Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution (UIDE)©

[MagnetMan]

I think there may be two reasons you are not getting your message across:

 

1. Too many big words irrelevantly and irrationaly applied. (You are correct: I should heed my own advice. MM, you are waffling.)

 

2. The message is wrong.

 

I think it is probably a mixture of both and would be happy to justify my position on either or both points if you wish.

 

Please go ahead

[Eclogite]

Natural selection only reveals the physiological advantages of environmental adaptation. [/img]

This simply makes no sense to me. Natural selection is the primary mechanism by which environmental adaptation is acheived. It simply is meaningless to say the that the mechanism that leads to the state of environmental adaptation only reveals the advantages of this adaptation. The semantic content of this sentence appears to be zero.

It does not deal with the inspirational quantum leaps that result from each mass change of consciousness, especially in relation to the supernatural acceleration of human consciousess.

A case of adjectival diahorea surely. Quantum leaps is horribly cliched. Calling them inspirational adds nothing except a veneer of plausibility. What is an inspirational quantum leap? How would I recognise one? Have they been documented?

 

If these are real events, recgonised by conventional science or history, then why not use the terminology that is common usage. If they are events of your own perception, then at least give them some kind of reality for your reader through one or more examples.

 

On what basis do you describe the acceleration of human consciousness as supernatural? What is your evidence? While we are at it, how the heck does consciousness accelerate? Isn't it in danger, should it accelerate to fast, of leaving my braincase alltogether?:evil:

After studying animal behavior (ethology)

A bracketed item such as this should be used to explain to the reader an unfamiliar word. Thus After studying ethology (animal behavior) would have been appropriate. The reverse format is often employed by those wishing to advertise their education in a patronising fashion. I am sure this was not your intention, but it is so easy for a reader to misinterpret motives. The mindset this creates in the reader can then cloud the underlying message.

Tens of millions have seen these programs since 1966, with never a word of disgreement.

:hyper: Come on MM. I am still laughing at this one a full twenty four hours later. Get real.

It concludes that the current state of the mass consciousness is on the eve of graduating beyond a teenage mentality of scientific determinsm and rebellious religious protest and is entering a Nuclear Age mindset that presages our first stage of young adulthood.

You do like your patronising little put downs, don't you? I am an arrogant, self opionated elitist, but I don't think I'm in the same league as you when it comes to that all embracing certainty that you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. Is it a comforting feeling?

 

And just what is rebellious religious protest? This reads like gobbledygook. You string together two concepts - science and relgion - that many perceive to be mutually antagonistic, then set them in juxtaposition. You heighten the tension by emphasising the deterministic nature of science, and for no apparent reason or justification, characterise religion as rebellious! This gives the appearance of someone stringing together phrases that will resonate with his audience at a gut level, whilst having a different, or even null meaning, within the context of the writing. Again, semantic content seemingly zero.

 

Do I have to go on?

[Zythryn]

...

After studying animal behavior (ethology) I invested a further thirty years in the field making detailed observations on each of the foundational stages of the evolution of human consciousness. ...

 

This is extraneous information, I asked you what observations those where, not what your background is.

 

My discoveries and conclusions are published in a book entitled; Psyche-Genetics. It concludes that the current state of the mass consciousness is on the eve of graduating beyond a teenage mentality of scientific determinsm and rebellious religious protest and is entering a Nuclear Age mindset that presages our first stage of young adulthood. It preducts two further stages of human evolution, into stages of Mastership and Sagehood, when our evolutionary cycle will end.

 

Conclusions are wonderful, but again, what observations are these conclusions based on?? If you have a film full of them, just give us the most clear and concise two or three.

 

From your conclusion, it sounds more like a sociological hypothesis that one governing any sort of UIDE unless you have observations that indicate a guiding force. This specifically would be wonderful to see evidence for, so perhaps you could give us one or two examples of this?

 

Many millions of New Agers are already plugged into the sober responsibilities of enviromental clean-up and looking ahead into the complex challenges planet management. The ethic of this 5th paradigm shift of consciousness, is that of egalitarian global stewardship and not the immaturity of materialistic competitions.

 

Again, totally off base, I requested observations and how you tested the hypothesis. This seems unconnected until there is some foundation.

 

 

Psyche-Genetics, even in its draft form, is a seminal work that represents an entirely new appreaciation of the dual nature of the social and spiritual evolution of human consciousness. It is the only theory...

