The Relgion of the New World Order : Darwinism

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I personally dont see how evolutionary theory disproves the idea of a higher being, a creator, a designer, aka God.

???

How does it?

Evolution doesn't require a creator. Disproving philosophical positions is not in the brief of biologists. People can, however, draw the conclusion that no magic is required for life to be here, and that would help outgrow the need for magician.

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Ah Gawdzilla, how i enjoy bantering with you. You are correct, it does provide a justifiable means as to how life began and has evolved.

You seem to think that anyone who believes in God believes in a "god of gaps". Simply, someone to fill in the gaps that science hasnt filled. I.e. in ancient greece they used gods to describe weather etc. Since discovering how weather actually worked, those gods were disproved.

However, what I am trying to argue is that there isnt no God of Gaps. What im trying to argue is, how does evolutionary theory disprove God? It doesnt, it just goes against things stated in Genesis etc. I.e. how man was made in God's image.

To me it makes more sense to believe in a God who created everything, including the laws to which this universe abides. It is a self providing system of cause and effect. If there is a God i would say that by definition they wouldnt become involved within their creation simply because that would make God arbitary.

Who are we to say that Evolution is just another natural law / occurence that the world abides to? Natural selection etc

I do not see where evolution and god clash?

reply to post by Toughiv


"I do not see where evolution and god clash? "

Evolution makes you see that no magician is needed for life to get where is it now. That wasn't hard, was it?

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Ok so the fact that life...got to where it is now is cleared up. Where did the primordial ooze come from?

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Ok so the fact that life...got to where it is now is cleared up. Where did the primordial ooze come from?

I tell you. You ask me where that came from. I tell you. You ask me where that came from. I tell you. . . .

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Overall, i dont see how evolutionary theory holds more weight than just saying its part of design?

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Overall, i dont see how evolutionary theory holds more weight than just saying its part of design?

Evolution doesn't require a magician. The mechanics have been thoroughly studied and no serious biological scientist has found a valid flaw in the theory of how evolution works. (Insert yeah-buts here.)

Originally posted by AshleyD


[...]

So evolution and Darwinism most definitely are two very separate things.

[...]

the thread topic is the intellectual ground called 'Darwinism'...
there are other concepts that share that common ground,
the 'Aether' being one
and 'Luminosity' being another, being some sort of esoteric 'fluid' throughout the cosmos

the NWO probably holds to Social-Darwinism/Economic-Darwinism
as their framework of how life should be lived...

which is pretty much how the current WallStreet overlords are presently
refashioning the USAEconomy/Financial System...
the haves at the top, the expendables providing their life-blood to sustain
the overlords lifestyles, wealth, status & prestige...

reply to post by Gawdzilla


Ok ill state one of the most well known issues. If we are evolved from Monkeys where is the missing link? We are very close DNA wise, that does not mean we necessarily came from the same base animal? Why is it monkey's hairs hang to gravity, but then look at the hairs on our forearms...they do not.

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

Ok ill state one of the most well known issues. If we are evolved from Monkeys where is the missing link? We are very close DNA wise, that does not mean we necessarily came from the same base animal? Why is it monkey's hairs hang to gravity, but then look at the hairs on our forearms...they do not.

Back to the god of the gaps.

"Transitional fossils don't exist." They don't exist if you refuse to look at them, that's certain.

I haven't heard the arm hair thing before, or ignored it if I did see it. Why would that matter at all? We normally walk upright, monkeys don't. So what? the differences are minor at a genetic level, and the similarities are staggering. A 95% congruence between the chimp genome and ours? That's not a clue to you? ("You" being thinking people, not creationists, of course.)

reply to post by Toughiv

I personally dont see how evolutionary theory disproves the idea of a higher being, a creator, a designer, aka God.

It doesn't.

Maybe you should take this up with the creationists, since they're the ones making such a big fuss about it.

Nevertheless, as Gawdzilla points out, evolutionary theory allows us to say, with Laplace, 'Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse.'

* * *

reply to post by St Udio

the NWO probably holds to Social-Darwinism/Economic-Darwinism as their framework of how life should be lived...

Sure, if there were an 'NWO'.

But 'social Darwinism' is based on a thoroughly blockheaded misunderstanding of Darwin's ideas. Would these NWO chaps be blockheads, then?

