.jpg.8081a54a3b74a5d1823dfac966666137.jpg)
.jpg.594f0ef23288ec5ab04539b2f8a8dbd4.jpg)
DarianF
-
Posts
9,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by DarianF
-
-
-
3 minutes ago, The Old Knight said:
I believe the plan is to put all countries on their knees including the USA by crushing the global economy, the pandemic was to get the ball rolling, the control measures in place and getting the general public used to obeying.
World war 3 is a backup incase too many people refuse to go along with their new world order agenda and kneel. Those is charge won't suffer if it went nuclear and their handlers will be fine in their deep bunkers which are fully stocked.
They could re-emerge from their hiding places some years later after the dust has settled and reboot society again, a desperate, destroyed and vulnerable world would be easy to take advantage of and build a new global totalitarian regime from the ashes.
Only the elite win in the nuclear war scenario which is why I think it's a high probability. Think of how easy it would be to evacuate all the higher ups quietly on a Friday night for example.
Most of our "leaders" are either useful idiots who don't realise their being manipulated or completely in on it.
There's talk of more lockdowns now, haha. Just be disobedient, get away from the cities and like you hinted at learn some knowledge and get active.
Start putting long term foods in some air tight buckets and get gardening. I've been buying kilo bags of white rice because of the long shelf life if stored correctly, 20+ years.
We can't stop what's coming so get ahead of it while the shops are still full and the compost is still available to buy.
They are definitely placing this concept of NATO getting 'dragged in' front and centre in the minds of the public:
Ukraine: Three ways this war could escalate and drag Nato in
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61051307
A perfect cover story. "Well we didn't want to go to war, but we had no choice." Same old shit, repackaged. And of course, the sheep will accept it, like they accept everything else.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Truthblast said:
Is J-Lo going to be Batwoman now?
As if anyone cares...
Well, at least she has Robert Pattinson's blessing, and that's what really matters most.
-
-
19 hours ago, endfreemasonscum said:
And if the cut and paste lies in plain site isn't enough, the press conference was just a brutal situation for these poor guys. This was posted on another board. There's a great thread on this over there.
He doesn't seem too stressed about it years later...
-
11 hours ago, alexa said:
What a beautiful sky, shame about the ship.
HMS Prince of Wales basks under the Northern Lights and Royal Marines get to grips with -30C chills in Norway's biggest military exercise in 30 years as NATO sends 'keep out' warning to Putin
HMS Prince of Wales, (main) Britain's 65,000-ton 'supercarrier', joined more than 30,000 personnel from NATO and its partners joined together for arctic war games and drills in a show of defence of the alliance's northern flank. Throughout the fortnight-long exercise, the Royal Navy continued to showcase its cutting edge naval capabilities - including launching commando raids from submarines and operating a fifth-gen aircraft carrier in sub-zero conditions for the first time.
DM
@alexa if you like that beautiful sky, may I suggest the following book. It's a great read:
https://www.harpercollins.com.au/9780008156091/aurora-in-search-of-the-northern-lights/
-
3 hours ago, Morpheus said:
That's an excellent article Ink and I wholly agree with the content. I especially liked this part:
Astronomer Fred Hoyle compared the odds that all the multi-faceted and multi-functional parts of a cell could coincidentally come together and create life analogous to “a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard and assembling a Boeing 747 from the materials therein!”
Hoyle wrote that, “If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the laboratory. One could, for instance, take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup. Fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please. Pump any gases over it, or through it, you please, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. Let the experiment proceed for a year and see how many of those 2,000 enzymes (proteins produced by living cells) have appeared in the bath. I will give the answer, and so save the time and trouble and expense of actually doing the experiment. You will find nothing at all, except possibly for a tarry sludge composed of amino acids and other simple organic chemicals.” Even if someone placed all aforementioned substances necessary to create life in the tank and waited for a billion years not a single cell would ever form.
"The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 zeros after it … It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. The beginnings of life were not random; they must have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
From my earliest training as a scientist, I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed. At the moment, I can’t find any rational argument to knock down the view which argues for conversion to God. We used to have an open mind; now we realize that the only logical answer to life is creation - and not accidental random shuffling.”
- Astrobiologist Chandra Wickramasinghe
I'm curious, why did you single out these parts as your favourites?
