Intervention Theory

[Truthinus]

There sure is, dropout. Mind you, I like a good debate as long as it leads somewhere and enhances understanding but I can't get my head around why some are more interested in picking fault with almost everything I write or post. Sometimes I think it's a waste of time trying to 'talk' on here.

[HeadingNorth]

Baby with the bathwater again. I have read one of his books and it was badly written and agree that much of it rubbish, but that does not mean that it is all rubbish or that the general idea of ET intervention is wrong.

 

No, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There was no baby; everything he had to say was utter tripe.

[HeadingNorth]

Then the historic records show that advanced* beings came here and did some genetic engineering. Why do people find it so hard to believe? It is arguably more likely to happen than life itself evolving.

 

 

It's impossible to happen unless life itself evolved. You aren't even offering an explanation, just doubling the size of the problem.

[Truthinus]

It's impossible to happen unless life itself evolved.

Depends on what we mean by evolution - Darwin's theory is full of holes and he said himself that his version of evolution would fall down if it did not follow very "small incremental steps" over a very long period of time. In regard to a species adapting to the environment those small steps seem to be the case but from one species to another it has have not been found and evolutionists are still trying to fill the gaps after well over 100 years.

 

Then there is the question of how life began in the first place (which Darwin didn't really tackle) and my simple explanation is that life is part of nature and the whole Universe is nature, which contains consciousness and is 'thinking'.

 

Some people will dispute what I say but it took me most of my life to come to my own conclusions and it was only when I got on the Internet that I discovered that others had come to similar conclusions - including the late Carl Sagan, who was a brilliant astronomer and scientist, as well as being a very spiritual person.

 

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

 

"The Universe is God dreaming" - Carl Sagan but likely he was repeating what someone else said that he agreed with.

 

You aren't even offering an explanation, just doubling the size of the problem.

Actually I'm offering a reason why Darwinism is not the whole truth and why it is full of holes. The fossil record does not show "small incremental steps" but shows that species very suddenly appeared and the idea of ET intervention and genetic engineering, does explain why there are gaps in Darwinian theory.

 

Then lets go back to the ancient Sumerians. How did they know about Neptune and Uranus? They even described the colour (and the tilt) of these outermost planets, which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

 

Did they have better telescopes than what we have now? Did the the Sumerians themselves have spacecraft by which they could take a closer look at something that cannot be seen by the naked eye? How would they do that?

 

It was August 19th 1997 that Voyager 2 had a close look at these outermost planets and sure enough, they appear as the Sumerians described, several thousands of years earlier!

 

So how did the Sumerians know about the outermost planets that cannot be seen with the naked eye? Not even clearly seen by our present day telescopes! Obviously, someone who came inward from beyond our Solar system had told them. Or does one suppose that ancient people had eyes which were more powerful or even equal to our present day telescopes?

 

You don't know? Well, if you say so, that would be correct; you don't know.

.

[Truthinus]

It's impossible to happen unless life itself evolved.

Depends on what we mean by evolution - Darwin's theory is full of holes and does not fit the facts and he said himself that his version of evolution would fall down if it did not involve very "small incremental steps" over a long period of time. In regard to a species adapting to the environment those small steps seem to be the case but from one species to another it has have not been found. Then there is the question of how life began in the first place (which Darwin didn't really tackle) and my simple explanation is that life is a part of nature and the whole Universe is nature, which contains consciousness and is 'thinking'.

 

Some people will dispute what I say but it took me most of my life to come to my own conclusions and it was only when I got on the Internet that I discovered that others had come to similar conclusions - including the late Carl Sagan, who was a brilliant astronomer and scientist, as well as being a spiritual person.

 

"We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan

 

"The Universe is God dreaming" - Carl Sagan but likely he was repeating what someone else said that he agreed with.

 

You aren't even offering an explanation, just doubling the size of the problem.

Actually I'm offering a reason why Darwinism is not the whole truth and why it is full of holes. The fossil record does not show "small incremental steps" but shows that species very suddenly appeared and the idea of ET intervention and genetic engineering, does explain why there are gaps in Darwinian theory.

 

Then lets go back to the ancient Sumerians. How did they know about Neptune and Uranus? They even described the colour (and the tilt) of these outermost planets, which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

 

Did they have better telescopes than what we have now? Did the the Sumerians themselves have spacecraft by which they could take a closer look at something that cannot be seen by the naked eye? How would they do that?

