I have to take on the identity and heritage of the family I am marrying into, which didn't work out well for me to say the least. Lol.

Was the creation accomplished in 6 days... plus a following day of rest?

From the standpoint of our simple determinations, we do not know because we were not there, and there are way too many things that could have happened that are way beyond our ability to determine.

For example. The whole plan of the universe existed in the mind of God "before" He started creation. Since God used a tiny amount of His great strength to create the universe, the fact that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars... and the fact that the 24-hour day existed before the scribing of the planetary action by which we understand the 24-hour day... shows that God's power carried everything just as He had it written down in the Bible, no matter how we want to delude ourselves into thinking things happened.

8)

Perhaps when scientists add all kinds of other theories and ideas, their model will change. They do have some serious science fiction there, or a religion if they believe it in the face of it not having been proven true.

8)

1. Byzantine Fault Tolerance & Space-time Ordering

A system which models an unbounded number of possible states^* can’t have a total order, because the combination of unbounded state and a total order, would require an implausible static non-existence where the global (i.e. unbounded) future would be undifferentiated from the past.⁶ The only model that is coherent (i.e. differentiated from undecidable) with an unbounded global state, is where the system actors (e.g. the Actor model⁷) each have an independent relative perspective constrained only to an internally deterministic bounded state, i.e. a localized partial order with no external deterministic reference point.⁸ Any external, unbounded global coherence can be only probabilistic not deterministic, e.g. fault tolerant.⁷

For example, a deterministic Turing machine can’t be proven to halt⁹ unless it is executed on every possible input state, but (executing all of) the input is unbounded in (and would require unbounded) time^† unless the machine will be externally disconnected. Thus a deterministic Turing machine has an external partial order w.r.t. to any choice of bounded input state (as its external reference point). Thus, a “total” order is never universally global and is instead relative― i.e. is one of an unbounded (in space-time) external partial orders chosen w.r.t. to some bounded external state. The bounded external state is shared coherently (i.e. consistently) with other actors in the system w.r.t. to the chosen total order.

1.1 Impossibility of Deterministic Fault Tolerance in Unbounded Asynchrony

Another example of this physical law that a total order is impossible in an unbounded system, is the impossibility of deterministic Byzantine fault tolerance (aka “BFT”) for a protocol operating with unbounded asynchronous latency, proven by the FLP theorem.¹¹ Deterministic in this context means that such an unbounded protocol can’t be certain to complete with even one fault because unbounded nondeterminism⁸ is one of the possible faults― i.e. the system is self-referential thus all perspectives within the system are indistinguishable from faulty ones.

---

* _{Where “possible states” implies the inclusion of changes in state (aka state transitions) in space-time, which are just more dimensions of state. For example, if a state changes from the value 1 to the value 2, then the possible states include 1 and 2.}
† _{Any distinction between time and space-time is a semantic illusion.^*}

References

⁶	Shelby Moore III, Entropic force, Kurzweil’s singularity, creativity, space-time, relativity, total orders, unbounded nondeterminism, Actor model (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16900330#msg16900330). Unheresy.com blog and Bitcointalk.org, “DECENTRALIZED crypto currency (including Bitcoin) is a delusion (any solutions?)” thread, post #889, 2013 - 2016.
⁷	Shelby Moore III. Actors, asynchrony via futures, fault tolerance, thermodynamic irreversibility, unbounded nondeterminism forsakes global omniscience and consistency (https://github.com/keean/zenscript/issues/17#issuecomment-265502060). Zenscript Github project, §Concurrency, issue #17, Dec 8, 2016.
⁸	Unbounded nondeterminism and the Actor model (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unbounded_nondeterminism&oldid=710628370#Indeterminacy_versus_nondeterministic_automata). Wikipedia.org.
⁹	Shelby Moore III, Simplistic explanation of Scooping the Loop Snooper (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505886.msg15284692#msg15284692), Bitcointalk.org, “Valid uses cases for Smart Contracts, Dapps, and DAOs?” thread, post #59, Jun 19, 2016.
¹¹	Michael J. Fischer, Nancy A. Lynch, Michael S. Paterson. Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm85.pdf). J. ACM, 32(2) pp. 374–382, Apr 1985.

Edit: Here is an interesting little video that goes over the differences between Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRb7DhWS6Z8&list=PLhG1viERKhXfnbaJp2JlphCVX3OvewpFp

Per my definition of the leftist religion (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg17233527#msg17233527), all leftists are atheists whether they admit it or not, because they w(h)or(e)ship the State instead of a God (or NATURAL LAW), as the lord pointed out in 1 Samuel 8 of the Bible. Thus more than 50% of the western world's population are atheists.

Perhaps one the smartest men alive on earth today (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg16569238#msg16569238), Freeman Dyson, is a non-denominational Christian. And btw, the 160 IQ Eric S. Raymond who says Dyson made Eric feel like the slowest one at the dinner table, is an atheist.

You atheists think someone of the intellect of Richard Dawkins has a high IQ, but see how Freeman Dyson dismantled that asshat Dawkins (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg16569238#msg16569238). Dyson obliterated Richard's small minded perspective.


Moloch, you are espousing the group evolutionary strategy of those who choose mutual self-destruction (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888). I don't consider that very intelligent.

You think it is intelligent to defect from group evolutionary strategy by lying to yourselves with the religion of leftism. Smart indeed!


P.S. my two posts in this thread today are due to information, research, and insight that CoinCube provided, which stimulated my reductionist mind.

So the viewpoint I seem to be coming to is that religion is purely a matter of group evolutionary strategy choice. There can't be only one correct way. Religions are purposefully spreading erroneously selfish propaganda (that their way is the correct way) because it is necessary for the optimization of the group evolutionary strategy― refer to my prior posts yesterday on why we need to play this mind control game in order to control defection as an evolutionary strategy.
...
We can objectively conclude that leftism is a group evolutionary strategy which results in eventual (but delayed!) self-destruction of large portions of the group, but that doesn't mean it isn't an effective strategy because culling the herd is probably an effective means of refining the gene pool, i.e. by participating in leftism you can gain some leverage if your individual strategy within the group strategy is effective for your genes surviving the periodic culling of collectivism.

iamback, I have read about everything you posted.

Congratulations, you are probably more right them wrong and even the wrong is not caused by your intellect but your lack of humanity.

My main question now is if you want to help everyone or if you only feel bad that you haven't been invited to the predator's party.

We are working bodies of 37 trillions cells working harmoniously. We are part of a global society of 6 billion human beings working as harmoniously as possible until now. Like it or not, you are part of it and you are not in control of it. Yet you act like the white cells are your enemies. It is so clear. You could be a major part of the nervous system of the human society but you prefer to act like a papilloma growing from it and then falling to infect others on the east!

Metaphysics are your fundamental assumptions. These are chosen: they were chosen by you (although you probably weren't aware of choosing them, but just passively accepted them).

Fundamental assumptions are chosen - but they are not arbitrary; because the assumptions have consequences. You can choose whatever you want to believe - but sometimes you will not be able to make yourself live-by these chosen beliefs; and other times you will live by them (including thinking by them) such that they lead to nonsensical and therefore self-refuting outcomes.

The trouble is that in a world where people have stopped thinking- and when their assumptions lead to incoherent, nonsensical conclusions, instead of sorting-out their metaphysics - they just stop thinking (easier to do than ever before in human history - due to the ubiquity of mass media and social media).

Anyway - my point is that if you have certain (very common) assumptions, then you will either have a nihilistic, hope-less and despairing world view --- or else you will have to stop yourself thinking about anything serious.

There are innumerable commonly-held assumptions that lead to this: that Man has no free will, that the world is either random and unpredictable or else rigidly predetermined, that nothing exists except what has been described by 'science', that morality is a matter of opinion, that beauty is wholly in the eye of the beholder... oh, there are dozens of such.

Indeed, most of people's primary assumptions nowadays are of a type that lead to nonsensical or incoherent conclusions - so it is futile to complain about the low standard of rational public debate when rational debate is only possible on the basis that people are able and willing to examine and revise their assumptions when they lead to absurd outcomes.

Because perhaps the most absurd modern metaphysical assumption of all is that metaphysics is meaningless and all decisions should be made on the basis of 'evidence'!

Whereas (as quickly becomes apparent in any disagreement) unless there is agreement on metaphysical assumptions then the cannot even be agreement on what counts as evidence, leave aside the matter of evaluating the strength of evidence...

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

With this opinion you are making a "religious" choice of your own. You are committing yourself to the belief that religion is not an objective measure of Truth.

This inevitably leads to moral relativism and it is moral relativism that can take you to acceptance of slavery or genocide or "culling the herd" as the effective strategy of alpha males. I do not deny that reason can take you to these conclusions. However, before reason and before logic comes a critical metaphysical choice! Make a different choice and reason will take you in a diametrically opposing direction! Other have highlighted this choice to you before.

l3552 was not perhaps not very diplomatic but he was essentially arguing that your error is not one of intellect but of metaphysics.

“It amazes that otherwise bright people can’t understand the simple concept that economic collapse doesn’t convert collectivists into anarchists.”

Fix your life? Fix your metaphysics
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2016/06/fix-your-life-fix-your-metaphysics.html

Your missed the most important difference here which is essentially one of centralization.

Judaism as opposed to most religions lacks a centralized authority.

Although historically they once had a Great Sanhedrin which served this function nothing of the kind currently exists. Instead each synagogue functions independently under the direction of a Rabbi. Karaite challenges Rabbinic authority placing responsibility entirely on the individual.

Yet by the same logic is it not possible that events occurred as written in Genesis but human understanding is simply incapable of fully grasping them? Perhaps we were given knowledge that is true yet simplified to a level that enabled us to have some basic understanding of a process that is simply beyond us? We had a discussion along these lines earlier.

This might mean that all the laws of physics will remain stable until the time of the end. But the "time" of the beginning is before physics was set up in its entirety.

We don't have the info necessary to see what things were like before physics was set up.

I...seem to be...committing myself to... the impossibility of any objective measure of... Truth.

...

Thus I am... free to choose... values/ethics.. I feel...benefits me.

...

I am not going to wrap myself in a silly set of arbitrary rules

...

group... values... violate... my optimal degrees-of-freedom.

...


my value system... wasn't clearly conceptualized and articulated

...

my failures in life were due to not clearly defending my values

...

I ... suffered ... greatly in my life

We can observe this relatively of illusion (aka agreement) in the various interpretations of the Torah pointed out upthread. I find humorous that video cited by CoinCube, because the two Jewish sects interpretations of the Torah disagree on whether it is kosher to eat a cheeseburger or shawarma:

I have reduced your argument to its core premises and conclusions. It is for you to decide if further reflection is warranted.

That is bullshit that you gutted the context. For example when I stated that I am free to choose a set of values, it is in large part because there either wasn't a well defined value system in my family (upbringing) or it was a hodgepodge of values that wasn't working for my nuclear family. Thus why would I emulate/continue what wasn't working?...

Afaics, you are moralizing and judging (probably because you observe that I have vacated the foundation of your value system of an absolute truth, therefor you must attack mine). Please read Jesus's wisdom in Matthew 7.

The words above are your own.

My contribution was only to shorten them

... and invite you to consider the possibility that your stated conclusions follow naturally from your starting premises.

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute...

So to equate me with some philosophy that says humans have no value, is a fucking lie. What does your religion say about liars who bear false witness and false testimony?

Epistemological nihilism

Epistemological nihilism is a form of skepticism in which all knowledge is accepted as being possibly untrue or as being unable to be confirmed true.

I am approaching ("seem to be coming to" which isn't entirely committed) committing myself to the impossibility of falsifying any total order of the universe and thus the impossibility of any objective measure of absolute Truth.

There doesn't seem to be any other choice if one is rational.

Morals and values are a very difficult topic for people from different backgrounds to discuss. This is the reason for so much strife between ethnicities.

That is one reason I leaned towards not even wanting to think about it for most of life.

You are correct that I disagree with your opening argument on absolute Truth. However, my opinion in this instance is entirely irrelevant. What matters in this particular case is your opinion.

If you are interested in my opinion I shared it in a recent debate on the nature and consequences of nihilism.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg15883731#msg15883731

Also there you will find counter arguments from the perspective of nihilism which are more in line with your starting posit that there is no absolute Truth.

Any group which thinks it has the absolute moral correctness, is already by definition an immoral system IMO.

Why will you not consider the messages that are offered for your protection and wisdom? THE LAWS OF GOD ARE FIXED...IMMUTABLE...MAN MAY CHANGE WHAT HE WILL BUT HE WILL NOT CHANGE THE LAWS OF GOD FOR THEY ARE THAT WHICH WAS GIVEN FOR BALANCE WITHIN THE CREATION.

Many geniuses are still being born into the world, but they are not being given the recognition needed for survival for the point of the corruption is to destroy that which is already present as values and prevent the new of beauty and perfection to flourish.

So this is a story about the importance of taking action to find our very center of our ecstatic point where God resides. This is the only place where true change can take place. I plan to reveal how world war two was affected and even ended by the meditating of certain people. Yes meditation did in fact save the lives of thousands even million[s ]of people and very few realize this important fact.

Your meditating into and using your ecstatic point is vital to your survival. You[r] masterliness of life is the fruit of your meditation.

Individual thinking creates the illusion that we are separate beings. Our senses have convinced us of this. Yet history shows us that all mankind has always sought the Light of God for thousands of years. That Light is invisible to the senses and belongs to our knowing just as beauty does. It's not your body that senses beauty remember?

The difference between you and your very own genius is that when you attempt to create without your ecstatic point you are using only your body. But when you include that zero literal miracles come from your own hands. This is the marking of your soul into becoming the wonderful being of God's intent.

Have you not considered how much more difficult it may be to formulate a stable set of values given the logical conclusion that there are no absolute truths. I consider it much more challenging than accepting some faith that some unfalsifiable God is absolute. But to each his own. My most important value is that I abhor those who force their value systems on those who opted-out. I try to observe and understand other cultures. It doesn't mean I shouldn't and can't have my own value system, even perhaps one that is unwavering or eventually consistent with my perspective of the world.

I opine that the contents of Phoenix Journal #27 are impressive and obviously the result of INTERVENTION; this Journal lays out the laws of GOD and Creation in full detail.

http://phoenixsourcedistributors.com/html/j027/

I have watched and waited as you have taken Truth and turned it into lies. I have watched as those of the evil adversary have labeled themselves as MY CHOSEN PEOPLE and called themselves "Jews"

...
So, I say this with only sadness: Many American Jews on the left, including rabbis and lay leaders, are embarrassing Jews and Judaism. I say this to ring an alarm in Jewish life and to tell non-Jewish America that these people represent leftism, not Judaism. Furthermore, I am talking only about leftist Jews, not liberal Jews. Unfortunately, however, liberalism has become synonymous with leftism both within and outside Judaism.
This past week, the embarrassing behavior of left-wing Jews reached a new level.
...

How are we to understand this?

Here’s one explanation: When Jews abandoned Judaism, many of them did not abandon Judaism’s messianic impulse. From Karl Marx — the grandson of two Orthodox rabbis — and onwards, they simply secularized it and created secular substitutes, such as Marxism, humanism, socialism, feminism and environmentalism.

Hitler claims in his book, that the Jews are communists. They created the Russian Revolution where they killed 30 million Russians all the intelligent ones in a cruel and horrific way... the next in line is Germany. They founded the Communist and Socialistic parties. If we don't defeat them now they will eliminate us, and they will slaughter another 20 million...

And he is right the Russian revolution was facilitated by the Jews. The Russian army was built by Trotsky who was an incredible genius a (Jewish) anti-Semite like no other. He created the Jewish division of the communist party who's members informed on their fathers, mothers, brothers and sons whomever owned a Siddur (Jewish prayer book) or even a Hebrew learning book... He destroyed everything.

In the first Communist Government out of 13 members, six were Jews. Who founded the KGB? Jews. So everything is clearly written. (Hitler) didn't hate the Jews because they had payot (Jewish sidecurls). He didn't hate them for observing Mitzvoth, (He hated them) because they were communists and he writes it clearly.

Now you understand why they don't teach this in schools because who writes the curriculum those same leftists. Of course they will not teach that Hitler wanted to kill the Jews because they are the forefathers of the Left and the forefathers of Marxism, Communism and Hellenism. But that's what he writes!

Leftism is the religion which promises the individual he/she can entirely free, protected, while protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected.

Sounds very noble right? Read on...

All religions exist to protect the society (and the family) against the defection of the individual. Traditional religions argue that subjugation of some of the "evil" whims of the individual (e.g. extra-martial affairs) is necessary to maximize the success of the society, e.g. children who grow up without their fathers usually do statistically much worse in life in various metrics, including health.

Whereas, in leftism the "evil" is not "protecting the right of everyone else to be entirely free and protected". But what does this really mean? It is double-speak. It really means to steal from production so as to enable people to abandon their moral responsibilities so that the society can be utterly destroyed by hedonism and other ramifications of offering everyone "state-supported freedom" (which is a guaranteed megadeath hell in the future).

But don't dare tell the leftist, atheists that their idealism is corrupt, bankrupt, and disingenuous. They will gut you with a knife if you dare challenge the veracity of their beloved social justice.

"Entirely free" means you can do what ever you want and there are no NATURAL LAW ramifications (the State will always support your right to do what ever you want), as long as you support the State's right to protect and economically provide for everyone's right to do what ever they want. In other words, a "free for all" of political correctness and stealing.

But NATURAL LAW in inviolable. No State can protect every individual from the NATURAL LAW. And if you tell people they can be entirely free (including economic freedom for everyone and every whim), then you have lied.

In short, leftism is a Tragedy of the Commons. Thus is a false religion. It lies. It is Satan's religion.

American Jewish Fertility by Religious Current (http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle)

Religious Sect	Average No. of Children per Woman
Ultra-Orthodox	6.72
Modern Orthodox	3.39
Conservative	1.74
Reform	1.36
Secular	1.29

As Jews move further away from their historic religious tradition their fertility plummets. Secular Jews have a shockingly low fertility of 1.29 among the lowest in the world.

It would certainly be incorrect to say that the suspicions of the two religions of one another are a thing of the past. What can be said is that, in an age of greater religious tolerance, there has been a growing realization that the two have enough in common to enable them to work in harmony for human betterment.

I have to disagree here qwik2learn


The text appears to argue that the Jews are followers of Satan "the evil adversary". Lets entirely ignore for a moment the moral problem of calling an entire people agents of Satan and focus only on the logical fallacies of this claim.

The Phoenix Journal #25 (as noted up-thread) claims that the Jewish oral law (The Talmud) is a blasphemous text. It reaches this conclusion 1) because Christianity is criticized in the Talmud and 2) from the inference that modern Jews are the ideological descendants of Pharisees and thus the same people who called for the death Jesus. The exact wording used by the Journal is "the spirit of the ancient Pharisees survives, unaltered". From this criticism comes the claim that Jews are agents of "the evil adversary".

This simply does not hold up under logical scrutiny. The charges of Phoenix Journal do not apply to all of Judaism. Specifically, Karaite Judaism follows neither the the oral traditions nor is it a descendant of Pharisaism. The Karaite Jews may even be descendants of the Sadducees the major political opponents of the Pharisees and the Jewish elite during the time of Jesus. Thus according to the Christian worldview the worst a Karatie Jew could be accused of is operating under an incomplete truth.

For those Jews who do believe in the Talmud it would be surprising if this book lacked criticism of Christianity. If you are an orthodox Jew the Talmud is divinely inspired wisdom. From this perspective Christianity leads people away from Judiasm and should be challenged on theological grounds. If you are not a rabbinic Jew the Talmud is simply a collection Jewish rabbi philosophy. No one disputes these rabbis were human and it is part of human nature to critique a competing faith.

Finally I was bothered by the omissions in the Phoenix Journal. The Phoenix Journal provides of list of 18 of "THE HIGHEST COMMAND OF THE LAW OF THE CREATION" Here it provides 18 "commands" listing the majority of the 10 commandments and adding a bunch of new ones. However, despite all of the additions it entirely skips over the 9th commandment.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" [Exod 20: 16]

https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/do-not-bear-false-witness

Ironically the skipped commandment appears to be the very one the Journal is guilty of violating. Thus after review I believe the listed source Phoenix Journal is not the result of heavenly intervention but the work of man. Specifically the work of someone who does not like Jews very much.



This is not to say the Jews as a people have not committed horrible crimes. They like all peoples have participated in great evils but I would argue that these evils can mostly be attributed to the Jewish Left. Specifically to large number of Jews who abandoned their faith for Leftism which can be looked at as a competing religion. For an honest critique of the Jewish Left the best sources are Jews themselves.

Left-Wing Jews Are Embarrassing Judaism
http://www.dennisprager.com/left-wing-jews-are-embarrassing-judaism/

Prager who is Jewish argues that Jews who abandon their faith are particularly susceptible to embrace the extreme left. Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat goes farther.

Why Did Hitler Hate Jews?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTYSv_YQOVo

Earlier iamnotback provided us with an analysis of Leftism and argued that it should be considered a religion in its own right. Below is that argument mildly edited for language.


Thus it is important not confuse the Jews with Leftists who happen to be former Jews. However, if current trends continue this may be a moot point as it is possible that Leftism is also toxic on an individual level.


I will close out my arguments with what I believe to be the most important consideration when when discussing religious differences between Jews and Christians.

Jews have always lived off the wealth of whomever they can. It just happens to be Christians this time. Jewish leaches.

8)

The only generative essence absolute I can think of so far which I can't refute, is our desire to give meaning to our perception of our existence.

This explains the necessity of death. Eternal continuity of perception could not coexist with wonderment because everything that exists would have always been. We'd lose that fundamental absolute which drives the differentiation between the past and future light cones of relativity.

I am frequently asked, why do I do what I do? Why not relax on a beach? That question incorporates the assumption one can simply ignore the political changes coming. I too have a family. I may not be around by 2032 – we all have expiration dates. What I do, I am compelled to do. I am at least trying to leave behind a better place for my posterity and on the other hand, I am curious if humanity can learn from the past and make that one step as Neil Armstrong said when he set foot on the Moon:

That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

History is our map to the future. It creates wonder and fuels the imagination, which is the basis of man’s desire to understand and discover. To quote Albert Einstein, – “Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” Indeed, Imagination is everything. All inventions emerge only from our imagination, which stimulates all progress and thereby gives birth to evolution in every field. This is why government is always the enemy. It is incapable of imagination and harbors only paranoia of what happens if the people what their freedom at the expense of its power.

If I can show that we have a choice to take that one step forward based upon our knowledge of the past, then I have fulfilled my personal goal in life. We can create a new world, but only when this one crashes and burns. If we embrace the knowledge of the past, and learn just for once, then we can crossover to a new way of doing things and let Laissez–faire guide us to a new world of liberty and freedom from the manipulations of the left and government.

But (if) your ideology causes you to need to enforce your will on others who desire to opt-out and govern themselves. Thus you are a leftist.

I may care about the environment, and I may agree with local communities regulating against wanton environmental destruction.

But global social justice is evil regardless of the nobleness of your intent.

In short, stop worrying so much, as linked video in the following quote explains:

This is inaccurate. The reality is that all current and historic societies embrace collectivism. Thus as time progresses we increasing lionize and reward all sorts of human leaches. This collective error eventually weakens and destroys human societies.

The Jews when strictly following the the guidance in the Old Testament/Torah sit outside the collectivism and are thus not destroyed by it. In doing so the Jews create a stable evolutionary structure which is why they are still here and have a nation despite multiple historic events that should have shattered them as a people.

Although I disagree with some of his language iamnotback laid out the basic argument correctly upthread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17222888#msg17222888

In theory Christians should have similarly good outcomes if they also strictly follow their religious traditions.

The Old Testament is, in part, a history of the Hebrew nation. These people were not Jews, in general, until starting at the times shortly before the time of the Dead Sea Scrolls - around 400 B.C.

The Old Testament history shows that the Hebrew people seldom followed the laws of the O.T. for very long. Often they were the greatest breaker of the O.T. laws, more than the other nations of the world.

The reason the Hebrew nation still exists in and under the current Jewish nation, is that God has always had mercy on them.

The Jews are made up of groups of people who infiltrated the Hebrew nation and led them astray from the laws of God. In part, the Jews are from lines of ancient Babylonians. The Talmud is from the Babylonian captivity, is NOT the law of God, and should be kept on a lower level, away from the Torah and the Tanakh.



The term "Christian" covers two broad groups of people. There are those who are Christians for political (informal political) reasons. Then there are those who are Christians because they believe in the salvation of God... Jesus salvation.

All people die. Only those who believe in Jesus salvation are assured of good things, good outcomes. These people even gain much good from God here, in this life.

Jesus is the Messiah of the Old Testament. The Hebrew people, at the prompting of the Jews, rejected the Messiah when they rejected Jesus. It is only through God's remembrance of His promise to Abraham that the Jewish/Hebrew nation exists at all physically.

A time will come, and is coming now, when the Hebrew people will formally turn to God, almost en masse. When that happens, Jesus will return at their call.

8)

Do not Libertarians, or right wing free market advocates have a set of values ? Of course they do.
Why are they, then, left off the hook when it comes to imposing these values on those that don't share them, over the "leftists" ?

If an ideology is an idea system used to maintain an exploitative domination, then from where I'm sat, the free market ideology has by far created the greatest amount of inequality and stifled life chances on the world as a whole .

1% own half this world.

But the ideas that legitimate this gross inequality are somehow OK because ......????? Or are their ideas somehow exempt from tyrannical abuse purely because they are the ones writing the rule books and history ?
Doesn't make any sense.

Does that have any relevance to whether all of my published predictions except one were correct? And the one that was incorrect, I stated upfront that it was only a theory and might not be correct.

Does your comment have some relevance to the size of your penis and your ego? (How dare anyone claim to be correct most of the time, when in fact they are) If not, what is the relevance?

I think you lack the mental acuity to entertain all the factors that go between correct predictions and choosing to be a speculator. I choose to be a programmer and developer (and to have the life experiences of roaming the world including a long stint in the backwater country of the Philippines). A man can be a jack of all trades and expert of none, or can choose to prioritize what he thinks is the most important focus of his time and expertise.

Attacking someone for their choices or priorities as a means of belittling their successes, so as to further your own ego, is not very respectful. If you don't respect others, how can you expect them to respect you.

I suppose it would help to understand that the fossil record is not 100% complete...

The thing with fossils is... they are kinda randomly formed... not every plant or animal turns into a fossil... most decay

The odds of an animal or plant becoming a fossil is around 1/1,000,000... it's a rare event, so not all plants or animals that have existed are guaranteed to be fossilized

Then, you have to find and dig up the fossil... which not many people do... so we have not found all of them

Even so, BILLIONS of fossils have been found, which makes for a lot of evidence, all pointing to evolution

There is zero evidence that any god or alien intervened at any point in history... none, zero, zip, zilch

Intervention Theory sounds plausible to me. So about 250,000 years ago Aliens altered the DNA of our ancestors the neanderthals and then created us. I think they advanced our DNA development and maybe spliced some of theirs into ours. They clearly knew what they were doing. They made a race of workers that work themselves to death.

The salient distinction is that the free market by definition means no top-down edicts are directing the outcome, rather the Invisible Hand of opportunity costs are. Free markets anneal to the NATURAL LAW economics of nature. Whereas, top-down edicts do not anneal and become megadeath because of non-intended outcomes.

...but what you have written here is absolute drivel that could only ever have come from the keyboard of a privileged knob who has never had to struggle.

A gay lawyer, Dan Goldstein from Brooklyn, who had a child in his arms, outright abused everyone and Ivanka Trump with her husband and children when they were flying in coach on JetBlue from JFK. However one hour before that INCIDENT, Matthew Lasner, Goldstein’s gay wife, wrote on Twitter: “Ivanka and Jared at JFK T5, flying commercial. My husband chasing them down to harass them.”

Dan Goldstein and his wife Matthew Lasner, who were married in September 2012, were thrown off of the JetBlue flight from New York to San Francisco. Goldstein began yelling: “Why is she on our flight. She should be flying private.” Another passenger reported he said “They ruin the country now they ruin our flight!” They also posted that Trump is not my President. Such people should just leave and go to Middle East and get a dose of reality.

This is a prime example of why I would send my children out of the country to be educated for American universities are becoming insane Petri dishes of extreme leftist intolerance where professors, who teach because they cannot do what they teach, think it is their right to express their personal political views to indoctrinate students. Any school that allows such professors should be denied student loans be they left or right. This is not teaching skills but propaganda for either side.

I have suffered extreme poverty at a level that you could probably not survive.

No - you haven't. That is bullshit, and you know it.

You don't embody the American Dream - the boy from the streets made good through drive, determination and raw talent.

You need to do some more reading on political economy and sociology.

TLDR, I am in poor health. Black kids used to touch my hair when I was small - and my neighbour 3 doors down once had worms.

Now me, I did have it rough

You chose to live in squalor. As I said before, you were wearing a hair shirt. Big difference.

You did it that one day you might be able to impress impressionable minds with your tales of triumph in the face of adversity.

In the UK we call it "slumming" it. Its a common practice among young students from privileged backgrounds, that, like yourself, can't quite come to terms with their own privilege.

And you avoided answering the question. How rough was your suffering specifically?

I'm not going to brag about it on an internet forum.

That isn't very cool is it ?

You should know that - coming, as you did, from the street.

The breakup of the USA is well underway as Armstrong's computer predicted long ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703293.msg17305796#msg17305796
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17291598#msg17291598
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1703293.msg17300454#msg17300454

You can read more of my posts in those threads which expound.

Enemy #1 are the leftists. Identify them and ostracize them. The conservatives need to defend themselves because the leftists are jealous and ready to absolutely burn everything to the ground. If they can't have what you have, then nobody can have anything. That is their attitude. They will not stop until everything is destroyed. They are irrational lunatics. Stop fooling yourself into thinking this is not war. It is war. And you better be getting more diligent about it.

Thus much of the back and forth regarding the deserving nature of the capitalist who created the billion dollar industry and the deserving nature of the man who has little and contributes less is irrelevant for both are functioning and succeeding in a system that is inherently collectivists/Leftist.

In such an environment this argument is essential is a debate over the amount of spoils predator should receive. Such a debate has no solution because both parties are essentially at a fundamental level the same.

The difference is that conservative is not going to add fuel to fire by proposing to steal back from the 1% which always is an increase in public debt stealing from yourself (because the 1% will always control the government so they just give us the debt we want and pocket the profits from our social activism). The leftists are in a self-destruction mode.

The conservative is willing to go pull himself up by his own bootstraps and make due with what he can achieve.

We do have some objectivity. Compare Eastern Europe and other Communist societies to the USA during the 1800s and early 1900s. As my Belgium friend said, "at that time, everything you touched turned to gold in the USA because you could do what you want".

The leftists will burn everything to the ground. The conservatives will abort such a megadeath.

Can anyone make a counter argument?

Conservatism at least in our modern iteration also steals.

Your examples were leftism. Republicanism isn't conservatism. They are all leftists to some degree. Conservatists advocate nearly no governance.

Again I ask for any counter argument?

Conservatism as you define it does not exist as a sustainable stand alone structure. It naturally morphs into Republicanism/Monarchism/Despotism unless it is built upon a stable superstructure.

It exists as a personal stable culture, akin to how the Jews are orthogonal to any nation-state.

In this I believe you are simply factually incorrect which is rare for you.

To show this, however, will take some work which I do not have time for today. I will type up a more detailed rebuttal tomorrow.

If you put a native person in a cage, his body is there but his spirit flew away.

Doesn't work in the presence of great pain or great joy. I guess I am a kinda negative person. Why? I said the "great pain" first.

8)

The view of the world through the eyes of Anonymint:

http://www.wearedecentralised.co.uk/anonymintcompass.png

The only "justifiable" standpoint in your view is at the very "right" of the chart from your (literally) skewed perspective.  Everyone and everything else is communist.  Your bitter tone implies frustration that the rest of the world doesn't share this perspective.  So you lash out at all the "leftists" even though you apparently mean to include people who would be viewed as right by those on the left.  The only ones who aren't "leftists" are the hardline libertarians.  The average person will never see it, but in your world Hitler and Gandhi are two peas in a pod.  Augusto Pinochet and the Dalai Lama are equally authoritarian.  They're all communists.   ::)

R strategy could be quite effective. I could have fathered dozens if not 100s of children by now, had I not restricted myself with condoms, withdrawal, and at times abstinence.

In which political quadrant do each of you subscribe:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1624708.msg17311269#msg17311269


Organization will always be a power vacuum. Sorry.

Your dream of the white man organizing to build a Babylon to defend against opportunists is just handing power to the opportunists. You won't find any solutions.

Evolution is just a chaotic soup. Fit in any where you wish, it won't matter. We are not that important. Comedy is therapeutic. My idea is try to enjoy life a bit, and care for the people who care for me.

r0ach, have fun trying to get your fellow lunatic white men to stand up unified and organized:

The leftist religion is all about replacing humanity (and love) with collective indebtedness, corruption, and rewarding non-production while penalizing production.

https://i.sli.mg/agvK2v.jpg

1. badecker is a snake.

2. even badecker will tell you the earth was literally created.

3. badecker is a filthy deviant and the earth was created flat and motionless.

It exists as a personal stable culture, akin to how the Jews are orthogonal to any nation-state.

I've been practicing it in my life so far.

I am not going to try to control what society does. Society will always self-destruct. Waste of time. That is why I have never voted and never will.

I don't tie/bind myself to the Titanic. The decision has trade-offs. Especially without a superstructure of like-minded friends who share the same values. I am trying to find them here, but they are few and far between. I had hoped you were one, but you are not. You want to build society. I understand. You are not incorrect. It is a choice. An evolutionary strategy.

Freedom and God


Freedom is the right of the individual to choose how he controls himself, so long as he respects the equal rights of every other individual to control and plan his own life. Freedom is thus not the ability to do whatever you want. It is self-control, and self-government, no more, no less.


The evolution of the social contract is a progressive climb to systems with increased overall freedom. The state of nature begat tribalism. Tribalism grew into despotism. Despotism advanced into monarchy. Monarchies were replaced by republics. Each iteration has a common theme for each advance increased overall cooperative activity and freedom the system permitted.

The ultimate driver behind this process is Ethical Monotheism for this is the underappreciated foundation that freedom rests upon. The Ten Commandments are often misunderstood as as restrictions. In reality they are the road map to freedom. To better understand this I highly recommend the following 5 minute video clip from Prager University.

God Wants Us To Be Free (https://www.prageru.com/courses/religionphilosophy/i-am-lord-your-god)

Freedom out-competes slavery. This is why the Odin worshiping vikings were replaced by Christian vikings. It is the ultimate reason why Arab polytheism was replaced by Islam and why the Jews who who's traditions demand an individual understanding and observance of scripture have so excelled.


At the level of the individual we again return to choice. Do we truly care about freedom or do we care about our cravings and wants? If we choose freedom we must embrace that which makes freedom possible. If we choose whims and desires we should admit to ourselves that we do not prioritize freedom and are most concerned with our ability to sate our appetites.

I think you'll find that you are talking about Goldman Sachs' religion there - not those that want an equitable share of wealth, power and opportunity.

Ancient artifacts from other beings, but very little of this makes any sense without Intervention.

https://youtu.be/dtBkkY7txhY

Wow!
You are totally wrong! I am sure that the facts will come as a big surprise to you; please let us hear your arguments for why THESE researchers are ALL exceptions; maybe they were all stupid  ???...

https://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/eminent_researchers

This is very interesting and leads to some compelling possibilities. It implies that human development has been guided and shaped in a way that is subtle yet dramatic.

Starting Posits
Let us for a moment assume the following posits are true:
1) That's there was outside intervention between 5,000-10,000 years ago whose end result was to stabilize and improve man's food supply.
2) That biblical events surrounding the beginnings of monotheism the exodus from Egypt, the parting of the Red Sea etc are fact.
What possible purpose could justify such an intervention? Why interfere rather than let us discover truth for ourselves? Let’s take a moment to examine end effects.

This universe, existence, what-have-you is to me a playpen of sorts. I see it as a safe place both to protect us while we collectively grow as spiritual beings, as well as to protect whatever is beyond this universe from us. Yes, from us - we have the potential for immense power, both creative and destructive. We probably don't realize anywhere near the extent of what we can do as gods - Psalm 82:6 (http://biblehub.com/psalms/82-6.htm)

My perspective is that humanity collectively forms a unified organism that transcends what we understand individually. Whether what we arrive at is due to an emergent property or remains external is something I don't know, but all of the changes throughout history leave subtle clues in the same direction. The primary point of import is that we have to progress through the stages of growth together and at differing rates.

BY SAMUEL C. BAXTER
Cutting through countless theories, wild speculation, and odd ideas, there is much more to the story of Noah than most realize.

“Once upon a time, long ago…” Unless you are in primary school, this worn-out first line is usually a cue to zone out. A child’s story is sure to follow. The tale will likely include cookie-cutter heroes and villains, a damsel in distress, and maybe a giant or two. It is usually a highly implausible myth, legend or parable.

This is how most view the idea of a flood that covered the whole Earth. The storyline has captured the imaginations of nearly every culture for millennia. In Sumerian lore, imprinted on cuneiform tablets, Ziusudra rides it out in a huge boat. The ancient Babylonian tale has Utnapishtim in the lead role, with his wife and animals on the watercraft. In both instances, the main characters become immortal post-flood.

Aztec culture has a 52-year version with only one man and one woman—Tata and Nene—surviving by stowing away in a massive cypress tree. Afterward, the god Tezcatlipoca turns them into dogs for disobeying orders.

Over the years, the tale of the Flood (also called the Deluge) has been hashed and rehashed ad nauseam, with nearly every culture preserving a story of waters covering Earth, usually to destroy a wicked humanity. There is also the Greek myth of Deucalion and the Indian legend of Manu.

No two versions are exactly alike.

For those who believe in the Bible’s validity, however, just one account is accurate: the story of Noah’s ark. Summarized, the book of Genesis states that this servant of God placed his family and at least two of every animal kind (Gen. 6:19-20) into a mammoth boat. It then rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and a flood covered the Earth. In the end, the ark runs aground on a mountain peak and God says He will never again flood the entire globe. He uses a rainbow to symbolize His promise.

It seems that if any story deserves to start with “once upon a time, long ago,” it is this one.

But there is a problem. If something occurred long ago, how can one know exactly what happened? There are no eyewitnesses to ask or videos of that time to access via the Internet. This means even those who believe the Bible account quibble over what actually happened—especially regarding conditions before the Flood.

A major bone of contention is found in Genesis 6: “There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown” (vs. 4).

Verse 2 states that the sons of God took the daughters of men as wives.

These verses have fascinated Bible readers for centuries: Who were the “giants in the earth” and the “sons of God”? What about the “mighty men”? Most important, what did they have to do with God’s decision to wipe out mankind with a universal flood?

A favorite answer is that fallen angels (sons of God) procreated with human women to create a super race of evil demon spawn. Thus, God was forced to destroy mankind.

This idea appears to grow legs when one reads the book of Job. In chapter 1 and verse 6, angels are referred to as “sons of God.”

James Moffatt favors this idea in his translation of the Bible: “The angels”—he does not even call them “sons of God”—“noticed that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any one of them that they chose” (Gen. 6:2).

Other sources add to this theory, such as the Book of Enoch, a controversial document written in 300 BC. Also, a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster about Noah depicts these angelic beings as 11-foot-tall giants with six arms.

Yet Jesus Christ exposes a glaring flaw in the idea of angel-human offspring: “For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 22:30).

While the context of this quote is a future resurrection, it clearly states that angels do not marry. They are sexless spirit beings and it is impossible for them to procreate. If they could, society would be full of current examples—there are none! Therefore, the sons of God who took wives from the daughters of men cannot be angels. The Bible does record that there were giants before and in the centuries after the Flood—but they were flesh-and-blood human beings! Goliath, who was at least 9 feet tall, is one example (I Sam. 17:4).

Yet this is only one of many popular misconceptions about the pre-Flood account. To fully understand what it was like in the days leading up to it, one must mine the text of the Bible. Doing so creates a vivid picture of Noah’s day—and its crucial importance for the modern world.

Global Conditions

A picture of this time begins to emerge when continuing to read Genesis 6: “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (vs. 5).

Every imagination of the thoughts of men’s hearts was evil continually. How did it get that bad?

Before the Flood, people lived for many centuries. The first man, Adam, lived for 930 years (5:5), which was a decade or two past the standard lifespan of the time.

Try to wrap your mind around living almost an entire millennium. Imagine if a person had 900 years to learn something like playing the violin. He could eventually reach and exceed what is considered a virtuoso level today.

As each person honed new skills, it was not done in a vacuum. They collaborated with others to speed the learning process. Notice: “And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them” (6:1).

The original Hebrew word translated “to multiply” means “increase” and “to multiply by the myriad,” according to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

In other words, the Earth experienced a massive population explosion. Due to their extended lifespans, the number of people could have grown to between five billion and 17 billion by Noah’s time.

Knowledge and technology also rapidly increased in the 1,656 years from Creation to the Flood. Mankind built cities (4:17), had cattle ranches (vs. 20), composed and played music (vs. 21), and discovered metallurgy, including how to make alloys such as brass (vs. 22).

While each man had about 900 years to perfect various crafts, he also had the same amount of time to develop wrong attitudes and habits.

What someone thinks and does becomes part of his character. Just as a person could have become incredibly skilled at metallurgy during that time, he also could have perfected the art of lying, cheating and stealing. Even after just a few hundred years, man would have become incredibly wicked. And, again, there are estimated to have been billions of people like this!

Those alive at the time knew how to work with metals—for both good and bad purposes. This included the development of weapons such as swords and spears. Coupled with a crowded globe, this is what resulted: “The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence” (Gen. 6:11).

This is the world that the Creator looked upon and said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repents [grieves] Me that I have made them” (6:7).

Yet there was one person who stood out: “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord” (vs. 8 ).

Noah lived a completely different way of life from those around him—one that had been known from the day Adam and Eve were created.

Two Trees

In the Garden of Eden, the first man and woman were presented with a choice between two very different life paths. Notice: “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the Tree of Life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen. 2:7-9).

God then gave Adam and Eve plain instructions: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die” (vs. 16-17).

Eating the fruit of the Tree of Life symbolized choosing to follow God’s will, and allowing Him to determine how man should live. Eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil represented choosing to make decisions based on man’s own understanding.

Genesis 3:1-8 shows what path Adam and Eve chose. They rejected the Creator as their supreme educator and ruler. Instead, they listened to the serpent and ate from the wrong tree. From then on, human beings have been deciding for themselves what is “good” and what is “evil.” They have continued to choose between right and wrong based on their own faulty physical reasoning rather than listening to what God says.

By not eating from the Tree of Life, man cut himself off from access to divine knowledge, which included understanding God’s astounding purpose for him. (This incredible human potential, which is detailed throughout the Bible, is discussed at length in Real Truth Editor-in-Chief David C. Pack’s book The Awesome Potential of Man.)

The two trees in the garden also symbolized two ways of life: give versus get.

The way of give can be defined as outflowing love, care and concern for others that is equal to or greater than the love for oneself. It includes cooperation, serving and sharing. On the other hand, the way of get is inward concern for self. It can be summarized as, “I want to take. I want to get whatever I can from you. I will let you produce, but I’ll take it away from you, rather than produce myself.” It is materialistic, covetous and self-centered. It involves getting at the expense of others—often to their hurt.

By Noah’s time, the vast majority of Earth was living the way of get.

Way of Cain

Genesis 4 shows that Adam and Eve’s first children, Cain and Abel, exemplified these two ways of life. First-century Jewish historian Flavius Josephus had access to ancient historical documents that no longer exist today. His Antiquities of the Jews supports the biblical account: “Now, the two brethren were pleased with different courses of life, for Abel, the younger, was a lover of righteousness, and, believing that God was present at all his actions, he excelled in virtue; and his employment was that of a shepherd. But Cain was not only very wicked in other respects, but was wholly intent upon getting…” (emphasis added).

Strong’s concordance shows that the Hebrew meaning of the name Cain is “gotten.”

Cain eventually ends up killing Abel out of jealousy and is expelled from the presence of his family as punishment. In response, Cain tells the Creator, “Behold, You have driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from Your face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth…” (Gen. 4:14).

Cain clearly was not removed from Earth, but was driven from where Adam, Eve and their children lived. Verse 16 states, “And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.”

Josephus states that Cain refused to learn from his punishment and instead determined “to increase his wickedness; for he only aimed to procure everything that was for his own bodily pleasure, though it obliged him to be injurious to his neighbors. He augmented his household substance with much wealth, by rapine [theft] and violence; he excited his acquaintance to procure pleasures and spoils by robbery, and became a great leader of men into wicked courses. He also introduced a change in that way of simplicity wherein men lived before; and was the author of measures and weights. And whereas they lived innocently and generously while they knew nothing of such arts, he changed the world into cunning craftiness. He first of all set boundaries about lands: he built a city, and fortified it with walls, and he compelled his family to come together to it…”

Instead of always giving generously, Cain apparently introduced weights and measurements in business dealings. Almost certainly, he began to cheat others using this system to get more for himself. He negatively influenced others to live selfishly.

Josephus shows the incredible effect Cain had on others: “Nay, even while Adam was alive, it came to pass that the posterity of Cain became exceeding wicked, every one successively…more wicked than the former. They were intolerable in war, and vehement in robberies…yet was he bold in his profligate [wasteful] behavior, in acting unjustly, and doing injuries for gain.”

Antiquities of the Jews singles out one of Cain’s descendants: “But Tubal, [the Bible calls him Tubal-cain] one of his children…exceeded all men in strength, and was very expert and famous in martial performances [he was an elite warrior]. He procured what tended to the pleasures of the body by that method; and first of all invented the art of making brass.”

These are all just descriptions of Cain’s descendants. Adam’s other children lived separately under a wholly different form of leadership.

Preachers of Righteousness

Recall that Abel was “a lover of righteousness,” which means he lived God’s Way. Psalm 119:172 defines righteousness: “My tongue shall speak of Your word: for all Your commandments are righteousness.”

This means Abel obeyed God’s Commandments.

The way of give did not die out when Cain killed his brother. (Read Did the Ten Commandments Precede Moses? for clear proof that God’s Law has been in place since Creation.)

Return to Genesis 4: “And Adam knew his wife again; and she bore a son, and called his name Seth: for God, said she, has appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew” (vs. 25).

Verse 26 states: “And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the Lord.”

The phrase “call upon the name of the Lord” could also be translated as “then men began to preach and publish the name of the Lord.”

Almost certainly, those of Seth’s line invented written language. Josephus states that they founded the study of astronomy and wrote their discoveries on stone and brick pillars to preserve the knowledge.

A passage from the New Testament sheds light on what role Seth and Enos had in the pre-Flood world: “And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly” (II Pet. 2:5).

Noah was the eighth of what are called “preachers of righteousness.” Abel was the first. The other seven were Seth, Enos, Cainan, Mahalaleel, Jared, Enoch and Noah. They undoubtedly taught their families to live according to God’s Commandments...

Preaching Campaign

Because Noah was just, the Creator warned him of the coming Flood: “And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. Make you an ark of gopher wood; rooms shall you make in the ark, and shall pitch it within and without with pitch” (Gen. 6:13-14).

The Flood did not begin immediately. God gave mankind 120 years to repent (vs. 3), during which time Noah, as a preacher of righteousness, warned of the coming calamity for the majority of this time.

Josephus adds to the story: “But Noah was very uneasy at what they did; and being displeased at their conduct, persuaded them to change their dispositions and their acts for the better: but seeing they did not yield to him, but were slaves to their wicked pleasures, he was afraid they would kill him, together with his wife and children, and those they had married; so he departed out of that land.”

A loving God made sure that all of mankind was told of the coming punishment and offered anyone who changed their ways a place on the ark. Additionally, Noah also certainly preached the gospel of the kingdom throughout the world as his great-grandfather Enoch had done.

To sharpen this warning, God may have increased natural disasters at that time.

While most details from the Babylonian telling of the Flood cannot be trusted, the fact that natural disasters were increasing has strong merit as it follows a common biblical pattern. A few details gleaned from the Babylonian myth include an uptick in famines and disease outbreaks in the years before the Deluge. It also mentioned attacks from lions and wolves were commonplace.

Such events should have grabbed man’s attention and showed him that he was living the wrong way!

Despite Noah warning for decades, everyone ignored the patriarch. Just eight people were ultimately saved: “…when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (I Pet. 3:20).

All of these theories are based on the differences between man and the all the other species that inhabit the planet. Dr. Silver’s theory focuses on evidence on how mankind is not suited to live on this planet, along with behavioral patterns that indicate that we are here as a sort of punishment.

We will discuss Sr. Silver’s observations in conjunction with the rest of the theories in order to extract a conclusion.  The basic elements of all the theories put together are:

1. Bad backs

The problems that mankind faces with its spine and back are a clear indication that the original environment is one of lower gravity. Earth’s higher gravity puts strain in the skeleton and the result is the back pains.

 2. Sunlight

Humans, in contrast with other species, cannot sunbath for more than a given time per day without getting sunburned. This indicates that the human body was not designed for constant exposure to the sun.

 3. Illnesses

Dr. Silver stipulates that humans are always ill because they evolved on a 25 hour per day environment instead of 24 as on Earth, and they have not adapted yet. The older theories add to this concept than in many cases, when there is an illness, humans are disabled and cannot carry out their workload, which rarely occurs in the other species.

4. Dislike of the Earth environment

Many people have a profound dislike for all foods that are naturally grown. An equal amount of people do not feel that Earth is their home. Many have reported visions and dreams of other worlds with other circumstances and other living conditions much better than even the best conditions available on Earth. This is even further indication of human beings been brought here from someplace else.

5. Birth difficulty

Babies’ heads are too large, which presents a problem to women when there are giving birth, a problem which may result in fatalities to both the mother and the infant.

6. Growing up

Dr. Silver does not mention this point, which is a major issue for the older theories. In all species that inhabit the Earth, the offspring is capable of doing things in a relatively short time, which may vary from just a few minutes to eight weeks after birth. Human offspring is completely helpless and powerless to do anything for at least ten years before acquiring some capabilities. It takes another five to ten years before it can perform the duties and the requirements of carrying their weight around. Something that is never seen in all other species put together.

7. Advances

The human being does something that no other species has been observed doing – he uses external ways to overcome his physical shortcomings. Has anyone ever seen an elephant with an artificial leg? Or an owl wearing real glasses?

8. Behavior

Lions and the other carnivores will hunt to eat and they will engage in fights almost always for reasons of reproduction. Most fights in the animal kingdom are actually for reproduction and areas for feeding. And whenever there is a fight, when the victor is declared, the fight is over. There is no observance in any other species than the human being for retaliatory attacks, pre-emptive strikes, and most of all weapon construction in ever increasing lethal potential. Unless anyone has ever seen a mouse with an M-16 at hand and never bothered to inform anyone about it.

For all theories this is the most important argument that shows that mankind is not from here. The inherent violent nature. As stated by a World War II journalist in a condemnation of mankind: “People kill each other because they like to.” (Ernie Pyle, war correspondent – responding to a question posed by Maj. General John P. Lucas). He went on to say that when someone kills someone else, he lives that moment more vividly than any other moment of his life. At that specific moment, he is more than he will ever be again. Has anyone ever observed this kind of behavior in any other species?

Dr. Silver puts this issue into mankind being sent to a prison-like Earth until we learn to behave ourselves. It seems that after 4,000 years of recorded history, things are getting worse, not better.

The book that Dr. Silver published, as per his own words, is not a study, but ideas for debate. Strangely this book comes to solidify other theories like:

Mankind landed on Earth on starships that escaped a destroyed world.
Mankind is brought here from a reverse universe, either through a random occurrence or through intentional action.
Mankind is brought here as an experiment of evolution.
These theories will be discussed along with their features in future articles. The focus on this one is whether there is validity to the claim that we did not evolve on this planet.

As expected, the theory was met with criticism and skepticism from other scientists. But there were also favorable opinions like the one of Prof Wainwright of the University of Sheffield. According to him, life is constantly brought to Earth from other worlds.

Until science finds irrefutable proof as to the origin of mankind, there will always be evidence and circumstances in favor of one theory or another. But it is beyond any reasonable doubt that man is a completely different species than any other of this planet. Science will have to prove why.

Ancestry of Man puts forth the theory of exile.

The theory of exile states that the origin of man is not Earth. Humans were purposely placed upon this planet. It explains the who, what, when, where and why of human origin on Earth.
...
Theory Of Exile

The theory of exile is that the origin of man is extraterrestrial. It states that our species (homo sapiens sapiens) has not been on Earth since the dawn of time, and humans are actually a recent event in global history. Ancestry of Man acknowledges that there are fossils of other hominoids on Earth, but none of cro-magnons (ours) that are older than 60,000 years. Human genealogy is 100% extraterrestrial. Never has Earth seen a species as advanced as ours. But, as advanced as we are, we have some very dangerous traits. Is Earth a prison planet? The answer is yes. Are humans extraterrestrial? The answer is yes. What is the true origin of man? The true origin of man is from other worlds.
...
We can only imagine what purpose lies behind the activities of these quiet, harmlessly cruising objects that time and again approach the Earth. The most likely explanation, it seems to me, is that they are simply watching what we are up to.
– Dr. Margaret Mead, world-renowned Anthropologist. (Redbook, vol. 143, September 1974)

Every person born on Earth feels a primal connection to the stars, and feels part of the universe.

Deep within us the constellations call to us, and the depths of space beckon to us with unspoken word. The reason is that humans did not originate on Earth. Our ancestry is interstellar, from worlds that one day we may visit. We are divine creatures, evolutionary marvels, and prisoners on this planet.

Ancestry of Man explains the origin of man and how we got here.
...
It all began when humans began acting criminally insane and became an interstellar menace, which resulted in some humans imprisoned on Earth.
...
If life exists on Earth, it must also exist on other worlds.

Human origin is not Earth. Humans are aliens from outer space, prisoners on Earth, and everything about us provides the hard scientific proof needed to verify that. Humans were put on prison planet Earth for very good reasons. However, we have been intentionally misled about our true origin many times throughout the millenniums. First by religions, then also by science. Scientific fact is that our species, known as modern humans, did not evolve on planet Earth, and there is not a shred of hard scientific evidence that exists anywhere on the entire planet to prove that we did. Whether we like it, deny it, accept it, or reject it, our ancestors were exiled and imprisoned on Earth between 50-60,000 years ago.

Science disagrees that our relatives even exist. It believes that there is a strong probability that life may exist elsewhere else in the universe, but until it can be verified beyond all doubt, the scientific community refuses to state it as fact. However, logic dictates that it is very probable that the “source” of life did not disperse itself throughout the universe selectively. Therefore, if life exists on Earth, it must also exist on other worlds.

There may be extraterrestrial life forms that we are unaware of, but the majority of interstellar life will likely share characteristics with the life forms found on Earth.

The same creatures that have roamed this planet (and still do) are sure to exist on other planets with similar climatic and environmental conditions. In fact, it was from similar planets that our species was taken. While we may occupy a place in the universe’s evolutionary scale, we did not evolve on Earth. The genealogy and origin of man is entirely extraterrestrial.

Earth is a prison planet.

Prisoner - Earth Is Prison Before our ancestors were placed here, they lived freely throughout the universe. We are the direct descendants, and distant relatives of the extraterrestrials that still do. We once shared all the rights, responsibilities and technologies of those societies. But, at some point in the last 60,000 years, our ancestors were arrested and exiled to Earth. The logical reason was because some Cro-Magnoids (homos sapien sapiens – our ancestors) begin to exhibit insanity and criminal behavior.

Finding an efficient and “humane solution” to coping with persons violating the rights of others became an absolute necessity. Identifying and isolating those who presented problems took place. Our ancestors were arested and selected for exile to Earth. Our different physical characteristics were caused by evolutionary adaptation to other planets.

Note: I am often asked why we weren’t simply genetically ‘repaired’ and reintegrated into society. There are two likely reasons: 1) Forced genetic modification of intelligent life forms is likely considered a horrific intergalactic civil rights violation, and therefore is strictly forbidden, or 2) Previous genetic manipulation went terribly, terribly wrong and has been forbidden since.

Once our ancestors were identified and isolated, a course of action was decided upon. Exile was chosen.

The conditions for the exile were:

prisoners were stripped of all memory of former lives
prisoners received no tools or technology
prisoners were placed on a planet with a variety of climates that was hospitable to life, and intentionally far from intergalactic civilization
prisoner contact, or interference in development, was forbidden
prisoners to be periodically monitored and assessed

The reason for these conditions was to let nature to take care of the problem for them, and if we did survive, to monitor our intellectual development and evaluate our level of risk of escape from the prison planet. The distance from intergalactic society to the prison planet selected was so vast that it would prevent, or at the very least severely inhibit, any interference that could trigger technological development. After human arrival on Earth, monitoring and assessment began. It was agreed that should the prisoners negative behaviors cease, they would be considered for re-integration into interstellar society.

Science has proven that “hominids” have lived on this planet for a very long time. It has also proven that our species, Homo Sapiens Sapiens (Cro-Magnon or Modern man) have not. Our ancestors were exiled to Earth in order to stop, or at the very least isolate, the intergalactic spread of mental illness, crime and murder. The same criminal behavior and mental illness that we still see around us today.

Negative behavior seems to an inescapable part of our nature. There is not a single human who is free of violent, lustful, vengeful, thieving and/or murderous thoughts. The unnatural horrors that humans experience on this planet are almost always caused by our own species. Humans lie, steal, cheat, rape, murder and pollute. We victimize everything, even our own kind. We are a horrible menace to ourselves, to all of the creatures of this world, and to interstellar civilizations.

The treacherous and murderous ways of human beings remain a very real threat to peace in the universe.

Earth was chosen to become a prison planet because of its remote location, varied climates, and the ability to support hominid life forms. Our ancestors were stripped of all memory of their former lives and placed on different continents, selected for similarities to our ancestors former climatic environments. Even though we varied in language, size, shape and color, all prisoners exiled to Earth were Cro-Magnon.
...
It was thought that if the prisoners survived at all, they would do so in a primal state, existing by building relationships, and possibly even interbreeding, with Earth’s native hominid species. It was a belief proven very wrong. We immediately began to dominate everything that came into our path. The sudden terrestrial appearance of modern man was on a scale so large, that it allowed Cro-Magnoids to drive the Neanderthals, who had been at the top of Earth’s food chain for well over 200,000 years, to near global extinction within just a few thousand years.

Initial monitoring the imprisonment proceeded as planned, but within a thousand years, it became obvious that very serious oversights and assumptions had been made. The concept of prisoners remaining in a primal state was shattered when our ancestors set about creating a microcosm of interstellar civilization.

Earth, for the first time in its history, became witness to art, architecture, animal husbandry, agriculture, written languages, advanced mathematics, technology, law, religion and government. It also became witness to the atrocities of modern man. Instead of interbreeding with other hominoids, we began the systematic global slaughter of competing life forms.

AtlantisGenetic testing revealed that the surprising intellectual and technological development of our ancestors was the result of genetic memory. This set off a very heated debate. One side called for immediate extermination of Earth’s prisoners before they genetically “remembered” to the point of achieving interstellar flight, and became a risk of re-infecting intergalactic civilization. The other side firmly believed that if given enough time we would self-destruct, and simply sought to observe us until we do.

Continued observation and assessment of prisoners on the prison planet was agreed upon, under strict conditions, with the number one condition being ‘no contact’.

One of the most hotly debated issues in paleoanthropology (the study of human origins) focuses on the origin of modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens.

Roughly 300,000 years ago, the Old World was occupied by a morphologically diverse group of hominids (any primate of the family Hominidae). In North America, Africa and the Middle East there were Homo sapiens; in Asia, Homo erectus; and in Europe, Homo neanderthalensis.

By 130,000 years ago, Neanderthals had all become so anatomically distinct, that they were classified as a separate species — Homo neanderthalensis. Then, approximately 50,000 to 60,000 years ago, Cro-magnoids (our ancestors) suddenly appeared on this planet. Instead of living cooperatively with Neanderthals, we annihilated them in North America, Africa and Asia by 40,000 years ago, and in Europe by 25-30,000 years ago.

To date, no definite Neanderthal specimens newer than 25,000 years ago have ever been found...
The Cro-Magnoid people briefly coexisted in Europe with other humanoids, the Neanderthals, whose anatomy and DNA were clearly different from ours. However, obtaining a reliable sequence of Cro-Magnoid DNA was technically challenging. “The risk in the study of ancient individuals is to attribute to the fossil specimen the DNA left there by archaeologists or biologists who manipulated it,” Barbujani says. “To avoid that, we followed all phases of the retrieval of the fossil bones and typed the DNA sequences of all people who had any contacts with them.”

The researchers wrote in the newly published paper: “The Paglicci 23 individual carried a mtDNA sequence that is still common in Europe, and which radically differs from those of the almost contemporary Neanderthals, demonstrating a genealogical continuity across 28,000 years, from Cro-Magnoid to modern Europeans.” The results demonstrate for the first time that the anatomical differences between Neanderthals and Cro-Magnoids were associated with clear genetic differences.

The Neanderthals, who lived at the top of Earth’s food chain for nearly 300,000 years, were not the ancestors of modern humans. We suddenly appeared from somewhere about 50,000 – 60,000 years ago. Despite any similarities of Neanderthals to modern man, they have no direct link to our evolution.

Because we were placed on Earth to protect interstellar civilization from our negative behaviors, it is extremely probable that if we accomplish manned interstellar flight without altering ourselves in a positive way first, we will bring about our imminent destruction. I assure you, our genetic and intellectual development have not just been of interest to us. Will genetic memory lead to human extermination? Possibly.

The fate of man depends on the decisions that humanity makes about a number of issues, such as the environment, social policies, and space exploration. But, nothing will affect the fate of man more than the behavior of mankind, which to date have been deplorable. Extraterrestrials once decided the fate of man when they placed us upon this prison planet, and now the future fate of man rests entirely upon the future decisions we will make.

You may be prone to initially deny the theory that the fate of man was decided by the extraterrestrials who exiled us onto a prison planet, but before you get too comfortable with the assumption that this theory is outrageous and simply cannot be true, look closely at what elements make a theory – whether mine, panspermia, evolution or creation – plausible and probable.

A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations.

A scientific theory does two things:

it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena
it makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class
In the scientific, or empirical tradition, the term ‘theory’ is reserved for ideas which meet baseline requirements about the kinds of empirical observations made, the methods of classification used, and the consistency of the theory in its application among members of the class to which it pertains.

In general theories are expected to be functional and parsimonious: ie: a theory should be the simplest possible tool that can be used to effectively address the given class of phenomena.

Mankind Is Placed In Prison On Planet Earth

Empirical observations about the theory of human imprisonment on Earth provide clear elements to substantiate it.

A few are:

No evidence of Cro-magnoid existence, or evolution on this planet prior to 50,000 – 60,000 years ago
Cro-magnoid’s possession of intellectual, social, economic and technological abilities never before seen on Earth
Cro-magnoids exhibit criminal and anti-social behaviors
Millions of reported sightings of unidentified flying objects (UFOs), and UFO abductions of Cro-magnoids throughout millenniums
Supportive ancient religious and metaphysical art, artifacts and documents
Following the basics of criminal investigations, set forth are the three aspects needed to convince and convict; means, motive and opportunity.

Means: A civilization that has achieved interstellar flight capability certainly possesses the ability to ‘quarantine’ biological threats.

Motive: Cro-magnoid prisoners have a defined and well documented propensity toward insanity, violence and aggression.

Opportunity: Planets exist in the universe that are biologically capable of supporting hominid life forms (Earth is proof).

We must face the reality that the origin of man is not Earth. We are children of the stars, creatures from outer space, extraterrestrial, alien. Everything that we do, and all the scientific evidence that we gather, verifies that our Cro-Magnon ancestors did not evolve on this planet.

Man was imprisoned on Earth to protect extraterrestrial civilizations from man. It is fact that we are capable of horrible thoughts and actions, but we are also capable of amazing levels of art, technology, love, nurturing and healing. However, our ancestors were not imprisoned here because of all of the inherent ‘good’ qualities. They were exiled to this prison planet to protect interstellar civilizations from our ‘evil’ natures.

Our genetic drive is to reach for the stars, and soon intergalactic space travel will be possible. However, being able to travel beyond our own solar system may be a two-edged sword, for as long as mankind remains imprisoned on Earth, it poses little threat to peace in the universe. However, as the day nears when mankind’s first manned interstellar flight departs, the day also nears when the technological ability of man will force a decision by the extraterrestrials who put us here thousands of years ago to protect themselves.

Man Has Been Warned To Change Since The First Day On Earth

Extraterrestrials have warned mankind to change. And, their warning to change has been global. In fact, they have warned us so often, and in so many parts of the world, that if there is one spiritual thread that runs throughout all human history, it is the knowledge of our need to change our evil nature. Virtually every society and all religions throughout history has warned of great peril to mankind if it does not become ‘righteous’, if it does not ‘repent from sin’, or ‘cleanse’ itself from evil thoughts and actions.

The warning to change has existed in many forms, from generation to generation for thousands and thousands of years, everywhere on Earth. Because extraterrestrial contact with us has always been strictly forbidden, except for necessary testing and assessment, interstellar sympathizers risked great peril in order to warn our ancestors of the terrible fate of man that we face if we refuse to change. A future we now face unchanged.

It is imperative to the fate of man to use all possible resources to locate, then remove or repair whatever it is that makes us such a threat to each other, to this planet, and to peace in the universe. This solitary change in human nature will usher in a new era of civilization on Earth, and in the universe. Imagine a world where there is no greed, or fear of each other. A world of love and respect, and a world devoid of war.

Mankind is destroying its ability to live on planet Earth. We are deliberately, and systematically, exhausting and poisoning the resources we need to survive. By making the betterment of man a priority, the world will stay change, but in a beautiful and environmentally responsible way. The decision to change our behaviors must be of our own collective free will. Continued denial of our problem, and failure to take appropriate action, is very likely suicidal.

We now rapidly approach the junction in time where humanity’s path comes to a crossroads. Down one path lies imminent and certain destruction. Down the other is the fulfillment of our destiny; living peacefully throughout the vast reaches of the universe. We are not a natural part of this planet’s evolution. The origin of man is extraterrestrial. We are exiled aliens, strangers in a strange world. Only change can save the fate of man from certain destruction, either by our own hand, or by the hand of others.

Mankind has demonstrated it has unlimited potential, but it is critical to the fate of man to now use that amazing potential toward building a safe and sustainable future. The advanced drive technologies, electronics and metallurgical miracles that we need for safe interstellar travel lie dormant in us. We are very near to achieving interspecies communication (aliens do not use telepathy to communicate with other species), but to achieve interstellar flight, there needs to a radical departure from our concept of propulsion before interstellar spacecraft can become a reality. However, we may never reveal the wonders within us if we continue the way we are, for we stand on the verge of global self-annihilation, and the fate of man is fast approaching.

The ability for man to be able to communicate with extraterrestrials and other life forms on Earth is also becoming increasingly important. However, we are going about it all wrong. There is a language that all life forms throughout the universe use, and one that we have the ability to learn. And, by learning this ancient form of communication, we will at last be able to communicate with other life, not just on this world, but on other worlds too. This language is known as interspecies communication.

In conclusion, whether you agree or disagree with my theory that mankind was exiled to Earth, thank you for taking the time to read through my website. My theory details my belief about who we are, when we were put here, why we were put here, what we need to do, and how the future will unfold – depending on our choice(s). Secretly, I pray that I am wrong, but scientific fact gathered to date clearly indicates that I am correct about the origin of man being extraterrestrial.

Actually BADecker, I think CoinCube did just fine in getting down to basics; he provided this basic fact:
Mankind Is Placed In Prison On Planet Earth
If you look at the Ancient Aliens series, many of the episodes substantiate the idea that Man is not from Earth, but what is really interesting is the Prison aspect, which you can learn about from such episodes like "Space Station Moon" (S11,E11).

Dr. Silver and Lloyd Pye think alike!


..........

Intervention theory is simply a method to sidestep the issue. Intervention doesn't tell us where the universe comes from. It only tells us that someone or something intervened in the universe that was already there. Then you gotta figure out where the interveners came from - who created them.

Fun playing. But stupid if you want to get down to basics.

8)

Fast radio bursts (FRB) are perhaps the most mysterious phenomena we observe in the cosmos. Earlier this year, astronomers announced they had pinpointed an FRB for the first time in a dwarf galaxy that sits three billion light-years away. These intense blasts of radio waves last only 1 to 5 milliseconds, and they have perplexed astronomers since the first one was discovered in 2007.

The leading theories suggest that FRBs come from incredibly volatile cosmic events, such as material being ejected from supermassive black holes, the explosions of superluminous supernovae, or rotating magnetars that lash surrounding material with their immense magnetic fields. But researchers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) have proposed a much more enticing theory. What if FRBs aren't natural phenomena at all, but rather come from a massive artificial structure used to power alien spacecraft?

"Fast radio bursts are exceedingly bright given their short duration and origin at great distances, and we haven't identified a possible natural source with any confidence," said Harvard professor Avi Loeb in a press release. "An artificial origin is worth contemplating and checking."

The idea is that FRBs come from an immense alien power plant that is used to propel ships using light sails. A powerful beam of light can propel a reflective surface in the vacuum of space, which is the basis for light sail technology. Current human light sail experiments use light from the sun, but scientists are also working to develop a worldwide system of lasers that could propel small nanoprobes to about 20 percent the speed of light. Such technology, called photonic propulsion, could send a probe to Alpha Centauri, the closet star system to us, in roughly 20 years.

It's possible that a more advanced alien species uses photonic propulsion to power much larger spaceships. Loeb and fellow Harvard researcher Manasvi Lingam found that if an object twice the size of the Earth were harnessing solar power and converting the energy into a laser beam to propel spacecraft, then the radio emissions from it would be detectable even across billions of light-years. Such a planet-sized power system would be capable of accelerating a spaceship weighing a million tons, which is about 20 times bigger than the biggest cruise ships.

"That's big enough to carry living passengers across interstellar or even intergalactic distances," says Lingam.

The team's findings are outlined in a paper titled, "Fast Radio Bursts from Extragalactic Light Sails," which has been accepted for publication in the Astrophysical Journal Letters. To accelerate a spaceship's light sail, the device would need to constantly aim its beams of light at the craft. On Earth, we would see this from time to time as a quick flash of high intensity radio waves rather than a sustained signal because the movement of distant galaxies and planets means the laser would only line up with our planet for a split second.

The fast radio burst that we located earlier this year actually was detected nine times over the course of six months, which, if the signal is coming from an alien power plant, could be an indication that the device lines up with us regularly, or we could be seeing the planet-sized laser system being switched on and off.

Of course, this is all highly speculative theory. The new study simply outlines the fact that it is possible that FRBs are from an alien propulsion system according to our current laws of physics. Our species is nowhere near achieving such advanced technology, but perhaps a more advanced race has unlocked large-scale interstellar travel.

Loeb was asked whether he really believes FRBs come from an advanced alien civilization, to which he responded: "Science isn't a matter of belief, it's a matter of evidence. Deciding what's likely ahead of time limits the possibilities. It's worth putting ideas out there and letting the data be the judge."

No one came back to God.

If we assume that life on earth was brought from space, what does God do?

You want to say that the aliens did people and clay? Do not tell me.

OP,

so the "intervention" is basically way to abridge differences between Darwinian and creationist theory? Well, it is seems possible. Afterall, those are all merely theories as they cannot be verified by reconstruction. Possible yes. Thank you for this fun topic and do not get too worried about local trolls pretending to understand Darwin.

RISE AND FALL OF NATIONS

In the 1400s and 1500s, Portuguese and Spanish navigators set out to explore and claim parts of the world and spread their Roman Catholic faith. From Rome, the pope in 1500ad intervened to settle their competing claims to the "new world." He awarded most of the new territory to Spain, but what is now Brazil and most of Africa went to Portugal. Over the next century, the Dutch, French and English also explored and claimed new territories.

The nations that have dominated our modern world began to emerge as powers when Philip of Spain launched his Armada against Britain in 1588. Philip sent 130 ships, 2,500 cannons and 30,000 men in an attempt to bring Protestant England back into the Roman Catholic fold. But a heavy storm pummeled the Armada before it arrived, and faster English ships with longer-range cannons peppered the Armada as it moved up the English Channel, causing the Spanish ships to flee north toward Scotland—trailed by English ships that had nearly run out of ammunition. As they sailed around Scotland and Ireland, many of Spain's ships floundered and were lost in a north Atlantic storm—a storm that the English viewed as God's intervention. "The defeat of the Spanish Armada marked the decline of Spain and the rise of England as a world power" (The Battle 100, p. 54, Lanning).

Remember, God foretold the descendants of Joseph would become great—and the Spanish are not descendants of Joseph. God was beginning to fulfill His ancient promises.

In the mid-18th century, competing claims in Canada and the Ohio Valley led to conflict between the English and the French. At the Battle of Quebec in 1759, English troops defeated the French and by treaty gained all the land France had claimed east of the Mississippi River and north of the Great Lakes. This meant that all of Canada belonged to England. Between 1759 and 1805, the English navy decisively defeated the French navy at Quiberon Bay and Trafalgar. In 1815, a combined army of British, Dutch, Belgians and Prussians, led by the British Duke of Wellington, defeated Napoleon at the battle of Waterloo. A rainstorm on the night before the battle forced Napoleon to delay his attack, which allowed time for the Prussians to arrive and tip the balance of power to the British. Napoleon's defeat, aided by a rainstorm, brought an end to French domination of Europe.

In a prophetic sense, the contests at Quebec, Quiberon Bay, Trafalgar and Waterloo were contests between Ephraim (Britain) and Reuben (France). God foretold that Ephraim would become great and prevail, but that Reuben "shall not excel" (Genesis 48:19; 49:3–4), according to God's plan.

At about the same time, the United States was beginning its ascent to greatness. During the late 1700s, the American colonial army under George Washington withstood and outmaneuvered the more powerful British, often with the help of favorable changes in the weather at just the right time (as at the battles of Long Island and Yorktown), and by a combination of bold decisions by Washington (as at Trenton) and bad decisions by British commanders (as at Saratoga). The 1781 surrender of the British at Yorktown, one of the most influential battles in history, led to the independence of the United States and launched America on the road to becoming the world's most prosperous nation and eventually the only superpower. In prophetic terms, Manasseh (America) and Ephraim (England) were to become two separate nations—a great nation and a great company of nations—which is exactly what happened as a result of the American Revolution. In spite of losing the American colonies, England continued to amass an overseas empire "upon which the sun never set"—becoming a great company or commonwealth of nations—just as God predicted thousands of years earlier.

MIRACLES AND WORLD WAR

Some of modern history's most stunning examples of divine intervention occurred during the "dark days" of World War II. In the summer of 1940, the German blitzkrieg had pushed 400,000 Allied troops to the European coast near Dunkirk, France, where British military planners were expecting the greatest military disaster in their history. Yet, in a tactical blunder, Hitler suddenly halted the advance of the German tanks just as they were closing in for the kill. The King of England announced a National Day of Prayer, and thousands flocked to churches. During the nine days of the Dunkirk evacuation, the normally stormy English Channel remained as calm as a millpond—while a storm broke over Flanders, grounding Germany's Luftwaffe. These unexpected events allowed nearly the whole Allied army of 338,000 irreplaceable soldiers to survive and fight again—an amazing development which British Prime Minister Winston Churchill called a "miracle of deliverance," when thousands of Englishmen gave the credit to God, as Walter Lord wrote in The Miracle of Dunkirk (pp. 272–274).

