0 votes

UK Eugenicists play God, Again: Synthetic DNA 'created.' Behold: The X-NA

"There is nothing Goldilocks about DNA and RNA," Holliger told Science. "There is no overwhelming functional imperative for genetic systems or biology to be based on these two nucleic acids."

If that doesn't sum up the dangerous God Complex pandemic rampant amongst the Ruling Class and their sycophantic Enablers, I don't know what does.

They haven't got the SLIGHTEST clue on how one of the most fundamental forces at play in our universe called the Gravity works, yet they want to play god with the Natural Order.

DNA alternative created by scientists

Artificial genetic material – XNAs – expected to reveal how molecules first replicated and drive biotechnology research

Ian Sample, science correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 19 April 2012 14.28 EDT

Scientists have created artificial genetic material that can store information and evolve over generations in a similar way to DNA – a feat expected to drive research in medicine and biotechnology, and shed light on how molecules first replicated and assembled into life billions of years ago.

Ultimately, the creation of alternatives to DNA could enable scientists to make novel forms of life in the laboratory.

Researchers at the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in Cambridge, developed chemical procedures to turn DNA and RNA, the molecular blueprints for all known life, into six alternative genetic polymers called XNAs.

=============================================================

These arrogant monsters can't even explain what they're 'studying,' so being the 'objective' "scientists" that they are, they decided to moronically label something that they were completely clueless about in high Latin: "Junk DNA."

Sure, they believe in natural selection and evolution, yet cannot intellectually accept why Nature must have continued to evolve to KEEP parts of DNA that they cannot understand why we need it. So being the 'brilliantly objective scientists' that they are, what do they do? At the height of hypocrisy, when faced with something that they cannot fathom why, they decide the very Mother Nature that they worship, MUST be stupider than they are.

And what do insecure children do, when faced with something infinitely more brilliant than they are? Ridicule it: "junk," just because their neurotically childish and arrogant tiny little minds cannot fathom it.

Hm... what do you know: sounds just like how they treat Dr. Paul and the R3VOLution.

SO in their 'if we can't fathom it, it MUST be "junk"' so they decided they can and should create their own synthetic version of the DNA.

Just what is wrong with our species??

The arrogance of 'scientists' aka, the modern day Post-Vatican clergy, will be the downfall of us all!

Just you wait: like all things arrogant scientists modern-clergy release into the world, like DU, nuclear weapons, GMO, once it enters into the biosphere, it will poison and doom us all, eventually.

Hopefully, the more sane American warning wins the day in this arena:

In his article on the Cambridge study [Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California's Gerald] Joyce alludes to the potential dangers of synthetic genetics. He writes: "As one contemplates all the alternative life forms that might be possible with XNAs and other more exotic genetic molecules, the words of Arthur C Clarke come to mind. In 2010: Odyssey Two, HAL the computer tells humanity, 'all these worlds are yours', but warns – 'except [Jupiter's moon] Europa, attempt no landings there'. Synthetic biologists are beginning to frolic on the worlds of alternative genetics but must not tread into areas that have the potential to harm our biology."

PS. On a side note, you'll see the vestiges of the British 'Aristocracy' funded Eugenics movement still rampant, and alive & well, if you regularly peruse The Nature, BBC, the Guardian, Telegraph, and DailyMail (the MOST important tabloid IMHO: along with their incessant & endless coverage of Pippa, Posh Spice, and the Kardashians, they manage to squeeze in some expose' that are astoundingly more NYT than what NYT should be or have become), like I do, you'll too soon conclude that MOST prolific eugenics news comes out of the UK press.

In fact, the Briton upper echelon inbreds are OBSESSED with it, still.

Hitler ain't got nothing on the Anglo eugenicists!

Well, not surprising since, as anyone who have researched the topic would already know, the Anglo-American banksters actively formulated and funded Mussolini, Mao, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler et al; hell practically almost every "-isms" of the last 150+ yrs were funded by 'them' as series of controlled oppositions.

=============================================================

UPDATE: A Personal Observation.