-
6 hours ago, Morpheus said:
Solfeggio frequencies
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Solfeggio_frequencies
A440
-
Just now, Morpheus said:
Yeah you're wrong, it would take more than Peter being Peter to hit a nerve.
No probs. My mistake then.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Morpheus said:
Why do you believe he's hit a nerve?
I'm not sure, that's for you to answer. It just seems that way. Correct me if I'm wrong.
-
6 hours ago, Morpheus said:
From my original post of what Tesla said, vibration, frequency and magnetism. What else causes changes in vibration and frequency on our planet? Our earth has a resonant frequency of around 7.8hz (from memory, don't quote me) I believe.
Yes, I believe you are referring to Schumann resonances ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_resonances ), which are variable, being affected by a variety of factors ( https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/news/gallery/schumann-resonance.html ). There are some scientific investigations of these resonances and their potential effects on biology of higher life forms ( here is one example - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2656447/ - from the journal Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy ).
Edit: Will just add this one as well, @Morpheus:
Studying Earth’s Double Electrical Heartbeat
Charged by thunderstorms and other weather phenomena, the global electrical circuit connects the entire planet.
https://eos.org/features/studying-earths-double-electrical-heartbeat
-
24 minutes ago, peter said:
PS and could you explain why that sweeping generalization is not correct with regards to the discussion in this post
Also if you think I suffer from institutionalized ideology you have only read my posts in this and the flatearth thread and my opinions on both are evidenced based as I see it . I don't have a ideological bone in my body,which is obviously at odds with your opinion,fair enough
It's what happens when the points you've made hit a nerve.
-
@Mitochondrial Eve Just some additional info. That LA times article that I included (above), here is the original full text science paper to which the article was referring:
Molecular evidence from retroposons that whales form a clade within even-toed ungulates
-
11 hours ago, EnigmaticWorld said:
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Greenhulk50 said:
How can anyone take these two clowns serious ? Zelensky reminds me of a dodgy Plumber who would rip you off for a shitty job and Boris acts like Benny Hill, I couldn't stop laughing when I watched them sitting at that table
Zelensky reminds me of one of these dodgy gangsters in Taken 1:
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Nip said:
And also, pray tell please someone, why hasn't a russian missile destroyed the presidential office / palace in Kiev. The coordinates are easily found on google maps, ffs
If Putin wanted Zelensky dead, he'd be dead.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Fluke said:
Its amazing no one finds it odd that there wasn't some kind of debate whether it would be sensible for the PM to visit a country that is supposedly at war. If the russians were truly at war with the west like they are trying to mae out wouldn't there be a target on him?
Not saying it would be wise for russia to do that even if the official narrative was correct.
And of course its the same method the msm are using as they did with the sniffles. Blast out emotive pictures and footage all day of teddy bears, screaming women etc etc. The normies are so quantuam entangled with this just like the covid.
Spot on mate. This shit doesn't doesn't add up.
-
1
-
-
Sorry @Mitochondrial Eve , I had a browser timeout during this post. Hope the links all still work...
9 hours ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:I have just watched these videos about whale evolution and Jon Peters has failed to win me over to the theory.
Much of what he puts forward could be deemed evidence of microevolution rather than macroevolution. For example, he talks about the tooth buds of baleen whales and how the blow hole has moved, but I don't see why this couldn't rather be due to changes within the species itself. Further, he admits that the whale's pelvis has a functional use today within the creature's aquatic form, but says we should still see this as evidence of its alleged land dwelling ancestry.
Regarding the DNA evidence - especially concerning the closer relationship whales have to the hippo - I still do not see this as evidence as to what actually caused the closer genetic relationship between the two species. It is perhaps evidence of some form of connection but not the cause of it. Could not intelligent design or intervention theories account for this? Also, is he just looking at the 2% of encoding DNA rather than accounting also for junk DNA?
