Cubeless Academian

Yes, it's universally accepted that multicellular life forms are descended from unicellular ones.

Strikingly similar to the creationist line, "How do you know God didn't create the world in six days? Were you there?"

Thanks to the fossil record and protein analysis, we have a pretty good idea of what we did and did not evolve from. And we didn't evolve from clams. A more obvious problem with Mr. Hubbard's History of Man is the claim that we are descended from Piltdown man. Piltdown man never existed; the fossil was a hoax.

whichphilosophy

I don't think this is, because the creationists said the world was made in 6 days and then he made Adam. No cellular evolution was required.

As for the origins of life what I described does not invalidate the theory of evolution but validates it. Of course as our cells would change the appearances would have. If anything I would have thought this supports evolution to the nth degree. That is from one cell to a complex organism.

We were decended from a species not unlike an ape is what he has described on earlier and later writings.

My belief is based on Dr Spencer Wells research (which validated other reaearch) is that we came out of Africa. He used extensive DNA testing and traced the human migrations throughout the world. The DNA testing is more accurate than fossil testing, though not to be snuffed at.

His conclusion is that we are all San African Bushmen, and apart from our features changing we are all physically the same race. There are no seperate species or sub-species. We're all African.

Ironically the piltdown man was not dissimilar to our earlier ancester from which the homosapien came from, but he would have been in Africa. It's a long time since I saw History of Man and this is in there.

This is the third thread that somehow I've ended up talking about evolution when it should be another topic. Still why not.

I guess the more we learn the more we realise we don't know. Here's one of my favourite quotes:

"I only know that I know nothing."
Socrates (47-399 BC); Greek philosopher.

I should have used this in my school days to prove that in being dumb I was really a wise person.

Regards,

whichphilosophy

Again it was difficult to discuss anything because you did not raise a specific point like an incident with details or something and no dialogue exists.

First hand Relating to the inner circles…. �? did not mean anything specific.

Following with can mean a number of things, but I would take it you mean internet postings, speaking to persons involved, especially new persons, but it is not very cleary.

You may wish to believe your are an authority and more knowledgeable about others, but it is amazing how this is possible when you don’t even know the addressee.

I am not sure if you a paid councillor/exit-councillor or deprogrammer/trained psychologist. But it was now certain how you evaluated someone as having lost their grip on reality. Psychology and psychiatry, which contains different schools of thought, have a hard time in determining such things, apart from opinions, I really don’t know how you could.
,
Sure if persons are making defamatory statements covert or overt actions against the organisation, or individuals, kidnapping and deprogramming, spreading false information about a person or their business etc, they will litigate. This is all part of the American way and not unusual in the USA today.

If you want to send the criminal convictions of David Miscavige, and quote the court cases, articles of this and whatever you have if you feel you want to. It’s up to you since you raised it.

“Pointing to�? isn’t fulfilling the burden of proof but instead presumption of the facts, except for lynch mobs, fascists, “fundamentalists and other fanatics. Sorry but this is true. It’s a sorry state for society when this happens.

How do you know a lie was stated when you did not see what is stated.

If you see this happening complain If suggest you read the posts I am answering questions as requested to originally. I think you better read the other posts. There is no preaching here. I just answered questions.
Did I say you mustn’t refute Scientology claims. This was neither stated or implied. I just asked for specifics.

Most of the other posts mainly rational about the subject which asked what it is and most gave clear statements.


You didn’t specify any alleged criminal activities that you intimate the organisation or its members engage in. You did not state what was warped or destructive.

Just recounting history. Rumour mongering distortions of the truth are the very hallmarks of the start ups of hate crimes inquisitions and persecutions.

Am I coercing new members? Check the posts if you like. Get the moderator to contact me of any instance. This is not the forum for “converting people.�?

You didn’t state clearly what these illegal activities are. I think this whole thing is off the point.
Quote:

No revision here.


The subject is not medical. Maybe it’s confusing at times to doctors who do not understand how their patients recover from illnesses, or ailments cease to affect them, as they do not understand the subject.

We can say the same about Traditional Chinese Medicine which I will use if I need to see a doctor. This is nothing to do with Scn but my own choice based an a non-Scn friend who found this beneficial.

Now of course, one say what they want they like about Hubbard as one cannot defame the dead. When he was alive it was a different matter as it was easier to defame him after his death.


