Welcome to the Last Days of Planet Earth.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Vee, what timezone is that date set to?

The computer model is set using time as we use it nowadays, with our modern calendars. And relative to what time it is here in the USA.

A number of people have so noted there were different kinds of calendars used down through the pages of history. Some with 10 months, some with 12 months, and so forth. Relative to our modern calendar the year 2012 was already here and gone by if you were to use the mayan calendar. Someone had a very interesting webpage all about that called "what time is it"? But I can no longer locate it.
I will try again later.

However the person who created this theory was aware of all those different calendars and time zones but set his program for our current standards for the measurement of time and to conform to the calendars now in use.

A lot else is basic to his science theory that was not mentioned in my remarks or in the presentations on the webpage posted.

Example: 12 follows the number 11. If you research the number 11 and are paying attention to it's implications you would be amazed. Especially when it comes to dates. RE: - 9-11. But I will not go into all that because I have dumped enough already into the message on this chain to be consumed and digested.

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Vee, what timezone is that date set to?

The computer model is set using time as we use it nowadays, with our modern calendars. And relative to what time it is here in the USA.
Technosoul.[/b][/quote]

If you are talking actual time zones here in the U.S., you know there are four. I think what Vee was asking (with tongue in cheek) is which one of those, or GMT or whatever.

I think he wants to set his alarm so as not to miss the end of the world.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy, Soul, what do you mean by history? The part of history that includes humans is so tiny that it would require an electron microsope to view it if all of history were represented by a one foot ruler. Does human history repeat itself? Yes and no. The seasons of every year are similar to the last, however over time this too has changed. People are born, have children and die. Yet people are also evolving. The sun is getting bigger. Big things hit the earth and change everything. All of life is evolving and changing. If you think that novelty can somehow account for all of this then you are tripping on dream cookies. Starboy

History is what humans have documented in writing or by other methods. History is about words recorded ( or as art or symbols that can be interpreted for information about a era of human activity). Otherwise you have pre-history. Pre-history is all that took place before some humans keep some kind of documented record of it. Pre-history and history are not the same thing. Nor shall post history be the same as history because writing will be a obsolete form of commuication.

And so in most schools of thought we have.

Pre-history.
History.
and the potential of post-history.

Please state how the human body has evolved.

I never stated that novelty accounts for everything that has ever happened, that would be as foolish as saything that evolution is caused because of random accidents only. However most science would support the idea that novelty (aka random or unexpected events) could trigger changes and evolutionary adaptations.

Are you sure you support science? Without novelty you have the option of a planned design that is pre-determined - (by what or Who?).

If you wish to flip flop and take a religious perspective then that is fine with me, but not sure wich point you are trying to establish, or where-in your confusion sits.

Technosoul.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, Reality is just something that vanishes in the wake of another reality,  is it logical to build a house on shifting sand?  Technosoul.

Soul, you appear to have already made your conclusions about reality and you are trying to cram everything you see into those conclusions. Science is not philosophy, not mathematics and it is not religion. It is a tradition of mankind that tries to make an honest attempt to explore and explain reality. Not as man wants reality to be but as it is. Because it is done by men and not by gods there is no absolute viewpoint. There is no way to know if mankind has actually succeeded in knowing reality in any way, so all scientific knowledge is tentative. Science has not replace religion as the magicians of the cosmos even though many magical thinkers think that it has. Science is a very new idea in the history of mankind. An idea that you will not comprehend if you continue to study the ancient ideas you appear to be fond of. You must study science itself not what the philosophers tell you it is. The philosophers do not have a clue because they are still mired in the age of Plato and Aristotle (the Bronze Age).

Starboy[/b][/quote]

Modern research has found that the use of bonze dates back much futher then Plato, so someone missnamed that as the "bronze age".

The purpose of science is to continue to explore for more data about the mystery of reality.

The purpose of philosophy is to continue to explore for new ideas about the mystery of life, self, and the universe.

The purpose of religion is to continue to expand upon and to better define the meanings of spiritualism, human relationships, and morality.

Sort of like building a three sided pyramid.

Everyone of these three groups can be called "the Seeker".

In each of these groups are individuals who want to claim that we have reached the limitations of our knowing. I do not agree with nor advocate such a stand. I fully expect those how follow me to do greater things and to manifest better ideas then I do. And even now some have done that, and likewise in the past.