I'm not sure what you mean by 'economic Darwinism'. Economic and evolutionary theory share a similar principle of large effects derived from a multitude of small, incremental causes. But if by economic Darwinism you mean simply that

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor wot gets the blame
It's the rich wot gets the pleasure,
Ain't it all a bleedin' shame

that would be a bit like 'social Darwinism', and nothing, once again, to do real Darwinism.

[edit on 16/5/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I personally dont see how evolutionary theory disproves the idea of a higher being, a creator, a designer, aka God.

???

How does it?

It doesn't. Nothing in science contradicts the idea of god, nor does anything in science confirm the idea of god. It is totally, and completely, up to the individual believer.

Now scripture... that's a bit different. The philosophies of certain religions can be debated and perhaps even disproven to large degree using logic and reason. Epicurus has some well known arguments in those matters, which I'm sure you've read. However, not too many people really find fault with biblical advice such as "Love thy neighbor like you love yourself." or "When a man strikes you on the cheek, offer him the other". While the latter is generally ignored by most people, including the vast majority of the Christian faith - it's interesting to note that it helped inspire a Hindu man by the name of Mohandas Gandhi to lead a non-violent revolt to free India from Brittan.

Yet, scripture has also been picked and pieced apart as society advances. Nobody, except for the most crack-pot fundamentalists like the Westborough Baptists, really believes that slavery as endorsed in the bible is socially alright. Neither is the death penalty by bludgeoning with rocks suitable punishment for transgressing asinine and arcane laws. (Though some bigots still want to use it against homosexuals. I say fine... and I'll bludgeon them to their maker next time they leave Red Lobster with the family. An abomination is an abomination, after all)

What science DOES do, is undermine literal translations of the bible by way of contradictory evidence. For instance, we know the flood story is utterly bunk. It probably originated in older cultures and religions - such as the Mesopotamian legends of Enki, I think - which themselves got their start from the massive flooding which occurred after the last Ice Age.

Still, it threatens some people's faiths - because the only reason they have faith is for the promise of a heavenly afterlife, or to escape hell. Carrot on a stick, you know. How do they know "God" will send them either place? He made a promise to them. Yet... if the bible is not the 100% infallible word of god, like god said it was, then that makes god a liar. How can you trust his promise of an afterlife? So they fight against science, reinterpret to make their myths fit what we know, and ignore everything else - meanwhile going on the assault with tired old misconceptions and misunderstandings.

But it Science doesn't disprove god, it only disproves the silly myths around him. To paraphrase Thomas Paine, Science cannot prove nor disprove god, but a comprehensive understanding of the objective reality of god's own creation can disprove the myths and misconceptions about him.

Thus far, as well, there isn't much in the way of disproving a historical Christ figure either. I think even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the historicity of a Christ figure - or a prominent figure who would later be exaggerated into the Christ... much like many people wanted to make John the Baptist into their messiah. However, there's not much to prove he existed either. The only "Christ" killed around 20-40AD we have records of was stoned to death by order of the high priests. Josephus's accounts are known forgeries. And other's simply don't fit the facts or ther inconsistencies. There are no accounts of his miracles anywhere in written record except for the bible itself.

Perhaps one day Archeology will make a discovery that either positively confirms or denies the existence of Christ - but for now, it's still up to the believer.


Insofar as Evolution, I think many are just using their religious stories to justify what is a "shameful" or "insulting" fact of life to them. The bible basically calls mankind his chosen creation, to which he gave dominion of all the Earth. We are continually subjected to the concept that "humanity is special"... that we are somehow "separate" from nature. Be it the favoritism of a deity, the idea that we are stewards of the earth, or that we - by pure virtue of consciousness - somehow be held to a higher station above and beyond all other life on earth.

In many ways, I see people's resistance to evolution as nothing more than modern day geocentrically. It took several thousand years for mankind to acknowledge what the ancient and contemporary scholars had discovered - that the Earth is really not at the center of the universe. However, in it's place we're still fighting the concept - because even if we're not the center of the universe - we're the center of "God's Universe", by being the center of his attention. Even those who don't believe in god many times have this misconception impressed upon them.

