THE PEOPLE WE HAVE TRUSTED...

10/11/2018

THE PEOPLE WE HAVE TRUSTED... by Cathy D. Slaght

Could medical intervention actually be the largest cause of cancer deaths in America?

According to “Never Fear Cancer Again”, yes.

The author says there is ONE cause for cancer- malfunctioning cells . Conventional therapies such as chemo and radiation ACCELERATE cellular malfunction.

That doesn't mean this is true- examine the data for yourself.

With that in mind, all that talk yesterday about bloodletting- and how the authorities taught, at that time, there was no difference, anatomically, between human and animal internal organs - got me to thinking about the theory of evolution.

Evolution is taught in school as if it is a fact.

But have you examined the data for yourself?

If so- for one thing, you already know that the embryo drawing used in the textbooks (Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings, today's image) was proven fraudulent many years ago.

Am SO glad it was taken out of the textbooks- except that it wasn't. It's still being used to demonstrate evolution.

What's going on with THAT?

Because, it could be that the theory of evolution is somewhat outdated. (1859)

Modern technology now demonstrates that every organism- from a single cell on up- is a form of SOFTWARE, with unique biological coding.

Coding does not change, or magically appear- biological or computer. If any of thee digits are off the system crashes.

Put another way- we now know it would be impossible for horses to become giraffes because they wanted longer necks, a fish to turn into a bird, and so on. The coding would not allow it.

Or another- for a monkey to slowly turn into a person there would have to be actual cellular coding for every piece of the transition, and that coding does not exist.

Which brings us back to the cell.

Each cell in the body is a living, breathing CITY, containing thousands of factories, warehouses, a central computer system, traffic directors, delivery systems, communication systems, waste disposal systems, security systems...

It's programmed with everything needed to function perfectly when the right materials are available.

According to Francis, these materials can be cut off by one of two things- deficiency or toxicity.

There are six main factors involved in this cut-off process: nutrition, toxicity, mental, physical, genetic, and medical.

We're still running from yesterday, so today we'll do some stress-management related to mental-

But, back to what seems to be an agenda to convince us we're just a bunch of animals...

(nothing against animals)

...but here are some things that are distinctly human:

The ability to self-determine. (free will)
The ability to delay gratification
The ability to synthesize opposing ideas
The ability to imagine.

On energyvisionariesgroup.com there's a screen shot on how the S-he-motion might be worked with to manage some of the political stress we're seeing...so that we can continue to live up to these qualities.

And today's work- etheric, not physical
https://screencast-o-matic.com/watch/cF6Xo3Y3SH

4 Comments

Dr. Donald Houston

10/12/2018 08:38:01 am

No where does evolutionary material say that monkeys became men! Monkeys, apes, Human beings all evolved from a common ancestor and simply different branches off of the same tree. In nature form follows function and thus as linear mutations happened the animals such as the giraffe evolved with longer necks.
Proto-humans such as the "Taung Baby", Lucy discovered by the Leakeys in the Olduvai Gorge in the Rift Valley of Africa, the entire panopoly of Australopithecus beings,etc. all point to an help to prove the facts of evolution as opposed to the mythos of a full sprung himan being emerging from the mist of time.
A number of varieties of Homo are grouped into the broad category of archaic humans in the period contemporary and predating the emergence of the earliest anatomically modern humans, a.k.a. Homo sapiens over 315 years ago. The term typically includes Homo neanderthalensis (430+ years ago – 38 years ago), Denisovans, Homo rhodesiensis (300,000 years ago – 125 years ago), Homo heidelbergensis (600 years ago – 200 years ago), Homo antecessor.

There is no universal consensus on this terminology, and varieties of "archaic humans" are included under the binomial name of either Homo sapiens or Homo erectus by some authors.

Archaic humans had a brain size averaging 1,200 to 1,400 cubic centimeters, which overlaps with the range of modern humans. Archaics are distinguished from anatomically modern humans by having a thick skull, prominent supraorbital ridges (brow ridges) and the lack of a prominent chin.

Anatomically modern humans appear from over 315,000 years ago and after 70,000 years ago, gradually supplanting the "archaic" human varieties. Non-modern varieties of Homo are certain to have survived until after 30,000 years ago, and perhaps until as recently as 10,000 years ago. Which of these, if any, are included under the term "archaic human" is a matter of definition and varies among authors. Nonetheless, according to recent genetic studies, modern humans may have bred with "at least two groups" of ancient humans: Neanderthals and Denisovans. Other studies have cast doubt on admixture being the source of the shared genetic markers between archaic and modern humans, pointing to an ancestral origin of the traits originating 500,000–800,000 years ago.

Another group may also have been extant as recently as 11,500 years ago, the Red Deer Cave people of China. Chris Stringer of the Natural History Museum in London has suggested that these people could be a result of mating between Denisovans and modern humans. Other scientists remain skeptical, suggesting that the unique features are within the variations expected for modern human populations.
Despite the "anti-evolutionists" claims of poor or tainted scientific procedure and subsequent evidence the facts remain that these creatures existed, they exited much longer ago that the Bibliophiles want us to believe the world has existed and no where can they scientifically prove different except by "blind faith"...!

Cathy D. Slaght

10/12/2018 12:02:53 pm

So glad to get some dialogue going on this! Good information, and always glad to hear from an M.D. Still, new information from quantum physics poses some challenges for the theory of evolution.

It's related to the discovery that everything in the universe operates mathematically, via a system of coding.

Growing numbers of scientists now state coding cannot be changed, which could be why there is no evidence of that ever happening.

For example, as far as the specimens you mentioned, yes, we have record of this but there is no evidence of mutation/coding changes turning them into anything else.

As far as the age of the planet- no argument, we have evidence- but, again, a surprising number of scientists are beginning to question evidence related to the theory of evolution for which, by the way, they are blackballed. What's up with scientists- or anyone, for that matter- not being free to question? After all, it builds neurons :)

Let's dig deeper. Your input may convince me I'm wrong, and that's always a good thing!

Donald Houston

10/25/2018 12:07:21 pm

Evolution As Fact

The very words "evolution", "fact" and "theory" have several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in "stellar evolution". In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time. It can also refer to explanatory theories such as, Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection, which explain the mechanisms of evolution. In science fact can describes a repeatable observation that is agreed on. It can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it as well as refering to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture e.g., "it's only a theory" but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation". With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

Evolution: Fact & Theory
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. To do that properly, you must explain what a scientists really mean by the word “theory” and why it iss not just an idle guess or speculation. That can be confusing, one usually says that a “theory” is an explanatory schema that makes sense of a body of facts, sort of organizing principle for thinking about things that happens to explain all the data. But I haveve never been comfortable with that, as even guesses can make sense of a body of facts, but may have not been tested as rigorously as the theory of evolution. “String theory,” for example, makes sense of some things, but nobody knows whether it’s the correct explanation for particles. I always have the feeling that I’m confusing my audience when I explain why evolution is a theory, and then go on to show that what I see as the five pillars of evolution—evolutionary change, relatively gradualistic change of populations, i.e., change over many generations rather than a few, natural selection as the process producing “design” in nature, common descent, and speciation—are actually facts.

Evolution is a fact rather the unenlightened want to accept it or not.

Resources:

Evolution As Fact, Theory, and Path
By: T. Ryan Gregory

Gould, Stephen Jay (1981) "Evolution as Fact and Theory"
Discover 2 (May): 34-37; Reprinted in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes
New York: W. W. Norton, 1994, pp. 253-262.

Lenski, Richard E. (September 2000).
"Evolution: Fact and Theory". actionbioscience. Washington, D.C.:
American Institute of Biological Sciences.

Muller, Hermann Joseph (April 1959).
"One Hundred Years Without Darwinism Are Enough".
School Science and Mathematics. 59 (4): 304–305

Bell, Graham (2008). Selection:
The Mechanism of Evolution (2nd ed.).
Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
ISBN 978-0-19-856972-5. LCCN 2007039692

An example of why it is important to distinguish evolution as fact, theory, and path.
by T. Ryan Gregory, on August 17th, 2012

Zetterberg, J. Peter, ed. (1983).
Evolution Versus Creationism: The Public Education Controversy.
Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. ISBN 0-89774-061-0. LCCN 82018795

Online Links:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12052-007-0001-z

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory#References

https://www.science20.com/dna_and_diversity/evolution_as_fact_theory_and_path

http://www.genomicron.evolverzone.com/2012/08/an-example-of-why-it-is-important-to-distinguish-evolution-as-fact-theory-and-path/

Cathy D Slaght

10/26/2018 10:32:06 am

Thanks- as always- for keeping this discussion going!

Referring to those who don't accept the theory of evolution as "unenlightened" might be way too broad of a statement, though, and possibly not scientific thinking.

(after all, what do scientists do but look for facts- and wouldn't this involve questioning? OH - wait- the vast majority take instructions from multinational corporations. Otherwise there's no funding, salary, pension, etc. )

Truth is, it's turned out that the backbone of science- i.e. Newtonian Laws- is now challenged. This would include the theory of evolution.

Will post some links over the next couple of days, see what you think- and again, I'd like to be wrong, if that means I'm not enlightened- :)