And yet, there are limitations for this age, we can only go as fast as we can go, which is faster then they went before, but not as fast as people will go in the future. Our knowledge can move only to a ceratian level of knowing within a given generation, each person at their own pace. However we can expect to reach peaks, back slide a little, and then jump ahead with greater momentum. But the momentum is the same for all groups or "departments" of human involvement relative to thinking.

And so to put it best we often turn to the poetry of words, for even as the mystery was created in the image of the Myth, so shall we create by our seeking a reality for the face of Truth.

Amen brother.

Technosoul.

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul, History is what humans have documented in writing or by other methods. History is about words recorded ( or as art or symbols that can be interpreted for information about a era of human activity). Otherwise you have pre-history. Pre-history is all that took place before some humans keep some kind of documented record of it. Pre-history and history are not the same thing. Nor shall post history be the same as history because writing will be a obsolete form of commuication. And so in most schools of thought we have. Pre-history. History. and the potential of post-history.

Not even historians will buy your concept of history. A great deal of history is constructed from physical evidence. Archeological sites, old documents, relics, myths and stories both verbal and written. Many of these sites being excavated are well within the time frame of written history. The problem with any written account is that it is a single person’s view and in many cases was written long after the event occurred. There is much in history that is purported to have happened that is just myth and much that has happened that has just gone unrecorded. If your guy is calibrating his method against written history I am already doubtful.

Please state how the human body has evolved.

Are you kidding? Rare blood disorders due to genetic mutations. Blood types that only exist in isolated populations. Island populations that are mostly color blind. Differences in skin color, hair pigmentation, shape of the eyes. Where do you think race comes from? Soul please do not use [Techno] in your name. You are just too clueless about physical reality.

I never stated that novelty accounts for everything that has ever happened, that would be as foolish as saything that evolution is caused because of random accidents only.

aTechno, random variation is an important part of evolution. Perhaps you should learn the theory of evolution.

However most science would support the idea that novelty (aka random or unexpected events) could trigger changes and evolutionary adaptations.

I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments.

Are you sure you support science? Without novelty you have the option of a planned design that is pre-determined - (by what or Who?).

I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you wish to flip flop and take a religious perspective then that is fine with me, but not sure wich point you are trying to establish, or where-in your confusion sits. Technosoul.

What perspective is that? Can you explain the scientific perspective? I doubt it. Every post you have made confuses religion with science. You continuously exhibit your profound ignorance of common scientific knowledge yet you like to let on that you are hip when it comes to science. Please stop the charade.

Starboy

[rez]

Anybody hear of the term evolutionary psychologists? Basically the idea behind this type of mind science is that humans do not poses reason they just have more instinct. By more instinct I mean they hold better brain energy and phsical ability then other animals. This is a strock of luck that we have the tools to control the environment. Remember the tools that we had first were our arms, backs, and legs. Then with those we formed tools and started to manipulate the world by hunting better and using weapons. The whole human race goes from there.............


People can make money by supporting this fund: they are forming with their environment - MOney. They say humans have reason or choices because we no longer just let retarded or disabled people to die . "Theres money and fame involved lets support it" These people are forming to the environment......because money is everything.. money is 2004's version of natural selection.

why the fuck would we destroy the planet? Nobody wants to die......Does anybody see the logic in that? It is our bological instinct NOT TO destroy ourselves.

Besides something naturally happening the human population will not die off. Why do presidents have nuclear bomb shelters? Whats the point of living if everybody else is dead?

Heres my theory on the end of the "world"
Its not a metero hitting us, not a ice age, or huge earthquake........its going to be a nuclear explosion. Rich powerful leaders will shoot their nuclear missles from their bunkers and just wait it out somehow. The poor and middle class had died off leaving only rich people who breed. Lets compare this event to the ice age. The ice age made only the smart people who could dress warm survive and the nuclear explosion will only let the rich powerful people who could afford a nuclear bunker to survive . Rich peeoples ideals will now work because everybody would be socialized to listen and follow, throwing out books like 1984. The ice age made only the smart people who could dress warm survive and the nuclear explosion will only let the rich powerful people who could afford a nuclear bunker to survive .

