This hour is interesting about the social and sexual behavior of higher primates. I have to note that he mentions that Jane Goodall's first book, touting the peaceful society of the Chimpanzee was totally wrong on that point. She was caught up in an age when anthropology had gone completely off the rails and produced a body of work for more than a decade that in truth was based upon the anti-vietnam war, peace movement's pacifist sentimentality. I have a collection of the insane articles publish in reputable scientific periodicals. The psychological establishment latched onto the mythology of the anthropologist and soiled themselves almost as badly. Suddenly the Buddhist leaders like the Dali Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh the Vietnamese Buddhist leader became celebrities in the west. Yoga and transcendental meditation became the rage. It was a decade of constant comedy.
Jane, of course, discovered on her on and to her deep grief that her utopian ideal was just wrong, that chimpanzees live in colonies where any imbalance of power between adjacent colonies of chimpanzees was answer with steady aggression until all the males of the weaker colony are killed, the young left to starve, some female taken, some rejected and left to their own fate. She and others also record the fact that outside the colony the chimps simply wither and die prematurely. Rather than a peaceful utopia, it is a struggle for survival, a balance of power in peace, and then war when that balance is interrupted.
Very refreshing to see that Archeology and Anthropology have recovered from their generation of total fantasy where they then claimed that some but not all primitive men were peaceful. They painted back then as fanciful and ideological utopian picture of those primitive humans, as Jane Goodall initially painted of the Chimpanzee communities. As anyone with a brain knew thirty years ago, the archaeological data clearly showed that man was violent when he had to be. Whether he was gratuitously violent, indeed savage for savagery sake is a question not known. There is no trace extant of any period of utopian peace in mankind's history. There is plenty of evidence of man's wars from the earliest primitive times.
Mankind cannot be thought of as less fallen than the other animals in nature. But that proves nothing vis a vis evolution. Why? Because no trace of human evolutionary development appears in any archaeological data. At this point in time we have much more to observe and study about early man, and we have gained knowledge with tools of technology and collected a lot of raw data from archeology and history. But in truth we know very little of those primitive times. There is an advance in knowledge, in recorded history, this is self-evident. However, there is no evidence of an advance in "human nature." We may or may not have better abilities of "abstraction." But, all the same animal and instinctual forces that governed primitive man, have governed mankind throughout his history upon the earth.
Mankind cannot be thought of as less fallen than the other animals in nature. But that proves nothing vis a vis evolution. Why? Because no trace of human evolutionary development appears in any archaeological data. At this point in time we have much more to observe and study about early man, and we have gained knowledge with tools of technology and collected a lot of raw data from archeology and history. But in truth we know very little of those primitive times. There is an advance in knowledge, in recorded history, this is self-evident. However, there is no evidence of an advance in "human nature." We may or may not have better abilities of "abstraction." But, all the same animal and instinctual forces that governed primitive man, have governed mankind throughout his history upon the earth.
Notice that Dr Wyman dismisses all the sociological and political science paradigms for the causes of war. For him war is animal, primal, impossible to avoid. He makes man's reasoning power and powers of discretion void. I don't agree with that. Human wars are not predicated solely upon the culture of the Chimpanzee and the instincts of the non-human primate family.
He gives examples both in history and in present day primitive tribes where all the sociological and political science causes did not and do not exist, yet the various tribes are brutal and very violent tribe against tribe. This is the record. However, to extrapolate that situation to every tribe and all of human history is a stretch. He even mentions the documentation of "hardships" not being the cause of war among these people but sometimes the result of war. This is all backward from the present day false narrative painted vis a vis Islam and terrorism, and backward to the everyday Secular Humanist definitions for the causes of war, as if economic development in the hands of the Jihadist nations would make them more peaceful. Just as some religions produce cult detrimental to life, and some others produce cult that is life engendering, so some cultures follow these pattern. Dr Wyman's view of war is that at all times all sides are motivated by the same drivers, and that this static picture extends across all of time in every location. If in this world there were not a struggle of life against death, I would readily accept his premise. When viewing history, we see that both sides fight and kill, so both sides use brutality. In this from the view of history each side looks somewhat identical. But we cannot equate to each side identical motivations for war, that premise is absurd. When there are peaceful forces that would chose peaceful life, how can you distinguish them from the aggressive forces across time, since the only evidence we have is the destruction of war? The thousands of skeletons of men and women and children who died by violent means.