Evolution has only done was Heliocentric has done... force us to acknowledge our proper place in the universe. 150 years later, I don't think is quite enough for some people. At least it's making much faster progress than heliocentric. Darwin got his apology from the Catholic Church in a fraction of the time it took Galileo to get his... and the two major representatives of Christianity (the Vatican and the Anglican church of England.. and I think the Protestants as well) both accept and support the understanding of Evolution as the "nuts and bolts" of God's creative method - whereas Genesis is a moral parable.

The Evangelicals... however... they're the ones really pushing the ID in America. Many of them are quite off kilter IMO, and led by either fraudsters (Kent Ham, Hovind, Haggard, etc) or psychopaths (See: Bible Camp). They're really pushing for a merger of church and state, and... well it's a bit frightening. Considering the technology we have, and the quickening pace at which we're making discoveries - these people how push indoctrination to the EXCLUSION of proper education could potentially be very dangerous. Especially in the numbers they hold here in the US. To make matters worse, they're trying to ally with the ultra nationalist patriots who are equally unhinged and misinformed - and the GOP has been hijacked by this movement.

It... it really reminds me of the power play between Cyril and Orestes over the then secular city of Alexandria. And apparently I'm not the only one - since a few books on the subject as well as a movie (Agora) are being made on the subject. If you don't recall, it was this struggle which led to the expulsion of the Jews, Scholars, and the burning of the Library of Alexandria. I couldn't say if Cyril directly had a hand in the uprising, or if his words merely instigated the fundamentalists, or if he was just an innocent bystander. There's no conclusive evidence we know of to implicate him. All we have is the word of Socrates of Constantinople who wasn't there and who was known to have a dim view of many Christians... or perhaps was fed bad information from shocked and frightened scholars who managed to escape. Cyril certainly had the motive - and Socrates seemed convinced it was due to Cyril's actions, but the taint of his bias makes his testimony suspect.

reply to post by Lasheic


www.randomfunnypicture.com...

Very good post!

reply to post by Lasheic


Yes i concurr a very informative, well-thought post. You obviously have a educated view. Thank you.

When it comes to the Bible and literal interpretations, i really do believe you have to be a narrow minded, blinkered baffoon. As for miracles, I do not feel you can believe that they actually occurred otherwise you have the problem of an arbitary God. Someone who turns 1 fish and bread into thousands but will not intervene to stop the holocaust. That hardly sounds like the God of classical theism.

I would argue for a symbollic interpretation, so that we might see past the social and cultural influences on the texts and appreciate the universal truths contained within. The Kernal of Truth as Bertrand Russell puts it.

Organised religion for me, is just another form of control. Just as the labels of Good and Evil are subjective, so is one's understanding of the Universe / Creator. Oscillating Universe theory holds justs as much weight as a Divine Creator.

The religion of New World Order has to be rational thinking. The sudden shift from moral reasoning to rational allows for certain actions, for example murder. Whilst it may be justifiable via reasoning, morally and ethically it can be seen as wrong. (Gawdzilla if you read this, as we know i was just playing word games ) The demoralisation of nations through educating the younger generations, plus societal norms and the need for money are what are responsibile to how people behave in today's society.

The problem is, the masses are driven by desire. Once you become a slave to your biological urges, the "higher" aspect of mankind joins the urge cause. People do not focus enough on HOW they should live life, rather they focus on what they want from life.

Once again, very informative and I thank you for your contribution (haha this isnt even my thread but i myself like to see educated responses).

Brad

reply to post by Gawdzilla


I would say that if we did evolve from monkeys, it wouldnt be from the example we see today. The arm hair thing is what leads me to believe we were a primate that evolved near shores or fresh water. We most probably hunted fish, look at your forearm hair, imagine plunging your arms in water to pull out a fish, the arm hairs seem to follow that natural path. That plus the higher levels of omega 3/6 etc must have encouraged our brains to develop.

Maybe? Thats just something I thought of one day.

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Gawdzilla

 

I would say that if we did evolve from monkeys, it wouldnt be from the example we see today. The arm hair thing is what leads me to believe we were a primate that evolved near shores or fresh water. We most probably hunted fish, look at your forearm hair, imagine plunging your arms in water to pull out a fish, the arm hairs seem to follow that natural path. That plus the higher levels of omega 3/6 etc must have encouraged our brains to develop.

