What's the craziest conspiracy theory you believe/entertain

Post Reply New Topic

The key phrase is:

"I believe"

- and that says it all.

The scum usually rises to the top.

People who manipulate, con, exploit, hurt, or deceive others.

Think of all the greed and corruption at the top of companies. Those people become the alpha-humans, the most rich, the most powerful, the most revered, the most supported by nepotism and patronage. They're also the best at doing this without seeming suspicious. They evade the law or get the best lawyers when they're charged. They have an unfair advantage of carrying weapons which nice people wouldn't want to do. They can kill from a distance without even engaging in physical combat, or pay others to do it for them. They carry on and win by taking out any competition below. Those under them, people who are honest and hard working, who don't lie or cheat, steal, or carry weapons, people who work graveyard shifts or get sent to war on someone else's agenda, are the people who get trampled or sacrificed.

It doesn't pay to be a nice person. Evil almost always wins, but I don't consider those people to be the "fittest".

D'ja mean???
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephanies ... 2bd78047c4

(Now, true psychopaths have neurophysiologic alterations to how the brains are working - so there is no fear but also no camaraderie no loyalty and no guilt. -Plus the core body temperature tends to run lower than average.)

Here is a good summary and overview of the "was Shakespeare Shakesepeare?" question.

A question that not only involves Stratfordians vs antiStratfordians, but skirmishes between Antistratfordians, because there are three main contenders, and other minor contenders, who are thought by some to be Shakespeare. ALL the contenders cant be the right one.

Last edited by naturalplastic on 06 Aug 2021, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes. And people are free to believe otherwise. Not a problem with me.

I have no belief.
- How can I possibly navigate life so successfully??

Exactly.

They become the top of the food chain for this resilience. As role models, they train their proteges and underlings to act the same way. They manipulate the economy and therefore legislation, as well as the media. They demonstrate narcissism, egomania, and megalomania when raising their children. In that respect they do adapt to their surroundings in a form of evolution which is carried on to the next generation.

People might say they're the "fittest" because of this adaptation, but I don't believe that's good for society.

It's not what's best for survival of the species.

Mutations are never a good thing. If the obstetrician says your new baby has a mutation you would be horrified not excited.
Non living inorganic matter doesn't transform into living matter just because you or Darwin assert that it does. Where has this been proven scientifically?
I think you have proved my point. People tend to get upset about someone not believing in evolution. I myself don't care what you believe or don't believe in.
Also, Everyone is allowed to post on this thread. Having an opinion that you disagree with doesn't make it an off limits topic.

One of the contenders, Edward de Vere 17th Earl of Oxford, could not have possibly been Shakespeare because he died in 1604 while Shakespeare's later plays made allusions to events and or symbols past 1604, such as Macbeth explicitly referencing motifs of King James who ascended the throne after 1604

I don't hear enough mentions of shape-shifting lizard-men from the inside of the earth.

Good catch.

Except... conspiracy theorists just march along without missing a beat...by postulating that their guy just faked his own death ...and then kept on living, and kept on writing Shakespeare plays in secret. I believe that more than one non Strat candidate has that "died too soon" problem. DeVere chief among them.

The planet Arcturus! NOT the center of the earth!.

And the Greys...come from the Pliedes.

Get your paranoia straight!

The center of the earth is...some other thing. I forget. Then there is theory that the earth is hallow and that we live on the INside surface of it. Hitler even took that one seriously and set up an experiment using a high powered search lights on an island in the arctic ocean to shine straight up to see if they could see other side of the earth (like Australia hanging upside down in the sky above?).

hi. I was the one who asked you to elaborate and I'd like to mention that naturalplastic's comment isn't entirely what I understood of how evolution works. Organisms don't adapt their genome by "just adapting" - they can adapt their behaviour to some extent, but eventually, and that's crucial: only those who happen to already be a little more suitable to an environment survive and procreate (or at least, to a greater extent than the ones not already born adapted to this new environment).
Now, of course you'd be right to ask why anyone would be born adapted to an environment they're not yet living in - the answer is: mutation.
You are correct to say that an obstetrician telling me my offspring had a mutation would be worrying, because we're talking here about something either quite visible or about one of the many genetic diseases that are being tested for in utero.
But mutations happen on all sorts of scales. Being able to digest dairy into adulthood is a mutation. Skincolour is another. So, no mutations aren't always bad, but large mutations are often not viable -digressing too far from the proven path is not a good idea with something this complex.
Yet, small mutations are sometimes beneficial, and by far most often: meaningless.
unless you happen to be in an environment where they might be slightly advantageous in getting you procreated. if not, then no one and nothing cares about it.
and of course, there's tricky mutations that are great in one context, but awful in another - like the gene that causes tay-sachs-disease, if both parents have it. But for each of these parents it means they are less susceptible to tuberculosis. it's just bad for the offspring.

as for blind chance: well, blind chance doesn't create full-fledged new features that work and are great. it's very, very incremental. you don't start from scratch and make an eye. you start with one of your chemical receptors being more sensitive in light than in the dark, and go from there. but this is important: selection! the mutations are random, but the selection process is not. there's some pressure that privileges one mutation over the other. - or the mutations go nowhere and keep on being random.
What makes this unfathomable is just the timescales necessary.
I mean, the process has been observed on bacteria, because they have a short life cycle. that's how resistance to antibiotics evolves, but also the reason why no one can say WHEN it will evolve - it's just a given that given enough time and selection pressure from antibiotics, some resistant strain will be the last one alive and starting to thrive, now that all its competitors are dead.

and finally: if you put the raw ingredients in a liquid, amino-acids form by themselves. true, the formation of proteins has not yet been observed, to my knowledge.

I don't think your questions are stupid, however, they are the questions of someone who hasn't really understood how Darwinian evolution is supposed to work.

Thanks for the clarification.
I have read a lot of books on evolution since I was about 9. It was my "special interest" as a child up till college age. Trust me I've read more than the average person and believed in it. That ironically is what led me to question and then reject the theory.
Its OK if you believe in evolution. I'm not in the business of trying to convert people to my opinion. The point of my first comment was that evolutionists tend to be very defensive about the subject. I often just avoid the subject since it tends to create more heat than light. Thanks for being polite in your response.

That's just what they want you to believe.

The Gospel of John was likely the work of Mary Magdeline.

viewtopic.php?t=397514

The people who edited it to make "the beloved disciple" male were not hostile or sexist,

but rather figured, probably correctly, that to credit a female as being the source of the Gospel would lead to it being lost to history.

The strange ending to the Gospel of Thomas may be a joke about this.

viewtopic.php?t=60877