[** Please be advised. Yes, I tend to be verbose, and I sincerely thank you for responding. However, if you do want to respond, I'd ask that you kindly read through all of my rather long winded replies to see the context of the arguments being made, instead of deciding a priri, as if this is some groundless 'anti-science' thread. Thanks.]

Though NOT my intent, in light of how this particular topic of discussion inevitably, invariably DEVOLVE into a simplistic intellectual debate between Evolution vs. Creationism from a strictly Judeo-Christian worldview, let me make this clear:

I am NOT a strict "creationist" NOR an "evolutionist." PERIOD.

My simple contention is that we do not know for certain, either way. And if one were truly honest and humble, one would have to at least agree that we know nothing, in the aggregate.

And, that there are uncontrollable, inherent danger built-in, when you 'play God' with the Natural Order.

So in this case, if one truly researched into the Ruling Class' proven and admitted History Eugenics Agenda:

Monsanto
http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+sue+indian+farmers
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-m...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1999/12/22/gmfood991222.html

IBM and Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Black
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Eugenics in America & UK
http://www.google.com/search?q=eugenics+in+america
http://www.google.com/search?q=british+eugenics

Dangers of Nano Biotech
http://www.google.com/search?q=dangers+of+nano+eugenics

this should be clear: yes, this phase of eugenics progression is EVIL. Pure Evil.

No conundrum.

No 'Good' people decide to play god with inherently irreversibly dangerous tech with matters they do not and cannot fully comprehend. Especially, one which even by libertarian/ancap free market model, these 'scientists' cannot fully control who, how or WHEN they will 'inadvertently' affect, nor one in which victims of their god experiment have any real recourse for.

Seriously, is there any amount of just compensation for generationally irreversible genetic mutation? Like derivatives fraud, this isn't a matter of if, but WHEN. Just look at the effects of mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins.

We're not talking about inanimate 'dangerous' objects like guns and ammo, which must be pointed by an individual targeting something or someone to cause damage. Genetic mutation, is transferable, and like a virus, once it enters our gene pool/biosphere, it's there, and while you maybe able to limit, but in the aggregate, you have absolutely NO control over it, period.

If one works in a field who purports to subscribe to ATCG as an eventual manifestation of that natural evolutionary process in which they hold dear, it is the height of cognitive dissonance to call what has evolved to be necessary via millions of yrs of evolution, as "junk."

Not sure if any critically thinking person should give any credence to any scientist who dare label what they do not know, a priori, as "junk."

To me, THEY are, who are the real junk.

I suppose I'm seeing the classic line drawn here within DailyPaul, as well:

any time the issue of genetics comes up it's divided strictly down the line between the 'creationists' and 'evolutionists,' as if they are only two options, or presumably the only two 'sides' that hold some credibility to resolve this issue.

Chances are the human evolution on Earth is probably due to pan-spermia, or some hybridization of sorts.

And chances are, humans have been here FAR longer than the current prevailing 'scientific' and archeological paradigms are willing to admit; perhaps even in successions of multiple rise and fall of numerous civilizations, and multiple CYCLES of Extinction Level Events. Our own remaining physical artifacts are telling us as much.

Just remember, we have a series of architectural artifacts that can be seen from space, laid out in almost perfect true North, East, West and South (coincidentally an acronym of which we get the etymology of the term "news" from), with an internal chamber that can ONLY be cut with some sort of laser like device, or industrial saw with carbide bits and humongous polishing wheel which cut walls the size of a huge cinema screen in a perfect perpendicularity, at a time when such technology supposedly couldn't exist.

Yet, it's just standing there, telling us, someone or something had the tech to build it then (whenever 'then' were), when WE CAN'T even replicate it, even with all our current hi tech tools and methods, today: the Giza Pyramids.

And yet, these 'scientists' ASSUME that the ancients MUST have been technologically inferior.

Our worldview, ie how the universe works, what causes physical phenomena, etc. by and large are determined by physicists of any given day.

But prevailing operative physics is only relevant as the next physicist who comes along to replace the last dead one.

And, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing 'scientific' about modern science.

It's PURE politics. Period.