Tired

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Starboy,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Starboy,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Technosoul, History is what humans have documented in writing or by other methods.  History is about words recorded ( or as art or symbols that can be interpreted for information about a era of human activity).  Otherwise you have pre-history.  Pre-history is all that took place before some humans keep some kind of documented record of it.  Pre-history and history are not the same thing.  Nor shall post history be the same as history because writing will be a obsolete form of commuication.  And so in most schools of thought we have. Pre-history. History. and the potential of post-history.

Not even historians will buy your concept of history. A great deal of history is constructed from physical evidence. Archeological sites, old documents, relics, myths and stories both verbal and written. Many of these sites being excavated are well within the time frame of written history. The problem with any written account is that it is a single person’s view and in many cases was written long after the event occurred. There is much in history that is purported to have happened that is just myth and much that has happened that has just gone unrecorded. If your guy is calibrating his method against written history I am already doubtful.

Historians created the titles Pre-History and History, not me.

How do you excavate both verbal and written evidence from a archeological site? I mean the verbal part, do they listen to hear what the stones are saying?

Historians have indeed appionted dates to historical events and have dated when a certain culture and they have come to a basic agreement as to when happened during what dated age. They even appointed a date for the Big Bang and other such events they have made a theory about. To the best of their abilty they have dated undocumented parts of pre-history such as when a certain dinosaur was around. Without those dates the whold concept of history would fall apart as well as any science about evolution. If you did not know that came before what it would just be a blur of timeless happenings. And a number of different sources of research have confirmed the data about the dates we now have used for our latest history books. You might not wish to agree with those dates buy you stand somewhat alone in your personal opinion.

Are you kidding? Rare blood disorders due to genetic mutations. Blood types that only exist in isolated populations. Island populations that are mostly color blind. Differences in skin color, hair pigmentation, shape of the eyes. Where do you think race comes from? Soul please do not use [Techno] in your name. You are just too clueless about physical reality.

They are still speculating about why we have different races of people, no absolute explaination has been estabished, just guesswork at this stage of the game. To suggest what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race, that this would mean one race is better then another one, the KKK would like that interpretation. If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another the where is the "evolution"? How can having red hair and not black hair be explained as evolving? How are modern humans any different the people who lived 2000 years ago relative to their physical shape or apperance?

aTechno, random variation is an important part of evolution. Perhaps you should learn the theory of evolution.

Been there and done that, took a class in evolution at UCLA and worked a dig at the Irvine Ranch.



I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments.



I have no idea what you are talking about.

If you wish to flip flop and take a religious perspective then that is fine with me,  but not sure wich point you are trying to establish, or where-in your confusion sits. Technosoul.

What perspective is that? Can you explain the scientific perspective? I doubt it. Every post you have made confuses religion with science. You continuously exhibit your profound ignorance of common scientific knowledge yet you like to let on that you are hip when it comes to science. Please stop the charade.

according to you the scientific explaination is "no one knows yet". The persepctive of science is they must do more research before they can claim any answer. That is your opinion about science. But the fact is they do know things, and are not totally in the dark, and they do not claim all their research is useless because there is more to learn. Science is also about taking what they know and making a useful applicaiton of it via some invention or whatever. If the microwave oven works then that is proof enough that the theory was correct. Not withstanding that another theory might lead to yet a better type of cooking appliance.
Not everything is "up in the air" and just pure speculation. Without the certainty of some sort of proof you are left with a choice between faith or just nothingness. Science cannot construct a theory without assuming they are building it on other known facts.

Knowing is not a no-no.

Technosoul.


Starboy[/b][/quote]

[rez]

They are still speculating about why we have different races of people, no absolute explaination has been estabished, just guesswork at this stage of the game. To suggest what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race, that this would mean one race is better then another one, the KKK would like that interpretation. If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another the where is the "evolution"?

Humans are animals AND natural selection still applies. One race is better then another race. however, you must first go about it in a smart way. The KKK were racist idiots who had the right idea, but just went about it the wrong way. Hitler went about it the wrong way. The best way to go about it is through the money system. EVERYBODY makes money some way, those who can not get fucked over! If you recall America bought black people to pick cotton..........aka our race is better. Maybe not in a way of developing the mind but in by quickness, luck, and authority (money)

I mean Americans/ Britians killed off Indians and Mexicans because they were not living OUR way....they were not forming to our environment.