Now Dr Wyman would say, (I think) that he is taking a view of war from a higher view, where the aggressor and the defender isn't as important as the biological imperatives that produce war. Yet he admits that war is something that can defy "self interest" and by extension be counter to survival of the species. So I can't gather what the message is supposed to be here, except to build the common mythology demanded by present day evolutionists that everything is about war, war between individuals, war between families, tribes. The theory is a call to one world governance, the world governed by the "experts" which is the goal of all "Scientism." This theory goes, that as long as there is "us" vs "them" war will persist. The "us" and "them" will fight, not for rational cause, but simply because there is "us" and "them." In the biological/evolutionary paradigm this is an absolute lie. However, if you grasp the forces of death that Christians know exists upon the earth, and the "us" are those who seek to preserve and engender life, and the "them" are the life destroying forces of death. Then, yes he is absolutely right. In the Christian paradigm the struggle will remain until the last enemy is put down, that enemy being death.
He gives examples both in history and in present day primitive tribes where all the sociological and political science causes did not and do not exist, yet the various tribes are brutal and very violent tribe against tribe. This is the record. However, to extrapolate that situation to every tribe and all of human history is a stretch. He even mentions the documentation of "hardships" not being the cause of war among these people but sometimes the result of war. This is all backward from the present day false narrative painted vis a vis Islam and terrorism, and backward to the everyday Secular Humanist definitions for the causes of war, as if economic development in the hands of the Jihadist nations would make them more peaceful. Just as some religions produce cult detrimental to life, and some others produce cult that is life engendering, so some cultures follow these pattern. Dr Wyman's view of war is that at all times all sides are motivated by the same drivers, and that this static picture extends across all of time in every location. If in this world there were not a struggle of life against death, I would readily accept his premise. When viewing history, we see that both sides fight and kill, so both sides use brutality. In this from the view of history each side looks somewhat identical. But we cannot equate to each side identical motivations for war, that premise is absurd. When there are peaceful forces that would chose peaceful life, how can you distinguish them from the aggressive forces across time, since the only evidence we have is the destruction of war? The thousands of skeletons of men and women and children who died by violent means.
Now Dr Wyman would say, (I think) that he is taking a view of war from a higher view, where the aggressor and the defender isn't as important as the biological imperatives that produce war. Yet he admits that war is something that can defy "self interest" and by extension be counter to survival of the species. So I can't gather what the message is supposed to be here, except to build the common mythology demanded by present day evolutionists that everything is about war, war between individuals, war between families, tribes. The theory is a call to one world governance, the world governed by the "experts" which is the goal of all "Scientism." This theory goes, that as long as there is "us" vs "them" war will persist. The "us" and "them" will fight, not for rational cause, but simply because there is "us" and "them." In the biological/evolutionary paradigm this is an absolute lie. However, if you grasp the forces of death that Christians know exists upon the earth, and the "us" are those who seek to preserve and engender life, and the "them" are the life destroying forces of death. Then, yes he is absolutely right. In the Christian paradigm the struggle will remain until the last enemy is put down, that enemy being death.
Notice that he falls into talking about "brain size" as accounting for the relative intelligence of his dog. This old saw is silly, and so obvious. There are studies that show that different aspects of dog intelligence are stronger or weaker in certain breeds of dog. Breeds that were bred for this or that purpose, but there is no evidence whatsoever that small dogs are less intelligent than large dogs. In fact one of the smartest, and I have to say most cunning dogs I ever owned was a Pomeranian, (Tiny Lee) who full grown was shy of five pounds, at the same time I owned a Great Pyrenees (Puff) who weighed one-hundred-ten pounds. They had different areas of cunning, but his brain had to have weight twenty times what Tiny Lee's brain weighed, and that extra size didn't produce super doggie intelligence. I read somewhere, that Neanderthals had larger brains than Homo Sapiens. Where are they? They didn't gain the skills to survive and only exist as a tiny portion of Homo Sapien genome. This brain size thing is just mythology, canines alone prove it.