On the most part, due to the sheer amount of costs involved in pursuing truly groundbreaking research, most modern 'scientists' are nothing more than grant-whores who live off of corporatist grants or, as has been the trend for many yrs, live off of DARPA and now DHS related grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies, which in some cases supposedly make up 70% of grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies that any university lab/corporatist private labs receive.

Before, we had the Vatican telling us that the Earth was flat.

Now, we have physicists telling us that the Universe is flat.

We just replaced one delusional, agenda-ed Clergy with another.

Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

To those who say there's proof that we 'naturally' evolved here on earth, well where's the proof?

Granted, there's some leeway to argue in terms of archeological proof, 'absence of evidence is not non-proof,' to a very limited range of species' evolutionary trajectory.

But, since NO ONE can replicate a 6million yr+ evolution cycle into a compact time frame in which we can all indisputably objectively observe, as such experiment proving such hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE by the sheer nature of temporal limits alone, it will forever remain just that: a THEORY.

Even then, even in 'scientific' terms, a "theory" which erroneously people conclude as 'laws' of physics/universe, etc, is STILL just that: a theory, which by definition is merely a "proven hypothesis."

This, frankly is the same basis of the Global Warming hoax.

Climatology is one of the most complex fields of study, as it involves many uncontrollableS, lack of constants, and too many variables. Even more impossible: to postulate an exact cause & effect, and more specifically, to what extent.

That is why bulk of super computers have always been relegated to few areas: decryption, nuclear, and climatology.

You can set up a hundred football field sized warehouse full of whatever the latest iterations of Cray & IBM Big Blue supercomputers you have, you still won't be able to predict weather to a 100% perfection.

And, those simulations run on Crays are only as good as the fundamental basis in which your computer models are based on.

In fact, this notion shouldn't be such a difficult subject to grasp, IF you've come to conclude that the Austrian School of Economics is far more superior, more ethical, not to mention, much more realistically practical than Keynesian econ.

And, IF you've actually read or heard/viewed interviews with the author of the Black Swan, Nassim Taleb dismiss most economists as crackpots, you'd see that he does so for the same exact reason: what good is your mathematical econ computer model, if the algorithm to make that computer model is based on erroneous assumptions?

Sure, you can prove yourself right. But who can't, if you set up a program in which you'll be proven correct anyway?

So if one proves a self-imposed previous assumption to be true, informed or not, should that then MUST become a universal fact?

Um no.

That's the same reason why I part ways with many libertarians including Stefan Molyneux, who for some reason views "science" AS IF it's some immutably truthful religion, the same way that he and others accuse their 'religious' detractors of doing; Stef has as much deductive rationale on this issue as the 'creationists' that he readily ridicules.

Actually if you guys get a chance, please check out this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVo3-wHdkfc

Sweden's Henrik Palmgren's Red Ice Radio's personal human origins understanding lie somewhere between modern science and Robert Schoch to Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Michael Tsarion, Michael Cremo, Bruce Lipton, and Immanuel Velikovsky.

Even more reason why I commend both Palmgren and Molyneux for speaking to each other on a subject that they surely question each other's veracity on.

It's a complex topic no one knows for sure. Plus, what will either evolutionists and creationists do, when we meet other species from other parts of the universe?

No. Seriously.

Frankly, until the day in which we have 'First Contact' and exchange ideas of each other's worldview, compare who's more further along, and why, for SEVERAL generations of cross-species info exchange, we're not likely to come to a solid conclusion on just how the entire Universe/Multi-verse, or who or what made us the way we are on Earth, or species on other life-sustainable planetary bodies.

So to conclude that ideas like the Big Bang is what began everything, arrogantly, when the prevailing physicist cannot even explain what may have existed BEFORE the Big Bang, let alone ignoring their inability to describe where gravity comes from (iron ore, magma, soliton/graviton waves, Oh My! Yeah Right!), everything we postulate will forever be just theories, be they 'proven' hypotheses in which physicists simply wanted to be correct about something a priori, or transitional 'laws' like Newtonian Physics, which apparently was considered only wholly 'true' until Max Planck came along.

