truthlogic Posted April 21, 2011 Author Share Posted April 21, 2011 The first bloke - using the term to describe the political/financial elite. Second bloke - clearly a parody Third bloke - just speculating If that's your best evidence then it's a poor show. So the illuminati are the political and financial elite ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 So the illuminati are the political and financial elite ? If I described my brother in law as a bear, would he really be a bear? Found any evidence to support your Cox lie yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 So the illuminati are the political and financial elite ? That is pretty much one of the senses of the word yes - though knowledgeable about the workings of finance or politics would be closer. illuminati is a form of: il·lu·mi·na·ti noun (plural) /iˌlo͞oməˈnätē/ illuminati, plural 1. People claiming to possess special enlightenment or knowledge of something 2. A sect of 16th-century Spanish heretics who claimed special religious enlightenment 3. A Bavarian secret society founded in 1776, organized like the Freemasons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampent Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 The BBC have never being 'top boys', no matter what passing tramps tell you. The OCS is the main firm. As for 'evolution', most blades fans still play banjos and sleep ten to a bed. And stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 He's still wrong though. There is no point hanging on to something that is wrong no matter who said it. Brian Cox probably has opinions about England's chances in the next world cup. So what, he's not a football expert he's a physicist (that's really, really different to an astronomer by the way) They are not totally unrelated disciplines though are they ? Are you better qualified than Brian Cox vis a vis astronomy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manofstrad Posted April 21, 2011 Share Posted April 21, 2011 Is the BBC obsessed with evolution ? We seem to get weekly programmes either propagating the Theory of evolution or at least mentioning it , From radio to Childrens learning programmes all involve evolution , When intelligent design is mentioned it is done so in a negative light , Thread is not to debate the Theory , but how the Theory is obsessively used in BBC programmes Yes, the BBC is a bit obsessed with evolution but you don't get adverts spoiling your viewing when watching a movie, so I can cope with the evolution stuff. If evolution does get a bit over bearing I simply switch to ITV until the adverts come on, then I switch back to the Beeb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 They are not totally unrelated disciplines though are they ? Are you better qualified than Brian Cox vis a vis astronomy? 1. They are as related as a chef is to a brain surgeon. Both deal in matter rather than meat, but then so does the bloke who sells pedigree chum in the pet shop or your local undertaker, so no they are not related in any meaningful or relevant way. 2. Maybe. He still didn't say that the planets were aligning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockjaw Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Of course if the word unicorn is uttered on tv will not make it true ! Howeve the word illuminati was used to describe the financial crisis by MBNC , Now if they are not talking about the same illuminati that we all know about ! Who were they talking about ? I answered your question directly to please answear mine ! In what context did MBNC and bloomberg talk about the illuminati and Bavarian illuminati ! Hiya TL. Sorry for my slow response, I've been out and about in the real world. Thanks for accepting that simply naming something doesn't make it exist. You may now wish to go back and revise some of your earlier postulations. In response to your question, I'm afraid my answer is no different to the ones provided by other posters since you asked the question of me in that, when I had a look at your links, my opinion was that they were either using the term in a tongue in cheek way (perhaps gently mocking people like yourself) or using the term, as suggested above, as a generic description of some people with some knowledge. Nothing more sinister than that, I'm afraid. Given the above, your claim that the linked utterances are proof of the existence of the Illuminati (as you understand the term) is rendered invalid. Since there are various interpretations of the events they cannot be considered proof of any one of those interpretations. Sorry to burst your bubble. You may, now wish to apologise to some posters whom you claim to have "proved wrong" or "debunked". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 1. They are as related as a chef is to a brain surgeon. Both deal in matter rather than meat, but then so does the bloke who sells pedigree chum in the pet shop or your local undertaker, so no they are not related in any meaningful or relevant way. 2. Maybe. He still didn't say that the planets were aligning. Does UCL have a department of Gastronomy and Neurosurgery? UCL Dept of Physics and Astronomy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthlogic Posted April 24, 2011 Author Share Posted April 24, 2011 Does UCL have a department of Gastronomy and Neurosurgery? UCL Dept of Physics and Astronomy "Evolution" mixes two things together, one real, one imaginary. Variation (microevolution) is the real part. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. are variation. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool for finches. Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species. What evolutionists do not want you to know is that there are strict limits to variation that are never crossed, something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of. Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out. And as one characteristic increases, others diminish. But evolutionists want you to believe that changes continue, merging gradually into new kinds of creatures. This is where the imaginary part of the theory of evolution comes in. It says that new information is added to the gene pool by mutation and natural selection to create frogs from fish, reptiles from frogs, and mammals from reptiles, to name a few. copy and pasted from some one else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.