"I have not read Mr. Keating's thesis, so I am not able to discuss his book with you. However, based upon your comments and description of his work, I doubt that I will read it."

That same close mindedness I found at the Annual Meeting of the Socio-Economists. I understand it, yet I find it appalling. I am glad Galileo and Kepler weren't in that frame of mind.

Hi Bluebird,

You didn't enjoy Goldmember?

Click to view link

Jeanna

Thank you for adding your feedback on this topic.

BM

Jeanna, you get 5 stars! I agree with every word. Thank you so much!

@Agent Weebley, I used to enjoy your posts but do not understand any of them anymore. I guess we are not suppose to. :-(

Not really. I run over-unity.

Poll: Swiss National Bank chairman Philipp Hildebrand has resigned after it became known that his wife bought US$504,000 in August, just before the Swiss central bank capped the Swiss franc.

Me?

"Doesn't matter. Get rid of modern central banks and let people do what they want."

Me part of 62.67%.

Much better than pleasantly agreeing about how close you can come to the ground without touching, while swinging from a tree. What happened to your "compound interest" in your Faja? . . . told you to shoulder your way in by being more of a mini-me?

Click to view link

Well, why not? I happen to agree with Jeanna's points. You know, as someone who espouses a few "minority viewpoints" on the DB, it takes a lot of energy to argue regularly against opposing opinions, and I do not especially thrive on conflict, believe it or not (I realize that this may be a surprise to DB feedbackers). Although I do enjoy a good debate, when personal attacks are kept to a minimum...

Hi memehunter,

What's with the circle jerkle between all you guys? You're all so gosh darned "in agreement!"

Thank you for this. I am in complete agreement with every point you made (except perhaps for the assertion that the Bible is "God's Word"... ).

Hi iNGO,

You look good tonight . . . nice tie!

Well done everyone, lots of column inches to cover my entry point last night . . . eeeow that sounds kinda gross!

Anyway, I'm back with my peeps now, so the pressure is off to force my post way down the screen.

Click to view link

Thanks for this detailed explanation. I admit I had never heard about Keating's thesis before. I remain skeptical after reading your explanation, though.

The scientists are having an equally hard time with RNA, so much that they are resorting to speculations that microbes were dropped off here from outer space. Anything at all will be considered before they concede the idea of a creator.

The creation week is very specific, and is not conducive to the age/day theories many Christians try to use to reconcile the theory of evolution with God's Word. God defines the day with the cycle of the Sun and the Moon. It is a clear definition of the 24 hour day.

The Big Bang theory doesn't work simply because even the evolutionists agree that the universe is finite, and therefore being finite it is an isolated system. In an isolated system any spontaneous action increases the entropy, bringing into play the laws of thermodynamics, continually reducing available useable energy. To argue, as evolutionists tend to do, that the universe is eternal is to deny the physics of Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Your school dinosaur books are not proof of evolution. They are more lies heaped upon unsuspecting children who are naturally curious about a species who are mostly extinct. (The Komodo dragon is still with us.) But, there is much evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing. It is just not allowed in your school text books. See Apologetics Press article, Click to view link and also Click to view link.

I cannot remember the name of the evolutionist that said, "If we could only have a little miracle to get things started, evolution could work." And, that quote may be paraphrased. But, it is telling. Even they recognise that they need a supernatural, extraordinary one-time event to begin creation. It still amazes and awes the mind that they will deny the One source of that power.

From your reply to memehunter below:

"The arboreal-conflict thesis has nothing to do with "natural selection theory". It has to do with basic human instincts and the use of tools turning a being into a human which is obliged to live in a terrestrial environment. "

I have not read Mr. Keating's thesis, so I am not able to discuss his book with you. However, based upon your comments and description of his work, I doubt that I will read it.

Your comment above is attemtping to separate Darwin's writings on natural selection from his theory of evolution. Darwin specifically referred to a belief in the primate ancesters of man as he concludes in Chap. 6 of his book, The Descent of Man, "that man is an off-shoot from the Old World simian stem." I do not see that you can make a case for separating the two theories in Darwin's work, as he tries to make a case from one into the other.

Survival of the fittest says nothing more than that "survivors survive" as noted by British evolutionist Francis Hitching. It is a tautology, a circular truism, that is self-evident, and proves nothing. Those who survive will be those who produce the most off-spring. This is not proof that they are the fittest to survive, only that they were superior in breeding, and the overwhelming mathematics of numbers.

It also does not explain the creation of any new species or organism, nor the adaptation of a species to its environment. Yet without the adaptation to the environment, a species will not survive. But, adapation is not mutation, which is the necessary step according to evolutionists for the creation of a new species.

So, evolutionists began to back away from the arguments for natural selection in favor of arguments for mutation or origination of a species, macro-evolution. Mr. Keating's thesis appears to be based upon the much promulgated belief that man descended from apes and chimpanzees. On that basis alone, I can discard the thesis.