Starboy said "suggesting what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race"

.....: Yes........this is basic evolution knowledge.....yet you try to compare it to the KKK as if that idea was wrong......didnt you take a class in evolution?

If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another then where is the "evolution"? " HAHA yeah where the fuck is the evolution at!? One race is better!!!! just not in a way of potential. The human brain has developed good enough where potential is increased. Sharing different ideas of learning such as "Visual learner" "hearing learning." Gives every human person potential to survive no matter what race. However, you need money to LEARN about the potential you poses AKA Education.


Why do Chinese people have slanted eyes? Their environment maybe?
Why are Americans fat fucks? The million dollar company called McDonalds maybe?

Heres something against Techno: Terrence MeKenna also said Monkeys evolved because they ate Shrooms........saying something will happen in 2010 is bold.........will it be natural or will it be nuclear....who knows......but what from what history is saying is that some things are turning artifical (ie natural selection in a form of money) so something happening in 2010 is possible. Americans are dealing with a bunch of humans who dont care about dying remember.......

Another history lesson........

I will take the indians and samurai for example.......Both cultures killed for their lifestyle basically ( ie not conforming to western government)

Arabs are the same way.........they are not conforming to western government so they will be killed.........We will have a war then discriminate, thats the only way to kill them off.....just how we did it to the blacks, indians, and "samurai's"

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Technosoul,+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='0' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Technosoul,)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Historians created the titles Pre-History and History, not me. How do you excavate both verbal and written evidence from a archeological site?[/b]

Ever been to Egypt?

I mean the verbal part,  do they listen to hear what the stones are saying?

After the age of recorded sound they can excavate spoken words, but before that they cannot. All the same, people leave a trace. And sometimes just the presence of a trace of humans in a certain place can support or disconfirm a purported historical account. There are all sorts of ways to do history other than relying on written accounts. Historians do it all the time. You should take the time to learn about what historians do before you jump to conclusions and swallow hook line and sinker a line of bullshit on a website. What historians know about history is changing all the time.

Historians have indeed appionted dates to historical events and have dated when a certain culture and they have come to a basic agreement as to when happened during what dated age.  They even appointed a date for the Big Bang and other such events they have made a theory about.    To the best of their abilty they have dated undocumented parts of pre-history such as when a certain dinosaur was around.  Without those dates the whold concept of history would fall apart as well as any science about evolution.  If you did not know that came before what it would just be a blur of timeless happenings.  And a number of different sources of research have confirmed the data about the dates we now have used for our latest history books.    You might not wish to agree with those dates buy you stand somewhat alone in your personal opinion.

History is being revised all the time due to new discovery. There is still argument over the sequence of Egyptian rulers. There is still argument over Troy. Historians are very much like scientists in that they explore and explain reality only it is past reality and they have no god's eye view of past reality. They use what is at their disposal, try to make the explanations consistent with the evidence and as new discovery comes to light may have to go back and revisit their previous historical explanations.

They are still speculating about why we have different races of people, no absolute explaination has been estabished,  just guesswork at this stage of the game.  To suggest what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race,  that this would mean one race is better then another one,  the KKK would like that interpretation.    If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another the where is the "evolution"?  How can having red hair and not black hair be explained as evolving?  How are modern humans any different the people who lived 2000 years ago relative to their physical shape or apperance?

You really need to learn about evolution. Adaptation to an environment is what evolution is all about but using it to claim that one race of men is superior to another is like trying to argue that robins are better than bluebirds. It is just stupid and is yet another indication that when it comes to science you are a moron.

Been there and done that,  took a class in evolution at UCLA and worked a dig at the Irvine Ranch.

You must have been a spectator because you didn't learn much.

<!--QuoteBegin-Starboy

I have already told you how to support these claims scientifically. They need to run the experiments.

