Origins Thread

[SwordOfStZip]

The lad who wrote the article praising Darwin that roc_ put in his post towards the end of his life came to believe that Jews were superior to those he called Aryans on Darwinian grounds as he saw them- mainly in the struggle for survival and domination on this planet the Jews had triumphed. He was a very amusing writer both intentionally and unintentionally, as well as a very anti-Christian one. Interesting that he was the source that roc_ reached to (he died back in the very early 1990s I think) and also interesting was roc_'s general response to this thread.

 

[Tiger]

I'm not basing my belief in things scientific on whether I believe in God. Whereas theists do. This is essentially why I call out frauds like @Tiger

James, the only thing you’ve exposed is your brainpower- if it were any lower, we’d need a shovel to find it.

This incarnation of your ‘Origins’ thread is actually worse than the previous one. That takes some doing.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Are you sure that @Hermit is a Catholic?

Not only Catholic but a Latin mass attendee

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Thanks What do you think of Richard Dawkins, Myler?

Not a whole lot. Although he did make a fool of Medhi Hassan which is a good point.

 

[Tiger]

James Tour, anyone remember him, from the original uncensored thread?

Yep, another fraud


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zN5vEo3iTH8

And he's not even Christian, he's a Jew

Haha, yes good old spoofing Dave (not an actual professor) explains.

His confirmation bias is off the charts. He’s a classic American shitlib. Tedious beyond belief.

Here is a video he did trying to ‘science’ his way through the Trans movement to fight “the hateful and harmful rhetoric”.

He’s a grade A spoofer.


View: https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared



View: https://youtu.be/w5Y_V7CgmTg?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

The lad who wrote the article praising Darwin that roc_ put in his post towards the end of his life came to believe that Jews were superior to those he called Aryans on Darwinian grounds as he saw them- mainly in the struggle for survival and domination on this planet the Jews had triumphed. He was a very amusing writer both intentionally and unintentionally, as well as a very anti-Christian one. Interesting that he was the source that roc_ reached to (he died back in the very early 1990s I think) and also interesting was roc_'s general response to this thread.

He still hasn't cast his vote. Bawk, bawk!


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OhD2mTxyUaE

Also, did you notice his new avatar - Gad Saad. Perfect

 

[AN2]

Haha, yes good old spoofing Dave (not an actual professor) explains.

His confirmation bias is off the charts. He’s a classic American shitlib. Tedious beyond belief.

Here is a video he did trying to ‘science’ his way through the Trans movement to fight “the hateful and harmful rhetoric”.

He’s a grade A spoofer.


View: https://youtu.be/fpGqFUStcxc?feature=shared



View: https://youtu.be/w5Y_V7CgmTg?feature=shared

Matt Walsh is your paygrade dude (also not a scientist)

 

[AN2]

Not a whole lot. Although he did make a fool of Medhi Hassan which is a good point.

Forget the Muslim

If you actually examine how Dawkins came about as "World's Most Famous Atheist" (a title he would and has guffawed at), it's very central to his opposition to religious frauds (like @Tiger) inserting themselves into science

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

I can't forget Muslims. They're on my mind all the time.

I even have dreams about them.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

I can't forget Muslims. They're on my mind all the time.

I even have dreams about them.

Are you serious?

 

[AN2]

I can't forget Muslims. They're on my mind all the time.

I even have dreams about them.

I can't say that's ever happened to me

 

[Tiger]

Matt Walsh is your paygrade dude (also not a scientist)

Here’s ‘not a professor’ Dave video pushing all the known lies about MRNA jabs a few years ago, to convince people to not worry and go out and get them. He also advocates for vaccine passports in this video.

He’s basically Charlottesweb. They share every single opinion on everything.

The chap’s nothing more than a spoofing shitlib with a YouTube channel.

That’s your pay grade.


Go read a book James.


View: https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared

 

[AN2]

Here’s ‘not a professor’ Dave pushing all the known lies about MRNA jabs a few years ago, to convince people to not worry and go out and get them. He also advocates for vaccine passports in this video.

