Array (  => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 8990 [post_author] => 3589 [post_date] => 2014-05-01 20:03:13 [post_date_gmt] => 2014-05-01 20:03:13 [post_content] => CAPTION: Skull 1470 (left) and Homo Habilis (KNM-ER 1813) at Göteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum. Some scientists regard KNM-ER 1813 as Homo erectus. Throughout human history, human beings of an advanced type have coexisted with tribes of the lowest development, just as in today’s world the sophisticated West shares the planet with peoples of Stone Age culture. Yet, according to Charles Darwin in The Descent of Man, the stronger or better “drives out its brutish ancestor… Extinction at the hands of a successor is inevitable.” One species, the fittest one, preempts the “niche.” We need only look at Africa to refute this claim: for on that continent—which was the focus of twentieth century paleoanthropology—intensive excavation of the bones belonging to our “brutish ancestor,” rather than revealing a neat succession of “parent” and “daughter” species, found them living together! Coexistence not only twits Darwinism’s “competitive exclusion” principle but topples the entire Darwinian scheme of ancestry and descent. Different, very different, stocks of early humans in Tanzania, Ethiopia, and Kenya were contemporaries, neighbors—and also bedfellows. Forty-two years ago Richard Leakey discovered “Skull 1470” in Kenya; its brain was, surprisingly, much bigger than that of Homo habilis (a species of the Hominini tribe, which, we are told, lived from approximately 2.33 to 1.44 million years ago), even though 1470 was quite a bit older. Reverse evolution? Unlike H. habilis, 1470 was large, and he had much better tools. The expected heavy bones or visor brow of that early type just were not there; most notably, 1470’s skull was too modern to be Homo erectus (an extinct species of hominin that lived throughout most of the Pleistocene) let alone H. habilis. Broca’s area (a region of the brain which is linked to speech and found in anatomically modern humans), was also present in 1470. Yet this man was a contemporary of Australopithecus, another extinct genus of hominids who is considered even more archaic than H. habilis. But the solution to these vexing problems is extremely simple: crossbreeding, two quite different types coexisting and “exchanging genes.” Leakey himself conceded that even in that far day there were several different kinds of man, declaring: “Either we toss out this skull  or we toss out our theories... [for] it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change” (Leakey, “Skull 1470,” National Geographic, June, 1973, 820-8). “The prognosis for Darwinism,” wrote the distinguished and versatile scientist Sir Fred Hoyle 30 years ago, “is now very poor.” We have, thought Sir Fred, “been bamboozled” (Hoyle, Evolution from Space, 1984, 114). It was around that time, in the mid-1980s, that the Neanderthal story came to light, thanks to excavations in Croatia, followed by work at Israel’s Mount Carmel in 1988, French digs in 1996, Portugal in 1998, Czechoslovakia in 2003, and finally Rumania (Pestera cu Oase) in 2006. All these finds told the same tale: Neanderthals—an extinct species of human in the genus Homo, possibly a subspecies of Homo sapiens—were endowed with numerous modern traits, just as their Cro-Magnon neighbors (early modern humans) often turned up with Neanderthal traits. Both groups used similar tools; they were contemporaries. Indeed, the Neanderthal caves (Skuhl and Tabun) in Palestine had Homo sapiens (Cro-Magnon) and Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthals) coexisting for 45,000 years—and crossbreeding. Early on, Harvard’s Earnest Hooton had pointed out that the series was much too brief for evolution to have occurred. Besides, early (“Classic”) Neanderthals proved to be more anatomically modern than later ones! Similar racial blends, combining modern and Neanderthal features, emerged at digs in Spain (Atapuerca), Germany (Steinheim), Czechoslovakia (Mladec), Rumania (Muierii), and France (St. Cesaire and Arcy-sur-Cure). The sorry fact is that none of these results fit the Darwinian picture. Rather, with every variety of intermixture among these fossil men, it looked like some serious fraternizing was going on in the Old Stone Age. Although stonewalled for decades by the grandees of Darwinism, it seems that gene exchange—not evolution— produced all these “intermediates,” the bogus transitionals of “step-by-step evolution.” This alleged process has a name—Speciation: Darwinism teaches us that the reward for being a slightly faster or more alert antelope is to survive over your slower neighbor; as a result, the whole antelope population will eventually run faster “and with many such changes over time … become a new species. … Evolution, Darwin’s ‘descent with modification through natural selection’ would have occurred” (Hayden, 2009, 45). Is this really how different species came about? Who are we trying to fool with these glorified myths called natural selection and random mutation? As biologist Lynn Margulis put it, “I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change [and] new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence... Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create [e.a.]... the laws of genetics show stasis, not change… [Natural selection] could not produce all the diversity we see.” (Teresi, 2011, 68-9). Naturally, Darwinists like John Rennie, former editor of Scientific American, protest such views: “On the contrary,” Rennie cites point-mutations (like bacterial resistance to antibiotics) and fruit fly research (where experimentally, specimens have freakishly grown legs from head) to prove “that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures…. Natural selection … can drive profound changes in populations over time.” (Rennie, Scientific American, 2002, 80-2) Although this sort of argument (rhetoric, really) still represents the majority view, I doubt that we are all “genetic mistakes,” or that torturing fruit flies sheds any light on the origin of human beings. I place more stock in the minority view as expressed long ago by James Churchward: “Our scientists have been trying to build a castle in the air,” he stated after finding not “a single case where one animal is changing into another, such as the missing link between a reptile and a mammal… What has been termed steps in evolution has been mere physical modifications [e.a.]… without reflecting anything more than simple adaptations” (Churchward, The Children of Mu, 1931,111). As Richard Dewhurst remarked in his just-published book, The Ancient Giants Who Ruled America, “We have only to look at a bird and be told that it was once a dinosaur to know how false this paradigm is.” How can anyone believe the sham that one species morphs into a different species? Apart from mutilating fruit flies, have breeders ever turned a cat into a dog? Their carefully choreographed “transitions” are a scientific illusion. In fact, most species seem to have come out of nowhere. Even dinosaur and mastodon materialized suddenly—without any “intermediate” forerunners. The Darwinian aura of authenticity is state mythology. “They’re most likely all fakes …‘home-made,’ including dinosaurs,” I was told by a retired scientist who formerly worked in Europe’s most prestigious anthropological museum. He adds, “Piltdown (the notorious hoax) was probably a deliberate red herring... What’s on display is rubbish; the real stuff is held in [warehouse] facilities”; and the key players are “very secretive... well-funded... basically very smooth con men… None of these people will permit independent analysis.” Most of the milestones in human “evolution,” even the Darwinist grudgingly admits, appeared abruptly on the scene: H. erectus, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon, the latter appearing as the star of the acclaimed “sapiens explosion”—the Big Bang of evolution—out of the blue. All these quantum jumps speak not of evolution. Something else is going on. How could it be that the very apex of evolution, the masterful H. sapiens sapiens (modern human), with his incomparable brain, took the least amount of time to emerge? And why should there be a quickening of pace as the stages of evolution proceed? Does it make sense that simple species took millions of years to “evolve” but H. sapiens, by far the most advanced, managed in only a few thousand years? Even Sir Arthur Keith, Britain’s foremost paleoanthropologist of the early twentieth century, wondered how the extraordinarily complex brain of H. sapiens could have taken shape in the relatively brief course of the Pleistocene? And how could the brain of Homo erectus “have evolved into the modern human form? I cannot credit such a rapid rate of evolution” (Keith, The Antiquity of Man, 1929, 436). But the way to account for this is laughably simple: H. erectus crossbred with a more advanced type; there is no increase in H. erectus cranial capacity until they were upgraded by interbreeding with the moderns in their midst. Let’s have a look at “X Woman,” who came as a bomb on the house of evolution four years ago. Denisova Woman (it was only part of her pinky finger) was found buried in a cave in the Altai mountains of southern Siberia. Discover magazine, noting the controversy occasioned by this 40,000-year-old unknown specimen, billed the story: “Pinkie Pokes Holes in Human Evolution.” That sliver of bone yielded the DNA of a perplexing hodge-podge of modern (H. sapiens), Neanderthal, and some other (unidentified) lineage. Although X Woman was instantly made a “new species,” thus garnering a standing ovation in the media, it looked more like just another case of mixing. In fact, analysts said Denisova must have descended from a “hybrid spawn.” Three races were blended in her DNA. Why call that a new species? Denisova is but a single example of the fraudulent coining of “new” species. As I see it, every single hominid in the fossil record is of the same species; the only differences are racial (subspecies). The fundamental design of the human cranium is the same from the earliest pithecanthropines (erectoids) right up to the modern races. When you come right down to it, some features vary among recent races almost as much as between different fossil types; therefore, we might just as well split up present-day mankind into several species—which would be a falsehood. The fossil people have been trifling with us: a slightly different shaped jaw or slightly different DNA—and presto!