 

It was August 19th 1997 that Voyager 2 had a close look at these outermost planets and sure enough, they appear as the Sumerians described several thousands of years earlier!

 

So how did the Sumerians know about the outermost planets that cannot be seen with the naked eye? Not even clearly seen by our present day telescopes! Obviously, someone who came inward from beyond our Solar system had told them. Or does one suppose that ancient people had eyes which were more powerful or even equal to our present day telescopes?

 

You don't know? Well, if you say so, that would be correct; you don't know.

.

[flamingjimmy]

Depends on what we mean by evolution - Darwin's theory is full of holes and does not fit the facts and he said himself that his version of evolution would fall down if it did not involve very "small incremental steps" over a long period of time. In regard to a species adapting to the environment those small steps seem to be the case but from one species to another it has have not been found.

 

There is no doubt that species can change into other species, from small incremental changes, for example, check out

.

 

Absolutely fascinating!

 

 

Then there is the question of how life began in the first place (which Darwin didn't really tackle) and my simple explanation is that life is a part of nature and the whole Universe is nature, which contains consciousness and is 'thinking'.

1. There is no evidence for that.

And 2. How does that answer how life as we know it began? You may argue that everything is concious as some sort of mantra but that does not explain how the first life forms (not including the universe itself) came about.

 

Actually I'm offering a reason why Darwinism is not the whole truth and why it is full of holes. The fossil record does not show "small incremental steps"

Yes it does.

 

but shows that species very suddenly appeared and the idea of ET intervention and genetic engineering, does explain why there are gaps in Darwinian theory.

No it doesn't. It only raises more questions.

 

Then lets go back to the ancient Sumerians. How did they know about Neptune and Uranus? They even described the colour (and the tilt) of these outermost planets, which cannot be seen by the naked eye.

I have a better question, how do you know that they knew that? Because as far as I can tell, they didn't.

[HeadingNorth]

Depends on what we mean by evolution

 

 

We were not talking about evolution, but about the creation of life. Stop confusing two separate issues to try to bolster your argument.

[Truthinus]

No, I'm not throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There was no baby; everything he had to say was utter tripe.

Not everything, nor is everything you say is "utter tripe" with your comment of "utter tripe" being the exception.

[Truthinus]

We were not talking about evolution, but about the creation of life. Stop confusing two separate issues to try to bolster your argument.

We was talking about Intervention Theory, not about the creation of life itself - I already covered that.

[Truthinus]

I have been away because:

1) I had better things to do, such as sorting my own life out rather than arguing with those who have little idea what life is really about.

2) My computer had a Virus and I lost most of my links (plus Add-ons such as spell checker and so on, so forgive me if my spelling isn't always correct).

3) I have been very ill with a virus and have been in bed trying to recover for several days.

 

Just so you know that I do have some answers to your (one-sided, blind, believe what you have been told by the accepted accademia of the time to believe; I give you some answers .

 

There is no doubt that species can change into other species, from small incremental changes, for example, check out

.

 

Absolutely fascinating!

No, although they allegedly cannot interbreed, apart from the spots (and they all have different spots) they look the same and as far as the fossil record is concerned, this is not an example of one kind changing into another.

 

1. There is no evidence for that. [the Universe being a conscious enity].

Rather, you have not found evidence for that yourself but some of us who are older than you have. And some younger than you have - so you must be right, Eh? Such arrogance!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogance

 

And 2. How does that answer how life as we know it began? You may argue that everything is concious as some sort of mantra but that does not explain how the first life forms (not including the universe itself) came about.

The subject of this thead is intervention, not how life began in the first place. Listen, because this is really deep. We are but a tiny part of the whole Universe.

 

So you think that consciousness is only valid to humans (or other creatures) on Earth? Has it not occurred to you that we are all part of Univeral nature? Even Photons follow each other and even Photons and Electrons 'know' when we are looking at them - yet a few Photons (or Electrons) are a but very, very, tiny part of the Universe.

 

Yes it does.

 

Those pictures do not show the transitional and incremental changes that Darwin described when he referred to his theory of evolution.

http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html#anchorhumans

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter8.php

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter7_1.php

 

 

No it doesn't. It only raises more questions.

 

I have a better question, how do you know that they knew that? Because as far as I can tell, they didn't.

I know because ancient people were not as thick as some think and (even) they knew things that we didn't (or don't) know and some of what they knew is written in stone.