So go figure.

The best that scientists can do, is to simply be humble, keep toiling away best trying to explain the current natural world at large, before making rash universal statements like 'the Big Bang created the universe' or 'we came from tadpoles,' or conversely on the flipside,'God created Adam and Eve.'

Because the most HONEST thing ALL sides can certainly conclude for 100% certain, is that NONE of us know for certain. PERIOD.

And we're are not bound to know for certain either, for at least not until we actually can compare notes with other species in the future. And even then, it's never gonna be certain, until any one of us can be there to witness the birth of the Universe/Multi-verse, if in the unlikely day that we can make temporal jumps in a reality operating on 'TRILLIONS of light years'-capable travel methods.

Yeah. Sure. We 'know' how the universe works.

NOT!

So in such reality, how truly confident should any of us be, when arrogant eugenicists who describe what they don't know as "junk" yet decide they know enough to create a wholly new synthetic XNA which inevitably will mix with our own DNA sometime down the line, when they haven't even figured out how to reverse the effects of already existent genetic mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins?

Shouldn't at least the rule of thumb be, create an antidote along with the toxin, at the same time?

So yeah, careless and callous arrogance at that level and to those degrees? Like dude, they're evil, PERIOD.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Interesting topic..... lame author

Would love to read more on the topic. Unfortunately, I cant stomach the guy who wrote this. Gotta love the insane rants.

so basically if you don't have the patience to read,

or comprehend, it's a rant?

Oh wait, an "insane rant."

Get some clues on netiquette, will ya?

Guess I can begin calling people who lack nuance, and inability to read uncomfortable break downs as illiterate.

Interesting topic... lame rebuttal.

Would love to read more on the topic. Unfortunately, I cant stomach the guy who replied to this. Gotta love the insane rants.

I know, sounds just as inane, when you read your own words, eh?

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Nice try

Still lame. Still an insane rant. To defend the rant suggests you're on par with the insanity. ...oh and that's why its -1 ... LAME!

interesting stuff

Always nice to see the life sciences advance. Better understanding of the psuedo life could very well contribute greatly to understanding our own biological systems.
Keep in mind all of you haters of science that humans lived about 35 years and their population expanded very slowly until a few of our ancestors figured out how to harness the earth for their benefit...agricultural, and irrigation come to mind.
All knowledge has the potential for harm and benefit, just because you love some science and may be terrified of other, doesn't make the quest for knowledge an evil conspiracy.

the following was meant especially, for those who share similar

sentiments to the one that you just made:

UPDATE: A Personal Observation.

[** Please be advised. Yes, I tend to be verbose, and I sincerely thank you for responding. However, if you do want to respond, I'd ask that you kindly read through all of my rather long winded replies to see the context of the arguments being made, instead of deciding a priri, as if this is some groundless 'anti-science' thread. Thanks.]

Though NOT my intent, in light of how this particular topic of discussion inevitably, invariably DEVOLVE into a simplistic intellectual debate between Evolution vs. Creationism from a strictly Judeo-Christian worldview, let me make this clear:

I am NOT a strict "creationist" NOR an "evolutionist." PERIOD.

My simple contention is that we do not know for certain, either way. And if one were truly honest and humble, one would have to at least agree that we know nothing, in the aggregate...

========================================================

PS. Is development of XNA, really a "life sciences advance[-ment]"??

If there is one true faux 'science,' it's eugenics, especially from those who arrogantly call 6million yrs+ evolution that necessitated it, and label what they do not know, as "junk DNA."

"All knowledge has the potential for harm and benefit, just because you love some science and may be terrified of other, doesn't make the quest for knowledge an evil conspiracy."

-- True, but considering humanity as a whole had never been educated en masse until post-WWII, I'd ask you to consider this:

until 60yrs ago, we lived in a world where colonialism were still the predominant norm. And a very few families economically ruled the world (still do, but that's for another day).

The Oxford University system were created about a thousand yrs ago (by some account) to solely groom the next generation of loyal statist commissars.

