Academic Stupidity and / or Duplicity

By on

Here is an article of minor interest, not in the subject matter itself, but in the tiny “glitches in the Matrix code” of the official programming lie...

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/09/octopuses-on-ecstasy...

It is truly amazing that some “scientists” have nothing better to study than doping up octopodes.*  Maybe the “experimentors” just wanted a “legal” excuse to be able to get their hands on a large amount of “illegal” drugs.  It took them awhile to get the “dosage right” for the “experiment”.  I wonder if each milligram of exstacy (or however it is spelled) was accounted for.  We know for certain that the octopodes didn’t “rat” out the laboratory experimentors.  The octopodes were kinda mellowed out after their nice warm “exstacy bath”. Maybe the experiment should be done again and give the octopodes a couple beers and a shot of tequila and see if then they will be even more sociable... unless one of the octopodes is a “mean drunk”; it might even lead to some sexual abuse allegations, “I tell you, his eight hands were all over me...!”

[* —which is the correct plural, since the word is Greek (ὀκτώπους; plural, ὀκτώποδες).  The word is not Latin, so "octopi" is incorrect; but even like the English form octopuses, both have become "colloquially accepted"—which is an euphemistic way of saying that ignorance has prevailed over intelligence.]

The author of this article shows his duplicity and playing the game of academic stupidity (or his brainwashing) when he writes,

“Dölen realized that individuals of any sex [of octopus] gravitate toward females, but avoid males.” [brackets mine, for clarity, RAB]

The key word here is “any”...

Really...?  HOW MANY octopus sexes are there...? hmmm....?

However, to use the proper word “either” would be to inadvertently admit that there are, indeed, only 2 sexes (and that “the rest”—all those cross-dressing octopodes and octopodes that made an appointment with the sturgeon and had a sex-change operation or any naturally ocurring hermaphrodites—are mental disturbances or freaks of nature).

Also, toward the end, I am both amused and appalled at the stupidity of “scientists” (more properly, “academic science-like storytellers”) who think that they know what happened 800 million years ago—when we don’t really know what happened during the JFK assassination, the Trade Towers implosion, the Obama “elections”, Obama’s actual identity and origin, or what happened last week.

Again, their evolutionary duplicity is revealed when, at the end, he quotes someone else, who declared,

“there are only so many ways to make an intelligent brain.”

—that’s right, and that is called DESIGN, not evolution.  To say “there are only so many ways that an intelligent brain can evolve” would be blasphemy against their god Big-Bango.... and of course, it would also be unprovable; since they don’t know (in the “fantasy world” of evolution and science-fiction-fantasy, where “anything can happen”) all the possible combinations in regard to how something can “evolve”.
Therefore, they have to speak in terms of what we know, which is reality—which is DESIGN.

It is really amazing the corners that a liar (or gullible “blind believer”—willing to ignore glaring facts) paints himself into and then hopes that no one notices; or hopes that anyone who notices is too cowardly to call him on his B.S. (and I don’t mean Bachellor of Science).

----------------------

Also interesting is this article

https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/pa8dw8/prime-number-pattern-m...

It seems to indicate DESIGN in prime numbers.

However, from the evolutionary “model”, the problem is, since infinity can never be reached, prime numbers keep “evolving” faster than the brains of the mathematicians trying discern a pattern in the prime numbers.  Complex patterns of course, in numbers or crystals or quasi-crystals are indicators of DESIGN.  A primary law of science is Entropy: all things decay; that is, in reality, they move from complex to simple—the very opposite of “evolution”, which claims “progress” from simple to complex, without any proof, without any example in nature, without being able to scientifically “replicate” in an experiment, fudging all the factors to try to tweak it and get it “just right”—which would actually be “DESIGN”...!