I have no idea what you are talking about. [/quote]

Go back and read what I wrote earlier in this thread about the science that would have to be done for any scientist to take the claims about novelty predicting the future. I wrote it earlier in this thread. The thing about science is you do not have to believe or even understand the explanation of the person making the claims. If the person can demonstrate future predicting abilities before the fact then it now becomes a point of further investigations. The world is filled with people who think that they can predict the future before the fact by one way or another and they are no better at it than random chance. What they do is convince weak minds that they can predict the future when all they are doing is predicting the known past. Any moron can do this. They convince stupid people by dressing it up in some pseudo scientific clap trap to divert the attention of those idiots that all they are doing is spouting what is already known. And of course predicting the future that no one knows is easy as long as no one is willing to wait around to see if it actually happens. This brings up a good point. Another way that these novelists could provide experimental evidence is to predict the past. Where lost treasures are located, where the Holy Grail is. The exact location of lost cities. It would be a shortcut for them. Instead of waiting for the future they could mine the past. And if they could locate lost treasures make some money at it as well. The historians would eat it up and they would have provided evidence of their claims.

according to you the scientific explaination is "no one knows yet".  The persepctive of science is they must do more research before they can claim any answer.  That is your opinion about science.  But the fact is they do know things, and are not totally in the dark, and they do not claim all their research is useless because there is more to learn.  Science is also about taking what they know and making a useful applicaiton of it via some invention or whatever.    If the microwave oven works then that is proof enough that the theory was correct.  Not withstanding that another theory might lead to yet a better type of cooking appliance.

I didn't ask you to tell me what you thought my concept of science was. I asked you for your concept of science. You have provided so many instances of how oblivious you are to what you claim to have studied that I am beginning to detect an explanation. You appear to have a severe comprehension problem. Did you do well in school? Do you have trouble scoring well on written tests? Do you need help with contracts and taxes?

Not everything is "up in the air" and just pure speculation.  Without the certainty of some sort of proof you are left with a choice between faith or just nothingness.  Science cannot construct a theory without assuming they are building it on other known facts.

Everything is up in the air for scientists. That is not to say that there are not explainations that they find very convincing because they have worked so well at predicting the future before the fact. But unlike mystics like you, scientists do not claim to have a godlike perspective on reality. They will not say that a mystical experience is the "truth" of reality. And they will not take someone's word on something and label it the "truth" just because someone said is was so. Even the most celebrated Nobel winning scientists in the world will be challenged by other scientists. That is how science is done [---Techno]soul. This is why your argument from authority that you tried to foist off earlier on this thread met with the scientific raspberry. Even though scientists are people they try their hardest not to turn science into the cult of the personality. It is all about the evidence.

Knowing is not a no-no

Do not confuse knowledge with knowing. At least not the kind of knowing you are talking about. That mystical all knowing feeling that is often mistaken for knowledge.

Starboy

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Scribbler1, The computer model is set using time as we use it nowadays, with our modern calendars. And relative to what time it is here in the USA. Technosoul.

If you are talking actual time zones here in the U.S., you know there are four. I think what Vee was asking (with tongue in cheek) is which one of those, or GMT or whatever.

I think he wants to set his alarm so as not to miss the end of the world.[/quote]

The web page link gave that information (it has a count-down clock for you to use) - do not recall if it was south-western time zone or middle Ameirca, but in any case the year 2012 would include all those time zones because a year would last long enough to cover many hours.

And we were not talking about the end of the world, but the end of history and the beginning of post-history, which has other explainations not relative to Christian doomsday concepts.

Example, we have B.C. and after time counts. Suggesting the last days of one historyical time and the beginning of a new historical time, so that is what is predicted. That could happen smothly without anyone paying it much attention, or because of a major event.

Example: The Jesus factor was a novelty that altered history, and so in 2012 we can expect another such novelity to take place, not sure if people in that time will comprehend that what takes place during the year 2012 will effect history in a major way relative to a drastic shift in human consciousness, or if it will be very noticable.

The prediction did not state what that novelty event will be. Only that the pattern indicates we will have have a shift in the historical momentum.

Tehcnosoul.

[Vee]

yeah I only glanced at the page, had to go

and yes what gmt etc or gmt+10 the decent time zone

yes sir wanna set my alarm for the next devastating earthquake in california too in the year 2010

[Technosoul]

Well, you will not need an alarm clock because a earthquake would be enough to wake you up - on it's own.

But why set it for 2010? Why not set it for November 2004 because California will have a newsworthy earth quake then and no doubt will have many such events long before the year 2010.

And why go off topic? This topic is not about earthquake predicitng.

Technosoul.