—a new species is born. Sure, they found “distinct” mtDNA in Denisova woman, but that differential could just as well reflect crossbreeding. Assigning new species to every new fossil (sometimes named after the finder or the sponsor) is like having a star named after you. Frankly, there is little hope of hitting the news with mere varieties or races. With Denisova, the glory went to the geneticists, the finger fragment supposedly marking an entirely new group of ancestral humans. Well, the more they dig, the more hybrids they find, gratuitously calling them “species”—and gloating over the ever-expanding catalog of human and prehuman species. Even though the variation in early humans was considerable, it is still only variation. If that early heterogeneity within the human family had been properly understood, “many of the mistakes in anthropology could have been avoided” (Lubenow, 2005, 112-3)—meaning, these differences, even when minor, have led theorists (mistakenly) to take mere varieties as separate species, falsely multiplying the number of human taxa. J. B. S. Haldane, the esteemed English biochemist and founder of the new synthesis (neo-Darwinism) said “new species may arise by hybridization” (quoted in Lovtrup, Darwinism, 1987, 308). Well, in that case we don’t need evolution at all. It was right on the heels of the X Woman splash that an African specimen hit the news, its discoverers trumpeting yet another mongrel as a brand new species, a breakthrough and “game changer.” It was easy enough to classify the Johannesburg find (Australopithecus sedipa) with Africa’s well known and extremely archaic australopiths. But one thing stood out: the organization of the front brain; it was modern! This was an outrageous combination, to find the oldest hominid type with a sapiens brain. Hyped as a “jaw-dropping find” and our long-lost ancestor, A. sedipa nonetheless raised the skeptic’s flag: its date, for one thing, was probably much more recent than claimed; indeed, the original date of 5.5 million years had to be changed to 1.97. The too-rapid evolution of its brain was also suspect, occasioning fancy rhetoric to justify it—“vigorous experimentation,” “fits and starts of evolution” (Hotz, R.L. “Puzzling Hominid Had Human Traits.” Wall Street Journal, April 12, 2013, A2). But these pathetic explanations failed to mask A. sedipa’s ineluctable “jumble of parts,” literally a head-to-foot combination of australopith and much “later” types. Obviously a hybrid—no big deal—certainly not a new species. Given A. sedipa’s good brain as well as longer legs and more modern hand grip, the specimens had been labeled a “rapid improvement” from the lowly austrolopith. But screaming hybrid, this South African man was neither a “bridge species” nor an evolutionary “transitional” —but simply the lucky recipient of a some advanced genes—just like Denisova and 1470! Breathlessly, reports on sedipa gabbled—It is amazing what evolution has made out of spare parts, bits and pieces. But is it evolution that jumbles the genome?—or simply interbreeding, which certainly gives quick results, easily explaining the sudden, “too-rapid” evolution of sedipa’s brain (its teeth, nose and pelvis were also “too” modern). P.S. After garnering all that media attention in 2011, a 2013 redaction admitted that A. sedipa was probably a “dead end” (Hotz) in human evolution. Not our ancestor, after all. The cross-breeding factor actually stands Darwinism on its head: Whereas evolution has species-lines branching out and separating (splitting) at some time in the distant past, cross-breeding entails quite the opposite: different stocks came together, cohabited, to form new races. And we are all hybrids. Fossils taken as representing “stages” of evolution or “changes” (by mutations) represent nothing more than the unstoppable cohabitation of the Paleolithic races. Man the Mixer. The peopling of the world is about the mingling and merging of disparate types. No evolution there, just the continual confection of half-breeds, quarter-breeds, etc.—an exchange of genes since Day One. “Competitive exclusion” has fallen by the wayside. Embryology, as a map to decipher evolutionary changes over the ages, has been discarded. The identity of the “common ancestor” hangs in the air. The linear succession of hominid types hangs in the air. The value of Natural Selection and fortuitous mutations hangs in the air. The origin of Mind hangs in the air. The causes of extinction hang in the air. The “missing link” is still missing in action: our experts have been on a hunt for something that doesn’t exist, and never did, such as the link between man and ape. Are we really made-over apes? One by one, the underpinnings of the standard model of man’s origin are washing away, like feet of clay. Public relations aside, evolution doesn’t have a leg to stand on. [post_title] => A Question of Breeding [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => a-question-of-breeding [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2014-07-25 20:05:00 [post_modified_gmt] => 2014-07-25 20:05:00 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/?p=8990 