He’s basically Charlottesweb. They share every single opinion on everything.

The chap’s nothing more than a spoofing shitlib with a YouTube channel.


View: https://youtu.be/-EPbylsBuzg?feature=shared

You're just changing the subject

I accept that a lot of people who have a high degree of knowledge of science (infinitely higher than you) are indeed shitlibs

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Are you serious?

Well, more like nightmares.

 

[Tiger]

You're just changing the subject

I accept that a lot of people who have a high degree of knowledge of science (infinitely higher than you) are indeed shitlibs

Why do you debate like you’re 12?

At 50 years of age, one would expect your reasoning to have matured beyond the playground. Instead, you argue like someone still waiting to be taken seriously at the kids’ table.

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Well, more like nightmares.

Do you keep a dream diary?

 

[AN2]

Why do you debate like you’re 12?

At 50 years of age, one would expect your reasoning to have matured beyond the playground. Instead, you argue like someone still waiting to be taken seriously at the kids’ table.

Link

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Do you keep a dream diary?

Sounds too Snowflakery for me Miss.

 

[AN2]

Sounds too Snowflakery for me Miss.

I told you she's a girl

 

[Hermit]

He says he isn't but of course he is. Christian at least

I don't know why you think I'm lying about this. I was raised Catholic, never took it seriously, actually mocked it, and I even went so far as to write to my local bishop to request my name be de-registered as a Catholic (or something like that, I can't remember). I was atheist/agnostic for most of my life, only in the last decade have I returned to a belief in God, and that belief became knowledge when I realised that earth is flat which necessitates a creator. At most I am supportive of Christians, and I hate atheists and anti-Christians, but I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe in it or practice it. I'd like a Catholic funeral and burial when I die, that's about it.

I voted No in your poll. I hope you can recognise that your belief in evolution is no different to a religious belief in God. Evolution is not proven hence why it requires belief.

Not only Catholic but a Latin mass attendee

I have never attended a Latin mass and have no interest in ever doing so.

Link

LOL, pointing out fallacies now. He brings up a valid point though, you act so childish for a 50-year-old.

 

[AN2]

I don't know why you think I'm lying about this. I was raised Catholic, never took it seriously, actually mocked it, and I even went so far as to write to my local bishop to request my name be de-registered as a Catholic (or something like that, I can't remember). I was atheist/agnostic for most of my life, only in the last decade have

I returned to a belief in God, and that belief became knowledge when I realised that earth is flat which necessitates a creator.

That's probably the stupidest reason imaginable to believe in God

At most I am supportive of Christians, and I hate atheists and anti-Christians, but I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe in it or practice it. I'd like a Catholic funeral and burial when I die, that's about it.

I voted No in your poll.

I hope you can recognise that your belief in evolution is no different to a religious belief in God. Evolution is not proven hence why it requires belief.

Wrong. Very, very wrong

I have never attended a Latin mass and have no interest in ever doing so.

LOL, pointing out fallacies now. He brings up a valid point though, you act so childish for a 50-year-old.

I don't spit out fallacies mindlessly, like you do (in line with your flat-earth brainwashing)

 

[AN2]

I don't know why you think I'm lying about this. I was raised Catholic, never took it seriously, actually mocked it, and I even went so far as to write to my local bishop to request my name be de-registered as a Catholic (or something like that, I can't remember). I was atheist/agnostic for most of my life, only in the last decade have I returned to a belief in God, and that belief became knowledge when I realised that earth is flat which necessitates a creator. At most I am supportive of Christians, and

I hate atheists and anti-Christians,

Yes, it seems that a lot of Christians like you do

but I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe in it or practice it. I'd like a Catholic funeral and burial when I die, that's about it.

I find this very strange, you want to be buried in the ritual of what you believe to be a false God?

I voted No in your poll. I hope you can recognise that your belief in evolution is no different to a religious belief in God. Evolution is not proven hence why it requires belief.


I have never attended a Latin mass and have no interest in ever doing so.


LOL, pointing out fallacies now. He brings up a valid point though, you act so childish for a 50-year-old.

 

[Hermit]

That's probably the stupidest reason imaginable to believe in God

Your reading comprehension is poor. I did not state that flat earth is the reason I believe in God. I've explained it to you many times, flat earth requires a creator. I know earth is flat, therefore I know earth was created.

Let me simplify it for you with Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

If earth is flat (P), it was created (Q).
Earth is flat. (P)
Therefore, earth was created (Q).

Wrong. Very, very wrong

How is it wrong? Your poll question is "Do you believe in evolution?" and you have stated in this thread that you believe in evolution, not that you know evolution is real. Learn the difference between belief and knowledge.

I don't spit out fallacies mindlessly, like you do (in line with your flat-earth brainwashing)

I don't spit out fallacies mindlessly, I just point them out when you make them. Don't make fallacies and I won't point them out.

 

[AN2]

Your reading comprehension is poor. I did not state that flat earth is the reason I believe in God. I've explained it to you many times, flat earth requires a creator. I know earth is flat, therefore I know earth was created.

That's true, you said that you have knowledge of God.. because the Earth is flat. If anything, that's an even more stupid thing to say (I let you off lightly)

Let me simplify it for you with Modus Ponens:

If P, then Q.
P.
Therefore, Q.

If earth is flat (P), it was created (Q).
Earth is flat. (P)
Therefore, earth was created (Q).

How is it wrong? Your poll question is "Do you believe in evolution?" and you have stated in this thread that you believe in evolution, not that you know evolution is real. Learn the difference between belief and knowledge.

It's wrong to equate belief in evolution with religious belief

I don't spit out fallacies mindlessly, I just point them out when you make them. Don't make fallacies and I won't point them out.

Yes, you do. And obviously you take it from your flat-earth script

 

[AN2]

I find this very strange, you want to be buried in the ritual of what you believe to be a false God?

Question for Christians here:

Would any of you be comfortable, under any circumstances with, say, a Hindu funeral?

 

[SwordOfStZip]

Question for Christians here:

Would any of you be comfortable, under any circumstances with, say, a Hindu funeral?

No but there are circumstances where I would be comfortable with a Protestant or Orthodox funeral.

 

[AN2]

No but there are circumstances where I would be comfortable with a Protestant or Orthodox funeral.

Okay, you can see where I'm coming from though, right?

@Hermit says -

He believes in a God (he actually says that he knows that God exists because the Earth is flat but we can ignore that nonsense for the purpose of this illustration)

He doesn't believe in the Christian God

Yet, he's not only comfortable with but actually wants to be buried in the Christian ritual.

Could you proffer a reason as to how that makes sense?

 

[Hermit]

That's true, you said that you have knowledge of God.. because the Earth is flat. If anything, that's an even more stupid thing to say (I let you off lightly)

I did not say I have "knowledge of God", I said I know there is a creator because I know the earth is flat. Even if you disagree that earth is flat, you should be able to understand that if the earth is flat, then it follows logically that flat earth would require a creator. Whether or not the creator is the Christian God, I don't know, and I don't have any belief one way or the other.

It's wrong to equate belief in evolution with religious belief

Not really, they are both beliefs, something you consider to be true without evidence.

 

[AN2]

I did not say I have "knowledge of God", I said I know there is a creator because I know the earth is flat.

Stop playing childish semantic games, or are you simply incapable of parsing the English language?

Even if you disagree that earth is flat, you should be able to understand that if the earth is flat, then it follows logically that flat earth would require a creator.

The Earth isn't flat

Whether or not the creator is the Christian God, I don't know, and I don't have any belief one way or the other.

Why not? You said - "I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe in it", what did you mean?

Not really, they are both beliefs, something you consider to be true without evidence.

There is evidence for evolution, you dishonest fucking buffoon

 

[AN2]

Is there anyone here who absolutely believes in God.. But doesn't know how to prescribe it (God), isn't an adherent of any religion etc.

I'm genuinely curious how that works

 

[Tiger]

This is a fascinating study that deals another blow to Darwin’s theory. Although this article interprets the study within the prism of (macro) evolution being legit, the reality is that it is yet another validation for proponents of Intelligent Design.

From an ID perspective, this research suggests that (micro) evolution is guided by order and purpose, contrasting sharply with Richard Dawkins’ view of evolution as a "Blind Watchmaker" process driven by random chance. Dawkin’s is becoming more irrelevant and outmoded by every passing week.

The University of Nottingham study examined the "pangenome" of a species and discovered that gene interactions follow predictable patterns. Instead of chaotic, independent mutations, genes seem to function within an organized "ecosystem" where certain genes depend on others, hinting at an intentional structure.

This predictability resonates with ID's concept of design. Dawkins posits that complexity arises from undirected randomness, but these findings imply a logical, almost programmed arrangement of genes, much like machine parts that rely on each other. It’s clear that this reflects purposeful design within genes, where "gene families" operate in supportive or restrictive ways according to a pre-set order.

Study shows evolution isn't random and can be predicted: 'nothing short of revolutionary'

Research is shaking up how we think about evolution, suggesting there's a level of predictability influenced by genes and genetic history.

www.earth.com

Overall, this study invites us to rethink some fundamental assumptions about life and evolution. It’s not just about chance anymore; there’s a pattern and order we can tap into.

 

[AN2]

"I don't believe in evolution" - @Tiger

Makes yet another post about evolution (in the censored thread) -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-119066

 

[Tiger]

"I don't believe in evolution" - @Tiger

Makes yet another post about evolution (in the censored thread) -

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-119066

James, given your shriveled brain and its concomitant struggles, it’s understandable that the nuances between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' might be confusing for someone like you. 'Micro-evolution' is simply a term for basic adaptation of species. It’s not ‘Darwinian evolution’ were amoeba’s can turn into Giraffes given enough time.

Micro-evolution refers to small, adaptive changes within a species—such as variations in height or coloration across generations. These are simply shifts within a kind, allowing organisms to adapt to environmental pressures without fundamentally changing into a new species. It's incredibly restrictive and has natural boundaries that it can't get past.

You’ve recently referred to changing heights in people as 'evolution'. This shows your inferior understanding about a subject matter that you think of as your 'worldview'. Proper ‘dumb dumb’ stuff.

'Macro-evolution' implies large-scale transformations from one species into another, a process that remains theoretical and unobserved in any controlled or natural setting. The tendency to interpret micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution often arises from a lack of deeper study or reliance on oversimplified sources. A closer examination of scientific literature shows that adaptation and variation are mechanisms of resilience within a species, not evidence of the emergence of entirely new species. This is where low IQ normies get confused.

Failing to grasp this distinction suggests that you may be out of your depth in this conversation.

Maybe you could ‘wow’ us all by posting a crappy video from dinosaur Dawkin’s from decades past? Show us all how ‘current’ you are.

 

[AN2]

James, given your shriveled brain and its concomitant struggles, it’s understandable that the nuances between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' might be confusing for someone like you. 'Micro-evolution' is simply a term for basic adaptation of species. It’s not ‘Darwinian evolution’ were amoeba’s can turn into Giraffes given enough time.

Micro-evolution refers to small, adaptive changes within a species—such as variations in height or coloration across generations. These are simply shifts within a kind, allowing organisms to adapt to environmental pressures without fundamentally changing into a new species. It's incredibly restrictive and has natural boundaries that it can't get past.

You’ve recently referred to changing heights in people as 'evolution'. This shows your inferior understanding about a subject matter that you think of as your 'worldview'. Proper ‘dumb dumb’ stuff.

'Macro-evolution' implies large-scale transformations from one species into another, a process that remains theoretical and unobserved in any controlled or natural setting. The tendency to interpret micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution often arises from a lack of deeper study or reliance on oversimplified sources. A closer examination of scientific literature shows that adaptation and variation are mechanisms of resilience within a species, not evidence of the emergence of entirely new species. This is where low IQ normies get confused.

Failing to grasp this distinction suggests that you may be out of your depth in this conversation.

Maybe you could ‘wow’ us all by posting a crappy video from dinosaur Dawkin’s from decades past? Show us all how ‘current’ you are.

R u seeing things, hun?

Where did the article say anything about micro and macro evolution (an invention of creationists like you)?

I skimmed your NEW DISCOVERY! (boring) article and all I gleaned from it was that evolution might not be as random as we thought

 

[AN2]

James, given your shriveled brain and its concomitant struggles, it’s understandable that the nuances between 'micro-evolution' and 'macro-evolution' might be confusing for someone like you. 'Micro-evolution' is simply a term for basic adaptation of species. It’s not ‘Darwinian evolution’ were amoeba’s can turn into Giraffes given enough time.

Micro-evolution refers to small, adaptive changes within a species—such as variations in height or coloration across generations. These are simply shifts within a kind, allowing organisms to adapt to environmental pressures without fundamentally changing into a new species. It's incredibly restrictive and has natural boundaries that it can't get past.

You’ve recently referred to changing heights in people as 'evolution'.

No, I didn't

I said the opposite

You simply cannot read (for comprehension)

This shows your inferior understanding about a subject matter that you think of as your 'worldview'. Proper ‘dumb dumb’ stuff.

'Macro-evolution' implies large-scale transformations from one species into another, a process that remains theoretical and unobserved in any controlled or natural setting. The tendency to interpret micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution often arises from a lack of deeper study or reliance on oversimplified sources. A closer examination of scientific literature shows that adaptation and variation are mechanisms of resilience within a species, not evidence of the emergence of entirely new species. This is where low IQ normies get confused.

Failing to grasp this distinction suggests that you may be out of your depth in this conversation.

Maybe you could ‘wow’ us all by posting a crappy video from dinosaur Dawkin’s from decades past? Show us all how ‘current’ you are.

 

[Tiger]

R u seeing things, hun?

Where did the article say anything about micro and macro evolution (an invention of creationists like you)?

I skimmed your NEW DISCOVERY! (boring) article and all I gleaned from it was that evolution might not be as random as we thought

Dreary me.

You really are unfit to be even having this conversation.

 

[AN2]

Post in thread 'Origins Thread' https://www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com/threads/origins-thread.639/post-119066

@Tiger:

 

[Hermit]

Stop playing childish semantic games, or are you simply incapable of parsing the English language?

Why not? You said - "I cannot be a Christian if I do not believe in it", what did you mean?

I meant what I said: I don't believe in Christianity, therefore I cannot be a Christian. Unless it's possible to be a Christian without believing in its teachings, not going to mass etc. Maybe @SwordOfStZip can mediate here: can I be a Christian if I don't follow Christianity? I also study astrology which is prohibited in the Bible.

There is evidence for evolution, you dishonest fucking buffoon

If there was evidence for evolution, it would not require belief. Like how we have evidence that grass is green, we don't need to believe that grass is green, we know it. There is no evidence for evolution, it's just a story, an alternative creation story to the Bible.

 

[AN2]

View attachment 6612
View attachment 6613

Why are you continuing to play your childish semantic game? You're like a baby.

You said -

"I returned to a belief in God, and that belief became knowledge when I realised that earth is flat"

Now shut up about it

 

[AN2]

I meant what I said: I don't believe in Christianity, therefore I cannot be a Christian. Unless it's possible to be a Christian without believing in its teachings, not going to mass etc. Maybe @SwordOfStZip can mediate here: can I be a Christian if I don't follow Christianity?

You said - "I don't have any belief one way or the other"

I asked you - Why not?

Are you capable of replying to a question in context, or is it junior infants all the way with you

I also study astrology which is prohibited in the Bible.

You study pseudoscience/bunkum? lol