What's the craziest conspiracy theory you believe/entertain

Page 6 of 18 [ 283 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ... 18  Next

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 37
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 14,799
Location: I'm right here

06 Aug 2021, 7:34 pm

The_Znof wrote:
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."



Image

Apparently Jesus was familiar with this experience. :nerdy:


_________________
Be reasonable, demand the impossible.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う


shlaifu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 May 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,235

06 Aug 2021, 7:38 pm

Mr Reynholm wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
shlaifu wrote:
Mr Reynholm wrote:
Darwinian evolution is a hoax that I used to believe in. I was fascinated with it all through my elementary and high school years and read voraciously on the subject.
I started to notice that you were not allowed to ask certain questions or entertain certain ideas. Also I found that other disciplines of science do not undergird evolution at all.
I don't mean to derail this thread, this is just my experience.


you've made me curious, because I haven't come up with questions in relation to evolution that I wasn't allowed to ask - some had no answer though.
so, please, I'm interested in entertaining the idea....

Yes, asking maybe there are other naturalistic options than just Darwin's views. This is usually greeted with angry ridicule.
How can blind chance produce new features in an organism?
Why would life evolve at all?
Why do organisms evolve new abilities at all rather than adapt to the environment in which they live? (sight for instance)
Anyway these are a few of the questions that produce a lot of angry responses but no answers.
Again I'm not wanting to derail this thread just this is a subject that I personally believe to be a hoax.



1) mutations.

2) This question is at least two kinds of inane: inorganic matter evolves over time (mountains get washed into the sea, stars evolve) so why wouldnt living things, which are more dynamic than non living matter also evolve? Second: organisms compete with other, and have to adapt to changing enviroments. So how can life not evolve to survive?

3) They get new abilities in ORDER to adapt the environment they are in the first place. Or to adapt to new environments the invade and migrate into, or because of new pressures in the same environment. The reason folks give you the fish eye when you ask that is that...in essence youre saying "organism dont need to adapt to their environment, because all they have to do is...adapt to their enviroment." Makes you sound retarded. You might wanna drop that question from your repertoire.

If you really believe evolution is a hoax, but dont wanna derail the thread why dont you start your own thread about it?

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.


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.


no problem - I do get that you're reluctant to talk about it, given the previous response. Which truly reminds me of how teachers would respond to me in highschool, which often made me skeptical of things, too. - of the education system, most of all, and I still keep a healthy distance to teachers of any kind - after all, they went to the same schools I did and then decided they wanted to stay there. I take that as a serious character flaw.

anyway - what I don't understand: your questions - they do have answers, and other than finding it a bit difficult to wrap your head around the non-humanness, the lack of aim or intention, I don't see how they contradict anything or point to any flaw in the theory - the theory is just really, really disturbing to an anthropocentric worldview, and possibly to any image or narrative of what humans are and what their -our- place in the universe could be.


_________________
I can read facial expressions. I did the test.


The_Znof
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 672
Location: Vancouver Canada

06 Aug 2021, 7:39 pm

funeralxempire wrote:
The_Znof wrote:
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven."



Image

Apparently Jesus was familiar with this experience. :nerdy:


It is not such a rare way to trans about.

Im always trying, but end up more bitch-herded than ladylike. :oops:

I think Albert Pike taught about it to, unifying Isis and Osiris existentially to give birth to Horus.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,934
Location: Adelaide, Australia

07 Aug 2021, 6:29 am

Here's my conspiracy theory. Back in the 16th century it was becoming increasingly clear to astronomers that the Copernican model was the correct one. Yet it was still forbidden by the Catholics because Galileo had called the Pope names a some years earlier.

Now Tycho Brahe comes along with an alternative to the Ptolemaic model. Tycho proposes that while the outer planets orbit the earth, the inner planets, Mercury and Venus orbit the sun (which also orbits the earth). This was acceptable to the Catholics because it was also a form of geocentrism. They saw it as a harmless variant on the Ptolemaic model.

But if you look at the model closely, you see that while the outer planets go around the earth, their orbits are centred on the sun, which is moving around the earth. What this means is that the relative motions are the same as in the Copernican model.

My conspiracy theory is that the Tychonic model was taught to students who knew full well that the Copernican model was the correct one. While basing their calculations on the Tychonic model, the relative motions were the same as in the Copernican model so they could make the same predictions without upsetting their benefactors who required a geocentric model.

Image


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


Last edited by RetroGamer87 on 07 Aug 2021, 6:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,464
Location: temperate zone

07 Aug 2021, 6:31 am

naturalplastic wrote:
salad wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
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.



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


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.


I watched this vid again.

And actually the host guy doesnt really debunk your candidate:Francis Bacon.

He goes into why "Baconists" support Bacon, and admits that they have a somewhat seemingly good case. But then he goes into the seperate topic of how ONE Baconist went hog wild and made up theories that Bacon put cyphers into Shakespere plays. The host then shows how those cypher theories have been thoroughly debunked. So its now safe to say that Bacon didnt put secret code into the plays. But that still doesnt debunk the theory that - Bacon could have still written the plays.