Peters refers to the matter of beneficial mutation (as a criticism of evolutionary theory) right at the end of Part 3 - whereby a colossal amount of variation is needed quite possibly in too little time - and gives it very short shrift whilst admitting that evolutionists, due to the millions of years that have elapsed, will never be able to explain the details of how all the supposed incremental steps unfolded to produce a change in species. Rather than engaging with the point, he falls back on the "trust the science" maxim whilst encouraging us to disregard what our ears, eyes and intuition may be telling us. He uses an analogy of a crime scene and that, if returning home to find your house had been burgled, it would be evidence enough without a need to question further how it had taken place to confirm that it had. I find this analogy quite disingenous and is apparently common amongst evolutionists. To quote ForumLight from the YouTube comments from the Discovery Science video I posted above:
Just as an aside @DarianF, it would be helpful, if you're going to post videos, you provide a summary / analysis of their content and your thoughts in support of your argument. I don't say this to be picky, but I have limited time and need to prioritise what I watch and read. And, for the interests of discussion on these boards, rather than people just posting videos, it would be helpful to know their understanding of the content and how these contribute towards the discussion at hand.
I have given my feedback. What is your analysis and understanding of the Jon Peters videos you posted @DarianF?
First of all, 'macroevolution' ( defined here in more detail: https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/macroevolution-examples-from-the-primate-world-96679683/ and here: https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolution-101/macroevolution/what-is-macroevolution/ ) is often used as a red herring by creationists. In reality, there is only microevolution, at the mechanistic level. What we can then observe on the broader scale is what could be called macro, because you're looking at a wider perspective ('zooming out', if you will). If you're expecting to see magical fast jumps from one species to another, you won't, and you wouldn't expect to. You have a lot of small changes over time that result - over a long period of time - in what observed as 'macro' if you want to call it that. It's a term often misused ( here is a discussion on the matter: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-020-00124-w ).
As for the DNA evidence ( https://evolutionforskeptics.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/molecular-phylogenetics-whales-are-hoofed-mammals/comment-page-1/ ) I'm obviously not a DNA expert, but there are plenty of scientific papers now that confirm the link. These, if I'm not mistaken, have been building as a weight of evidence since the 1990s; or at least the late 1990s - example - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9159931/ - example: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-aug-31-mn-27505-story.html ).
There are of course, like there should be, debates within then peer reviewed process of all the finer details. The evidence is not 'perfect' but the overall evidence seems to strongly lean in that direction. In 2008, the National Academies wrote that:
"The fossil evidence accords with recent genetic findings that whales, dolphins and porpoises descended from a group of terrestrial mammals known as Artiodactyls." ( https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11876/chapter/3?term=whales#32 ).
As far as I know, since 2008, this fact hasn't been disputed in the peer reviewed literature on a fundamental basis? Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll be happy to retract that.
Now as for the embedded videos, I don't think a summary is the best idea. A list of time codes / time stamps is much better. Maybe next time I can do that for you, to save some time and aide in more specific discussion.
PS. Check out the book, Speciation by Jerry Coyne & Allen Orr ( https://www.nature.com/articles/431399a ). It's not specifically about whales, but a good overview nonetheless.
-
9 hours ago, Morpheus said:
Then maybe you've not looked as deeply as you think into cymatics. Please see this for an example:
https://thenarrowgateweb.com/2016/06/22/cymatics/
Did you know that music was produced before the 1950's at 432hz? Did you know that after the 50's it was raised to 440hz and has been since then? What effect do you think that might have on your body? Since of course, 55-60% of your body is made from water. Well, here is the effect in the picture I've attached. Clearly it's having a huge difference to your body. There's a video of Kanye West talking about an 808 frequency in all music, that none of us can hear, but it's in there. It's the solfeggio effect. Look that shit up.
Also, look at the geometric shapes and patterns produced by resonant frequency. Did you notice that it produces Phi? Phi also encodes the physical dimensions of the human body. Crazy stuff, it's fascinating. And phi is found all through nature. Now if you're a social Darwinist then this is all coincidence, I say bollocks and it is not a coincidence at all, it reflects intelligent design. Now surely none of that can be just down to pure coincidence now can it?
Sorry @XelNaga if I have ruined your thread bud, it really was not my intention to take it in this direction, I'm terribly sorry, my humble apologies.
Yes, sound frequencies can affect physical objects, obviously. Think of sound weapons as an example, or how a sonic boom from an aircraft can screw you up or smash windows if too close. But what does it have to with objective evidence for intelligent design? It's a measurable effect from nature. But how are you extrapolating intelligent design proof from it exactly?
-
4 minutes ago, endfreemasonscum said:
Did you not read the title? Nor the first post? Or the thread to see how this works?