The ONLY reason why Europe embarked on a socialist reform were pure numbers: the prospect of having poor European males return from WWI & II with blown limbs while 'aristocratic' a-holes were still frolicking around in their expensive haute couture $100,000 dresses and bespoke Bentleys would've caused a bigger societal riot than OWS, especially considering ante-bellum, they had a generation of returning vets who just got done killing a whole lot of Nazis. The Feudal European States taught a whole generation how to kill the aristocracy efficiently, if they wanted to.

They had to alleviate growing class divide, one even larger than the one existed in Britain prior to WWII. So their solution was to give them stuff, pretend to let them join 'their club' and get them dependent, with numerical, mathematical certainty that once they got them dependent, they'd have to resort to austerity. It's not an accident that worldwide derivatives collapse is about to occur just as the BabyBoomers are retiring worldwide, en masse.

Pure numbers game. And govt actuarians, say what one may about commissars, are not all idiots. You were DESIGNED to be dirt poor. They made sure of it. But no conspiracy here.

They looked at the post-WWII Oxford freshmen with disdain. It was as if the peons were raiding their country club.

You honestly think 1000's of years of families who groomed a network of generational support worldwide, would suddenly adopt a worldview that you and I would be equal to 'them,' especially if their progeny were still the ones in charge in 19th and 20th century?

For Americans who never dealt with a visceral notion of caste system, this may be hard to fathom, but 'these people' NEVER changed their ways. We literally are seen as a disease to them.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/article/call-compulsory-contraception

There's a reason why eugenicists who fund these genetics programs just happen to be the same people who see you and me as peons, or a virus upon "THEIR" world.

But no. No conspiracy, when 'they' are the ones directing the funding and policy for population reduction. Nope, UN Agenda 21 happened completely in vacuum. Nope, Coal Springs Harbor just changed their field of study from Eugenics to Genetics, purely out of semantics.

Nope. No grand "evil conspiracy" here. Hey after all, seeking a more efficient engineering methods to build a better private prison is also a "quest for knowledge" to the designer of the prison, too.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Atheistic Materialism vs Spiritual Science

This is a great article because it illustrates the arrogance and folly of atheistic materialism - science of matter without a 'higher' cause. Atheistic materialism has brought us to the brink of extinction with its poisonous atomic and nuclear physics, arrogant and irresponsibe works in population reduction (humans are accidents), etc., etc. There will come a time (it has begun already) where science merges with spirit to create a holistic paradigm of LIFE leaving behind its stupid pursuit and love of Death.

Atheistic Materialism
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...

Spiritual Science
http://pondscienceinstitute.on-rev.com/svpwiki/tiki-index.ph...

Atheistic Materialism is a

Atheistic Materialism is a foundation principle of Marxism - a completely failed belief system.

Aw come on, surely you can't

Aw come on, surely you can't be serious? You can't play God if you can't prove there is a God in the first place, so why condemn scientists for constantly progressing in their fields, when you cannot prove there is a moral law they must abide to? I don't agree with the constant weaponisation of new discoveries, but this progression will surely help in more areas than not?

It is human nature...

...to mess with nature.

God (if you believe in one) gave us that gift. Deal with it.

It's not weather you mess with nature or not it's what you ultimately do with it that makes it good or evil.

Oh the conundrum! ;)

in this case, EVIL. Pure Evil.

No conundrum.

No 'Good' people decide to play god with inherently irreversibly dangerous tech with matters they do not and cannot fully comprehend. Especially, one which even by libertarian/ancap free market model, these 'scientists' cannot fully control who, how or WHEN they will 'inadvertently' affect, nor one in which victims of their god experiment have any real recourse for.

Seriously, is there any amount of just compensation for generationally irreversible genetic mutation? Like derivatives fraud, this isn't a matter of if, but WHEN. Just look at the effects of mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins.

We're not talking about inanimate 'dangerous' objects like guns and ammo, which must be pointed by an individual targeting something or someone to cause damage. Genetic mutation, is transferable, and like a virus, once it enters our gene pool/biosphere, it's there, and while you maybe able to limit, but in the aggregate, you have absolutely NO control over it, period.