[Scribbler1]

Sorry Tech, Vee and I were just having a little jest. :)

As for me, I want to know so when the end comes I can wake up when the liquor stores open.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by rez, Humans are animals AND natural selection still applies. One race is better then another race. however, you must first go about it in a smart way. The KKK were racist idiots who had the right idea, but just went about it the wrong way. Hitler went about it the wrong way. The best way to go about it is through the money system. EVERYBODY makes money some way, those who can not get fucked over! If you recall America bought black people to pick cotton..........aka our race is better. Maybe not in a way of developing the mind but in by quickness, luck, and authority (money) I mean Americans/ Britians killed off Indians and Mexicans because they were not living OUR way....they were not forming to our environment. Starboy said "suggesting what you recomend would mean that one race of people have evolved to a "better adapted" status then another race" .....: Yes........this is basic evolution knowledge.....yet you try to compare it to the KKK as if that idea was wrong......didnt you take a class in evolution? If one race is not better phycially or mentally then another then where is the "evolution"? " HAHA yeah where the fuck is the evolution at!? One race is better!!!! just not in a way of potential. The human brain has developed good enough where potential is increased. Sharing different ideas of learning such as "Visual learner" "hearing learning." Gives every human person potential to survive no matter what race. However, you need money to LEARN about the potential you poses AKA Education. Why do Chinese people have slanted eyes? Their environment maybe? Why are Americans fat fucks? The million dollar company called McDonalds maybe? Heres something against Techno: Terrence MeKenna also said Monkeys evolved because they ate Shrooms........saying something will happen in 2010 is bold.........will it be natural or will it be nuclear....who knows......but what from what history is saying is that some things are turning artifical (ie natural selection in a form of money) so something happening in 2010 is possible. Americans are dealing with a bunch of humans who dont care about dying remember....... Another history lesson........ I will take the indians and samurai for example.......Both cultures killed for their lifestyle basically ( ie not conforming to western government) Arabs are the same way.........they are not conforming to western government so they will be killed.........We will have a war then discriminate, thats the only way to kill them off.....just how we did it to the blacks, indians, and "samurai's"

What you are saying is not correct in my opinion concerning evolution, evolution has to do with mainly with physical changes in the body, money is not part of the body, nor is technology. If you have nukes instead of stones but still employ the same cave man thinking, that you must dominate by fighting, then how is that getting any smarter? The ideas you offer about wiping out the Arabs, etc, is right out of a KKK textbook. No matter how logical you might try to make it sound that you are doing or thinking any differently.

You can go anywhere on the globe and pick any normal child from any so-called (still) pre-historic tribe, take that child and place it in a wealthy family and send it to collage, and it will be just as smart or well-informed as it's wealthy (white) counter-part. All brains in all humans have evolved the same, no matter what culture they are located in, with the same potential and ability for learning about technology, etc. (the only exception being a few with retarded brain problems).

Now you were correct about the other idea (among many) advocated by Terrence Mckenna that when pre-historic primates came out of the jungles to live in the open areas (grasslands) that they could have evolved culture by adding to their diet mind-expanding mushrooms, in his book "food for the gods" he presented a lot of science, and other information from a wide range of research, to give confirmation for his theory.

That does not effect or change the topic at hand.

In fact our modern nuclear technology with it's mushroom shaped cloud I have drawn a connection with. (another topic). He did not say that a money evolved into a human by eating a mushroom however, everyone knows humans did not evolve directly from the monkey.

He was talking about primates that already had hunting skills, and that had some knowledge about planting food for crops.

I will make another post about the evolution of technology which should not be confused too much with evolution as a physical adaptation for survival. Evolving externally is not the same thing as evolvotion internally or physically.

Technosoul.

[rez]

you misread what I said about evolution.

I actually stated that all humans have evolved their brains to a point where everybody has the potential. Although all humans have the potential to succeed in life, by the luck of genes they do not have the correct environment.

Your example with the child in a third world culture does have the potential BUT what is the difference between him and a American child?

Evolution does have to do with the physical self....I agree. The brain is an organ in your body that has potential to grow....

WE now use our brain to manipulate the environment around us. We hunted, then farmed, industrialized, now whats next?

What you are saying is not correct in my opinion concerning evolution, evolution has to do with mainly with physical changes in the body, money is not part of the body, nor is technology. If you have nukes instead of stones but still employ the same cave man thinking, that you must dominate by fighting, then how is that getting any smarter? The ideas you offer about wiping out the Arabs, etc, is right out of a KKK textbook. No matter how logical you might try to make it sound that you are doing or thinking any differently.