Maybe? Thats just something I thought of one day.

Humans split off from the rest of the primate group quite a while ago. The modern apes and humans are descended from a common ancestor. The fact that modern apes have characteristics we don't and vice versa gives a clue as to how far back that really was.

Originally posted by Bigwhammy
reply to post by Lasheic

 

Science is largely a process of removing bias

You have got to be kidding.

Presupposing naturalism and ruling out the inference to design is the definition of bias. By ruling out the supernatural & intelligent design a priori you rule out the claim to finding truth.

Because if in fact the supernatural happens to be the truth, you will hopelessly embrace absurdities ad infinitum to explain (explain away) the evidence. Hence naturalistic science has no valid truth claims about origins due to BIAS.

Now there are valid testable, falsifiable scientific models based on the Bible that stand up to scientific scrutiny and better explains the evidence.

www.reasons.org...

[edit on 5/14/2009 by Bigwhammy]

Actually, Science does not necessarily out of hand discount the mystical or metaphysical. However, what science DOES is follow the evidence. There... really is no solid evidence for anything mystical or metaphysical... so hypothesis involving those factors are generally kept merely a possibility out of the infinite - and not anything probable. Science would rather leave the question unanswered than to try to answer it with something that has no supporting evidence.

Now creationism, on the other hand, already starts with the presupposition that there is a designer. It's already discounted a natural explanation because of a subjective assessment on complexity.

Further, may I request BiggieW, that you please give us a detailed explanation of the scientific method. Not copy and pasted, but in your own words. I want to see if you even know what it is... because it seems you're not making a connection with an accurate description. Some of the basic principals of the Scientific method you likely use everyday - especially if you work on computers as a means of troubleshooting errors. If your mouse isn't working, you can go through a whole checklist of possibilities such as low batteries, short in the cord, not plugged in, malware, corrupt drivers, a bad port, etc... etc... but how much progress will you really make trying to solve those issues if you allow non-evidence based irrationality into your troubleshooting process?

Oh sure... drivers just corrupt all on their own! I doubt it. This is obviously the doing of an intelligent computer who doesn't want to cooperate. God doesn't want me online. Demons infest the motherboard, gnawing on your ram. The Chi energy of your room is throwing off the frequencies of reality your computer occupies. The crystal oscillator is lonely, so is acting up and causing errors unless you place other crystals nearby to tune it's frequency.

And how much closer has any of that gotten you to figuring out the problem?

Science works by taking infinite explanations and narrowing the list down to what is probable based on what we can glean from the supporting evidence. It's a process of elimination, falsification. Hence, everything must be falsifiable. It's also why Science will never have a complete understanding or a perfect theory. Even if we're 99.99999999999999% repeating sure we have the right explanation, since we started with infinite possibilities, we cannot say for sure about anything. Pseudoscience, however, starts with an explanation and expands out - opening up more and more infinite possibilities which we cannot discount or conclude that they're so improbable it's not worth consideration at this time.

See how this leads BiggieW? Because of that, and the removal of bias which makes it possible, science builds products that work - which makes predictions that can be confirmed later. Pseudoscience leads to mysticism and confusion, which don't work, and ultimately leads us to the Dark Ages.

You have to understand that, even if ID were to have more evidence that might suggest there's something to it - until it can BETTER explain the evidence, make more accurate predictions, and prove to be a more versatile application - it won't be accepted by Science. It's a contest... whoever has the most evidence, wins... at least until the evidence tips out of it's favor at a later point. Whoever has the best theory that is supported by the most and best evidence, is going to be closer to reality... and thus, far more likely to be right.


So I propose a little challenge, to make things interesting. How about the Science oriented minds on the board compile a list of predictions made using reasoned logic and scientific methodology which have turned out to be true - and the pseudoscientists (including creationists) compile their list of mystical, religious, or paranormal prophecies which have turned out to be true. It'd be enlightening to some to see which list is longer.