RetroGamer87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jul 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,934
Location: Adelaide, Australia

07 Aug 2021, 6:33 am

shlaifu wrote:
How can blind chance produce new features in an organism?

Blind chance has nothing to do with it. See Climbing Mount Improbable.


_________________
The days are long, but the years are short


slam_thunderhide
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 5 Dec 2014
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 184

07 Aug 2021, 6:58 am

The question in the OP is phrased in a strange way. I mean, people are obviously not going to consider their own beliefs to be crazy.

I will say that I believe certain things now that I would have considered crazy many years ago. In fact, there are some things I believe now to the point of virtual certainty that I'm sure would just get censored if I talked about them on here. That's not to say that fact bothers me too much - there are other places I can talk about them.

It's because of this that I think the phrase "conspiracy theory" is overused. I know that there are people out there who want to claim that every incident that ever makes the news is some sort of set-up involving "crisis actors", which does get a bit tiresome. But I find it just as tiresome seeing people at the other end of the spectrum (people who refuse to ever question authority).



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,464
Location: temperate zone

07 Aug 2021, 9:06 am

Yes. The original post is very ambiguous, and rather self contradictory. You dont know which way to go with it...tongue-in-cheek, or serious.


I went tongue in cheek.

If I were to go serious...i dunno.

I can only think of two conspiracy theories that I am open to (maybe I can think of others later). They are Jeffery Epstien's death, and Putin/Trump.

To me its obvious that Trump is in some way a partner with Putin. I cant believe that Trump just decided one day that "I will go radically against my own Republican Party, and go to heroic lengths to undermine US interests, undermine and destroy all of Amrica's alliances in ways that benifit Russia...just because I think that would be a good idea to f**k over America and help Russia." The billions he has invested in real estate in Russia must have made him in hoc to Moscow in some way. And strictly speaking that would be a "conspiracy theory". Its basically just two people conspiring (and not the thousands of co conspirators over decades to keep a fake moon landing covered up). A modest scale conspiracy. But still a conspiracy. So yeah...thats one of the few I "believe in". Russia may not have influenced the 16 election, or even sought to do that. But thats the least of the troubling ways Trump acted like Putin's agent.

There is actually little evidence Ive seen that Epstein's death was anything BUT a suicide. But still...you cant NOT be suspicious about it. Lol! Every powerful male person on the planet, who is not gay, seems to have been associated with Jeffery Epstein at some point...so his death would benifit many powerful guys. Trump, Clinton, Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, etc etc.. So his convenient death...maybe its a coincidence, or maybe its not, was...rather convenient. We will see.



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,028
Location: Aux Arcs

07 Aug 2021, 9:29 am

salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,028
Location: Aux Arcs

07 Aug 2021, 9:33 am

funeralxempire wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
funeralxempire wrote:
I don't hear enough mentions of shape-shifting lizard-men from the inside of the earth. :(


The planet Arcturus! NOT the center of the earth!


That's just what they want you to believe. 8)

Shhhhhhh. :shameonyou:


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


salad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jul 2011
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,226

07 Aug 2021, 9:34 am

Misslizard wrote:
salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


Damn it with poetry and puns like that I might as well declare you the real Shakespeare

Case closed


_________________
"One often meets his destiny on the road he takes to avoid it."

Master Oogway


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,464
Location: temperate zone

07 Aug 2021, 9:37 am

Misslizard wrote:
salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


Isabella says Charlotte Bronte ate someone.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 27,464
Location: temperate zone

07 Aug 2021, 9:38 am

salad wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


Damn it with poetry and puns like that I might as well declare you the real Shakespeare

Case closed


She is the real "Swan of the Avon". :D



Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,028
Location: Aux Arcs

07 Aug 2021, 9:40 am

naturalplastic wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


Isabella says Charlotte Bronte ate someone.

Someone was always getting eaten back on those days.You had to swat them away.They were all freaky.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 16,028
Location: Aux Arcs

07 Aug 2021, 9:41 am

naturalplastic wrote:
salad wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
salad wrote:
Speaking of conspiracies I would like to take this time to profess me allegiance to the Anti-Stratfordian faction of the Shakespeare authorship question, and hereby proclaim Francis Bacon as the true author of Shakespeare

They say Shakespeare ate Bacon but I know it can’t be Donne. :D


Damn it with poetry and puns like that I might as well declare you the real Shakespeare

Case closed


She is the real "Swan of the Avon". :D

Beats being the Avon lady.


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,596
Location: Outter Quadrant

07 Aug 2021, 5:47 pm

Got to wonder about this smoke outside hazey air from fires over 2000 miles away . And have heard issues of people coughing from it on the radio. [ And me outside yesterday coughing in my yard.]
Now , i have been around major fires and little campfires . And rarely have found myself coughing.
Usually a matter of getting out of the smoke . But only when the density of the smoke is high, i might cough. But this smoke from 2000 miles away. irritating my lungs and smelling more chemistry like.

Makes me wonder about this smoke , " Causing me to wonder about the old time Aerosol Tests the USA using depleted biowarefare agents , Monitoring hospital intakes in the area.
Using smoke would be ideal conditions ( excuse)for this type dispersal .

There is a hec of a Conpirascy .


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are