Sorry man we still have our biological instincts in all of us. in America we do not help the less fortunate just like our ancestors did not help a retarded baby, they would just leave it there to die. We still do that! but because of the environment we do it in different ways! The strong must survive and in todays world there is only one way to decipher who is strong - money.

Cave man thinking is not "unintelligent" it is survival of the fittest. Everybody goes up, not across, or down.....This is why communism does not work. Everybody wants to pound their chests in pride and greed.

Women are still discriminated and have been since the dawn of man.....why? Races are always killed off, why?
We still create huge tall buildings. Women love big dick........

Now you might say that some cultures are actually backwards......smaller is better, women are equal, all races are good.........but why is America the worlds superpower........why isnt that other culture?

The KKK do share these ideas, but did I start a organization? The KKK went about it wrong, they did not adapt to their environment.

Like I said, Those who do not conform to America will be killed off. Does this have any relation to how evolution worked?

When ice covered the earth the people who figured out a way to make shelter and developed clothes survived......those who did not "conform" to these ideas died off indirectly. Natural selection and survival of the fittest......I am sorry but this is the harsh reality.

They say all super power nations fall at somepoint. This is true and even existed in primative man. for example........The neandthral could of been the best species, however do to their environment and the way they handled it they fell apart. This helps people learn from mistakes and develop better ideas giving birth to Cromagnaman.

America will fall but only because it couldnt handle the challeges of the environment. Giving brith to a new nation that will be even better then America was.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, Sorry Tech, Vee and I were just having a little jest. :) As for me, I want to know so when the end comes I can wake up when the liquor stores open.

Not a bad idea, I hear tell Noah stocked up on wine for the great flood and right after he got off the boat - planted more grapes.

He had so much wine I think the saw pink elephants getting on the boat.

[Technosoul]

Originally posted by rez, you misread what I said about evolution. I actually stated that all humans have evolved their brains to a point where everybody has the potential. Although all humans have the potential to succeed in life, by the luck of genes they do not have the correct environment. Your example with the child in a third world culture does have the potential BUT what is the difference between him and a American child? Evolution does have to do with the physical self....I agree. The brain is an organ in your body that has potential to grow.... WE now use our brain to manipulate the environment around us. We hunted, then farmed, industrialized, now whats next? Sorry man we still have our biological instincts in all of us. in America we do not help the less fortunate just like our ancestors did not help a retarded baby, they would just leave it there to die. We still do that! but because of the environment we do it in different ways! The strong must survive and in todays world there is only one way to decipher who is strong - money. Cave man thinking is not "unintelligent" it is survival of the fittest. Everybody goes up, not across, or down.....This is why communism does not work. Everybody wants to pound their chests in pride and greed. Women are still discriminated and have been since the dawn of man.....why? Races are always killed off, why? We still create huge tall buildings. Women love big dick........ Now you might say that some cultures are actually backwards......smaller is better, women are equal, all races are good.........but why is America the worlds superpower........why isnt that other culture? The KKK do share these ideas, but did I start a organization? The KKK went about it wrong, they did not adapt to their environment. Like I said, Those who do not conform to America will be killed off. Does this have any relation to how evolution worked? When ice covered the earth the people who figured out a way to make shelter and developed clothes survived......those who did not "conform" to these ideas died off indirectly. Natural selection and survival of the fittest......I am sorry but this is the harsh reality. They say all super power nations fall at somepoint. This is true and even existed in primative man. for example........The neandthral could of been the best species, however do to their environment and the way they handled it they fell apart. This helps people learn from mistakes and develop better ideas giving birth to Cromagnaman. America will fall but only because it couldnt handle the challeges of the environment. Giving brith to a new nation that will be even better then America was.

I think that the brian is not growing physhically, what you are talking about is that knowledge is growing and the more knowledge you have obtainable in a given culture the better those people can learn it. This growth in knowledge is mainly due to the fact we can write stuff down and pass it on from generation to generation, plus we can add too it each time something new is discovered or found out about. In our more advanced cultures we have so much information abtainable via books and on the internet that we are lucky enough to even scratch the surface of the mountain of data. Why humans have that novelity called a large head size (compared with the monkey or other types of animals) is somewhat unexplained, and we do not have the missing links to prove that the head size grew bigger and bigger over years of evolution, chances are it happened quickly and independantly of normal evolutionary causes. My unauthorized speculation is that the skull could have grown larger (to protect the brain) because cave men kept hitting each other on the head with clubs. (And) alien genetic tampering cannot be ruled out.