 

I have seen no tests done to support the hypothesis. Again, very interesting hypothesis, but no indication that the hypothesis has been tested. Can it be tested? If not, this is a religious work, which is fine, just stop calling it a theory in a scientific forum please:)

 

Its spiritual revelation is based on the metaphsyical potentials inherent within the nuclear equation. Since consciousness exists, it must be a fundamental attribute of atomic radiation.

 

I have no clue what you mean by this. Does your film/documentation have a glossary? If it does, could you copy the parts that define these terms?

 

If there is to be a Nobel, I am afraid it will have to be post-humus - the date calculated by simply tabulating the time I am presently spending in just getting the current teen-age mindset to let go of an indoctrinated mindset...

 

You don't need to convince/prove your hypothesis to anyone to win the Nobel prize. All you need to do is show a test that disproves natural selection.

Part of your issue here is what you call the 'indoctrinated mindset' (if you are referring to evolution as currently understood) is that it has been tested repeatedly. It also has made predictions which hold up to new discoveries. If you can be concise, and give us a test for your hypothesis, it very well may become a theory:)

 

Mark

[MagnetMan]

Conclusions are wonderful, but again, what observations are these conclusions based on?? If you have a film full of them, just give us the most clear and concise two or three.

 

As i said, I have a published book full of precise observations. (500 pages) Rewriting it here for your erudtion would be too tedious. But I will give you some examples:

 

I tested Stone Age family values and came to the conclusion that our ancestors were not the self-centered club-weilding brutes that bashed out each others brains. One morning I gave a small piece of candy to a Bushman boy, aged about 12. The rest of the family were out for the day, hunting and gathering. He kept the candy until all returned and it was divided into twenty five pieces. All got a tiny taste of it. I realized that only through a shared experience can life be qualified.(If a tree falls and no one sees it ....) Meticulous sharing is what allowed our specie to triump and forms the foundation of our intelligence.

 

Taking the lesson to heart from the Bushman family, which had revealed the foundation of human intelligence, I consequently invested the first seven years of the lives of each of my eight children on evoking their imprinted sharing ethic. I kept them out of school and ignored the State injunction to indoctrinate them with script and arithmatic. Instead I evoked their intuitive sense of superstition and told them that a Tokaloshe ( impish spirit) kept constant vigil over all their thoughts and actions - that all selfish and destructive behavior would be instantly punished by Mother Nature. The endless synchrony of cuts, bruises, pricks, bites, scratches (and two broken bones) that they suffered, which they gradually came to realize where unfailingly related to deviant behavior, ended up with the net result that by age seven I had eight self-policed sharing and caring children, intellectually and spiritually alert and eager to learn their next lesson in life.

 

Taking another lesson to heart, this time from Bronze Age clan group values in which a chore-based work ethic was essential for survival. I realized that this was the second foundation upon which human intellegence rests. Without concentrated focus on any effort, no matter how tedius, science itself could never evolve. So once again I ignored the State injunction to indioctrinate script and maths (I was told that I would end up with iliterate idiots) and for the next seven years I concentrated on instilling a chore-based work ethic in my kids. I made them do yoga excercises and meditation. They also practiced right brain ESP drills (and produced telepathic scores that confound mathematical odds by tens of thousands to one!)

At puberty I shaved their heads and successively sent them to live alone in the mountains for a few days.

 

Not long after each initiation, each on their own initiative took up first grade reading books and taught themselves to read. To cut a long story short, four of the eight have passed their GED exams in the top 10 percentile and the other three ( one has Downs Syndrome) are well on their way to getting the same top marks. Not only are they intellectually bright, but they are also spiritually reverential, scrupuously honest and deeply caring and a sheer deilght to their parents. All want to be global stewards.

 

All eight validate every step of the Psyche-Genetic hypothesis and their test sores in physics and metaphsyics are freely available for any further studies any interested party might wish to conduct.

 

The future social implications of the foregoing, in respect to the billions of dollars we currently invest in child education with such mediocre intellectual and ethical results, not including the vast sums spent on law inforcement and endless bureaucratic oversight are beyond calculation.

[Eclogite]

I tested Stone Age family values and came to the conclusion that our ancestors were not the self-centered club-weilding brutes that bashed out each others brains.

Why in the name of Newton would you ever have entertained such an outlandish thought? Were you completely unschooled in neo-Darwinism, sociology, anthropology, biology or just plain old common sense?

 

The rest of your post evokes a wave of gratitude to my own parents who did not subject me to any bizarre rituals. [by the way, don't you still owe me your definition of metaphysics?]