Nope, you just decided to come post your nasa shillary (snipped quotes and all) on yet another thread.
To get back to the point of this FUN thread, I memed yours...
RE: Petrified wood example ( https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/5907-fake-moon-landings/&do=findComment&comment=394781 ). Nice try.
-
@Mitochondrial Eve Check out some of Hans Thewissen's work on the evolution of whales:
EDIT:
This post should also provide some valuable supplementary reading on the subject:
-
9 minutes ago, bamboozooka said:
johnson visits a warzone.
if it was a real war you wouldnt.
BoJo looks utterly terrified. All those bombs raining down. All those fighter jets whizzing overhead. All the brutal house to house shootouts.
-
2
-
-
42 minutes ago, Mitochondrial Eve said:
Amongst evolutionists including Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne, the alleged whale fossil record is held up as one of the convincing examples of macroevolution. However, on closer inspection of what is being presented as proof from behind the glossy front, the evidence is decidedly unconvincing to me.
According to National Geographic's November 2001 issue, the transitional forms arose within the following order evolving from a four legged, land dwelling mammal around 50-55 million years ago:
- Pakicetus (50 million years ago)
- Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
- Rodhocetus (46.5 million years ago)
- Procetus (45 million years ago)
- Kutchicetus (43–46 million years ago)
- Durodon (37 million years ago)
- Basilosaurus (37 million years ago)
- Aeticetus (24–26 million years ago)
This paper by Stephen Bartholomew Jr, albeit from a creationist standpoint, raises some fundamental flaws in the whale evolution narrative presented with Pakicetus - a dog-like land dwelling mammal - at the core of the rebuttal.
A central premise to evolution theory is that macroevolution takes place only by mutation which is the ultimate source of all genetic variation. Not only that, for evolution to take place, the mutations must be beneficial whereas even evolutionists apparently agree that the overwhelming majority of mutations are deleterious. Yet they claim that occasionally a beneficial mutation occurs and, if given enough time, enough advantageous mutations can take place to turn a four legged, small dog-like mammal (Pakicetus) into a whale. This requires that the beneficial mutations are precisely the ones that the process requires and that they take place in a very specific chronological order and against all odds especially considering the high infant mortality rate of wild animals and that, in respect of reproduction, the allele specifying the mutation must be dominant should the mutated creature not be rejected by potential mates. There are also extinction events to factor in and whether the whale's evolution would have taken place uninterrupted.
Bartholomew considers what mutations may have arisen in Pakicetus to start it on its way to evolving into a whale. Was it shorter legs (which is something that needed to occur at some point in the evolutionary chain as whales do not have legs)? But, if Pakicetus mutated shorter legs whilst still dwelling on the land, this would not have been to the advantage of its survival as surely it would have become harder to walk, run and hunt etc. So perhaps, instead, whale's earlier ancestor became aquatic whilst its legs were close to full length? But a fully aquatic creature does not need legs and certainly not long ones. So providing a reasonable explanation for the sequence in which a land based, four legged mammal evolved into a fully aquatic mammal with no legs presents a serious challenge to evolutionists.
He also points out the huge gulf of change that needed to be covered from Pakicetus to the whale which seems absurd when considering that evolution is supposed to occur via incremental steps.
It is my view that Bartholomew raises some very challenging questions which expose the unscientific dogma surrounding the (alleged) whale fossil record which is supposed to be one of the best examples of evolutionary transition. Evolutionists will need to respond convincingly to the issues raised before I can take their claims seriously.
Turning to the two videos quoted above, the Dawkins video is only two and a half minutes long and doesn't offer any analysis as to why the fossils presented are actually thought to be a sequence of transitional forms including what mutations are thought to have taken place and when and why these were considered beneficial.
Whereas Jerry Coyne's book 'Why Evolution is True', along with so called whale evolution, receives a dressing down in this video below by biologist Jonathan Wells.
Whale Evolution Part 1
Whale Evolution Part 2
Whale Evolution Part 3
-
COVID-19 worker beats dog to death in Shanghai after its owner tests positive
Symbolism In Entertainment & Art
in Symbolism & The Occult
Posted
Christian Greece didn't obliterate their Ancient Greek heritage. Imagine how fucked their tourism industry would be if they had done so