If it is not brain size that determines the intelligence of a species, how can we think that the brain is the actual holder of the intelligence of a species? Mankind, holding his ability of abstraction inside his limited ability of speech says, "It is the spirit of the dog that gives the dog, doggie intelligence." And as silly as you think that sounds, the dog family alone proves it. There is not a dime's bit of difference between the intelligence of a tiny Pomeranian and a Great Pyrenees though the size of their brains are ten fold different. Mankind with their intelligence of "abstraction" which the Darwinist deny, that is the power to abstract the underlying reality from the thing visible to our senses and experience, know - I know it and if you are honest you know it - that what makes a dog intelligent is the "spirit of the dog" not the size of his brain, not the biological or chemical make up of his form. Remove the life from that dog, where all the chemical and biology is still present, there is no intelligence to animate its form. This is glaringly obvious. Yet, the Darwinist keep talking about the size of a species brain - as if the total intelligence of the species is housed in the brain. Mankind knows rather that each species is "ensouled" as a dog, not a cat or rat, as a monkey, not an ape or man, and each species regardless of the physical size of their brains function on the intelligence native to their soul.
The stupidity of brain size exposed in the Scandal of Piltdown Man. Go to minute, 4:40.
If it is not brain size that determines the intelligence of a species, how can we think that the brain is the actual holder of the intelligence of a species? Mankind, holding his ability of abstraction inside his limited ability of speech says, "It is the spirit of the dog that gives the dog, doggie intelligence." And as silly as you think that sounds, the dog family alone proves it. There is not a dime's bit of difference between the intelligence of a tiny Pomeranian and a Great Pyrenees though the size of their brains are ten fold different. Mankind with their intelligence of "abstraction" which the Darwinist deny, that is the power to abstract the underlying reality from the thing visible to our senses and experience, know - I know it and if you are honest you know it - that what makes a dog intelligent is the "spirit of the dog" not the size of his brain, not the biological or chemical make up of his form. Remove the life from that dog, where all the chemical and biology is still present, there is no intelligence to animate its form. This is glaringly obvious. Yet, the Darwinist keep talking about the size of a species brain - as if the total intelligence of the species is housed in the brain. Mankind knows rather that each species is "ensouled" as a dog, not a cat or rat, as a monkey, not an ape or man, and each species regardless of the physical size of their brains function on the intelligence native to their soul.
The stupidity of brain size exposed in the Scandal of Piltdown Man. Go to minute, 4:40.
Dr Wyman does make a startling statement, stating that "human biological instinct" social/sexual/violent isn't overwhelming and can be controlled. "We have instincts for sure. You see it come out in the most horrible ways and in some good ways, ah . . but it's not that difficult ah . . . to control." This is the old saw of the secular humanists, you can know without reference to God what is moral and good. To which I have to respond, show me the human society that proves this and I will believe you. Beside that, this shows a very shallow understanding of the human. It is the secular humanist version of Pelagianism, we can all save ourselves by merely thinking about it.
When Dr Wyman launches into the typical mythology of "separating from Chimps six million years ago" if you read the series called "Defanging The Atheist Tiger" you know that anomalous evidence in Archeology proves that this is a myth. Michael Cremo and many others have adequately disproved this myth. So rather than revisiting the topic I would recommend the books:
These books will lead to many more reference sources about the outdated Evolutionist paradigm.
I meant to point this out before about the chart he uses labeled "Our Family Tree" where he lists the "five Great Ape" species. It contains a typical "iconographic evolutionist distortion" to make the human look less foreign to the set. That is the "humanized" drawing of the Gorilla's foot. I spent too much time with Willy B, a great silver backed Gorilla, at the Grant Part Zoo in Atlanta as a child, to be fooled by that humanized drawing. If that drawing were correct it would make the human foot really standout as very different, from the others in the subset of "great apes."
How similar does this foot look to your foot. Besides the clasping capability of the "thumb" not big toe, and the webbing of the finger joints except in the last joint, it is thoroughly "ape like" and non-human. Compare that foot and the print below to his chart of prints.
That foot makes a print that looks like this:
Print in snow.
These convenient little iconographic deceptions are plastered all over the textbooks and natural history museums. These myriad fraudulent and unproved depictions are in fact "cheesy" and silly. However, these false Icons have been wonderfully effective in conditioning children to accept the naturalist pagan mythology. In fact it is effective on everyone but the skeptics who know better. They used for many decades the Neanderthal as one of the stepping stones from ape to homo-sapein until they could not suppress the fact that Modern man and the Neanderthal lived for a very long period side by side. Just as everyone knows about Jane Goodall's "peaceful chimps" and few know of the hellish chimpanzee wars she personally witnessed, so Huxley's fraud remained part of the Evolutionist case and in THE major biological text book for eighty-years after being proved a fraud. So these standard Icons of Evolutionary fraud remain in the pop-culture and text book. It is a propaganda war, part of the mythology needed to replace "traditional religion" with Scientism. It is beyond what some have called the knowledge filter. It is purely propaganda.
What they are suppressing now is the evidence of a much older history for Modern man, which most likely is older than the history of the Neanderthal. When Dr Wyman talks of extinct humanoid relatives, there is evidence for only one and that is the Neanderthal. The rest are markedly more ape-like species that are now extinct.
In case you don't realize the fact that Darwinists have been committing fraud in their Iconographic tradition from day one, please watch this. Charles Darwin himself engaged in such fraud. It is amazing that history simply ignores it.
If you don't have patience, go to minute 3:45 and listen to the story of the fraud of evolutionary biologist Earnst Haeckel.
Dr Wyman criticized those anthropologists who state that there were peaceful societies, because there were some examples of no wars for a period. You cannot prove a negative. Since War indicates at least one aggressor, a peaceful society unwilling to defend itself would quickly cease to exist. The fact that wars have existed for all time does not preclude societies that were indeed peaceful, and fought only when threatened, and only to protect their peaceful way of life. I can't prove this, he can't disprove it.
I agree with his explanation of the fact that the death tolls in wars as percentage to overall population is shrinking and that our wars are farther apart. Of course he is basing this on this period, and tomorrow it could all be very different, but he could not resist hinting that there might be an evolutionary connection. The evolutionary connection he would naturally want to make would be the presence of "international bodies of quasi-governance." This idea is baseless and part of the mythology. The idea that war creating massive deaths won't happen soon is mythology, it is plastering a scenario upon a totally unknown. But that has been the hallmark of Darwinism from the beginning, plastering a scenario upon the near total and most often completely and totally unknown. It does this every time it pretends to state "cause." When in truth all it ever records is "processes."
An aspect of Dr Wyman's data rings true. Without that being his goal, he has confirmed the fallen state of nature and how hard it struggles just to survive and how most species have not survived. He has also confirmed the fallen state of man, that in the history of his conflicts, he has mirrored of the actions of the beasts. No surprise there, that is what Christianity teaches and has known of the human from the beginning.
Dr Wyman made a big deal of God ordering the killing of entire tribes and inhabitants of cities. He gave the example of the people who were not killed as Moses had ordered, and then Moses sparing all the virgin women. Even though we don't know the answer why God would order the death of a tribe of people we can conjecture. The Old Testament story paints it as important enough that all those people be eliminated that by Moses not following God's instruction, it was counted against him and he was not allowed to enter the promised land. With the increasing understanding of DNA-genome, one could conjecture that there were people who as the Bible clearly states "had become corrupt in their flesh" - this could mean that something had entered their DNA that would threaten the survival of the species. We do have the story in Genesis of the angels mating with humans, producing a race of beings who were not of God's making. Some have conjectured that these creatures not created by God, not 'ensouled' by God were produced by the demonic angels to use, to inhabit. After all the angels, good and bad are called "bodiless powers." As a bodiless power then did not mate with a human female in the standard way, but manipulated her DNA to produce a child they could inhabit.
We have no idea about that, but we have that story in Genesis and it is told more fully in the Book of Enoch. We have the mythology of the Greeks and all the stories of the competing gods, who had human attributes, the demi-gods of history. Then we have the evidence of sudden and massive exterminations of people, in the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah, the extermination via the great flood and the various extermination on a smaller scale that the Bible records as "ordered by God." Had these humans lost the ultimate characteristics to causes the species to survive? Was a mass insanity taking hold of them? In a way we know the answer, from a Christian perspective, they had ceased to hold consciousness of God and had become completely brutish, bestial. We know that those societies that took to themselves the civilizing imperatives grew, and those societies that grew bestial ceased by one means or another to exist. So there is the real possibility, and no evolutionist could or would ever admit this, that God has guided the survival of those humans who held the capability to survive.
When the professor talked about the massive slaughter of Chinese by the Japanese in World War II, I remembered the report by Malachi Martin, in "Hostage To The Devil" about the young man who everyone knew, who lived in Nanking, named Thomas Wu. As the Japanese landed and pushed up the Yangtze delta, Thomas Wu suddenly became a cannibal. This formerly well liked young man suddenly became a fiend! Why? The story of mini-massacres before major massacres is not uncommon. The insanity that happened in France in the person of the Marquis De Sade just prior to the bloodlust of the French Revolution is such a case.