I would choose Eratosthenes of Cyrene who, with simple observation of shadows at two different geographic locations, was able to measure the diameter of the Earth to within a 1% accuracy back in (about) 240 BC. On a more recent note, I would say the entire collection of predictions which the technology behind the internet is based on - and make the prediction that this message will be uploaded to ATS servers for accurate retrieval by third party users. Oh, and biblical/mystical prophecies have to be at least as comparatively accurate. None of this vague multiple interpretation stuff. It has to be like... Nostradomus's most famous hit, the young lion kills the old lion on the field of open combat - at the BARE MINIMUM of vagueness.

reply to post by Toughiv

The sudden shift from moral reasoning to rational allows for certain actions, for example murder. Whilst it may be justifiable via reasoning, morally and ethically it can be seen as wrong. The demoralisation of nations through educating the younger generations, plus societal norms and the need for money are what are responsibile to how people behave in today's society.

I think human behavior is generally a rather complex emergent phenomena which stems from the interactions of some very basic rules. For instance, to give a rough and highly simplified framework and generalities: The golden rule is Reproduction at any cost. The "Selfish Gene", as Dawkins puts it. Survival of an individual until reproduction can be enhanced by grouping together. This is the basis for herds, packs, schools, flocks, etc. Promoting the health and well being of individuals within your group, promotes the overall health of the group. A healthier group promotes the survival of the individual. This leads to altruistic behavior. On the other hand, you still have the drive for reproduction. Reproduction requires resources, which leads to competition. The interaction of competition and altruism creates social animals and group structures. And now we're starting to talk about the emergent patterns interacting with each other - creating the ground rules for another layer of complexity... and on, and on, and on. The interactions of individuals within groups creates societies - super organisms, who then interact with each other according to the rules of their societies.

After that... throw in the emergence of a brain like ours which can reflect and think about it's own operation - yet isn't aware of the intrinsic rules that created it. Those and similar rules operate on a subconscious level - both for the individual and the society. The brain doesn't cognitively know that helping out others promotes both your own survival and your species survival - it just feels good when you help out someone who needs it. Some might say it's the light of god's love your feeling - and maybe that's true - but you're also getting a mood altering chemical release in your brain.

Now, like all complex non-linear systems - an oversimplification is bound to be horrendously incorrect. Just keep in mind that this isn't a "x + y = z" linear causality. It's merely repeating trends we've observed in nature and doesn't necessarily represent the only factors. Similar behaviors in different species could be brought about by modified interactions of variations on those rules and the environment. To a degree, this is reminiscent to the basic rules which govern chemical interactions turning your DNA code into a three dimensional living organism. Small variations from the environment (chemicals the mother ingests during the child's development) can produce spectacularly larger errors later on in the self-assembly process - most dramatically shown in the case of birth defects.

I know Biggie doesn't like complexity theory, but despite it's paradox it can be quite useful. For instance, it's still predictive. We've been able to simulate populations in a virtual environment following basic rules such as these and come out with similar results to what we see in nature on a rather base level. But a simulation is still a simulation. True, perhaps, but the really remarkable thing is that we can remove all inherent rules from the programing (such as rewards for reproduction) and still see the emergence of reproduction (the golden rule) as it's own intrinsic reward... which you'll see explained at the end of the short video below.



I'll also go on record as saying that (given what we know) I am confident enough in the predictive gauging of trends complexity and emergence gives us to say that when we start exploring space, we're going to find that the biodiversity of the universe is going to be much richer than most people expect, and will highly resemble our own basic structures. We'll see flocking behavior, competition for resources/mates, photosynthesis, spinal cords, bi-lateral symmetry, aviation, etc. On a narrower view with environments extremely similar to our own we'll even see remarkably similar taxa of biodiversity.. forms which closely resemble what we know of as fish, reptiles, mammals, birds.

The problem with complexity is that it deals with reality as a whole - because reality operates as a whole.. which is why you're seeing a lot of convergence among fields of science as specialization increases. Computers and Biology, for instance. Radically different forms... but as we're finding out, they're also extremely similar in some very basic ways - which we are now using for interfacing technologies. It requires that you be fairly well versed in a wide variety of fields - and there are no simple answers.

In regards to your above statement - it's not a need for money. Abolishing the money system would do nothing to solve the problem; just trade in existing inequalities for new inequalities or displaced inequalities. The root of the problem, is competition for limited resources. This isn't just limited to material things either... but ideas as well. Human minds are a finite resource, and those who wish to promote their ways of life will continually compete to spread it. The burning of Alexandria and the path to Dark Ages was not paved with the gold of empires, but on the convictions of martyrs.