Perhaps you have some current figures published by the Scientology schools or schools running on “Scn Study Technology.�?

Again stating personal intimations about someone you do not know and your imagined perspective if them as an unfit parent is pretty much nothing to so with the thread.

Sturmrabe

well i've read the first and last page and i had started a poll "scientology: cult or religion" on anouther forum let me give you some highlights
delete
its very sad, and shocking that this has not received more media attention

If you have something to discuss everyone here would be glad to take it up. Links are not discussion.

JT

Desertphile

Scientology is organized crime; Scientology Inc. is an international crime syndicate. A massive amount of court documents, sworn testamony, depositions, declarations, and affidavits prove the fact, and may be found at http://holysmoke.org/os/docs/index.htm

The founders of the USA never planned to have tax-exemption status for cults, let alone organized crime. How the $cientology crime syndicate managed to get tax-exemption status is a story of crime, abuse, and extortion which the Wall Street Journal said ought to be investigated by the FBI.

Desertphile

I'll cheerfully discuss the $cientology crime synidate if anyone wants to.

As for why law enforcement does nothing about Scientology Inc.'s crimes and human rights abuses, I was told the reason by the head of the FBI's behavioral sciences division at Los Angeles why: it would cost millions and millions of dollars.

whichphilosophy

I couldn't get through to the URL and there is a note to contact Frederick Rice on this. One of his friends an explosives expert was jailed just before 9/11 of making bomb threats. He has also earlier shot at people in the streets.

Good old Freedie (he's fatter than me now) even said if he was there he'd erload the gun for him.

So pretty much fruit from the poisionous tree. You find the persons name who planted the bombs.

Such acts of frustration fail to better these people' cause.

The tax exempt status was attained after the most thorough scrutiny of an organisations documents in history. Millions of documents were scrutinised and all finances went through with a toothcomb.

If the organisation was fould by the invesigators to be fraudulent or criminal the exemption would not have been granted.

Even the Wall Street Journal agreed that Scientology complied in full with the IRS requirements.

Much of the 1993 article contained heresay and of course heresay bears no merit. It was simply too generalised to bear any substance.

The reason for the IRS decision to grant tax exemption was very specific and clear, not as the writer stated.

Again I thought this was a discussion group about specifics and not just people cutting and pasting without referrel to the specifics

As someone who also does investigations from time to time in a less glamorous field, the article was pretty dull and lacked substance. Clearly written mainly from copying others and then speaking to a couple of people who gave him very little to go on.

This is really old hat anyway and I think I have written too much already since one does not need to justify why unsubstantiated heresay and previously discredited statements are true.

whichphilosophy

The reason is because FBI action failed (note the raids on organisations around the country). No real substance was found to compile a case.

Further the FBI had to review its position after the Freedom of Information Act in the 1970s after its own conduct was in question.

What's behavioural sciences got to do with anything. He's not a legal expert, he's a proclaimed specialist on behavour.


Waste of time really. A generalised statement from someone who is not even involved in the legalilties of the department.

It's the FBIs job to investigate criminal organsations or those suspected of crime.

They have no case, no smoking gun.

Dated discredited earlier statements don't cut it.

Proxima Centauri

I wrote the above. You can get it here. If you like please read the whole thread.
As Whichphilosophy points out some of the court cases are minor. 0ther court cases are serious. Some of the quotes from judges also are strongly critical.
I like Whichphilosophy. I don't like to see someone as intelligent as he seems to be involved with the people behind Scientology. To me it looks like greed and exploitation. The Cost of Scientology

whichphilosophy

I've just answered the above poits and in the first few showed the flaws.
But I guess if you read it it went over your head.

Those who disseminate this information have no regard for the actual facts, and regard accusations though discreded above fact.

However I do appreciate I have no intention of proving the shape of the earth to those who believe it is flat or to others the holocaust did exist.

So as I said, lets see the instances.

All that I have seen are generalities and it is clear on earlier threads many did not really understand what they were saying. They are just playing someone elses recordings.

If you have a statemetn to make then state the cases. However if you refer for instances to the cases of the 1980s around say 1984 then you will have to take into account the plaintiffs involved then being discovered (on police record) as being caught trying to plant evidence into a scn organisation.

If you're worried about the cost of courses, you're not buying them anyway so don't bother.

Regards