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw )  => stdClass Object ( [ID] => 8980 [post_author] => 3589 [post_date] => 2014-05-01 19:56:31 [post_date_gmt] => 2014-05-01 19:56:31 [post_content] => In my previous books, The Secret Tao, and 2012 & The Mayan Prophecy of Doom, I have been criticized by skeptics that the theories and evidence I cite have not yet been accepted by mainstream science. So, I think it’s worth examining the question of what constitutes good science. Evidence is neither true nor false; it is the conclusions you draw from the evidence that are either true of false. Of course, that depends on whom you talk to. Sometimes there is a consensus but sometimes scientists are split. And sometimes the majority of scientists turn out to be wrong. Therein lies the difference between fact and truth. To understand this, let’s go back and look at how we define errors in the scientific method. First of all, there are two types of errors in science. There is a type-one error and a type-two error. A type-one error is the kind of error most people think of when they think of scientific errors. That is, a type-one error is being too gullible, believing in crazy theories without sufficient proof. By this, you would think that the more skeptical you are, the less likely you are to be in error. But that is not always true. A type-two error can be just as bad as a type-one error. A type-two error is when you disbelieve something that is actually true. Remember Galileo and the Catholic Church. Well, his crazy theory turned out to be right, and they were wrong, but they refused to see that. They committed a huge type-two error. Or how about that intelligence officer who warned his superiors that terrorists were planning on using airplanes as bombs to crash them into buildings? There was no great response to this threat. None of the security measures that were enacted after 9/11 were put into place at that time. Why? It was simply a type-two error. And it was probably one of the worst in history. Thalidomide In real science, type-two errors are every bit as dangerous as type-one errors. In fact, in the field of foods and drugs, type-two errors are much worse than type-one errors. Think about it. Suppose they create a new drug to prevent morning sickness in pregnant women. If the scientists are wrong, and the drug doesn’t prevent morning sickness, then the only harm done is to the company’s profits. But, let’s say that there is a theory that this drug might create birth defects, but there is no evidence to prove that it would create birth defects. So let’s say that the hard-core skeptics won out, and they went ahead and released the drug, which had been proven to prevent morning sickness, but which had not proven to create birth defects. Well, this did happen. The drug was Thalidomide, and guess what? This turned out to be a type-two error. Many thousands of children were born horribly deformed because the drug company did not take seriously the unproven, theoretical risk of birth defects. This has been called one of the biggest medical tragedies in modern times. There are many other examples. There is the risk of nuclear reactors melting down, the risk of hexavalent chromium contaminating the ground water (the case that Erin Brockovich made famous), the risk of using mercury as a preservative in inoculations (still debated even though the drug companies have taken it off the market), etc. All of these have been hotly debated, and some are still being debated. But every time a catastrophe happens, such as the nuclear accidents at Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukushima, we always find that hindsight is 20/20, and it was a type-two error that was to blame. This goes for the Challenger disaster as well. Anytime someone is warned of a potential problem and they fail to heed the warning because of a lack of proof, they are running the risk of a costly type-two error. So how does this happen? How can an otherwise rational, hard-nosed, tough-minded, skeptical scientist be so foolish that they do not take into account a possible worst-case scenario, and plan for it accordingly? Good question. That is where the idea of pathological skepticism comes in. This is a concept that I came up with years ago to try to understand why some scientists are so skeptical that they frequently make type-two errors, and often use wild leaps of illogic to support their erroneous conclusions. Since then, the term pathological skepticism has become something of a household word. Like so many psychological disorders, this one consists not of a conscious act but, rather, an unconscious thought process. The Meditation Study Skeptics often use straw-man arguments. What’s funny about this is that they usually don’t even know that they are doing it. Whenever I think of pathological skepticism, I always think of a psychological study done years ago at my Alma Mater, Long Beach State University. A researcher there, who shall remain nameless, wanted to study the effects of Eastern meditation, so he came up with a pretty clever study. He came up with three options: A) One group practiced traditional meditation, as it is practiced in Eastern religions; B) One group practiced a secularized Western form of meditation (essentially duplicating the meditation technique, without any religious references); and, C) one group did nothing at all; this was the control group. He randomly assigned students to one of these three groups. He then monitored the subjects to look for positive outcomes of daily mediation, which might occur over time. After the study was over, he looked at all the data. It clearly showed that both the Eastern religion meditation group and the secular meditation group enjoyed positive benefits, and the control group did not. Both of the meditation groups were more relaxed, less stressed, and happier than the group that did not meditate. So, most people would say that he scientifically proved the effectiveness of meditation. The funny thing was that he concluded that meditation did not work! You see, he did not see the secular form of meditation as a form of meditation at all. He thought of it as a placebo; that is, like a sugar pill, an inert exercise. Even though he had duplicated many of the psychological features of Eastern meditation, and perfectly distilled them into an effective meditation practice, he saw it as nothing, just a placebo. When he compared Eastern meditation to his “placebo” meditation group and found no difference between the two groups, he concluded that meditation on the whole was apparently not effective. Ironically, this researcher had actually proven the opposite. He demonstrated the effectiveness of Eastern meditation, and even came up with his own secularized version easily practiced by millions of Americans, with all the same benefits of Eastern meditation. And, he didn’t even realize what he had done! Years later Jon Kabat-Zinn would do essentially the same thing with his secular, mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) practice (similar to the above “placebo”), and he would become famous for it. This researcher’s mistake was completely unconscious and based on the tenacity of his beliefs. He believed that Eastern meditation was fake and that there were no positive results that came from practicing it. That is what he believed before he collected the evidence. Therefore, once he had the evidence, he interpreted it in the only way that made sense to him. In the end, he saw precisely what he wanted to see. His bias had eclipsed his insight, and he failed to see what he had actually discovered, which is that meditation does produce definite benefits and that it is a psychological process, independent of religion. You see, when the facts conflicted with truth, he reinterpreted the facts to fit the truth. But, whose truth? Obviously, his truth is different from the truth of the Dalai Lama or Jon Kabat-Zinn or millions of people who meditate. When I first read this study, I thought the researcher was purposely creating a straw-man argument. People do this in politics all the time. You mischaracterize your opponent’s position and make it sound ridiculous, then you can easily argue against it. I thought this researcher was intentionally mischaracterizing Eastern meditation as some kind of religious miracle that only benefits you if you are a devout Buddhist or something. In this way he could easily discredit Eastern meditation by showing that it was no miracle of religion. Eventually I realized that this was indeed like a straw-man argument, but I don’t think it was intentional. Here the researcher really did believe that meditation was some kind of mystical religious experience that could only occur with divine intervention. He never even considered that it might simply be a scientific phenomenon. He thought he was striking a blow against superstition and ignorance, but he was only fighting shadows in his own mind. This is a classic case of what I call pathological skepticism. I see this all the time with skeptics, such as Michael Shermer, founding publisher of Skeptic magazine. Once, in a televised interview, I saw him comment on the Baghdad battery, an ancient artifact found in an archaeological dig near Baghdad. The object was a terra cotta jar that had a copper cylinder inside of the jar, and an iron post that fit inside the copper cylinder without touching it. The metal was held in place in the jar with bitumen. It is believed that the jar had been filled with lemon juice or some other liquid high in citric acid. Well, that sounds like a battery to anyone who knows about electricity. Shermer claimed that this artifact was not evidence that the ancients knew about electricity. He thinks that the device was merely used for electroplating, since we have found evidence of gold plated jewelry from that period. So, they did not know about electrical technology, they only knew about electroplating technology? I know what he means, but I don’t think he realizes how obtuse that sounds. He just conceded that they did in fact know about the technology of electroplating, and actually knew how to build devices to implement it, including a battery cell sufficient to generate the necessary charge. What he meant to say was that they did not have electrical wires suspended from electrical poles, with giant generators, producing massive energy to power light bulbs and run various appliances. But, he forgets that neither did Benjamin Franklin, Georg Ohm, or James Clerk Maxwell; neither did Thomas Edison in the beginning. But surely he would not deny that these men knew of electricity. Shermer, in his defense, might say that even if they somehow knew about electroplating, then it still does not prove that they had any modern understanding of electricity. That’s fair enough. I have no idea how they explained or thought about batteries or electricity. They may have attributed it to the gods, for all I know. But if you define a battery as any device that holds an electrical charge, and you define electricity as that energy which is stored in a battery, then he is clearly wrong. They had obviously discovered the phenomenon that we call electricity. And if they did use it for electroplating, then that proves that they had discovered the relevant principles and materials involved in that process. You see, he’s actually using a straw-man argument, and I don’t think he’s doing it intentionally. He thinks that when a crypto-archaeologist says that ancient civilizations “knew about electricity” or were “experimenting with it” that they’re claiming that the ancients might have had electric lights and appliances, or that they lived just as we do today. But that’s actually a straw-man argument. If he did this consciously, he would probably be doing it because he can’t refute the actual facts, so he misrepresents it as something crazy and then argues against that instead. The thing is, I don’t think he even knows he’s doing it. The crazy scenario he is arguing against is all in his head. Most people who are fascinated with the Baghdad battery don’t necessarily believe that the ancients who created it had electric toasters or vacuum cleaners. This process of unconsciously creating straw-man arguments is really an example of a neurotic behavior, in that it is an unconscious process that skews a person’s thinking and behavior, often in illogical ways. So what would cause someone to do this? Unconsciously, this kind of person probably has a fear of being gullible himself and doesn’t want to be made a fool of by believing in a practical joke, or a con. So he dismisses, downplays, or distorts facts because they are in conflict with the truth as he knows it. I call this pathological skepticism, because it is basically a neurosis, a disorder that causes people to make errors in judgment due to an unconscious fear of being humiliated or being overly gullible. I’ve heard many such statements by various skeptics over the years. A good example of pathological skepticism is when someone says “there’s no proof that was a UFO; it was probably just some flying object that just hasn’t been identified yet.” Or, how about this one, “faith healing is nothing more than a placebo effect.” And when you ask them what a placebo effect is, they respond, “a placebo is when the person is healed because they believed that they’d be healed.” But isn’t that another way of saying that they were healed because they had faith they’d be healed? These statements kind of remind me of the famous quote by Leo Durocher that, “anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined.” Just like the above skeptics, you know what he means, but what he says is so obtuse that it’s actually comical. In a line from the movie, The Last Crusade, the intrepid archaeologist Indiana Jones says, “Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If it’s truth you’re interested in, Professor Tyree’s philosophy class is right down the hall.” We claim to be a society that values science, but we actually value truth more than facts. But truth, alas, is whatever you believe it is. It is time that we as a society learned the difference between fact and truth. We as a people, and especially those of us in the scientific community, need to get back to the basics and start dealing with some inconvenient facts. I call on all scientists to give up such shortsighted bias and begin to study potentially important, however unlikely, theories with the same zeal that they apply towards making minor contributions to an existing body of knowledge. In the words of F. N. Earll, regarding Hapgood’s theory, “If it is an unworthy thing let it be properly destroyed; if not, let it receive the nourishment that it deserves.” The author is a psychologist, an expert on the occult, and a researcher in the fields of psychology, archaeology, and ancient mysticism. He is the author of several books. His latest book, The Einstein Connection, from which this article is excerpted, investigates ancient myths and scientific theories of a potentially reoccurring global cataclysm. [post_title] => Pathological Skepticism [post_excerpt] => [post_status] => publish [comment_status] => closed [ping_status] => open [post_password] => [post_name] => pathological-skepticism [to_ping] => [pinged] => [post_modified] => 2014-07-25 19:58:24 [post_modified_gmt] => 2014-07-25 19:58:24 [post_content_filtered] => [post_parent] => 0 [guid] => http://atlantisrisingmagazine.com/?p=8980 [menu_order] => 0 [post_type] => post [post_mime_type] => [comment_count] => 0 [filter] => raw ) )
© Atlantis Rising Magazine | WordPress design by TCWebsite
No part of this website or it's contents may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher.