Evolution vs. Creation

[macumazahn]

Thomas Robertson wrote:

<quoted text>
I thought this thread was about evolution vs. creationism,
didn't you, macumazahn?

Ab origine, of course.
It's been interfered with a bit.

[MAAT]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I definitely agree to what you posted. It has something to do with relativity theory of consciousness. I have yet to find out about quantum mechanics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
stanford lectures.
Not exactly thrilling and inspired but for an introduction they'll do.
I usually prefer to read, and wiki can provide animations for some mathematical models.

[Hidingfromyou]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
The wiki has one on bias.
Once you are in the system and diagnosed for one thing, it's likely you could be diagnosed for more things. Before you know it you are labeled allavro, which could , given the narrow definitions easily lead to a psychiatric stigma.
Parents in particular would not want this.
So we get some new 'disease'.(Always good for the pharmaceutical industry to try some processed salt on. Since that comes in countless varieties for $65 per metric ton. If it does nothing -good- one can still use it as placebo in psychiatry!)
So whe looking how many people have this affliction we meet medical bias allavro, preselection.
But if we looked at the overall population we would see that a lot of behaviours are widespread and nothing special, at least those never got medicalised.
So anonymous stated that he intended to point out that those people want to get rid of the behaviour.
And with psychologized he might maybe have meant the bias as it works in reality, as mentioned above.
With the remark that they are not cured, nor is any intention made to do so.
But on the whole the communication went awry.

Thanks. Yeah, I didn't see that from him.

But, yes, the medicalization of behavior causes all kinds of problems for people - I totally agree.

[anonymous]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
I have to agree that psychology for much of its history looks like pseudoscience with unfalsifiable dogmas rather than testable hypotheses.
Perhaps now with some good hard neuroscience and direct observation we can get a bit further in understanding how we tick.
In the meantime...homosexuality is victimless, consensual behavior and therefore no more requiring government control than any other victimless activity, whatever its presumed causes. And disappointed mums or dads do not count as "victims".
As for the difference between "civil union" and "marriage", isn't that just primitive voodoo word magic? So long as any couple forms a permanent bond and is given the same rights in law (taxation, inheritance, etc) as a result of that bond, who cares what we call it?
Religions of course can forbid it internally as we always give cults the right to enforce whatever barmy idiocy they want on their subjects.
Bacon, anyone?

For the most part, that's what I've been saying. The exception is the voodoo word magic. To me, marriage should just be a word but it's also a matter of legal precedent. When the state performs acts of gay marriage, that legitimizes the lifestyle and declares it a state endorsed institution.

This is much less about mental health or rights than it is about a disgruntled working class who really doesn't have a point to make. They should organize but they and the aristocracy are happy to let the working class act out their frustrations by shaking down people who aren't on a party's protected list. I'm not impressed.

Some day, New York or California may vote for gay marriage, and then the real confrontation in Washington will begin. But it's not going to be about law and order. It'll be about urban/rural class warfare similar to the class systems before the Civil War. There are no brakes on those colliding trains.

[anonymous]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks. Yeah, I didn't see that from him.
But, yes, the medicalization of behavior causes all kinds of problems for people - I totally agree.

And I agree too! That is why the best therapy for behaviors that one enjoys but the majority takes exception to is to practice discreetness.

I've already made several comments to the effect that politicizing behaviors that could be obsessive-compulsive is cruel and irresponsible. I've already stated that stigma prevents people from seeking professional help.

People don't see the big picture when they want to act out. Well, I do expect people to be accountable for their bad behavior. Remarkably enough, I am not so childish that I'm going to act out in a similar fashion just to dominate. The question for you is whether or not you trust me that way or will you stick with a familiar hall of mirrors.

This Cheshire cat has had his say!

[anonymous]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
You sound like the NRA...let everybody have any kind of gun and as many as they want, because you can't prevent atrocities happening anyway.(Compared to banning heroine and why only the police should cary guns. Added to that why Obamas kids would be entiled to protection. Does he think he is the president ..or a king. Yep there was a tiny hesitation their when the spokesman realised the grotesqueness and implied racism and low opinion he just vented on international television.)
As long as privately guns can be sold without control you can stop neither, since a lot end up in f.i. Mexico to support the drugtrade.
Ban the sale of bullets and have people undergo a yearly psych evaluation plus a permit and id cheque before renewing.
If they have to protect themselves they can start clubbing.
But bestiality would usually be after the fact and when caught. Repressive acting.
Isn't everyone in America supposed to live free, happy and without harassment. I would see precedent there.
And in international human rights as well.
So homosexuality would fall under freedom of expression and human rights laws that protect minorities.

NRA? Hardly. Libertarian, yes. Feeling pushed into an underclass, definitely.

I'm not looking for a pound of flesh, but I stated plain as day that obsessive-compulsive behavior was at the root of this political debate. With that in mind, I blatantly announced that I was going to exacerbate that trait in people, yet they would act out on it ANYWAY.