If one works in a field who purports to subscribe to ATCG as an eventual manifestation of that natural evolutionary process in which they hold dear, it is the height of cognitive dissonance to call what has evolved to be necessary via millions of yrs of evolution, as "junk."

Not sure if any critically thinking person should give any credence to any scientist who dare label what they do not know, a priori, as "junk."

To me, THEY are, who are the real junk.

I suppose I'm seeing the classic line drawn here within DP, as well:

any time the issue of genetics comes up it's divided strictly down the line between the 'creationists' and 'evolutionists,' as if they are only two options, or presumably the only two 'sides' that hold some credibility to resolve this issue.

Chances are the human evolution on Earth is probably due to pan-spermia, or some hybridization of sorts.

And chances are, humans have been here FAR longer than the current prevailing 'scientific' and archeological paradigms are willing to admit; perhaps even in successions of multiple rise and fall of numerous civilizations, and multiple CYCLES of Extinction Level Events. Our own remaining physical artifacts are telling us as much.

Just remember, we have a series of architectural artifacts that can be seen from space, laid out in almost perfect true North, East, West and South (coincidentally an acronym of which we get the etymology of the term "news" from), with an internal chamber that can ONLY be cut with some sort of laser like device, or industrial saw with carbide bits and humongous polishing wheel which cut walls the size of a huge cinema screen in a perfect perpendicularity, at a time when such technology supposedly couldn't exist.

Yet, it's just standing there, telling us, someone or something had the tech to build it then (whenever 'then' were), when WE CAN'T even replicate it, even with all our current hi tech tools and methods, today: the Giza Pyramids.

And yet, these 'scientists' ASSUME that the ancients MUST have been technologically inferior.

Our worldview, ie how the universe works, what causes physical phenomena, etc. by and large are determined by physicists of any given day.

But prevailing operative physics is only relevant as the next physicist who comes along to replace the last dead one.

And, there is ABSOLUTELY nothing 'scientific' about modern science.

It's PURE politics. Period.

On the most part, due to the sheer amount of costs involved in pursuing truly groundbreaking research, most modern 'scientists' are nothing more than grant-whores who live off of corporatist grants or, as has been the trend for many yrs, live off of DARPA and now DHS related grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies, which in some cases supposedly make up 70% of grants/aids/loans/govt subsidies that any university lab/corporatist private labs receive.

Before, we had the Vatican telling us that the Earth was flat.

Now, we have physicists telling us that the Universe is flat.

We just replaced one delusional, agenda-ed Clergy with another.

Meet the New Boss, same as the Old Boss.

To those who say there's proof that we 'naturally' evolved here on earth, well where's the proof?

Granted, there's some leeway to argue in terms of archeological proof, 'absence of evidence is not non-proof,' to a very limited range of species' evolutionary trajectory.

But, since NO ONE can replicate a 6million yr+ evolution cycle into a compact time frame in which we can all indisputably objectively observe, as such experiment proving such hypothesis is IMPOSSIBLE by the sheer nature of temporal limits alone, it will forever remain just that: a THEORY.

Even then, even in 'scientific' terms, a "theory" which erroneously people conclude as 'laws' of physics/universe, etc, is STILL just that: a theory, which by definition is merely a "proven hypothesis."

This, frankly is the same basis of the Global Warming hoax.

Climatology is one of the most complex fields of study, as it involves many uncontrollableS, lack of constants, and too many variables. Even more impossible: to postulate an exact cause & effect, and more specifically, to what extent.

That is why bulk of super computers have always been relegated to few areas: decryption, nuclear, and climatology.

You can set up a hundred football field sized warehouse full of whatever the latest iterations of Cray & IBM Big Blue supercomputers you have, you still won't be able to predict weather to a 100% perfection.

And, those simulations run on Crays are only as good as the fundamental basis in which your computer models are based on.

In fact, this notion shouldn't be such a difficult subject to grasp, IF you've come to conclude that the Austrian School of Economics is far more superior, more ethical, not to mention, much more realistically practical than Keynesian econ.