[MagnetMan]

Why in the name of Newton would you ever have entertained such an outlandish thought? Were you completely unschooled in neo-Darwinism, sociology, anthropology, biology or just plain old common sense?

 

The rest of your post evokes a wave of gratitude to my own parents who did not subject me to any bizarre rituals. [by the way, don't you still owe me your definition of metaphysics?]

 

As always Ecolite, you latch onto the first straw you can grab to refute the intelligence all and sundry (is there anybody you don't fight with?) You are quoting a generalization that was simply thrown in to refute the conventional (unscientific) view of our brutish beginnings. (In 1966 when I made my study) The subtle nature of the profound insight into the ground of human intelligence that I received from of the Stone Age experiment that was also described in that same paragraph was obviously missed entirely by you. My definition of metapjysics is even more subtle, and I fear, far beyond your comprehension..

[Zythryn]

MM, thank you for the observations.

 

These seem to be based not on facts, but on your perception of society.

 

Many would question you about where you got the idea:

"...that our ancestors were not the self-centered club-weilding brutes that bashed out each others brains."

 

From what I recall in school, neaderthals, while primitive, were hunter/gatherers which did share in the spoils of the hunt as well as the gathering. A high level of cooperation would allow a 'clan' to prosper more so than a poor level of cooperation.

 

However, having said that, I understand your hypothesis about human developement. How do these observations support the theory? Does your hypothesis allow you to make any predictions on an individual level? Or any tests that would support it?

 

I think it needs to be more than just 'someone told me something about primative human cultures that was not correct'.

 

Mark

[MagnetMan]

MM, thank you for the observations.

 

These seem to be based not on facts, but on your perception of society.

 

Many would question you about where you got the idea:

"...that our ancestors were not the self-centered club-weilding brutes that bashed out each others brains."

 

In 1966 when i made my first visit to the Boscopiods in the Kalahari, the view that humans had a murderous ancestry ( highly publized in the Sci Fi Movie 2001) was conventionally accepted.

 

From what I recall in school, neaderthals, while primitive, were hunter/gatherers which did share in the spoils of the hunt as well as the gathering. A high level of cooperation would allow a 'clan' to prosper more so than a poor level of cooperation.

The rest of the paragraph explained just how meticulious the cooperation really was.

 

However, having said that, I understand your hypothesis about human developement. How do these observations support the theory? Does your hypothesis allow you to make any predictions on an individual level? Or any tests that would support it?

 

Individual development is intrinsically linked to collective development. The individual reflects more or less the same level of self-awareness as the society he or she is reared in. In order to move ahead of the herd, and gain a broader persepctive of the current consensus on what constitutes reality, an individual has to cut him or herself off entirely for an extended period and wean both the mind and emotions from the close connection. ( I spent a year on a Zen monastery in Japan, and another 9 months living alone in a cave on an island in the Gulf of Siam. I knew a lama who was ritually entombed in a cave for three years. Innumerable hermits and sages live in the high Himalayas and have done so for millennia.) This isolation, after months of inner struggle, eventually forces the psyche to let go of all indoctrinational input and social ambitions and gradually feel marvelously free. This freedom allows for clear insight into the self and one's society and the direction both are going in. One of its advanatages is that it instills a deep sense of affection for mankind in general and the long road to self awareness that we are trodding along. This over-view is virtually unattainable while caught up in the rat race.

 

I think it needs to be more than just 'someone told me something about primative human cultures that was not correct'.Mark

 

There should be no problem in testing this radical alteration in individual consciousness. Try it on yourself.

[Eclogite]

As always Ecolite, you latch onto the first straw you can grab to refute the intelligence all and sundry ..

When faced with a haystack of ill considered, poorly phrased opinion, it really doesn't matter which straw one grasps.

(is there anybody you don't fight with?)

You have a strange idea of what constitutes a fight. I am vigorously attacking your ideas as presented. Fact: your presentation is weak. Fact: your concepts are not backed up by credible evidence. Fact: you are promoting (fanciful) conjecture as meritorious theory.

 

Attacking such wooly mindedness is not fighting.

You are quoting a generalization that was simply thrown in to refute the conventional (unscientific) view of our brutish beginnings.

Why bother to refute the conventional view of the unscientific majority? This is a science forum. We might hope that the majority of posters take a scientific view of matters. It certainly appears that your intention of refuting this view was to make your own 'revolutionary' perspective appear all the more startling, and clever of you to have arrived at it.

 

You repeat this pointless stance in your reply to Zythryn. Rather than cite one or more research papers from a recognised journal you make reference to 2001: A Space Oddysey. Once again, I feel constrained to say "Get Real". You cannot seriously use a science fiction movie as substantiation for the views of the scientific community.

 

It seems to me you spent altogether too much time on the same continent as Robert Ardrey.

The subtle nature of the profound insight into the ground of human intelligence that I received from of the Stone Age experiment that was also described in that same paragraph was obviously missed entirely by you. .

I can judge neither its profundity, nor subtlety based upon your condensed description.

.

My definition of metapjysics is even more subtle, and I fear, far beyond your comprehension..

With spelling like that you are doubtless correct.

[arkain101]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnetMan

As always Ecolite, you latch onto the first straw you can grab to refute the intelligence all and sundry ..

 

When faced with a haystack of ill considered, poorly phrased opinion, it really doesn't matter which straw one grasps.

 

I agree that Eclogite presents himself on here as if this is a scientist community. There are many scientific amateur members who post here. However, by all rights if a statement is made by someone, he and anyone has the right to pick apart that statement.

 

Although, as professional as the forum operators would like to keep this place, anyone with a little class would understand that its quite acceptable to bend the rules... anyhow, I was hesitant to post anything related to this.. Each to is own it is.. carry on.. but as for myself, If I were as well educated as some people are in this world, I surely would not spend very much time out of my day hectoring how wrong other, not as well educated people were on specific subjects.

 

well nuff said on this..

[Eclogite]

but as for myself, If I were as well educated as some people are in this world, I surely would not spend very much time out of my day hectoring how wrong other, not as well educated people were on specific subjects..

Arkain, I think I am making a reasonable deduction that this was aimed at me. Contrary to what some might feel I believe I do owe you an explanation, for it seems my motives in attacking MM's ideas are open to misinterpretation. I hope you will stay with me through the following exposition: I shall try to keep it brief.

 

I am extremely ignorant. Every day I try to become more ignorant. That merits some explanation. If you view an individual's knowledge as the contents of a balloon, then the surface of the balloon represents the margins of their understanding, the place where their knowledge butts up against their ignorance. This is how we can discern the current limits of our knowledge and measure the extent of our ignorance. As individuals learn more the balloon expands, so that the surface area increases: their ignorance increases. Thus the more I know the more I know that I don't know, hence my goal of becoming more ignorant each day.

 

I take pleasure in learning and in teaching. (Indeed my work involves training adults in certain engineering and technical skills.) If you care to scan through my posts you will find some where I have offered information to those seeking it. As far as I can tell the information has always been well received. I mention this because I certainly do not feel that I hector those less well educated on a specific topic, but rather seek to help them.

 

This seems fair, since I have been helped by reading some of the threads where I have not contributed, and in which I would not consider myself well educated. These have helped me in that goal of becoming a little more ignorant.

 

What I will attack, as I have done here, are concepts offered with minimal or no supporting evidence; that run counter to current thinking; that are presented in a pretentious style, with little substance; and that are overlain with a supercilious, patronising, self righteous tone. In such cases I shall continue to ask for the evidence (which I shall then question if necessary); I shall note the conventional position on the matter and ask why it should be rejected; I shall crtique the writing style in an effort to extract some meaning from it; and I shall castigate the writer for his attempt to carry the day by argument from authority.

 

I believe these are all valid positions to take. I do not believe they infringe forum guidlines. (Certainly, there have been no comments from moderators publicly or by pm that I was stepping over the line.) If I were offering up a radical new idea, as MM says he is, I would welcome all the crticism that was hurled at it, at how it had been presented, and about how my attitude came across. I should feel that this would only help to make the idea stronger, or, in worst case, show me where it was fatally flawed, so that I could move on.

 

Thank you Arkain, for taking the time to read this. It is important to me that my motives in this are understood by other forum members. I hope this small essay has achieved that.

 

Yours, in ignorance,

Ophiloite.

[Panjandrum]

The OP seems, rather bizarrely, to have confused the words 'intelligent' and 'unintelligent'. There's nothing intelliegent about evolution. Its just a process. You may as well talk about the 'intelligence of combustion' or the 'wisdom of photosynthesis'. This 'theory' is incomprehensible mysticism.

[arkain101]

I am not so sure I agree with your ballon analogy.

 

Ignorance is not a inevitability. Its an attribute. I do understand what you mean, but a person can also state and stand by the fact that there is more, and in the best bet, will always be more that they do not know than there is that we do.

 

Maybe our use of the word 'ignorant' is slightly different.. but using your ballon analogy, someone with an ignorant attribute would have a balloon that is highly resistent to expansion, and a person who is not would have a light stretchy balloon always capable to allow something to fill it...

 

But this whole thing is getting confusing...

 

Your motives are not misunderstood, I just noticed you get going in a pretty intense manner where you should know it isnt exactly necessary..

 

I come across dozens of people all the time that rant on about things in my area of expertise, I understand this is a relentless inevibility, I can not judge the person for we do not know what we do, when we only know what we know. (Like you said). The most I can do is mention that there is always more to understand about a subject than meets the eye.

 

Carry on... There is no misunderstandings.. and no assumptions :hihi:

[MagnetMan]

..

I come across dozens of people all the time that rant on about things in my area of expertise, I understand this is a relentless inevibility, I can not judge the person for we do not know what we do, when we only know what we know. (Like you said). The most I can do is mention that there is always more to understand about a subject than meets the eye.

 

In the short while that I have been a member of this predominantly scientgific community, I have been very impressed by the depth of scientific knowledge that is present and in the way all jump forward to tackle and solve any problem that might be presented. However, as a metaphsyician, who has a profound respect for scientific method, and believes that both disciplines are essentially seeking answwers for the same ultimate reason for being, I have found a dismissive attitude towards supernatural insights that troubles me greatly.

 

There are two paths in the art of metaphysics. One is called the Black art - which essentially believes that enlightement comes though Hellfire. The other is a healing art, which believes that enlightenment comes through Love. In the Absolute, both arrive at the same destination. I have chosen the latter path. Irrespective of my style of presentation, every one of my posts has been an attempt to inject a positive note regarding the challenges facing mankind's on-going evolution of conscious development. Only a handful of members have been broadminded enough to stand back from style and look at substance and let me know that they appreciate my stumbling attempts at trying to present the holistic aspects of the healing art.

 

I fully understanding the psychology behind the resistence. Science has a long history of Religious persecution and has struggled long and hard to establish its own credibility and must continue to protect its precepts. But the war between the lodge of science and the lodge of metaphsyics cannot go on forever. The wounds must be healed, for the argument between physicists and metaphysicists is one of the great stumbling blocks ro global goodwill. It is why I have chosen to be here.

 

I am hoping that the analogy of a more pliable ballon finds resonance.

 

P.S. There are two paths in physics as well. I will be happy to enlarge if any physicist is interested.

[arkain101]

btw, my area of expertise I am refering to is motocross. :hihi:

 

Scientists argue with anything that can not be validated with solid evidence and proof. It is not a personal issue even though people can tend to get emotionally charged. It is what science is, its foundation resides on facts, evidence, physical proof, not in order to disprove anything (even though people set a bad example of it by putting there opinions out there and backing it up with science) but in order to create clear and concise results and progress. It is because of this system we have developed the world we are in today, and we need to be thankful for this scientific system for the global connection and communication abilites we have at present that allows us to create a unification of cooperation of thought.

 

Science is a system and not intended to be create a conformity or community. People tend to attatch themselves to things, they argue, emotions involve, they are not capable of leaving baggage at home and presenting just there notes in discussion.

 

My point is, arguments dont happen because of science and metaphysics. They happen because of people and people that end up in arguments are obviously not intelligent (non ignorant) enough and self controlled enough to avoid such a stumbling block.

 

Notice how Einstien was a good example of someone good to discuss with. He refered to his theory of relativity as "THE" theory of relativity, he did not claim to own it or attatch himself to it. His humility was par enough to accept he was only fortunate enough to have revield such a concept that may have existed there all along and I would assume was just as much of a critique in things as the person bound and determined to disprove 'him' not the theory.

 

Its kind of childish to attatch yourself to things like this.. If it is attacked and you feel attacked you have seen the result of defining yourself by some type of idea, concept and material.

[Boerseun]

I tested Stone Age family values and came to the conclusion that our ancestors were not the self-centered club-weilding brutes that bashed out each others brains.

Hardly a ground-breaking discovery. The Stone Age families you are referring to exist in the realm of cartoons and caricatures.

Meticulous sharing is what allowed our specie to triump and forms the foundation of our intelligence.

Based on one observation? Hardly scientific. What caused our species to triumph is big brains to grasp technology, and of course, opposable thumbs.