A lot of people put Obama in a bind about class. He didn't come from an aristocratic background, but did spend most of his adult life among them. When he was young, probably the last thing on his mind was his legacy. Would you or I have thought about what future generations thought of our actions at some frat party? Not likely!

What I'm doing is mostly pointing out "style". People in a certain class can do things without thinking while others are expected to observe different rules. The "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate has it's roots in that, and I felt it was time to represent the conservative elements without the messy conundrums of religiosity!

You dropped in kind of late to this discussion. You can read back if you like but there wasn't much logic to it from the get-go, so by the time you dropped in, it had turned into a ground slapping dominance game. All it took was to deny socially driven creatures their "satisfaction" and things slowly escalated into something darn silly.

I guess you can say that a president must protect his or herself against those worst behaviors while believing in our better ones. We're really not dealing with royalty here, so I can't really see that royalty analogy fit....But be careful or you may find yourself getting caught up in a struggle to defend your own "class" self-image without noticing it! ;)

[xxxooxxx]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I definitely agree to what you posted. It has something to do with relativity theory of consciousness. I have yet to find out about quantum mechanics.

I have always thought that dreams were connected in some way to the Quantum field...and then I ran across this and I thought...wow isn't that strange that he would mention quantum mechanics.

[anonymous]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Plumage is a survival strategy, it is how the species improves it's genetic diversity. You speak from ignorance, that is easy to see, but you should actually look up and study something before making assertions. There are also many instances of homosexuality in many animals, we are not unique in that regard. That is what bothers you most, I am betting, having to admit that we are indeed animals.

Wait a minute. Do you propose that the bright plumage on a male peacock is there to intimidate? I see a big target saying "dinner at 6"! It certainly isn't there for improve flight or insulation value.

The subtleties of sexual selection are not too clear, but I doubt that there's a very direct survival reason for it as much as a social reason.

Think of me as the average guy who hates dancing because I really don't get it. Mock battle moves? Fantasy sex display? However you strut your stuff, one person will be amused and another offended. It's too much like work to me!

[Cybele]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
stanford lectures.
Not exactly thrilling and inspired but for an introduction they'll do.
I usually prefer to read, and wiki can provide animations for some mathematical models.

I've been following the string theory for years now. I first heard it from Michio Kaku. I like how Brian Greene explained it on Ted Talks. Very cool concept. Although physicists study it on the quantum level, the quarks and the vibrations and frequencies in it, I believe that dimensions just doesn't exist in the physical realm. I like to use this theory to explain 'my' reality.

I think of dimensions as emanating from the physical world vibrating through consciousness. We have created tools and technology as gateways to these dimensions, I think. These gateways are the wormholes to other dimensions. According to the M Theory there are ten dimensions in space and 1 for time.

I believe we just didn't invent these tools and technology for whatever purpose but we can use them to tap into the other dimensions of space and time. But sometimes I just like to call them levels of consciousness because it would take a lot of thought processes to come up with a mathematical formula for them. But I'd like to think that the code I discovered can somehow be applied to this theory. That's weird science for me. lol

[Cybele]

xxxooxxx wrote:

<quoted text>
I have always thought that dreams were connected in some way to the Quantum field...and then I ran across this and I thought...wow isn't that strange that he would mention quantum mechanics.

I believe that there is a dimension of space that can be accessed through dreams induced by different frequencies or brain waves. lol

[Cybele]

which could probably explain why we experience deja vu

[MAAT]

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
NRA? Hardly. Libertarian, yes. Feeling pushed into an underclass, definitely.
I'm not looking for a pound of flesh, but I stated plain as day that obsessive-compulsive behavior was at the root of this political debate. With that in mind, I blatantly announced that I was going to exacerbate that trait in people, yet they would act out on it ANYWAY.
A lot of people put Obama in a bind about class. He didn't come from an aristocratic background, but did spend most of his adult life among them. When he was young, probably the last thing on his mind was his legacy. Would you or I have thought about what future generations thought of our actions at some frat party? Not likely!
What I'm doing is mostly pointing out "style". People in a certain class can do things without thinking while others are expected to observe different rules. The "Evolution vs. Creationism" debate has it's roots in that, and I felt it was time to represent the conservative elements without the messy conundrums of religiosity!
You dropped in kind of late to this discussion. You can read back if you like but there wasn't much logic to it from the get-go, so by the time you dropped in, it had turned into a ground slapping dominance game. All it took was to deny socially driven creatures their "satisfaction" and things slowly escalated into something darn silly.
I guess you can say that a president must protect his or herself against those worst behaviors while believing in our better ones. We're really not dealing with royalty here, so I can't really see that royalty analogy fit....But be careful or you may find yourself getting caught up in a struggle to defend your own "class" self-image without noticing it! ;)

Several personal memories come to mind.
My generation given where we live thought a lot about what opinions were vented since they had political and thus direct implications for our life. or as feminist would say: the personal is political. it usually is but than depending on the scale of people experiencing the same problem.
I crashed many a 'frat'party, loads of fun in outdebating the prats. Given that i was also a dancer we were at times also thrown out of academies for the arts. As well as following classes while not being a student after a night of hard partying, driving 100 miles to chill in the woods, to end up in a hide and seek game with the park-guard and a drive back.
So frankly several categories fit. But it would be say i have allready been in the middle.
Overhere we have the model of compromise.

Nobility here is not overtly thrown in your face, nor would i throw it in yours. You will find workerd having become the middle-class and being very protective of their positions.
In America i consider figures like Trump to be the ones kinging it, including the heavy boot used in Scotland.
And people have a weird public respect for frankly quite dumb and brutish gouvernors and politicians.

It would be beneficial if America had more parties.
And by the way reading the law on healthreform i've not found that many drawback, on the contrary i would say.
Maybe they are now going to resolve this bias.
The other thing is that it's about time that the U.N.'s WHO Womens Sexual Health Act got endorsed and implemented.

And class resentiment would have to be residual feelings that have been simmering for a long time.

[Wolfganged]

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
But...but...if homosexuality is natural then suddenly gay marriage is ok and then the whole world will stop buying gasoline and the sun will nova!
Nocannot allow the end of all humanity![/! We QUOTE]

[QUOTE who="Hidingfromyou"] <quoted text>
Yes homesexuality is completley natural.!

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>gay marriage is ok.

I agree

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>No we cannot allow the end of all humanity

Huh? The end of humanity? What do you mean?

[Wolfganged]

Whoops,my appoligies for the above! I completley stuffed that up! lol...

QUOTE who="Hidingfromyou"] <quoted text>
Yes homesexuality is completley natural.!

^^^^^^

I said that!

[MAAT]

Cybele wrote:

which could probably explain why we experience deja vu

déja senti
déja visité
Émile Boirac was the first to write about déjà vu in his book boek L'Avenir des Sciences Psychiques.
It would be about first storing the memory before becoming aware of ones surroundings. Like a petit mal.(barely noticable fit)
Or another explanation (here we derive at Einstein and uhh who was that agai) that you have a slight malfunction in the visual cortex, where a double split occurs.
These are just theories ofcourse.
Wel and before you know it you end up dabbling in the metaphysical world of entanglement and the actual double split light experiment, just not really fitting the bill.
All belonging to that optimistic shool of post-modern thinking that the unified theory would explain everything and that physics would be the royal road to achieve it.
Jung indeed convinced that the symbolical, since being so universally found, was part of an overreaching consciousness we could all tap in.
I think Reich was the next in line to follow up but take a slightly different route.

[MAAT]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I believe that there is a dimension of space that can be accessed through dreams induced by different frequencies or brain waves. lol

I think xxxooxxx just came in touch with her inner atoms, quarking about. We are after all also mainly empty space.
An entire universe.

[Cybele]

MAAT wrote:

<quoted text>
I think xxxooxxx just came in touch with her inner atoms, quarking about. We are after all also mainly empty space.
An entire universe.

xxooxx is male, lol

[MAAT]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
I've been following the string theory for years now. I first heard it from Michio Kaku. I like how Brian Greene explained it on Ted Talks. Very cool concept. Although physicists study it on the quantum level, the quarks and the vibrations and frequencies in it, I believe that dimensions just doesn't exist in the physical realm. I like to use this theory to explain 'my' reality.
I think of dimensions as emanating from the physical world vibrating through consciousness. We have created tools and technology as gateways to these dimensions, I think. These gateways are the wormholes to other dimensions. According to the M Theory there are ten dimensions in space and 1 for time.
I believe we just didn't invent these tools and technology for whatever purpose but we can use them to tap into the other dimensions of space and time. But sometimes I just like to call them levels of consciousness because it would take a lot of thought processes to come up with a mathematical formula for them. But I'd like to think that the code I discovered can somehow be applied to this theory. That's weird science for me. lol

Well likewise here.
i try to keep a strict seperation, particularly after reading a long discussion by a theoretical phycisist, that started on atheism (which has various forms) ending in disproving the existence of god, with the obvious use of what we in the ordinary newtonian world would call flawed reasoning, but that works on quantum scales.
The mother board of my old computer blew and i did not print it, so lost.
The gist would be that such strings (to keep it simple) could only exist in vacuum, and be vacuum on miniscule scales and would then still leave frankly a whole lot of nothing as the main characteristic of the universe.
Now back to traveling without moving and other mind-trips.
Those particles that are you, would thus all be part of the minority and connected (we breath the same air as what once was a neanderthal f.i.), so therefore to be normal you would have to be over the top schizo and multiple personality disorder as well as capable of being a stone or a star. Since al that matter in you has been all these things too.

And only your reference frame keeps you sane.
Well that was a trip and a halve.

[MAAT]

Cybele wrote:

<quoted text>
xxooxx is male, lol

grin, the atoms don't mind.

[MAAT]

Cybele,it's been nice exploring and i'm getting curious as to this code. Even though it would be termed fringe/weird science.
Let me know how you get on with it.

Goodnight yall.