And, IF you've actually read or heard/viewed interviews with the author of the Black Swan, Nassim Taleb dismiss most economists as crackpots, you'd see that he does so for the same exact reason: what good is your mathematical econ computer model, if the algorithm to make that computer model is based on erroneous assumptions?

Sure, you can prove yourself right. But who can't, if you set up a program in which you'll be proven correct?

So if one proves a self-imposed previous assumption to be true, informed or not, should that then MUST become a universal fact?

Um no.

That's the same reason why I part ways with many libertarians including Stefan Molyneux, who for some reason views "science" AS IF it's some immutably truthful religion, the same way that he and others accuse their 'religious' detractors of doing; Stef has as much deductive rationale on this issue as the 'creationists' that he readily ridicules.

Actually if you guys get a chance, please check out this interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVo3-wHdkfc

Sweden's Henrik Palmgren's Red Ice Radio's personal human origins understanding lie somewhere between modern science and Robert Schoch to Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Michael Tsarion, Michael Cremo, Bruce Lipton, and Immanuel Velikovsky.

Even more reason why I commend both Palmgren and Molyneux for speaking to each other on a subject that they surely question each other's veracity on.

It's a complex topic no one knows for sure. Plus, what will either evolutionists and creationists do, when we meet other species from other parts of the universe?

No. Seriously.

Frankly, until the day in which we have 'First Contact' and exchange ideas of each other's worldview, compare who's more further along, and why, for SEVERAL generations of cross-species info exchange, we're not likely to come to a solid conclusion on just how the entire Universe/Multi-verse, or who or what made us the way we are on Earth, or species on other life-sustainable planetary bodies.

So to conclude that ideas like the Big Bang is what began everything, arrogantly, when the prevailing physicist cannot even explain what may have existed BEFORE the Big Bang, let alone ignoring their inability to describe where gravity comes from (iron ore, magma, soliton/graviton waves, Oh My! Yeah Right!), everything we postulate will forever be just theories, be they 'proven' hypotheses in which physicists simply wanted to be correct about something a priori, or transitional 'laws' like Newtonian Physics, which apparently was considered only wholly 'true' until Max Planck came along.

So go figure.

The best that scientists can do, is to simply be humble, keep toiling away best trying to explain the current natural world at large, before making rash universal statements like 'the Big Bang created the universe' or 'we came from tadpoles,' or conversely on the flipside,'God created Adam and Eve.'

Because the most HONEST thing ALL sides can certainly conclude for 100% certain, is that NONE of us know for certain. PERIOD.

And we're are not bound to know for certain either, for at least not until we actually can compare notes with other species in the future. And even then, it's never gonna be certain, until any one of us can be there to witness the birth of the Universe/Multi-verse, if in the unlikely day that we can make temporal jumps in a reality operating on 'TRILLIONS of light years'-capable travel methods.

Yeah. Sure. We 'know' how the universe works.

NOT!

So in such reality, how truly confident should any of us be, when arrogant eugenicists who describe what they don't know as "junk" yet decide they know enough to create a wholly new synthetic XNA which inevitably will mix with our own DNA sometime down the line, when they haven't even figured out how to reverse the effects of already existent genetic mutagens like Depleted Uranium, TSA pornscanners/terahertz waves, and GMO toxins?

Shouldn't at least the rule of thumb be, create an antidote along with the toxin, at the same time?

So yeah, careless and callous arrogance at that level and to those degrees? Like dude, they're evil, PERIOD.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

It's always the same old story.

Old as the hills.
He always comes with the same ruse, and it happens over and over again to the ignorant. And the arrogant.

Genesis 3:
3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Why so angry?

Way to jump the gun there. What exactly are you afraid of?

Connecting this development

to GMOs and nukes etc. might be a little premature. Fear and misunderstanding go hand in hand. I think Leiska is in his or her right to at least ask "what are you afraid of" - because if you can't come back with a sound argument based on a true understanding of what could go wrong... well your argument just isn't as strong.

I'm not saying this isn't potentially dangerous - but I don't claim to have the background knowledge to really KNOW one way or the other. When I clicked on this post I was hoping to be enlightened in a substantial way and gain some real understanding. No disrespect or offense, but I just don't quite feel like I got that.