I can blame religion for the environment it often promotes which lead to events such as that - or 9/11 - or the Inquisition. But I know religion isn't the cause of it... it's our behaviors. It's part of who we are as a species... and as Christians are quick to point out with the case of Joseph Stalin, even Atheists are capable of such atrocities. To truly change our behaviors, we have to identify what those base behaviors are, and why we have them. Recognize them, and apply that knowledge to our everyday lives.

It's a bit analogues to medicine. The cause of a vast array of disease is genetic - either an exploit that a microbe utilizes, a mutation/trait, the lack of a trait in the transition between environments, etc. For years, we've used what some call "S* against the wall pharmacology" where we throw various chemical compounds either from plants or manufactured into the body and see what happens. Hopefully, we can elicit a chemical reaction which helps the individual. However, not everybody's body chemistry is the same - and this can lead to disastrous results via unwanted side effects or interactions. Penicillin is a monumental medical tool, but some people are allergic to it - and it will kill them. We're just now starting to enter the age of designer medicine, where a comprehensive understanding of the human genome can lead to fundamental cures by quickly and directly addressing the root cause of the illness or exploit unique to the individual's body chemistry.

We need a similar level of understanding in regards to human behaviors... and we're not going to get there by listening to new-age spiritualists, religious fundamentalists, creationists, etc. For them it will always be a case of "the vibrations are too low", "It's Karma's cycles", "Lack of God in one's life", "Too much God in one's life". It's all "S* against the wall".

Heh... the kicker is, we can't abolish competition. Competition may be harsh, but it promotes the diversity necessary to avoid the catastrophic failure of an entire system. To get rid of it would be to absolutely ensure a slow death. With understanding, at least... we can work with it.

Of course, my ideas are just fighting for competition against the creationists, because I want to promote my views and influence others to help build the world I want to live in. But at least, I think, my views have more evidence to back them.

reply to post by Gawdzilla

The fact that modern apes have characteristics we don't and vice versa gives a clue as to how far back that really was.

They might also indicate a radical change in environment. The presence of hair on the head rather than a fairly consistent covering over the body or hooded nasal cavities for instance might be seen as evidence of a partially aquatic phase of human evolution.

I've always been a bit of an admirer of the Aquatic Ape hypothesis. I've always thought there really could be something to it. The problem is, there's just not enough evidence yet for a serious consideration. I'm not sure about the hooded nose, but a lack of body hair is not indicative to semi-aquatic mammals.. such as sea lions, sea otters, and platypus. The presence of hair on the head might be useful for children to clutch onto while crossing shallow waters - but most of our ape cousins also "clutch hair" instinctively as a means of holding on to their parents for transport. We lost the body hair, but it's complimentary instinctual trait remains. Not to mention that you loose most of your body's heat in the head and feet. Considering the brain's sensitivity to temperature, as it grew larger and thus giving it more surface area, the promotion for hair on the head makes sense for cold savannah nights. However, this would bring up the issue of overheating in the day.... which actually explains the lack of hair and the higher concentration of eccrine sweat glands. As the sweat evaporates, it cools the body. The more sweat touching the skin, the more efficient the dissipation of heat would be.

Plus, there's just no real empirical evidence for it in the fossil record.

So... question. If the Aquatic Ape hypothesis has more empirical evidence in it's favor than Intelligent Design... why has there never (to my knowledge) been a push from the ID lobby to teach "both sides" in schools? If they're truly interested in academic honesty, shouldn't they be supporting the teaching of a possible aquatic phase of human evolution? Widen the door a little bit with a friendly face so they can get their foot in as well? You know... show some altruism and help out some other "persecuted scientists".

(And for the record, no, I would not support the teaching of AAH to highschool students.)

I like how Neil DeGrasse Tyson describes the flaw of the human design. He really asks for simple things like a separate hole for eating/drinking and breathing like a dolphin has. It would save many lives every year from people choking to death.

He also describes the placement of the human reproductive system as an "entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system...NO engineer would design that AT ALL!".

This is a great clip from a really strong thinker. Watch the whole thing. It is only a couple of minutes.

www.youtube.com...