There is no fossil record of any transitional form from prinate to human. The famous attempt with the Lucy specimen, has been debunked, even by the original promoter of that fossil collection, Donald Johnson. He discovered this 40% complete specimen, spent five years closeted with it in his office documenting "facts" about the specimen which received wide publication. But, after the bones were allowed to be examined, even most evolutionists agreed they were the bones of a male chimpanzee. Donald Johnson himself admitted, "I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain (Johanson and Edey, 1981, pp. 257,258,." I find this admission all too typical of the desire to prove a presupposed belief, without the scientific discipline to adhere to the evidence the facts present.

And, still today, Australopithicus afarensis, Lucy for short, is represented in student text books as "proof" of the "evolution" of humans from apes.

Further, there is substantial evidence that mutations are harmful, and most often fatal to the organism. It is the designed plan for eliminating the least fit, so that it does not kill off the species. As a general rule, mutations do not create a viable organism. They also cannot be considered as adaptions in any way.

Adaptations, micro-evolution, are acknowledged by all scientists as an existing species learning to survive in its environment, but in no way changes the fundamental form of the species. A finch is still a finch. A fruit fly is still a fruit fly. A chimpanzee is still a chimpanzee.

Your willingness to accept the arboreal premise as fact is based upon oft repeated false evidences. As we know in other areas, if a lie is repeated often enough, most people will come to believe it. Evolutionists are fond of stating that "most scientists" agree, or "the accredited scientists acknowledge". These statements are designed to fool most people into believing that the majority of scientists are in agreement that evolution is a fact. Opinion polls are not proof of anything.

Human nature has a very carnal, primitive element. I am ready to concede that your observations of human nature may give you a basis for the sinful nature of man. But, your observations are subjective, and still offer no proof of an arboreal/terrestrial conflict thesis.

There is a very excellent source that I trust above all others that defines the carnal nature of man, provides the guideline for man to overcome self-interest, pride, greed, and envy. It outlines the provision of civil government and civil societies, for moral laws, and self-control. It provides psychological and philosophical studies. It is God's Word, the Bible. I am content to rely upon that.

@ taxes

A suggestion. Check into Maurice Cotterell's ideas. He is an Irish physicist. He is good on "God", Gravity and Relativity theory. Also Hawkins latest book is good on "God" (E = mc^2).

Abu, I checked out other things thought of because of each of these links, and learned alot; but that was too damned much work.

Hi Jeanna

Of course you are correct about evolution being pushed as a meme, and about why as well; I consider it one or our greatest dangers. But it is also pushed by some scientists because they believe it.

I had at one time every issue of Scientific American from 1961 to 1998. The magazine obviously became less scientific and more politically correct over time.

We cannot with present evidence prove or disprove evolution any more than we can prove or disprove the existance of God. Nevertheless the circumstantial evidence for past evolution is pervasive, it is everywhere; and the evidence for present day evolution is irrefutable (even if so far only for microbes).

Personally I have believed in evolution since I was four years old. Unlike most I did not get this from a socialist or anti-Christian source; but rather just from reading children's books about dinosaurs.

I guess most people who believe in evolution lack the belief that human life is more precious than other life; and for some that life is not precious at all, but through decades of belief in evolution I have always known, not just believed, but been absolutely certain, that we are special. For thirty years I was an atheist; and still believed we were special.

The Theory does not promote the idea that life is not created, nor that humans are not special in relation to other life. The people promoting the theory promote those ideas; some because they believe them, and others for other reasons. The fact that most Christian denominations rejected it out of hand, made it a tool for those wishing to thwart Christianity or those societies where is is prevalent. Christians felt they had to reject it because of its being at odds with the week long biblical creation story. I contend that it is not at odds with the creation story. Before there was an earth and sun there was no such thing as a day. How long is a "day" for God? If God created the universe, would he not use the physical laws created with it?

DNA or Protein first? We will probably never know; but RNA was before either, and many much simpler compounds are self replicating.

Trying to figure out something that complex from so long ago is a fools errand; scientists looking for the Higgs boson, and calling it the god particle, are far more likely to come up with something useful. But I very much doubt that they will find out anything about god.

@Jeanna

Interesting comments about the "Theory of Evolution". Can you also discuss the "Arboreal-Terrestrial Conflicts Thesis"... ???

I'd be very interested to read your comments.

@ memehunter

My view about the true nature of humans is based on a book which I read in 1975. The correctness of the thesis set forth in this book, I have affirmed to myself through personal experiences over three decades.

The book's title is "The Broken Bough" and the author is the late Edward M. Keating, who was a Law Professor at Santa Clara University in California.
The book is no longer in print, but it still is available from Amazon as a "used" book.

I presented a synopsis of the book during the Annual Meeting of the Society of Socio-Economists at UC Berkeley last year, which was co-sponsored by the Law and Economics Center of the Boalt Hall School of Law. I was appalled by the total inability of the attendees to consider Keating's arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis as being applicable to their field. Yet, I am more than ever convinced of its validity.

Keating's theory has little to do with Darwin's work, except to point out where Darwin got stuck. Keating's thesis in no way disputes, disagrees or counters biblical writings, nor any religious believe. As a matter of fact, this thesis points out the reasons for the existence of religions.

I pointed out at the Socio-Economists Meeting that it is not in the interest of the power elite that widespread understanding of Keating's thesis exists. However, I pointed out that as academics, it would behoove them to look into it. I offered to stand ready to discuss it with any of them. None ever took me up on the offer. So much for interest in the "true nature of man" by academic Socio-Economists. Their interest or understanding of human nature as it effects politico-economic behavior, is no greater than that of the average individual. There is a reason for it...

I could get involved in arguing the details of the arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis here, but I think it would take up to much "oxygen". I will therefore refer you to the book itself. I will continue to make my arguments here based on my understanding of the thesis, regardless whether people agree with it or not. They know where they can read up on the arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis to see whether I make sense.

You state, "In fact, it CANNOT be proven unless you were to somehow travel back in time. We can only offer conjectures. DNA analysis, fossil analysis, and datation techniques offer us clues and possible evidence, but they do not "prove" that our ancestors were "arboreal beings".

Ok, I will step back from proclaiming human ancestors to be "arborial being" by proven fact. I am content to theorize that they were "arboreal beings" based on DNA analysis, fossil analysis, and datation techniques offered as clues and possible evidence.

It is enough for me to take this stand, based on having proved to myself the validity of the arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis by personal experience over three decades.

The arboreal-conflict thesis has nothing to do with "natural selection theory". It has to do with basic human instincts and the use of tools turning a being into a human which is obliged to live in a terrestrial environment.

This is not the place to refight the Scopes trial, particularly since the arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis has little to do with Darwinian natural selection theory.

To your comment about my remarks about human nature, "This is pure conjecture, a post-hoc "just so" story that doesn't prove anything. It doesn't matter that similar ideas are sometimes peddled by mainstream science, that does not make it more convincing... "

To that, I say that the arboreal-terrestrial conflict thesis has been proven valid to me through personal experience over a long period of time, and it takes much more then expressed skepticism about it from someone who doesn't understand it to cause me to abandon it.

I thank you for your comment, though.

"Now I can see that if "We The People" do not somehow take back our country, and indeed our world, we may be altogether doomed, if not damned."

Exactly. I couldn't have put it any better. Do you understand why I feel almost compelled to engage in the discussion on the DB threads? Anthony Wile deserves great praise for having organized this excellent platform.

"I take seriously my oath to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. How many millions have taken an oath that includes those words; and how many of them can we count on to think, and uphold their oaths in a logical and moral manner?"

To that point, how many of us did understand the full meaning and importance of that oath? Only when we get older and hopefully "wiser" do we reflect. Then we first have to learn the full meaning and the importance of the Constitution, before it dawns on us how significant and important it is to take personal responsibility to see to it that the Constitution is preserved and that government does not steal the liberty promised with the Constitution.

Often we think, "what can one individual do... ???" However, when you realize that with today's social media anyone in the world is only "six steps" removed from having direct contact with you, that it dawns on you that your opinions can have an effect on others. Therefore, it becomes doubly important that reasoned, logical discourse take place. The propagation of a dominant meme through the internet should be checked by independent thinking and logical argument.

I have nothing against people who want to come on here to share their feelings, but it is idiocy to except such emotions as logic and reason.

Agreed. This is what I wrote about this statement:

"This is pure conjecture, a post-hoc "just so" story that doesn't prove anything. It doesn't matter that similar ideas are sometimes peddled by mainstream science, that does not make it more convincing ... "

However, this is not really about Ingo (as far as I'm concerned): we often get similar stories in mainstream science (OK, minus the "miraculously" bit), especially with evolutionary accounts. This is why I call them "just so" stories.

Click to view link

I will add, like many of Ingo's assertions and conclusions (e.g. regarding real bills, his "defense" of free markets), in this one he offers statements contrary to his belief.

For example: "With the "arboreal ancestry" remark, I am trying to point out that humans evolved when their "arboreal ancestors" were driven from their natural habitat in the trees, and then miraculously survived on the ground. In the short development from an arboreal being to a human being, nature failed to have time to genetically change the arborial being and its basic instincts. Nature helped the creature in its development by creating for it a large brain and self consciousness which let it survive on the ground. "

There are several statements of faith in this statement (e.g. "then miraculously survived"), yet he claims his conclusion to be scientifically proven.

How?