All the best,
AKT

adam t

yeah,

GMO, DU, nuke weapons, what can possibly go wrong?

No, really. Thank you sir, may I have another!

I'm not sure how aware you are of the almost irreversibility of certain tech, once unleashed into the biosphere, or aware of the overall larger eugenics agenda at play here by the Ruling Class.

Now there some here and many libertarians who believe that corporatists naturally 'get out of control,' and their eugenics agenda is not an agenda, but solely out of misguided profit motive, and has nothing to do with a conspiracy, per se.

Well, since most don't think in these terms, however please ponder upon this: consider how the slave owners may view you.

If you're the owner(s) of a large transnational corporation that has over 100,000+ to 2,000,000+ employees, and have annual revenue exceeding GDP of about 100 nations, COMBINED, what your organization decide to do, in fact, is de facto dictating the policies of those nations in which they operate in.

And, these people are not stupid.

They have actuarians run cost/benefit analysis for a reason; as in they run numbers to see whether settling and/or paying fines for whatever 'violation' they maybe charged with, than to admit mistake or change the nature of, ingredients of, the process of how their products work and/or are manufactured, etc.

Now, for instance, if you're Monsanto, and know how harmful your products are, so much so that they will not offer their own products in their own company's cafeteria, any nominally intelligent person should be able to conclude that the company is only doing it, BECAUSE they ALREADY know how harmful their own products are.

And, knowing this, Monsanto STILL sells their crap, worldwide. And continue to unaccountably release their products into the biosphere unlabeled. Their products are GMO that WILL mutate, destroy, and/or irrevocably harm your very genetic make up, and continue to do so. That is not up for debate, as they're proven FACTS.

One would have to be an absolutely lobotomized imbecile to NOT think it's by intention. Aka, a real conspiracy fact.

So yeah, what can possibly go wrong?

It's not called being "afraid," it's called being alert, aware, and vigilant. Tell me, should I NOT care about the Wall St. Bankster hijacked Corporatist Govt Terrorists' Federal Reserve Fiat monetary system, once I find out about it?

Same logic. Once you know, You know.

If one wants to willfully ignore the ramifications, that is of course entirely up to you, as well.

But frankly, I would think one would know better than to not see the obvious, when these technologies are pushed forth, by questionable characters, receiving funding from questionable organizations & individuals.

If you researched all the links included in the thread, and still come to a conclusion that all this maybe 'benign' it'd be one thing. Well... I'd gleefully chide ya anyway! .D LOL

So, I'd highly recommend you research some of the following topics, and make up your own mind:

Monsanto
http://www.google.com/search?q=monsanto+sue+indian+farmers
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/gm-food-banned-in-m...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/1999/12/22/gmfood991222.html

IBM and Eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Black
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

Eugenics in America & UK
http://www.google.com/search?q=eugenics+in+america
http://www.google.com/search?q=british+eugenics

Dangers of Nano Biotech
http://www.google.com/search?q=dangers+of+nano+eugenics

After which if you still conclude that all of these techs are inherently benign, you know like Depleted Uranium, then I would be sad, but leave you be, with your own conclusions.

But regardless: please, take the time to inform yourself first.

If you've already taken the Red Pill 1, for your Federal Reserve ailments, time to take Red Pill 2, against the eugenics agenda.

PS. Oh, by the way I don't get "angry," just verbally acidic, from time to time.oD

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Proverbs 16:5

"Everyone that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord, though hand join in hand, they shall not go unpunished"

That day of vengance is coming!

" In Thee O Lord do I put my trust " ~ Psalm 31:1~

AMEN!

um "...they shall not go unpunished" couldn't that day come any sooner?

Like preferably BEFORE Darth Vader actually got a new heart?

LOL

er... .o(

Poor heart. If that donor ever knew his/her heart would be going to keep a murderous monster alive, wonder if they would've signed up to be a organ donor in the first place.

But knowing Dickhead Cheney, he probably got it out of a poor Chinese FanLun Gong in a mobile death van.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul