Origins Thread

[Mad as Fish]

Fun fact:

It's

Origin of Species

Not

Origin of Life

If you are referring to Darwin's book it is in fact 'On the Origin of Species'.

Please do make some sort of effort.

 

[Mad as Fish]

Isn't that what I said??

No.

 

[Mad as Fish]

It is

Check again.

 

[Tiger]

What is your complaint? Describe it

Stop spamming the thread. 2nd warning.

You left out the ‘On the’ part of title and you know it.

It’s only 5:30pm and you are already showing signs of being inebriated. You are also starting to display signs of alcohol induced dementia.

You have a tendency to repeat yourself a lot. You’ve used the infantile ‘80 IQ’ insult in every other post for weeks. You seem to lack capacity to even have a variety of insults.


https://www.dementia.org.au/about-dementia/types-of-dementia/alcohol-related-dementia

 

[Mad as Fish]

What is your complaint? Describe it

I'll wait for you to work it out.

 

[Wolf]

It's drunk again.

 

[Wolf]

Enough about yer tramp partner.

 

[Tiger]

Disgusting pussbag

At least you’re adding variety to your abuse now. That’s an improvement.

 

[Tiger]

EVOLUTIONARY Biologist Richard Dawkins debates Christian Creationist Wendy Wright #Flashback


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Vno1lAydv-8&t=33

James, a couple of things to mention about this video you posted from dirty old man Dawkins.

Firstly, I’ve never met anyone with a 3rd level education that thinks of Dawkins as an intellectual heavyweight like you do. He’s a poor man’s intellectual. He is normally popular with teenagers and immature adults. He’s effectively an entertainer, not a valid source of scholarly debate.

Like a cowardly boxer afraid to fight at his own weight, he always picks his opponents to purposefully create entertainment ( like the video you posted) and he avoids difficult debate and this video that you’ve posted here is exhibit A of that.

Famously in 2011 he avoided debate with William Lane Craig at Oxford. He refused the challenge and his chair remained empty. So William simply gave a lecture instead.



William Lane Craig isn’t even a particularly difficult opponent, which will tell you all you need about the pervert Dawkins.

Dawkins schickt is to present his strawman arguments in an arrogant tone with simplified or distorted versions of religious beliefs, he never engages with sophisticated theological positions.

In point of fact he always displays that he is ignorant of sophisticated theological arguments or the writings of prominent theologians. He always avoids the broader spectrum of religious thought.

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

 

[clarke-connolly]

Lennox is pretty impressive in those clips ~ ~ But, I am still only a believer in Moderation of Religion / Religion of Moderation.

 

[Tiger]

In this video, Francis Collins (a physician-geneticist noted for his visionary leadership of the Human Genome Project) explains why he rejected Atheism & embraced Christianity.

 

[Tiger]

Note…The sites resident drunk - James gives the video above a laughing emoji 10 seconds after it’s posted.

That will tell you everything you need to know about James and how his dipso ever shrinking, alcohol addled brain works. Can’t think, won’t think.

 

[Tiger]

A common fallacy that your average atheist in the street often makes is that the question of belief in God is in some way incompatible with science. This of course is nonsense. Most of the most famous scientists who have ever existed believed in God, including Einstein.

Here Andrew Huberman from MIT (probably the most famous neuroscientist on the planet) lays out why he believes in God and how there is no conflict with science



Here Oxford’s John Lennox does the same

 

[Tiger]

Fun fact*

Here are a list of prominent scientists that believed in God and also helped form much of what makes up modern science.

Sir Isaac Newton
Galileo
Blaise Pascal
Johannes Kepler
Mendel
George Washington Carver
Louis Pasteur
Michael Faraday
Max Planck
Werner Heisenberg
Francis Collins
Henrietta Swan Leavitt
John Lennox
William Philips
John Polkinghorne
Freeman Dyson
Robert Boyle
Francis Bacon
Copernicus
Max Born
Arthur Compton
George’s Lemaitre
John Eccles
Guglielmo Marconi
Charles Townes
John Bardeen
Charles Hard Townes
Simon Stevin
John Polanyi

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Note…The sites resident drunk - James gives the video above a laughing emoji 10 seconds after it’s posted. That will tell you everything you need to know about James and how his dipso ever shrinking, alcohol addled brain works. Can’t think, won’t think.

There seems to be a connection between alcoholism and atheism. The two laughs the Professor got were from a pair of piss heads!

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

A common fallacy that your average atheist in the street often makes is that the question of belief in God is in some way incompatible with science. This of course is nonsense. Most of the most famous scientists who have ever existed believed in God, including Einstein.

Here Andrew Huberman from MIT (probably the most famous neuroscientist on the planet) lays out why he believes in God and how there is no conflict with science



Here Oxford’s John Lennox does the same

A friend of mine was campaigning to keep the 8 th and she found that a lot of people were more interested in discussing the existence with God with her than the wrongs or rights of abortion on demand or better they for some reasons saw the two things as very much intertwinned. It is of course very possible to be a Theist though not a Catholic and support abortion on demand up to the eighth month and to be an atheist and oppose it.

Allied to this I think a lot of the time people are atheists or indeed Theists not for actual reasonings but for other reasons that no amount of rational argumentation can pierce.

 

[Tiger]

A friend of mine was campaigning to keep the 8 th and she found that a lot of people were more interested in discussing the existence with God with her than the wrongs or rights of abortion on demand or better they for some reasons saw the two things as very much intertwinned. It is of course very possible to be a Theist though not a Catholic and support abortion on demand up to the eighth month and to be an atheist and oppose it.

Allied to this I think a lot of the time people are atheists or indeed Theists not for actual reasonings but for other reasons that no amount of rational argumentation can pierce.

Yes, it’s interesting that hardcore Atheists, (particularly entertainers like Dawkins, who makes a lot of money from his stance) have admitted that even if they were presented with evidence of God, that they still wouldn’t believe.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Yes, it’s interesting that hardcore Atheists, (particularly entertainers like Dawkins, who makes a lot of money from his stance) have admitted that even if they were presented with evidence of God, that they still wouldn’t believe.

I outlined the opposite scenario (below) to Ms Catherine who wouldn't answer it and Tadgh Gaelach who said he'd still believe.

Turkey Syria Earthquake

It's one of them modernist churches. It looks like an Irish bungalow built in the 1970s. A lot of non-Italian European Jews and Presbyterians seem to have this whole thing about aesthetic ugliness being somehow more "Spiritual"- some degenerate Irish Priests have followed them up on this...

www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com

 

[Zipporah's Flint]

I outlined the opposite scenario (below) to Ms Catherine who wouldn't answer it and Tadgh Gaelach who said he'd still believe.

Turkey Syria Earthquake

It's one of them modernist churches. It looks like an Irish bungalow built in the 1970s. A lot of non-Italian European Jews and Presbyterians seem to have this whole thing about aesthetic ugliness being somehow more "Spiritual"- some degenerate Irish Priests have followed them up on this...

www.sarsfieldsvirtualpub.com

The New Testament says that Christians will suffer- often very harshly in this life.

God infinitely transcends human consciousness- now I see a lot of things much more rationally and clearly now that I did as a kid or as a young adult as I am sure most of us do, well God sees even more rationally and with greater clarity than the wisest of the elderly. So of course things that won't make sense to us will make sense to Him.

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

That's not the scenario I put to you Miss. Its in the link at the bottom of the post.

 

[Tiger]

Here’s a sample of the arrogant lies of dirty old man Dawkins, friend of Jeff Epstein

 

[Tiger]

Jordan Peterson’s journey has been interesting in recent years

 

[Tiger]

I'll see your Dawkins and raise you this -


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKnZw7byEgY&t=6m35s

As a general rule of thumb I don’t like rapists who frequent Epstein’s peodophile island, so Dawkins wouldn’t be someone I normally listen too, however since you posted a link to your favourite Peado, I thought I’d give it a listen. I got as far as ‘Zeus , Leprechauns and Apollo’ and stopped, recognising it for the straw man nonsense that the pervert child abusing arsehole Dawkins is well known for.

Can you extrapolate any clear questions from this dirty perverts talk that requires intellectual response? As of yet I haven’t encountered a single question.

 

[Tiger]

Did you press play (on the timestamped video link) and listen to the segment?

I did. Pure rubbish.

If you had have done that, then maybe you would have understood why it was a reply to your post.

I found no answer to anything.

Instead you give an empty-headed response (no one should really expect anything more from you) that's about 90%..not even really ad hom but slander.

Nope James, you need to make peace with the lack of actual science around your origins beliefs (i.ie being created from nothing)

 

[Tiger]

Well then why aren't you responsive?

Who's Kurt Wise?

I’ve listened to the entire video, it is devoid in prove of anything.

Dawkin’s erroneously states that Darwin’s proves (without offering any evidence) that he proves the natural world exists without need of a creator. He did nothing of the sort. Darwin’s theories are more known for being incorrect than correct, someone needs to inform the child rapist Dawkins of this fact.

 

[Tiger]

Who is Kurt Wise?

I see we are back doing the ridiculous debate avoidance shite.

You need to be banned again.

 

[A Man Called Charolais]

So, Peter Boghossian - a prominent New Atheist. The observation here is about pragmatism and utilitarianism. First to introduce him - he is a formidable intellect that has the romanticism of a Wilsonian Outsider about him, or at least did before his knife fight began with the stupid (which he describes as a pseudo-religion).

Comments on the contemporary university:

​

His animus for the woke comes from encounters like these:

​

Shellenberger and himself developed the following: Woke Religion: A Taxonomy (taxonomy is a word from natural science, not from Milton Friedman).

​

Effectively, Boghossian is digusted by what Plato described as eu amousoi.

'In the Theaetetus, he says such people are eu amousoi (εὖ ἄμουσοι), an expression that means literally, "happily without the muses".[49] In other words, such people are willingly ignorant, living without divine inspiration and access to higher insights about reality.' Plato - Wikipedia

If you watched his encounter with the social science majors disrupting his street epistemology session then you can understand this dismay.

So let's tap another discussion between chiton philosophers. The portion important made here (in this extended and somewhat obscure discussion) is about cynical manipulation and is a brief few minutes. However, I think there is a blind spot here in the extent that emotional manipulation plays in the present state of affairs. This is demonstrated especially in Borghossian's encounter with the emotional terrorists of the "studies" sect. It's an important one nonetheless.

​

All this leads up to this discussion which should be listened through the segment (about ten minutes):

​

So, this is a competent atheist. I'm a bit tired at the moment, so excuse me if I don't adequately elaborate my observations, but I think that he realises that wokeism is the destination of secularism, that it is dysfunctional and counter-productive, and that he has no access to experience beyond the surface tension of materialism although he sees the effects of the truths of what is beyond it.

Fr. Spitzer described the idea of subcreations of Creation. These might appear discrete but are elements of the whole. The technical excellence of modern society is bounded within one of these subcreations and it is within one of these subcreations that Borghossian's field of vision is limited. He is an intelligent man but has the blinkers of this era. I'd like to see a debate between the two - Spitzer is no wilting flower and more than able for him although his interest may be more pastoral these days.

In any case, the point is this - atheism is a failure.

It produces weakness not strength, stupidity not enlightenment, and decay not flourishing.

 

[Tiger]

 

[Tiger]

Note how to explain away the Anthropic Principle, atheists had to invent an infinite number of other universes (multiverse theory) - something completely unobservable and impossible to prove to explain away the observable universe.

Go figure.

 

[Tiger]

For those who are curious, the ‘Anthropic Principle’ and its counterpart- ‘Fine Tuning’ are a fascinating topic in terms of the overall ‘Origins’ question.

Someone like entertainment grifter Dawkins (Jeff Epstein’s pal) is a god to teenagers and others who have never received third level education, however even this low rent grifter concedes that the Anthropic Principle is a good argument (in other words that the universe appears to be designed) He just can’t take the next step and conceive of a designer. Admittedly not taking this step has been very lucrative to him. However I’m sure that’s not a motivating factor.

 

[Tiger]

This is a long but interesting interview with Stephen Meyer (unfortunately it’s too long and complex for Dawkins’ immature fanboys)

 

[Tiger]

It’s 18 and a half minutes long so that rules out the attention span of your average Dawkin’s fanboy, however everyone else should listen through…

 

[Tiger]

Ladies and Gentlemen, ^^^ 3 minutes after an 18 minute complex discussion video is posted (by a former student of Stephen Hawkins is posted) ; Jimbo’s bum buddy puts a facepalm on the video.

As a general rule of thumb, arse bandits have no interest in intellectual discussion.

Case closed.

 

[Tiger]

Fascinating.

Stephen Meyer discusses fine tuning and the non compelling argument against this for a ‘lucky universe’ probability.

Homosexuals like Jambo and Saul will object to anything rational

 

[Tiger]

William Lane Craig discusses the origins of the Universe with the young, poorly educated homosexual - Alex O Conner and his utter rubbish quality of his gay objections

 

[Myles O'Reilly]

Homosexuals like Jambo and Saul will object to anything rational

What has Saul said against your Christian beliefs Sir?