The British thanked God, and appealed to Him for His intervention. During the Battle of Britain, as German and British planes fought in the skies over Britain and the English Channel, the King declared another National Day of Prayer. Prime Minister Churchill announced on a radio broadcast, "Bearing ourselves humbly before God, but conscious that we serve an unfolding purpose, we are ready to defend our native land…" (We Have a Guardian, Grant, p. 13). After the Battle of Britain, the commander of the Royal Air Force observed, "I say with absolute conviction, that I can trace the intervention of God, not only in the battle itself, but in events leading up to it… it was all part of a mighty plan" (Grant, p. 19).

When British troops were massed in Egypt for the Battle of El Alamein, another National Day of Prayer was called in Britain. General Bernard Montgomery, who led the British army at El Alamein, exhorted his troops that, "The soldiers must have faith in God," and he proclaimed: "Let us pray that the Lord, mighty in battle, will give us the victory" (Grant, pp. 30–31). The British saw the hand of God in how events transpired—not only was German commander Erwin Rommel away in Germany as the battle began, but his temporary replacement General Georg Stumme died of a heart attack on his way to the front. The German Africa Corps later withdrew after suffering heavy losses.

When the Allies landed troops on the Atlantic coast of Morocco, the shores of Sicily and the beaches of Normandy, the hand of God was visible in the remarkable circumstances of these endeavors. For the invasion of North Africa in late 1941, a fleet of 650 ships from America and Britain sailed to Casablanca, unnoticed by German planes or submarines, because many of the ships were obscured by "a squall that seemed to be traveling with our ships" (Grant, pp. 31–34, 49). Bad weather had been predicted, which would have made the landings difficult or unsuccessful—yet the Allies' ships arrived to find a calm, smooth sea! The Allied naval commander termed it "incredible"—and many recognized the hand of God at work.

In July 1943, U.S. General Dwight Eisenhower launched his invasion of Sicily with a prayer and a comment: "The die is cast, and the events are in the hands of God" (Grant, p. 38). During the night, gale force winds buffeted Allied ships, but the wild weather also caused Italians defending Sicilian shores to discount any signs of enemy activity. By the next morning, however, the sea suddenly calmed in a way that "seemed miraculous" (Grant, p. 39) and Allied troops could easily take the beaches.

Similarly, in June 1944, a temporary break in nearly a month of stormy weather allowed the Allies to mount their D-Day invasion at Normandy on June 6, while the Germans were still caught off guard by the continuing bad weather. On D-Day, Rommel was once again in Berlin—this time celebrating his wife's birthday. Considering these dramatic events, the soldiers who planned the invasion and the writers who recorded it spoke of "The Miracle of D-Day" (Daily Telegraph, April 7, 1947) and observed: "Only the thoughtless can fail to realize how great a part Providence has played in the swift and successful transformation of the great war" (Daily Mail, November 14, 1942).

There may be no better example of a sudden turn of events than the Battle of Midway in the Pacific in June 1942. A Japanese task force of four heavy carriers, 80 support ships, and hundreds of technically superior aircraft flown by experienced pilots had begun to attack and bomb the strategic American-held island of Midway. They faced an American force consisting of outdated planes, inexperienced pilots and three older carriers. Waves of American planes attacked Japanese carriers without scoring a hit, and many American squadrons were nearly destroyed by Japanese gunfire. Yet when the Japanese admiral finally spotted American ships, he ordered his pilots to return to their carriers for more fuel and torpedoes. Then, suddenly—as if out of nowhere—a group of American dive-bombers dropped out of the sky to deliver their bombs onto the wooden flight decks of Japanese carriers littered with bombs, torpedoes and fully fueled airplanes. In just five or six minutes, three heavy carriers—the pride of the Japanese fleet—were ripped by tremendous explosions, engulfed with smoke and flames and headed for the bottom of the Pacific. A fourth carrier soon fell, along with 275 airplanes and 4,000 irreplaceable soldiers—including experienced pilots and one of Japan's brightest commanders who chose to go down with his ship. This sudden, dramatic and unexpected reversal changed the course of the Pacific war in a matter of minutes. "Before Midway, Japan experienced only victory; after the battle, they met a succession of defeats" (Lanning, p. 150).

Many modern writers describe these incidents as amazing bits of luck. However, when viewed as part of a bigger picture, it illustrates how God has repeatedly intervened to guide the outcome of world events to accomplish His purpose.

Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say.

The sun is a constant star when compared with many others in the galaxy. Some stars pulsate dramatically, varying wildly in size and brightness and even exploding. In comparison, the sun varies in the amount of light it emits by only 0.1 percent over the course of a relatively stable 11-year-long pattern known as the solar cycle.

Still, "the light reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere provides about 2,500 times as much energy as the total of all other sources combined," solar physicist Greg Kopp at the University of Colorado told SPACE.com. As such, even 0.1 percent of the amount of light the sun emits exceeds all other energy sources the Earth's atmosphere sees combined, such as the radioactivity naturally emitted from Earth's core, Kopp explained.

To learn more about how such tiny variations in solar energy might impact terrestrial climate, the National Research Council (NRC) convened dozens of experts in many fields, such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry, fluid dynamics and energetic particle physics.

Many of the ways the scientists proposed these fluctuations in solar activity could influence Earth were complicated in nature. For instance, solar energetic particles and cosmic rays could reduce ozone levels in the stratosphere. This in turn alters the behavior of the atmosphere below it, perhaps even pushing storms on the surface off course.

"In the lower stratosphere, the presence of ozone causes a local warming because of the breakup of ozone molecules by ultraviolet light," climate scientist Jerry North at Texas A&M University told SPACE.com.

When the ozone is removed, "the stratosphere there becomes cooler, increasing the temperature contrast between the tropics and the polar region. The contrast in temperatures in the stratosphere and the upper troposphere leads to instabilities in the atmospheric flow west to east. The instabilities make for eddies or irregular motions."

These eddies feed the strength of jet streams, ultimately altering flows in the upper troposphere, the layer of atmosphere closest to Earth's surface. "The geographical positioning of the jets aloft can alter the distribution of storms over the middle latitudes," North said. "So the sun might have a role to play in this kind of process. I would have to say this would be a very difficult mechanism to prove in climate models. That does not mean it may not exist — just hard to prove."

In addition, climate scientist Gerald Meehl at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his colleagues suggest that solar variability is leaving a definite imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific Ocean.

When researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific showed a pattern very much like that expected with La Niña, a cyclical cooling of the Pacific Ocean that regularly affects climate worldwide, with sunspot peak years leading to a cooling of almost 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, peaks in the sunspot cycle were linked with increased precipitation in a number of areas across the globe, as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific.
...

Seventy-five years ago, on 18–19 September 1941, the Earth experienced a great magnetic storm, one of the most intense ever recorded. It arrived at a poignant moment in history, when radio and electrical technology was emerging as a central part of daily life and when much of the world was embroiled in World War II, which the United States had not yet officially entered.

The illuminated night sky exposed an Allied convoy to German attack.Auroras danced across the night sky as voltage surged in power grid lines. A radio blackout interrupted fan enjoyment of a baseball game, while another radio program was interrupted by private phone conversations. Citizens, already on edge, wondered if neon lights were some sort of antiaircraft signal. And far away in the North Atlantic, the illuminated night sky exposed an Allied convoy to German attack.

These effects raised awareness within the scientific community and among the public of the societal significance of the effects that the Sun and outer space can have on the Earth—what we now call space weather.

Solar-Terrestrial Interaction
On 10 September 1941, during the declining phase of solar cycle 17, astronomers saw an unusually large, low-latitude group of sunspots on the eastern limb of the Sun. The spots had formed, as they all do, with the buoyant emergence of a concentrated bundle of magnetic field lines from the Sun’s interior through the photosphere. Over the course of the next week the spots grew, and the Sun’s rotation brought them near the center of the solar disk as viewed from Earth [e.g., Richardson, 1941]. The sunspot group was large enough to be seen with the naked eye.

At 08:38 universal time (UT) on 17 September 1941, the Greenwich Observatory spectrohelioscope recorded a solar flare above this sunspot group [Newton, 1941]. The emitted ultraviolet and X-ray radiation abruptly enhanced the ionization of the Earth’s atmosphere, causing a sharp perturbation known as a “crochet” in dayside ground-based recordings of the geomagnetic field and temporarily interfering with high-frequency radio communication. Subsequently, scientists at the Mount Wilson Observatory in California observed another solar flare at 16:26 UT

On the basis of daily sunspot reports supplied by the U.S. Naval Observatory, the Department of Terrestrial Magnetism at the Carnegie Institution of Washington formally issued a warning to radio operators that they could expect significant disturbances to ionospheric and geomagnetic conditions beginning on about 18 September [McNish, 1941a]. This prediction, which turned out to be accurate, is a noteworthy development in the historical development of methods for reliably forecasting space weather.

Less than 20 hours after the flare was reported by Greenwich, a magnetic storm commenced at 0412 UT on 18 September with the arrival at Earth of a coronal mass ejection. This mass ejection abruptly compressed the magnetopause and generated a magnetic impulse that was recorded by observatories around the world [Newton, 1941]. The magnetic superstorm that followed was complex, intense, and of long duration.

A magnetic observatory in Cheltenham, Md., operated by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, registered six separate occurrences of geomagnetic storms with a K index of 9 (the most intense value possible). Five of these occurred consecutively over a 24-hour period. In terms of a related global index , the level of geomagnetic activity over a 24-hour period has not since been matched
...
The popular press provided vivid accounts of the auroras. The Brooklyn Eagle [1941] described celestial “neon lights.” The Chicago Tribune [1941a] reported that a “cosmic brush painted the Chicago sky with light” and that motorists parked on the highways had caused a traffic jam as they sought a clear view of the celestial spectacle.

According to the Washington Post [1941a], some people wondered if the celestial events had something to do with national defense: “Was it an antiaircraft search battery?” These were, after all, difficult times. The United States was already being drawn into World War II [e.g., Heinrichs, 1988], and many citizens anticipated even greater involvement.

Auroras were also seen in Europe, but not surprisingly, most newspaper articles focused on wartime events. Newspapers, for example, succinctly reported that the British Royal Air Force carried out a raid on a German supply base on the Baltic Sea [Washington Post, 1941b] and that the Germans bombarded Leningrad [Chicago Tribune, 1941b], each under the lights of the aurora borealis.

When the magnetic storm finally subsided and the aurora faded, a New York Times [1941c] article described the events, in war terms that were common at the time, as an “ethereal blitz.” Some readers even optimistically saw the auroral displays as a representation of hope for victory [New York Times, 1941d].