However the idea that survivial of the strongest, as enacted during mating rituals, is the cause of most evolution is questionable. Most evolution is caused by stress in the environment. Be that a real problem (such as weather condidtions) or imaginary problems, the effects would be the same. But most evolution takes place within the spcies and would not cause a new spcies to manifest. Example, if a horse learns to run from the mountain lion it's legs would grow stronger and longer, so a tiny house could become a larger horse, and visa versa. So evolution is largely the same as lifting weights or dieting.

Now within the concept of techology evolving, that is a different story, in the arms race we started to invent bigger and stronger weapons, due to wars or agressive missions to expand a kingdom. The kingdom was evolving bigger but the people did not really evolve to being better then those they were attacking on a physical level. A caveman with a nuclear bomb is still a caveman. In fact if we evolve external technology, such as a better gun, that would eleminate the need to evolve better claws, fangs, or other physical weapons as extended useage relative to our body, and/or relative to the stress of fear, we might invent technology to escape instead of growing wings, faster legs, or the ability to alter our skin colors to match and blend in with the background environment. Technological evolution is not real evolution by natual selection.
If we suddenly lost all our technology to survive and were forced to deal with nature in a naked manner we would be ill-equiped to do so. Where as the native tribesman deep in the Amazon would have no problem.
RE: Reality TV show.

You stated that woman were always discriminated agenst from the dawn of creation (er, dawn if time), that is just false (see my post in the religion section) and in old days they were pretty much as physically strong as the men, but with better endurance for pain, and a longer life time.

If women like big dicks and that was a reason for evoultion then African men are way ahead of the Westerner in that department, that is why they need to buy long cadilacs to drive around in. Where as women in a more techological envornment got those plug in electronic gadgets and no longer need men for pleasure.

So I do not see how you can bring that into the debate? Other then just to sound shocking or to gross out readers. I certainaly hope Howard Stern is not an example of our most evolved human spicimen!

Your theory about the Ice Age is also questionable, because countless animals also survived those times and they did not learn how to make clothing or how to build camp fires or shelters (well, some animals did know how to build shelters - but animals who survived the Ice Age did not gain much improvement over those that did not survive). No one race of mice became better off then another spieces of mice. And humans that lived in areas effected by the ice age did not evolve fur for protection or the bear's skills at hibernation, nor did they evolve bigger flat feet for walking on the snow. I just do not see how the Ice Age made much difference. And so you would have to demonstrate how a mouse living in the far north is much better off evolutionary wise then a mouse that is living in the warmer zones to prove that point.

Now we come down to the test, which idea being presented here has the best chance to survive the peer pressures of time? May the strongest presentaton win.

Technosoul.

[rez]

If women like big dicks and that was a reason for evoultion then African men are way ahead of the Westerner in that department, that is why they need to buy long cadilacs to drive around in. Where as women in a more techological envornment got those plug in electronic gadgets and no longer need men for pleasure.

I was refering to mans pompous nature which has been instilled in us since the beginning. "The tough, dominant male (or would-be tough, dominant male) who chews on his fat cigar and thrusts it into his companions face, is fundamentally performing the same Status sex display as the little squirrel monkey that spreads its legs and thrusts its errect penis into the face of a subordinate.

Your theory about the Ice Age is also questionable, because countless animals also survived those times and they did not learn how to make clothing or how to build camp fires or shelters (well, some animals did know how to build shelters - but animals who survived the Ice Age did not gain much improvement over those that did not survive). No one race of mice became better off then another spieces of mice. And humans that lived in areas effected by the ice age did not evolve fur for protection or the bear's skills at hibernation, nor did they evolve bigger flat feet for walking on the snow. I just do not see how the Ice Age made much difference. And so you would have to demonstrate how a mouse living in the far north is much better off evolutionary wise then a mouse that is living in the warmer zones to prove that point. Technosoul.

adversity creates evolution.