 

Taking the lesson to heart from the Bushman family, which had revealed the foundation of human intelligence, I consequently invested the first seven years of the lives of each of my eight children on evoking their imprinted sharing ethic. I kept them out of school and ignored the State injunction to indoctrinate them with script and arithmatic.

You gotta be kidding me. So you willfully kept your kids out of school because you gave a kid a candy once? And made a highly suspect deduction as to why the kid didn't eat the candy immediately? We as a species have battled for years to develop 'script and arithmatic', and it has proven to be a highly useful set of tools. Lack thereof would be called 'ignorance'. Yes, the State brainwashed me. I'm a victim.

 

Instead I evoked their intuitive sense of superstition and told them that a Tokaloshe ( impish spirit) kept constant vigil over all their thoughts and actions - that all selfish and destructive behavior would be instantly punished by Mother Nature.

'Superstition' is an artifact of ignorance. But if you can't read or write or do maths, it's probably to be expected. Jeez, Louise...

 

The endless synchrony of cuts, bruises, pricks, bites, scratches (and two broken bones) that they suffered, which they gradually came to realize where unfailingly related to deviant behavior, ended up with the net result that by age seven I had eight self-policed sharing and caring children...

...with absolutely no understanding of causality. But then, if you've been intentionally kept away from 'script and arithmatic', that's probably to be expected.

So once again I ignored the State injunction to indioctrinate script and maths (I was told that I would end up with iliterate idiots) and for the next seven years I concentrated on instilling a chore-based work ethic in my kids. I made them do yoga excercises and meditation.

I am very sorry for your kids, to be illiterate at age 14 must be terrible. Imagine what they have lost out on! To be 14 and not have read Jules Verne by then. Words fail me. Truly.

They also practiced right brain ESP drills (and produced telepathic scores that confound mathematical odds by tens of thousands to one!)

Telepathic scores? Please give me resources and links to that.

 

At puberty I shaved their heads and successively sent them to live alone in the mountains for a few days.

Words fail me, again. So you send an illiterate skinhead into the bush to go fend for himself. Why, pray tell? What the hell might be your motivations for this?

Not long after each initiation, each on their own initiative took up first grade reading books and taught themselves to read.

Oh, yes - must be a ripper when you're 14 and you have to read about the bunny and the tortoise. Real intellectual stuff, man. Gimme a break. By that time, being 14, they have lost out on laying the foundations of intellectual development. Neurological patterns are laid down. Take my word for it - they will have a permanent disadvantage in reading and understanding advanced materials. I honestly don't think you're qualified to raise children.

To cut a long story short, four of the eight have passed their GED exams in the top 10 percentile and the other three ( one has Downs Syndrome) are well on their way to getting the same top marks. Not only are they intellectually bright, but they are also spiritually reverential, scrupuously honest and deeply caring and a sheer deilght to their parents. All want to be global stewards.

God Almighty. Of course they would want to be 'Global Stewards'. They haven't been exposed to anything else living under your roof. You have raised a bunch of brainwashed, socially maladapted (would members of their peer-group come and visit kids who can't read or write?) kids who have only been exposed to your patronising, arrogant views. I also suspect your kids won't have much to talk about in company. No critique towards them as individuals, of course, but I think you kinda screwed them up for many years to come, still.

 

All eight validate every step of the Psyche-Genetic hypothesis and their test sores in physics and metaphsyics are freely available for any further studies any interested party might wish to conduct.

What 'test scores in metaphysics'? I'd love for your to post these test results (or links), so that we can see what you've done to your kids. Oh yes - and include their age as well. Of course they would validate the steps in your hypothesis, you forced them into it (by not sending them to school, for example).

 

MagnetMan, I don't know why I bother, but after reading this post and what you've done to your kids, I can come to no other conclusion but that you are a complete and utter nut.

 

Thank God you're probably too old to have kids again. Little bit of advice - stay the f*ck away from your grandchildren, should you have any.

[MagnetMan]

MagnetMan, I don't know why I bother, but after reading this post and what you've done to your kids, I can come to no other conclusion but that you are a complete and utter nut.

 

Thank God you're probably too old to have kids again. Little bit of advice - stay the f*ck away from your grandchildren, should you have any.

 

You have crossed way over the line with the above post, Boerseun. I demand a retraction and a public repremand from the moderator (OH I forgot, you have the appointment.). If an appology is not forth coming, let me remind you, this universe is a small place. We will meet face to face one day.

 

Sadly. it is this type of superior arrogance that collapsed 14 generations of white colonial rule in South Africa. It made me ashamed of my national heritage and leave the country to become an American citizen.