Father Michael Strong found Thomas Wu, in an old granary, surrounded by many mutilated corpses. In the town of Nanking he was wanted for having killed and eaten five people. Now weeks later he was discovered surrounded by many corpses he was eating and abusing. No one knows the exact number but it was described as a scene from a slaughterhouse. Father Michael sent word to the police chief that he was doing an exorcism. When the police arrived, Father Michael was in the process of exorcism, but the demonic force was so strong it merely mocked Fr Michael. The entity said in a voice no one who knew Thomas Wu recognized, "I'm taking him. And no power anywhere, anywhere, you hear, can stop us. We are as strong as death. No one stronger! and he wants to come! You hear? He wants to!" Suddenly the building was on fire from what appeared multiple sources, and no one knew how it was started. The entity screamed, "It's all one. Fool! We're all the same. Always were. Always . . There's only one of us. One . . . " Father Michael and the police chief watched through a window as Wu and the corpses burned. Wu stood as flames melted him and as that happened the images of thousands of faces crossed Wu face. Each face marked with what Fr Michael dubbed, "A chin with the fingerprint of Cain." Father Michael was pulled away just before the building collapsed and he thought, "Cain . . . " A voice hissed, "Wrong again, fool! Cain's father . . . I . . . The cosmic Father of Lies and the cosmic Lord of Death. From the beginning of the beginning. I . . . I . . . I . . . "
As to the massacre of Chinese by the Japanese:
I have to commend Dr Wyman for telling the truth of it, at least as far as he can from the perspective of the "material dictatorship" of his "natural science." But I have news for him. His natural science is not capable of explaining the suicidal tendencies of a species. In his paradigm he does not have all the tools to grasp the real means and motive of the carnage. He can relate the insanity Jane Goodall saw envelope the Champ colonies she had observed as peaceful for twenty-five years. There is no biological imperative that can explain it, as our Professor made perfectly clear. It was in a sense, "anti-evolutionary" "destructive to the prospects for the survival of the species." When our Professor says of those months and years of massacre in China, "There was something there. Something going on" as he described the hellish brutality of the Japanese making sport of mass murder, killing first over three hundred thousand. He is absolutely right, though he would not and probably cannot entertain the answer that eye witnesses could give. He sounded rather like Malachi Martin describing the carnage, the insanity, and brutality of it. Martin told it this way, "On December 14, the Japanese High Command let loose 50,000 of their soldiers on the city with orders to kill every living person. The city became a slaughterhouse. Whole groups of men and women were used for bayonet and machine-gun practice. Others were burned alive or slowly cut to pieces. Rows of children were beheaded by samurai-swinging officers competing to see who could take off the most heads with one sweep of the sword. Women were raped by squads then killed. Fetuses were torn alive from wombs, carved up and fed to the dogs. . . . the spirit Fr Michael had tangled with in the microcosm of Thomas Wu's grisly charnel house in the suburbs of Nanking - 'the Cosmic Lord of Death' - had been let loose over all the land."
Natural Science, in its present "material dictatorship" cannot even consider the words of Saint Paul, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies." This isn't an illusion, all of fallen nature's struggle and all of fallen primate history and all of the history of fallen mankind proves this. I am really very curious now what "biological imperative" our biology professor can give to this hellish reality. What part of "matter" is responsible for it? Can an "in group" and "out group" explain this inhumanity?
Again, what he describes as the answer is that the "nation states have to become more interconnected" which is the utopian political pretensions of Social Darwinism. The many nations under the old Soviet System became very, very interconnected. Did it stop the systematic slaughter of one hundred million? But to his credit our Professor says, "But this is just guess work. We don't really know." That's honest and so far except for the misleading chart of "evolution" this presentation has the ring of honesty about it. When relating the data, that seems real, and only seems unreal when he overlays the data with an evolutionism that really won't fit it.
Noah & Eve:
Did you catch that amazing line about genome/DNA evidence, that says that every living human can be traced to a single female. What? You mean that the ancient oral histories first recorded in primitive Paleo-Hebrew Pictographs actually got it right? That we all are the descendants of a single Female, that the YHVH tradition called Eve? Amazing guess for such primitive people! "And, we are all the descendants of a single male. And those two didn't have to live at the same time." Really? Like quite possibly we are the descendants of Eve and Noah? Amazing! "In fact almost certainly did not live at the same time. It's just the randomness of lines dying out." And maybe with the help of intelligence where some line were purposely eliminated, like in the Great Flood. "The rate of extinctions of lines was great."
Explaining the explosion of human population he says, "Clearly something was making us superior, and this even predates agriculture." What was it?
No comments:
Post a Comment