>the universe came out of nothing. >we're evolved from ape like creatures and androgynous fish

>the universe came out of nothing
>we're evolved from ape like creatures and androgynous fish
>talking donkies and snakes? aren't you tired listening to silly skyfairy myths?
the independent freethinker ladies and gentlemen.

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

POSIWID: The Purpose Of A System Is What It Does Shirt $21.68

  1. 4 weeks ago
    Radiochan

    We can verify evolutionary theory via genetic testing and mapping, "talking donkeys and snakes" is a little different

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      just because humans have similar genome component with modern day apes does not mean we share ancestral lineage with them
      how long do i need to wait until i can witness a fly turn into pigeon?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >how long do i need to wait until i can witness a fly turn into pigeon?
        thirdie education

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          No, he just isn't brainwashed by the Zeitgeist, dude who thinks universes spontaneously emerge and that advanced lifeforms begin as hot mud pools.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous
      • 4 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        that's not how evolutionary theory works
        explain nylon eating bacteria then

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You know you embarrass America in front of the world by not knowing basic shit about how reality works right?
        Flies never turned into pigeons btw, they share common ancestry.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Who said anything about America?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >how long do i need to wait until i can witness a fly turn into pigeon?
        This has to be bait. I refuse to believe you're actually spouting boomer preacher tier shit right now and you believe it.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        weak ass bait buddy

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why do different species share different percentages of their genome? What's the purpose?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A predator would need to process the kind of materials the prey produces, and when it dies itself bacteria/fungi/scavengers/etc would need to do the same. Life needs to be compatible on that level for our ecosystem to work

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            But why are there so many species? What's the purpose of all the variations of primate, bird, rodent, lizard, or whatever? Why not just one of each?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why are there so many stars, mountains, people
            God creates whatever he pleases, it shows his power and majesty.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why though, what's the point? Further, why is there some % of genome shared between all species, and this % seems to have a positive correlation with biological similarities? For example, we aren't very biologically similar to octopuses, but we still share some 900 or so genes, some of which are found to play the same role in the construction of our nervous systems.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why though, what's the point?
            This is like asking why does God wish to create at all. It's within his nature (as the creator) and his will.
            >some of which are found to play the same role in the construction of our nervous systems
            Yes and? The language of life on earth is understood by all organisms. There is no reason for similar things not to function the same way.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >This is like asking why does God wish to create at all
            No it isn't. These are two different questions.

            >Yes and?
            Well, why is that? What's the point of all of this, and why does this not suggest that we all share a common ancestor, considering that genes are observably passed down from generation to generation?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >These are two different questions.
            No they aren't. It's "why does God do anything at all?" repackaged by focusing on a specific thing. It's simply his will, what more do you want?
            >why does this not suggest that we all share a common ancestor, considering that genes are observably passed down from generation to generation?
            You have to prove why it does. Two different car models can share the same engine, even if each year they get slightly different design updates

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's "why does God do anything at all?"
            No, it's "why does God specifically do this thing which doesn't make much sense to do?"

            >You have to prove why it does
            Do I? Because your explanation currently makes less sense, even without "proof."

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >which doesn't make much sense
            Why doesn't it make sense and how would you determine that using a human's inability to comprehend the actions of an omniscient being? Animals can't make sense of what we build and the reasons for it too you know?
            >Do I?
            Yes and your opinion is completely irrelevant. Now where is the evidence?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why doesn't it make sense
            Because a clear motivation for such an action is absent. Why create so many species with only minor variations? Why create so many species with major variations?

            >Yes
            Why? Do you have evidence that this universe was created?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Because a clear motivation for such an action is absent.
            What would constitute a clear motivation to you? And answer the rest please.
            >Why? Do you have evidence that this universe was created?
            You made the claim. Arguments for God convinced me of my specific faith and it teaches we are created by him.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What would constitute a clear motivation to you?
            Let's start with something comprehensible at least. Right now there's nothing at all.

            >You made the claim.
            You also made claims. There's proof for neither. Arguments are what convinced me of my position.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Arguments for God convinced me of my specific faith and it teaches we are created by him.
            Huh, literally how they ALL have contradictions and bad logic. Try me I'll tear every single one apart.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Use the one you believe is the strongest and tear it apart please.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >It's within his nature (as the creator) and his will.
            >because... IT JUST IS, OK??

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mfw IGF-1R has to be 85-90% identical between human and mice because predatros need to digest polypeptides

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >nooo you have to be 100% identical
            It all gets broken down so the building blocks present matter, other things like Vitamin C gets absorbed as is IIRC. Why do you ignore that you can just insert the required genes to make single celled organisms produce human hormones and the like?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            the frick are you talking about
            there is no reason for human and mouse igf-1r to be near identical, except common origin

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no reason for human and mouse igf-1r to be near identical
            Don't focus on one thing moron. With this "logic" you can apply common origin with everything ever. They do the similar things therefore they are similar tools for the organisms in question.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >all life has common origin
            he's learning

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            theists never questioned common origin (God)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >wordgame shitposting
            concession accepted
            all life developed amd diversified from a common ancestor, as evidenced by morphological and genetic homology

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Says the guy who first did it himself. Nowhere was it implied that all life shared a common ancestor in that sentence. It was mocking your faulty logic.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nowhere was it implied that all life shared a common ancestor in that sentence.
            sorry, I didn't realize you were homeschooled
            analogy does not necessitate homology, common origin does, imagine a v8 and an in-line 4, analogous function, no homology
            >inb4 hairsplitting and crying
            >It was mocking your faulty logic.
            no fault detected

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Something being "near identical" is not proof of shared ancestry. Simple as

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >doesn't like the mainstream explanation
            >has no explanation of his own
            and no, I'm not counting "god wanted to create it that way because why not"

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >and no, I'm not counting the actual explanation
            as you wish

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the people most vocally obsessed with opposition to cuckoldry don’t believe in DNA tests
            Interesting

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >every theist is the same
            Do you subscribe to Lysenkoism atheitard?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No and not an Atheist stay on topic.
            You don’t believe in DNA testing. I just think that’s interesting.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I do believe in it that is what I am saying. You brought up cuckoldry for no reason. Are you in favor of it then?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well you don’t believe it shows relation between organisms so you actually don’t believe in it.
            And I’m just saying man for people who talk about cuckoldry the most and supposedly are against it, it’s funny that you don’t believe in DNA tests.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A predator would need to
            There's literally an infinite ways for God to achieve this

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      we can verify talking donkeys and snakes from books so i dont get ur point

      • 4 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        what books
        the bible is a set of mythology
        is your pet snake talking to you? do you speak parseltongue?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The entire secular order is but another mythology.

          Creation -> Cosmological Physics
          Creation of man/natural life-> Darwin
          Etiological myths of people origins-> anthropology/archaeology
          Moral Stories about patriarchs->Moral stories about Gallileo
          Eschatological vision-> Science Fiction
          Law->Rational philosophies/humanism
          Etc.

          The secular order is a parody/hoax religion designed by human beings mostly in the 19th centiry.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Those are just true facts and stories. Don’t mistake your Bible story about women being made from ribs with having the same validity as the fact that people are biologically related to chimpanzees.
            Grow up.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the religious zealot believes his religion is uniquely true and all others are falsehoods to be ruthlessly stamped out

            Where have I seen this before?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon you missed the part of history where we started to discover the actual answer to these questions by rigorously investigating reality with math and tools instead of parroting old mythology.
            You’re genuinely a lesser man for taking the astrology girl brain route of feelings and intuition for these questions.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Anon you missed the part of history where we started to discover the actual answer to these questions by listening to satan worshiping child rapists and cannibals making up a mythology about shapeshifting fish
            wow, guess being a science cultist is the only way.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Damn I forgot the cannibalism part of biology courses. I remember using DNA modification to make e-coli grow in the dark and mapping tree species next to a pond, can’t recall eating babies. You might be on IQfy too much buddy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            where are the talking donkeys here IRL

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Atheists think they can speak and they are monkeys. Good enough?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            no
            also a primate is not a "monkey"
            where are the talking donkeys?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >"Primates are the members of a diverse order of mammals. They are divided into the strepsirrhines, which include the lemurs, galagos, and lorisids, and the haplorhines, which include the tarsiers and the simians (monkeys and apes)."
            You're wrong my simian wife. We also have parrots amongst their ranks, all they do is preach word for word from the pic rel gospel of Dawkins. Pigs as well, so we can see there are plenty of talking animals in the atheistic faith.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            Pigs don't talk. Parrots don't seem to be capable of independent speech and mimicry.
            There are no talking donkeys. The Bible is a collection of myths.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why do you deny that atheists are a bunch of talking monkeys? This is one of the tenets of Atheism!

          • 3 weeks ago
            Radiochan

            since when
            you don't know shit about atheism do you
            atheism simply means a lack of a belief in a god or gods

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What are posts like this supposed to accomplish? You’re not refuting anything he said or providing evidence to the contrary. It’s not clear what you think you’re doing.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Refuting what? muh talking donkeys is not an argument

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The talking snake was Satan. God made the donkey talk

      • 3 weeks ago
        Radiochan

        so mythology, got it
        bible doesn't say the talking snake was satan, btw

  2. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Go back to school.

  3. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >And then all the animals, and plants, and microorganisms and fish all went on the same boat

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      local flood, your move?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh well if its all a metaphor or exaggerated we don't have to worry about talking snakes, or evolution.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh well if its all a metaphor or exaggerated we don't have to worry about talking snakes, or evolution.

        God is a metaphor and thus doesn't exist

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          how'd you describe the feeling of emptiness/or void? pretty sure not even the most edgy atheist or nihilist would like to experience such thing
          the closest i can think of is sensory deprivation tanks and judging by how people who went in and stayed for long periods there it seems kinda scary ngl

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            it's not a matter of if I do or don't want to experience nonexistence, and technically I wouldn't be able to experience it if I don't exist anymore

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Consent is a metaphor and thus doesn't exist

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        When is this stated in the holy texts? And what's the point of a local flood if it won't wipe out all the evil people?

  4. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Most of the problem is that everyone you speak to on here is a scientism cultist who knows nothing about how evolution is (thought to be) working, and so they don't understand punctuated equilibrium.
    They are by nature conformists who believe all which was told to them in 8th grade, and don't seek further understanding for fear of cognitive dissonance or losing the deep sense of comfort the derive from being obedient drones.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >punctuated equilibrium
      Is inyo one form ov evolution and doesn't have any bearing on gradualism. Hell, both can be at work in a population at the same exact time for different traits.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's all punctuated equilibrium. Speciation occurs at bottlenecks. Gradualism is a meme based on nothing other than a general fashionable tendency to in the sciences that had to do with going against Christians flood story.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Christians flood story
          Christians wrote the OT?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know why you're insisting on half the world not existing.
          >evolution occurs at bottlenecks
          Sometimes, other times it simply occurs as optimization over time. Its concept of stasis between speciation events is also completely disproven by present observation and data.

          It's like insisting that a metal bolt can only have a fracture strength or a yield strength, not both. You're claims are just bizarre. Being a puritan like this doesn't even make sense given that it is gradual microevolution that provides the variation in a population needed for rapid macroevolution.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >They are by nature conformists who believe all which was told to them in 8th grade
      You say after having the tip of your dick chopped off and going to bible school on sundays. Yet it is them, the ones who just get normal education, that are the "conformists" and "drones" who can't think for themselves. Yes, you totally weren't brainwashed with the rest of your church going crew.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I'm not israeli. I'm Christian
        I went to Sunday School not synagogue. My penis is uncut

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Sunday school
          Why are Christians so obsessed with grooming kids?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >mention of school
            >immediately thinks of pedo molesters
            You want to share something with us anon?

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Why are you responding to a post in response to my post in the first person, as though he was responding to you?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >~~*normal education*~~

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >individuals of a species mate and have offspring
      >random mutations in DNA of this offspring happen
      >some of those mutations cause attributes that are more "fit" to the environment than others
      >thus, the individuals with those mutations have more offspring
      >*cycle repeats*
      Darwinian natural selection in a nutshell. Makes sense to me.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    kvitsøy

    so at least one of our ancestors was a, as said by kanye west, ‘a mothafrickin gay fish’

  6. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Strawman
    >Species evolve, gradually. Individuals don't evolve.

    Here, I solved a stupid Christcuck bait in 5 seconds.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      evolve, gradually. Individuals don't evolve.

      https://i.imgur.com/07dJ0bI.jpeg

      Most of the problem is that everyone you speak to on here is a scientism cultist who knows nothing about how evolution is (thought to be) working, and so they don't understand punctuated equilibrium.
      They are by nature conformists who believe all which was told to them in 8th grade, and don't seek further understanding for fear of cognitive dissonance or losing the deep sense of comfort the derive from being obedient drones.

      kek

  7. 4 weeks ago
    kvitsøy

    [...]

    #
    you may be right
    but jesus christ man
    stop the frickin yap

  8. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      homie that post is NUTS!!!

  9. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >haha you think your grandad was a monkey
    Yes, and?

  10. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    motherfricker, _you_ think the universe came from nothing, you just think it was your god that made it come from nothing

  11. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >one day, a warehouse appears in a town with a hole in one of its walls
    >from the hole, a continuous strand of rope is being unspooled
    >nobody is able to open the warehouse or see inside
    >nothing goes into the warehouse and the only thing that comes out is the continuous strand of rope
    >100 years go by
    >there are now two groups of residents in the town about where they got all the rope
    >warehouseists believe that the warehouse is the source of the rope, since it's long length all goes back to the warehouse
    >spiderists believe that a giant spider spins the rope since the beginning of time, 15 years ago, and deny the warehouse exists
    >spiderists ask the warehouseists what's inside the warehouse making the rope
    >warehouseists reply they don't know what's inside the warehouse, but that's where the rope comes from
    >spiderists claim this means that the rope come "from nothing"
    >spiderists claim that that their giant spider is more sensible since it qualifies as a "something" the rope can come from
    >pointing out that you can see the warehouse is laughed at by people who claim they can feel the presence of the invisible, giant spider
    k.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Your analogy gets better anon.
      >warehouse people point out that 12 years ago the spider people used to say that the spider was in a ska band with a silkworm and grasshopper while married to a muskox
      >spider people deny that this was ever the case, even when shown pictures of they themselves claiming this
      >the spider is also a centipede and a mouse, but the mouse and centipede are not the spider

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It really do be like this. The new atheists were right to mock them.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Archaeology is fraud upon forgery upon mistake upon misinterpretation upon guess upon occasional discovery.

          I do not pay any attention to what a bunch of atheist imperialists dug up in a land they colonized without any regard or respect or reverence.

          These men had no problem ripping into sarcophagi, pulled up bones and packed them into boxes for museum catalogs.

          That is fundamentally wrong. No surprise Jefferson is America's first archaeologist, he dug up an Indian mound on his property and cataloged the bones.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >atheist imperialists
            It's LATAM hours already?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The British were the first global empire and the first predominantly atheistic one. Curious... curious...

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Spanish were the first global empire

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh god shut up
            Nobody cares you passed ninth grade world history
            Please go away

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >seething over facts
            why are brown people like this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am white but prefer the company of browns.

            They tend to be much realer, humbler, grounded people and none of them ever try to convert me to atheism, solicit gay sex from me, or use the n word.

            This makes them much better company and also their women are superior in character.

            Leave me alone you perverted transexual atheist multimedia westerner.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You sound like a little b***h

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Gotchya :^]

            Go watch some porn or some netflix and eat takeout made by stressed out immigrants. I know you like doing these things they are your coping mechanisms for being so empty.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >hehe I bet you eat food
            wow what an own, I'm sure if I went to church and sat around with decaying boomers for an hour a week my life would be much better

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Christianity is one of the religions, yes. Have you studied Buddhism or Islam? Kabbalistic Judaism? Dropped by the Hare Krishnas?

            Do something anon, you are headed for an anguish that is unnecessary (not hellfire, but the despair of the soul that is hopeless)

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I don't really have any spiritual anguish. The only real issues in my life are trying to earn enough money for a house so I can live somewhere more peaceful and ideally with more space rather than the decaying urban shithole I currently live in. Otherwise I'd be quite happy.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are going to die and so will everyone you love, and it will hit suddenly.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It is what it is, sometimes you just have to ride the waves.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No shit dumbass. This is only earth shattering to deluded christcucks who have lived a lie their entire lives that they’ll live forever like a fairy tale.
            Grow up

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are just a mud stew bubbling. I don't understand what the bubbling is supposed to mean. I spit in the mud stew, as it has no dignity.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No one should take Christians here seriously. You don’t think, act or communicate like Christ, you’re just a bitter zoomer on the spectrum who is afraid to die.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            How can a mud stew be Christ like, mud stew? Oh nevermind Christ was another meaningless mud stew as well.

            Guess we should all just kill ourselves when life stops being fun.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You may see people as just mud stew and your life as losing value when you stop having fun (not sure what that means most old people in my family have enjoyed their lives) but I don’t.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            (It is sarcasm. I am a believer in the Unseen and the Last Day.)

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Not really. Calvinism =/= atheism

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Calvinism is not particularly English sir, or atheistic.

            On the other hand most of the prominent atheist (or atheist-cited) thinkers such as Percey Shelley, Bertrand Russell, Charles Darwin, Huxley, Lyell etc. all arise in 19th century England.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It isn’t but it’s not like it didn’t have a huge impact on England as a whole. Though I probably should have mentioned Anglicanism instead.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I read the Education of Henry Adams recently (incredible book). He was in London society when Darwin published Origin of Species. He said it was accepted almost instantly and universally among the British aristocracy. They were practically expecting it somehow.

            That observation very much helped me realize Darwinism was part of a broad societal and intellectual shift, not the cause of it.

            That shift is essentially protestantism breaking up everyone's sense of truth, industrialization/mechanization revealing a new human power over nature, and finally the expansion of British imperial power across the globe.

            These I think, much moreso than any thought of Charles Darwin, led to Darwinism.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why can't both be correct simultaneously? Clearly the 2 can be compromised and linked in order to end all debate.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, the religion can be stretched and things that were factual turned into ”allegories." However, the OP anon is replying to is some sort of yound earth creationist. Also, the amount of bending and reaching the Christian theology has to do to be compatible with reality totally breaks it.

        Archaeology is fraud upon forgery upon mistake upon misinterpretation upon guess upon occasional discovery.

        I do not pay any attention to what a bunch of atheist imperialists dug up in a land they colonized without any regard or respect or reverence.

        These men had no problem ripping into sarcophagi, pulled up bones and packed them into boxes for museum catalogs.

        That is fundamentally wrong. No surprise Jefferson is America's first archaeologist, he dug up an Indian mound on his property and cataloged the bones.

        Can anyone name a better pairing that a Christian and "not reading their own book"?

        Even the Bible carries over unpurged remnants of it's polytheistic origins. Or is the Bible itself a fake, anon?
        >God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods
        >How long will you[a] defend the unjust and show partiality to the wicked?
        >Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
        >Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
        >The gods know nothing, they understand nothing.
        >They walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
        >I said, "You are gods; you are all sons of the Most High."
        >"But you will die like mere mortals; you will fall like every other ruler.”
        Psalm 82. Your own book, dummy.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I do not read the Bible according to Julius Welhausen or anyone else coming from an assumption of natural philosophy. Also I am not a Christian and am more interested in Islam.

          I have read Mark Smith, Bill Dever, Stavrakapoulo (sp?) and others.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why aren't frogBlack folk shot and then permabanned? Why is IQfy the only fricking board that even comes close to trying to remove them?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >one day, a warehouse appears in a town with a hole in one of its walls
      >spiderists claim this means that the rope come "from nothing"
      They are absolutely right about that. The rope comes from a warehouse that just appeared from nothing. Also they wouldn't deny the warehouse in the first place because it can literally be seen. What a moronic analogy, not even a good try.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >not knowing where an object came from means it came from nothing
        Anon, that's fricking moronic reasoning right there.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >object just appears
          yeah that's coming from nothing

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Anon. You legitimately arguing that not knowing where something came from means it crystalized out of nothing. My 4 year old has better reasoning skills. Just because nobody in the town can explain how or why the warehouse appeared, doesn't mean that it's from nowhere. That's the point the allegory is making.

            Also, the anon claims the the spiderists wouldn't deny the warehouse because they can see it. However the allegory-anon posted the picture of the big bang in this very thread of people denying it and other things.

            This isn't fast pitch anon, this is wiffle ball. How are you striking out like this?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >not knowing where something came from
            That's not what it says on the first line stop inventing shit. Yeah the warehouseists don't know what is inside the damn thing, but that doesn't matter this is about the warehouse itself.
            >the allegory-anon posted the picture of the big bang in this very thread of people denying it and other things
            Irrelevant, the big bang was first opposed because it was too theistic, all the atheists wanted a steady state eternal universe to explain away God.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >the big bang was first opposed because it was too theistic
            No it wasn't. There was some insinuation that Lemaitre was projecting his theology onto the data, but that wasn't from inside the scientific community. That criticism also doesn't apple to Hubble, who was the better known proponent of the big bang model. The support for the steady state model was based on observational evidence at the time, not a rejection of God or some other silly thing. Many advocates for steady state were also practicing Christians and israelites.

            The warehouse is clearly the stand in for the big bang which, as of our current understanding, just happened without a mechanism to explain it or any information about what things were like before it. The allegory works fine and that you aren't able to grasp it is disappointing. You're trying to read your own argument into the post, when it just isn't there.

            The whole point is that the origins and workings of the wearhouse can't be known is central to all this. That doesn't mean it just magically popped from nothing, just that it isn't explainable.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There was some insinuation that Lemaitre was projecting his theology onto the data, but that wasn't from inside the scientific community.
            Here is one of them. "Weinberg was an atheist.[43] Before he was an advocate of the Big Bang theory, Weinberg stated: "The steady-state theory is philosophically the most attractive theory because it least resembles the account given in Genesis."[44]" The evidence simply was too great to keep pushing the atheistic narrative. But of course eventually they made up copes for it.
            >The warehouse is clearly the stand in for the big bang which, as of our current understanding, just happened without a mechanism to explain it or any information about what things were like before it.
            The warehouse is the expanding universe which appeared 100 years ago and the string is the evidence that points to the big bang like red shift and the CMB
            >just that it isn't explainable
            Prove that. "We can't know!" Is the laziest atheist stance ever.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Prove something isn't explainable
            What the frick are you going on about? What the frick do you mean, prove we don't know what happened before the big bang? That's literally the current state of things, nobody knows and there there isn't evidence of the state of things before that. Admitting you don't know isn't some sort of gotcha when the alternative is magic and fairy tales.
            >we can't know
            As far as anyone can tell, there is nothing stopping us from knowing. However, we can't figure it out with tools we currently have. This isn't some sort of fundamentally unknowable thing, just one that can't be known using the tools of the present.

            I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp. You're making non sequitur points and trying to link things that aren't linked. Seems pretty desperate, honestly. I don't know why you're engaging with this emotionally.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >prove we don't know what happened before the big bang?
            You and he implied it isn't explainable. Obviously if everything were known already we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place and neither would the warehouseists and spiderists.
            >This isn't some sort of fundamentally unknowable thing, just one that can't be known using the tools of the present.
            Finally some sense out of you, next time you and the other homosexual need to use proper wording if you want to make moronic analogies.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you implied
            You wishing it was so is not me implying. You need to work on your English literacy skills. That it took this many posts to beat the plain and evident meaning into your head is astounding.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You didn't resolve shit except your last claim there buddy. The silly atheist fairy tale is still just as ambiguous and flawed.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >accuses someone of fairy tales
            >while defending invisible sky daddy
            How can someone lack this much self awareness? Anon literally broke down the debate in his allegory to a toddler level and you still managed to frick it up. Where you homeschooled?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >invents nonsensical fairy tales that reflects his atheistic beliefs to feel smug about it
            >while not addressing the actual debate
            This is how you know you lost. But what can we expect out of a religion founded on straw men.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone who disagrees with me is one person
            Are you really this stupid, or do you need to go back to wherever you came from? You're aware that "anonymous" is just a generic name and not a single person, right?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I never implied that, you failures lost collectively. But hey look another straw man! How many are you collecting today?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      So where did the warehouse come from?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        His point is that a mystery doesn’t grant you the ability to just make up whatever you want and standing by that with full confidence instead of saying “we don’t know”

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          But wouldn't the belief in a personal God who created the universe allow for that same God to reveal itself to its creation and inform them how it created everything?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Maybe, if that were the case it hasn’t happened yet. No religious origin stories match the truth and as far as I’ve seen only the Hindus got it right that it’s incredibly old.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone else is a young earth creationist
            no

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If your religious creation story had the correct answer in the first place you wouldn’t need to play this game.

            I think you are mixing me and another anon up. Lizards did not evolve from salamanders, you have no proof of this.

            I’m not here to debate troglodytes into understanding that DNA shows us how living things are related to eachother. I’ve met stupid people before and I know how this goes.
            I’m contesting the point that the truth being unsatisfying to you as a narrative makes it false.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you wouldn’t need to play this game
            what game? secular science is simply playing catch-up

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Reality has no ascendency principle. There is no reason for reproduction to move from "lower" to "higher. It makes no sense that "highly advanced" forms of life exist simultaneously with "primitive" forms of life throughout biological time. Why did some single-cell organisms go on to becoming multi while the rest did not? Is it advantageous to be multicellular or not?

            There is no observed instance of asexual reproduction turning into sexual reproduction, and there are only vague guesses as to how this could have taken place even one time.

            Francis Crick did not think Earth was old enough to allow for DNA to emerge from proteins.

            There are no intermediate species in the fossil record. Punctuated equilibrium, perhaps, but then why don't we see new speciation at the present time, when ecological chaos has been unleashed on earth and massive pressures are being placed on many species.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >There are no intermediate species in the fossil record.
            You’re displaying it throughout this post but that’s the most succinct example of you fundamentally not understanding the concept of evolution. Every species that isn’t the last of its evolutionary branch is by definition in transition between species.
            We are watching speciation happen and it does happen especially with organisms with short lifespans and faster reproductive cycles, that’s how it works.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Every species that isn’t the last of its evolutionary branch is by definition in transition between species.
            This. Every species is an intermediate species.

            The larger the gap in genetic difference between species, the further back in history their common link will be, which means the less likely there are fossil records.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >you fundamentally not understanding the concept of evolution

            I grasp it perfectly well anon. Not one scientist on earth would argue with "humans are more advanced than earthworms."

            Survivability, sure, but why the increase in complexity of form in the animals? Why the entropy? That's what I am getting at.

            I know perfectly well that "living fossils" are understood as minimally changed in phenotype as opposed to unchanged in genotype.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Survivability, sure, but why the increase in complexity of form in the animals? Why the entropy?
            Because it’s NOT intelligently guided. If an organism population reproduces and survives it persists. It’s not aiming for complexity or simplicity, it’s not aiming for anything.
            Whatever works, works.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not one scientist on earth would argue with "humans are more advanced than earthworms."
            They genuinely don’t use those terms. In 100 level biology they tell you flat out that evolution can’t be characterized in those terms, it’s a misconception. Humans are more complex, but evolutionary advanced? What’s your yardstick?

            Give me an example of a species that came from a more complex predecessor.
            Give me an example of a multicellular species becoming single celled.
            Give me an example of a sexual species becoming asexual.
            Give me an example of a continent or eon where the number of species decreased in a given era of time (without a cataclysm from outer space).

            Finally (this one is damning), explain what unit natural selection is operating on-- species, individual organism or gene?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Complexity generally doesn’t go backwards if at all.
            Natural selection operates on the genes on organisms, which then spreads or doesn’t spread throughout its population based on its effect on survival and reproduction.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Complexity generally doesn’t go backwards if at all.

            Precisely my point. You believe there is an ascendency principle in the universe.

            >Natural selection operates on the genes on organisms, which then spreads or doesn’t spread throughout its population based on its effect on survival and reproduction.

            Neither of us finds this convincing, you have merely attempted to cram all three together. There is obvious tension between the three (and we may go beyond this to the category of ecologies).
            Thus we may ask:
            what prevents a species from "oversucceeding" to the point of its own extinction?
            If survivability at some point implies extinction, then we have an enormous contradiction, no?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Neither of us finds this convincing,
            It is pretty basic honestly. I’m surprised you can’t game it out in your head.

            >what prevents a species from "oversucceeding" to the point of its own extinction?
            No idea what you mean by this. Like eating all of its prey? Humans arguably come close, it’s certainly not impossible.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Nice, you silently passed over where you admited you believe reality has an ascendency principle towards increasing complexity. Moving along.

            The example of a predator eating all its prey is an excellent example. What is there in nature from preventing a species from optimizing survivability traits (speed, camoulflage whatever) to the point where it is actually detrimental to the survival of the species (such as overpredation) ?

            If no such preventative mechanism exists then it is clear that survivability becomes die-ability at some point, which is contradictory. Moreover we would need to account for the relative balance of ecosystems and the continuous increase in speciation over biological time.

            On the other hand, if there is such a mechanism, what is it? How does it work?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Nice, you silently passed over where you admited you believe reality has an ascendency principle towards increasing complexity
            Not necessarily. In the context of certain organisms yes, but it also is a detriment to having lots of offspring and a fast reproduction cycle

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not necessarily. In the context of certain organisms yes, but it also is a detriment to having lots of offspring and a fast reproduction cycle

            I do not see how this particular case is at all related to the general question at hand. I challenged you to give me examples of evolution where increased survivability coincided with decreased complexity in form of species. You did not give me any and instead supplied me with an ascendency principle. Now you are giving me a counter-example to your own ascendency principle, which is to say you are contradicting yourself, not me. Allow me to make this clear by juxtaposing your two claims:

            >Complexity generally doesn’t go backwards if at all.

            >Not necessarily. In the context of certain organisms yes, but it also is a detriment to having lots of offspring and a fast reproduction cycle

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            As in certain lines aren’t benefitting from increased complexity and aren’t moving toward that, because it has evolutionary cons. This isn’t complicated.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No it is not complicated I agree. I am smart as frick buddy, I am not going to lose the line of argument. You are here:

            [...]

            Give me an example of a species that came from a more complex predecessor.
            Give me an example of a multicellular species becoming single celled.
            Give me an example of a sexual species becoming asexual.
            Give me an example of a continent or eon where the number of species decreased in a given era of time (without a cataclysm from outer space).

            Finally (this one is damning), explain what unit natural selection is operating on-- species, individual organism or gene?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The example of a predator eating all its prey is an excellent example. What is there in nature from preventing a species from optimizing survivability traits (speed, camoulflage whatever) to the point where it is actually detrimental to the survival of the species (such as overpredation)
            Reduced food resources and accelerating the evolution of prey

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >no such preventative mechanism exists then it is clear that survivability becomes die-ability at some point, which is contradictory. Moreover we would need to account for the relative balance of ecosystems and the continuous increase in speciation over biological time.
            Anon the concept of an evolutionary arms race between predator and prey is taught in 100 level biology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Then presumably you can explain how overpredation is not an instance of survivability and non-survivability, yes?

            Suppose the lion eats more gazelle, becomes faster, catches more, has more offspring, eats more, then depletes the population so that a generation dies out.

            At what point did speed go from being a selected trait to a non-selecting trait? Either phenotypically or genetically. I will wait. Feel free to reference your textbook.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >becomes faster, catches more, has more offspring, eats more, then depletes the population so that a generation dies out.
            That is just going to supercharge evolution on the gazelle by increasing selection pressures. It’s also not Pokémon anon these changes are small and gradual, you’re not going to get superhero lions in a period of time that short.

            No it is not complicated I agree. I am smart as frick buddy, I am not going to lose the line of argument. You are here:

            [...]

            I don’t care how smart you think you are, you don’t know 100 level biology.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >these changes are small and gradual,
            In bio 101 you learned Stephen Jay Gould's theory of Punctuated Equilibrium yes? That theory was postulated to explain the lack of intermediate forms in the fossil record.

            Which one is it anon?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No anon the fossil record is sparse because the conditions that result in turning bone into stone before it rots are very rare. It’s not like we have the skeleton of every, most, many or any large percent of animal populations in the past.
            Also you have religion brain anon, it’s not like prophets where you have these personalities and go over all their beliefs. You deal with established facts and data.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A population of lions isn’t going to destroy all gazelle for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that they don’t just eat gazelle, so if they did run low the lions would be going after other prey.
            I hope you also understand that herbivores have the advantage. Lions and all predators tend to go for the sick, weak, young and old because adult herbivores are way harder to catch and defeat. Have you not even seen nature documentaries?

            I don't think you understand what you are talking about and would prefer you to disengage me. Have a nice day.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’ll take that W thanks.
            I’d prefer you don’t bear false witness but it’s not like you truly follow the example of Jesus in the first place.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I hope you understand that lion don’t just eat gazelle, when the population in an area would drop low enough they would be going after other prey as well as the evolutionary arms race factor and the small impact of evolution in short time frames.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            To be honest I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you elaborate? Especially please clarify what point of mine you are responding to.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            A population of lions isn’t going to destroy all gazelle for a multitude of reasons, one of which is that they don’t just eat gazelle, so if they did run low the lions would be going after other prey.
            I hope you also understand that herbivores have the advantage. Lions and all predators tend to go for the sick, weak, young and old because adult herbivores are way harder to catch and defeat. Have you not even seen nature documentaries?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What is there in nature from preventing a species from optimizing survivability traits (speed, camoulflage whatever) to the point where it is actually detrimental to the survival of the species (such as overpredation) ?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
            or think of how bubonic plague epidemics tend to die off - the organism (yersinia pestis) outstrips its prey, population goes down, basic ecology, you would've learned about it in highschool
            >On the other hand, if there is such a mechanism, what is it? How does it work?
            ever heard of getting old? one of the theorized reasons for aging is clearing the way for the young and preserving resources for them. the other is that old age comes after reproduction so it couldn't have been fixed by darwinian medicine

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            We know of many examples when species have gone extinct. Maybe it's "easier" for the process of evolution to lead to the extinction of a species than to a "simplification". For instance, an explanation might be that for a complex form of life many of its "functions" have to devolve simultaneously, therefore making "devolution" statistically unlikely.

            >Give me an example of a continent or eon where the number of species decreased in a given era of time (without a cataclysm from outer space)
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxidation_Event

            >Finally (this one is damning), explain what unit natural selection is operating on-- species, individual organism or gene?
            Not sure what you mean by this? A metric to assess the diversity of species? I think that's subjective and depends on the metric that you can arbitrarily define. I'd say looking at DNA would be a good idea, if you wanted to do that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Another explanation might be that DNA can't deconstruct itself on a molecular level. It's a good question, but I don't see it as a "fatal flaw" of the theory of evolution.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Give me an example of a species that came from a more complex predecessor.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_worm
            >Give me an example of a multicellular species becoming single celled.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multicellular_organism#Loss_of_multicellularity
            >Give me an example of a sexual species becoming asexual.
            idk, I guess gametophyton-sporophyton transition?
            >Give me an example of a continent or eon where the number of species decreased in a given era of time (without a cataclysm from outer space).
            there was some bird whoes name I don't remember on an island off the coast on north america that went extinct purely from stochastic effects - bad luck
            >Finally (this one is damning), explain what unit natural selection is operating on-- species, individual organism or gene?
            all of them
            evolution is the change of allele frequencies within a population over time

            what do you think you want to prove with these questions?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >What is there in nature from preventing a species from optimizing survivability traits (speed, camoulflage whatever) to the point where it is actually detrimental to the survival of the species (such as overpredation) ?
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox
            or think of how bubonic plague epidemics tend to die off - the organism (yersinia pestis) outstrips its prey, population goes down, basic ecology, you would've learned about it in highschool
            >On the other hand, if there is such a mechanism, what is it? How does it work?
            ever heard of getting old? one of the theorized reasons for aging is clearing the way for the young and preserving resources for them. the other is that old age comes after reproduction so it couldn't have been fixed by darwinian medicine

            Finally, a biologist. Where have you been?

            Thank you, I may reply in some time, you have given me a lot of reading to cover.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Not one scientist on earth would argue with "humans are more advanced than earthworms."
            They genuinely don’t use those terms. In 100 level biology they tell you flat out that evolution can’t be characterized in those terms, it’s a misconception. Humans are more complex, but evolutionary advanced? What’s your yardstick?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >No religious origin stories match the truth
            >the truth
            Which is?
            Would this be 100 years ago scientific truth? Or how about 20 years ago? Or do you mean current day, cutting edge science and research, quantum physics and all?
            Or will that *truth* continue to evolve as well, so whatever you believe and argue about today will be seen as superstition and laughable in another 100 years?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It’s just getting elaborated on, truth stays the same how much we know about it increases. We do know it’s not getting closer to Genesis.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            So what is the truth?
            Your belief system was based on carbon dating for decades, now it's seen as unreliable beyond 20k years or so - but so much *science* leaned on the millions-of-years-old meme that carbon dating provided for son long
            Have you updated your belief system in light of this yet?

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        it appeared from nothing like the universe

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So what was the cause for that effect?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            there is no cause and effect it's all an illusion of a mind that is also an illusion

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nobody knows, and that's fine. It would be nice to know, but ultimately it doesn't matter beyond satisfying a curiosity.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >but ultimately it doesn't matter
          I'd argue it matters more than anything else
          It's the difference between putting your faith in the mind of a limited man or the power of eternal God

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It doesn't matter in the sense that the universe exists and we are here now, even if we don't know for sure what caused it, God or otherwise. IMO your quality of life shouldn't hinge on knowing the origin of the universe, be grateful that you are here to enjoy it in its current state.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >your quality of life shouldn't hinge on knowing the origin of the universe
            Wouldn't you think a belief and personal relationship with the creator of the universe might have a massive impact on one's quality of life?

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            It could potentially have both a big positive or a big negative impact on your life depending on what your relationship with the creator looks like and how that affects your way of life. However, since you can't be sure of a creator's existence and have no real way of communicating with him/it to ask for guidance it makes more sense to me to try to create a positive life independent of that.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If it makes you feel more comfortable to dismiss the countless life-altering spiritual/religious experiences people have had, and continue to have, throughout history, then that is your prerogative
            But please try not to assume everyone by default has the same purely materialist outlook as you do, you limit and minimize the experience of others, and limit your own by not allowing for its possibility

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            What makes an experience spiritual/religious and why should that have an effect on how you behave in the material world? Do you think there can be potential downsides to neglecting to act rationally in the material world in favor of religious explanations, such as attributing epileptic seizures to demonic possession instead of treating it medically? Can people have strong experiences under psychosis that can feel very spiritual but have no real value?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >why should that have an effect on how you behave in the material world?
            Just shows me you've never experienced such a thing. Truly and unequivocally life-changing, and I honestly hope you experience something that supersedes the rational mind anon, and you know that "peace that surpasses all understanding"

            I was not religious in the least bit when it happened to me, and nothing has been the same since - that was almost 20 years ago

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have had several powerful experiences that could be described as either spiritual or psychotic, however you draw the distinction. I'd still like you to answer my question though, is it not better to seek rational, provable answers for problems in the material world instead of relying on unproven superstition?

  12. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Talking donkeys and snakes are a literal biological impossibility given they don't have human vocal cords
    If I believed in magic animals I would stay quiet about the rationality of other people's beliefs

  13. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >I don't understand X, therefore magic israelites.
    Every christcuck argument boils down to this.

  14. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >We can verify evolutionary theory via genetic testing and mapping, "talking donkeys and snakes" is a little different

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Christian conversion strategy is probably worse than it has ever been. You people still don’t realize you lost your power, so all you’re accomplishing is pissing people off as you shrink into being a minority. Let’s see how that works out.

  15. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Go back to school.

  16. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Christian conversion strategy is probably worse than it has ever been. You people still don’t realize you lost your power, so all you’re accomplishing is pissing people off as you shrink into being a minority. Let’s see how that works out.

  17. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Damn I forgot the cannibalism part of biology courses. I remember using DNA modification to make e-coli grow in the dark and mapping tree species next to a pond, can’t recall eating babies. You might be on IQfy too much buddy.

  18. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the images make the attempt too obvious m8
    maybe next time you could just spam links like JWanon does, that's at least believeable.

  19. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >the images make the attempt too obvious m8
    >maybe next time you could just spam links like JWanon does, that's at least believeable.

  20. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    darwin was a freemason btw, jesuit educated.

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >anglican
      >jesuit educated
      brown moron kys

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  21. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >christian apologetics in currentyear is just spamming ugly wojaks
    kek it's over for christianity

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This actually works because most people are moronic. Christians realised this and capitalised on it.

  22. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like a cartoon character. People ask why people still believe in religion? Because humans have no idea how they originated let alone the universe

  23. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    ?si=iglOJo5DEAJvl9mx

  24. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >universe came out of nothing
    no one sufficiently educated actually believes this, the "big bang" is just a place holder theory for
    >we dont know why everything is here but it is and this is how we think it spread out
    there are countless theories of why or what the "big bang" was or what came before it but they are likely impossible to answer since it is likely that all information about the preexisting structure of matter was lost when it fundamentally changed form
    in short, you are moronic, and saying "i dont know" when asked where the universe came from is the only acceptable answer

  25. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >aren’t you tired
    Nope. Scientistic theories lack sovl and you are underage b&

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the truth doesn’t engage you emotionally like a mythological story
      Too bad, grow up.

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Nta but he is right, scientistic views of reality lead to arbitrary and empty lives. You think all life is ultimately arbitrary and empty so you fail to notice the tragedy. You are also under 18. I hope.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I have friends, family, dates, goals and hobbies. It doesn’t destroy my will to live to learn lizards evolved from salamanders and weren’t actually poofed into existence by an Iron Age Levantine war god. Get your shit together man, this should not be all you have. And if it is then frickin fix it.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You are still a young man. Take it from someone who has lived ten more years than you, lost out on good relationships, lost friends, has a parent sleeping in the ground, lost dream after dream in bitter sorrow, and saw many things go very wrong. Life is not the easy thing which you have so far lived.

            I was very much of your worldview in my teens/early 20s.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I’m in my 30’s. I’ve lost my dad, my best friend, and been through plenty of nightmares. That does not change the fact that lizards evolved from salamanders. Stop trying to manipulate younger men you frickin weirdo.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh I didnt realize that. My assumption was that you were a teenager based on your extremely abrasive and defensive personality and the readiness with which you insult others. And I also find your mind to be intellectually unserious and low on knowledge.

            Perhaps you should read more.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Every one of your replies to me has been insulting. None of your lies, none of your insults, none of your complaining about your life changes the fact that lizards evolved from salamanders.
            This all points to my original point, that you people are clearly relying on a romantic magical origin story because your personal lives to not give your life “soul” or what others would call purpose, motivation and positive emotion.

          • 4 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I think you are mixing me and another anon up. Lizards did not evolve from salamanders, you have no proof of this.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >i have friends, family, dates, goals and hobbies
            Proof?

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I’m here to tell you that the origin of frogs and geese shouldn’t be what you’re hanging on to give your life soul, emotional flavor and coloring. You should be relying on your relationships and life goals for that. Otherwise you’re just using christcuckoldry as a sort of existential Percocet to numb the pain of your boring shit life you’re doing nothing to fix

      • 4 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not that anon but you have a poor imagination of others and the manner and variety of the lives they take on.

        Family is what makes life bearable, not religion. Women and children make life meaningful, not ideas about the origin of the universe.

        • 4 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I agree that family and love makes life worth living, but that’s not what that anon is saying.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            If the universe has no meaning then almost every ritual that humans and animals go through have no meaning, and everything is just material processes with no purpose whatsoever. That includes “family” and “love” which become arbitrary at best.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not the point of the thread, stay on topic.

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >science

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A general point: our zeitgeist enables mediocre minds at every turn. This causes the expert class to be stuffed with unimpressive intellects that do not think critically but in career terms. This is done with letters of rec, standardized tests, publishing, hiring, tenuring etc.

    Questioning Darwin is academic suicide. This is why none of you have ever heard serious critiques of Darwin.

    If Darwin falls, then the entire liberal secular order falls. That would be bad for business.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You’d have more dignity if you just stopped responding when all your points are countered.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I am willing to concede my friend, I have seen no reason to. The fact that I am willing to make concessions led me to anti-Darwinism in the first place.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Should have learned what evolutionary biology was and how it worked before you decided it doesn’t exist. Genes past to offspring, mistakes occur during meiosis and some genes are better for survival than reproduction that others. Not complicated.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >This is done with letters of rec, standardized tests, publishing, hiring, tenuring etc.
      What qualifications in terms of biology do you bring to the table?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        There is one way to determine the quality of an intellect, which is to engage it with your own either verbally or in writing.

        There is no such thing as an intellectual certification. The IQ test and the university degree as well as the peer review all operate to serve power interests and careerists. It is no coincidence they did not exist in antiquity.

        Plato did not have a degree. Shakespeare never took a course on creative writing. Darwin did not take Biology 101 as we now have it.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          A hilarious post from a guy trying to debunk evolution who is unaware of the concept of an evolutionary arms race.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I am not a biologist nor claim to be one. I am an anti-Darwinian for a variety of reasons, some of which I offered here.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah you don’t know shit. Biologist? You don’t know 100 level bio.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >on the other hand, you have Euler, Gauss, Galois, Einstein, Dirac who attended university / were a part of Academia
          I agree with you that Academia to some extent is gate-keeping nowadays and that you can in theory - if you have the talent, dedication and opportunity - teach yourself biology using books and the internet. But again what books did you read, how did you go about doing it? Apparently, you don't have a degree in biology. So what gives you this confidence in your ability and knowledge?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have read a smattering of original works by Darwin/Linnaeus/Lyell in excerpt, and a bad book by Richard Dawkins. Biology is very far from my native interests, which are religion/literature/philosophy.

            In particular I have minimal grasp of chemistry (but a decent grasp of physics or at least mechanics).

            I am anti-Darwinian for philosophical reasons, not biological. The little I have read about Darwin suggests to me there are significant holes in the theory. I strongly suspect there are excellent biologists whi have made very strong criticisms, and have no audience or influence because it is a dissent from the consensus (I have seen this exact pattern too many times not to suspect it everywhere).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >philosophical reasons
            Because of Nietzsche, perhaps?
            >I have seen this exact pattern too many times not to suspect it everywhere
            Where did you see it?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            No I am not particularly interested in Nietzsche. I became suspicious of Darwin reading Traditionalists such as Guenon. It is profoundly at odds with the traditional comprehension of human origins, in whatever instance.

            I have seen this pattern in too many places to even list, large and small. I was into radical politics in my 20s and many people would label me an idiot rather than confront my inconvenient facts. I have had professors who refused to praise my work despite its high quality (I am certain others will accuse me of arrogance, I don't care, it is what it is).

            It's not something I can explain easily, it is built up from years of experience. I also notice a lot of published literature is totally derivative, and I have flipped through academic journals (of religion) that are pure junk, just endless minutiae or comparative analysis and minimal creative theorizing or paradigm challenging thought.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I was into radical politics in my 20s and many people would label me an idiot rather than confront my inconvenient facts. I have had professors who refused to praise my work despite its high quality.
            I'm not going to discount that. I don't know you. So I can't tell if that's true. But I don't see how that's a proof that there's some sort "vow of silence" in biology to not question evolution. I'd expect there to be some experts who are more eccentric and not afraid of a little bit of contrarianism. But there are none, at least as far as I'm aware.

            >I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics and had to take some science classes so I studied 4 semesters of calc based physics.
            If you're aware of the methodology of how to study an Academic discipline, I don't understand why you were thinking that a few out-dated publications from the 18th century and Dawkin's popular science book were enough to meaningfully challenge modern biology.

            >4 semesters of calc based physics
            Out of interest, what did you do in the fourth semester?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >reads centuries old science and popsci
            >thinks this qualifies him to have an opinion
            >has a philosogay opinion

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao seriously. What a fricking moron

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You guys are being silly. Your namecalling affects me nil. I am smart as frick and I know it already and do not need you to affirm me.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            This isn’t even the best board to learn about evolution by antagonizing people on IQfy. You are not smart.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            https://i.imgur.com/Y9qxCep.jpeg

            >fricking bachelor (as if that's some achievement)
            >of mathematics (as if you needed to be smart for that post 2012)
            >reads maybe 500 pages of bottom shelf popsci
            >GUYS I SOLVED BIOLOGY
            do you do this in real life too? I wouldn't want to be in your caretaker's shoes that for sure

            Dont care at all what you think of me. Smart-As-Frick.

            Well, did you learn anything?

            Yes I cannot avoid the weeds of organic chemistry if I want to properly hit this. 19th century stuff is much more naturalistic and descriptive, and its categories are immediately familiar.

            >If you're aware of the methodology of how to study an Academic discipline ...

            The way I was taught math was outrageously irrational (no pun intended). It should begin with classical logic and then move immediately to Euclid. Everything I have learned suggests going back to source material or early texts is critical for serious education. I may or may not hit this hard in the future, my main focus of study is elsewhere at the moment.

            >fourth semester
            wave equation bullshit, it was just solving diffeqs in a physics setting, the derivations were super abridged and I felt I was being taught to repeat theorems and plug/chug.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything I have learned suggests going back to source material or early texts is critical for serious education.
            Why so? For most math, you'll only need a two-weeks introductory proof course and calculus / linear algebra as prerequisite. I don't see how you'd need to start with geometry and Euclid. Seems more like a thing, you'd do on the side in a one-semester course or in a seminar.

            >wave equation bullshit, it was just solving diffeqs in a physics setting, the derivations were super abridged and I felt I was being taught to repeat theorems and plug/chug.
            Entire semester of only looking at the wave equation PDE in the context of classical mechanics. What's the point of that? What was the context?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Mathematics has nothing to do with solving impressive looking equations with engineering or physics applications. It is entirely the study of proofs and conjectures. These require signifcantly more creativity and mental flexibility than plug-chug.

            It is similar to the difference between reading musical notation and playing an instrument with your actual body.

            There was more than just the wave equation, the course was essentially a primer on mathematics techniques necessary for higher level courses, for example we also looked at the EFEs but I don't recall doing much with them. It was entirely plug-chug and it sucked. It was not confined to mechanica we also looked at EM stuff but I care less about that and paid less attention.

            Don't you think a good biology education should start with a strong comprehension of the scientific experiment? That's the heart of the field so it seems like the appropriate place to start. A kind of montessori-inspired approach could even encourage students to begin designing experiments on their own that mirror classic results.

            I am telling you man, there is a massive problem in modern education with failing to recognize or teach creativity and critical thinking. In general students are asked to repeat "the right answers" and given good boy points for parroting the opinions of their professors/advisors.

            Frankly many fields such as literature do not even make sense to teach in an academic department, as it is entirely based on reading and writing.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, maybe a God made all the animals.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Why not? This world is very strange. It is strange to even be alive.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            You're too dismissive of the engineering and physics applications. After all, the development of e.g. calculus was an innovation that came from physics. Those subjects serve as an inspiration for mathematicians, I think.

            >It is entirely the study of proofs and conjectures. These require significantly more creativity and mental flexibility than plug-chug.
            I completely agree. But I don't see, why you couldn't study proofs and conjectures in real analysis or in linear algebra. Why does it have to be geometry?

            >primer on mathematics techniques necessary for higher level courses
            Sounds boring.

            >Don't you think a good biology education should start with a strong comprehension of the scientific experiment?
            I have no idea of how biology is taught and I don't know anything about pedagogy. Spontaneously, I'd say yes. On the other hand, I can see why the experiment is not as important in biology as it is in physics. If I wanted to study it, I'd look at the university curriculum and go to the textbook "classics", maybe ask for recommendations offline.

            >there is a massive problem in modern education with failing to recognize or teach creativity and critical thinking
            >In general students are asked to repeat "the right answers" and given good boy points for parroting the opinions of their professors/advisors.
            Personally, I didn't experience this.

            >Frankly many fields such as literature do not even make sense to teach in an academic department, as it is entirely based on reading and writing.
            I don't know anything about non-STEM departments, ngl. No idea what they'd actually do in let's literature for six semesters.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >fricking bachelor (as if that's some achievement)
            >of mathematics (as if you needed to be smart for that post 2012)
            >reads maybe 500 pages of bottom shelf popsci
            >GUYS I SOLVED BIOLOGY
            do you do this in real life too? I wouldn't want to be in your caretaker's shoes that for sure

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Tbf I was like too, when I was very young.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >So what gives you this confidence in your ability and knowledge?

            The fastest way to learn is to brazenly state your beliefs as though they were true and humbly listen for when they are not. I like to be "in-your-face" because it gets me right to the good stuff, right to the heart of the controversy. It is nothing personal, either internally or externally.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >calls himself humble while saying he antagonizes people by being confidently wrong
            Anon you can literally just look up these answers. You called yourself smart?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >The fastest way to learn is to brazenly state your beliefs as though they were true and humbly listen for when they are not.
            I don't know. I think picking up a modern textbook and going through it from A to Z, is more effective than that. If things don't add up for you, you can then ask experts. How did you learn physics?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I have a bachelor's degree in mathematics and had to take some science classes so I studied 4 semesters of calc based physics.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            that is called shitposting and is a waste of time
            if you wanted to learn science, you would read books from this millenium

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's how I learned sign-language

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Well, did you learn anything?

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    HEY STOP RIGHT THERE CHUD!
    Go back to school and BELIEVE in what your TEACHERS and the AUTHORITY tells you is the RIGHT FAITH. You dare to question the status quo? Take your meds, schizo! I am very smart.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Awww man, I don't like those things
      Guess I'm a Christian now

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        No, but seriously, is this how the conversation is supposed to go?
        Who are you trying to fool

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Actually the data we're trying to explain, is caused by God who has the specific desire to cause the data we're trying to explain

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Are you Pakistani?

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe a God made all the animals

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I made them on Tuesday. Don't believe me? I have a book that says I'm right. Checkmate.

  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    By accepting supernatural explanations, you destroy your ability to do abductive reasoning.

    My shoes are missing from the hallway. -> Maybe a God took them?
    After all, it's possible. This world is very strange.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Does it seem reasonable to you that the Creator of the universe would hide your shoes from you in a spirit of prank?

      Does it seem reasonable the creator of the universe, being of vastly infinite intelligence, would create a beautiful tapestry of incredibly complicated lifeforms existing in states of natural balance and with the cleverest creature of all-- his favorite-- to stand over them in dominion for the benefit of their material lives and the enjoyment and growth of their souls, such that in their observations of creatures they witness signa and prefigurations of their own circumstance as contingent beings with purpose of their own?
      It does to me.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Does it seem reasonable to you that the Creator of the universe would hide your shoes from you in a spirit of prank?
        I don't know. I don't believe in the supernatural. I got no idea by what method supernatural-believers figure out what Gods and ghosts are in the business of doing, or not doing.
        You tell me.

        Maybe God got a desire to cause the data we're trying to explain. Maybe he doesn't.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >the Creator of the universe would hide your shoes from you in a spirit of prank?
        Look, maybe a poltergeist did it. Supernatural explanations are on the table now.

        Am I making any kind of point to you? This is what I mean by destroying the ability to do abductive reasoning.
        In order to rule out the impossible explanations, and only be left with possible explanation, you need have things actually be impossible.
        But, with God (or poltergeists), Anything is possible!

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah I know exactly the argument you are making and used to make it myself. You are introducing the supposition of the supernatural in the same way a mathemetician might introduce the supposition of a contradiction in order to demonstrate how any given statement can then be proven true and also false.

          The disagreement is over the domain of the human mind. You think human reason only applies horizontally to what is within his empirical reach. I disagree. I think human reason can also be applied "vertically" to ideas about God, truth, the soul, the meaning of life etc.

          Mostly in the sense of anamnesis but also in the sense of transcendent realization and immediate insight into certain truths beyond the reach of empirical science or horizontal reason. Among these are "killing people is bad" and "I exist. I am a being that I am." (Hence descarte's confusion, attempting to derive vertical truth from horizontal empirical claims).

          In a sense you are a post Kantian who denies pure reason and I am a pre Kantian who believes in gnosis/pure reason.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Most of this I got from Schuon "Logic and Transcendence" if anyone is interested..

            First 25 pages sums it up.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            God makes animals, but doesn't steal shoes. You figured that out through pure reason.
            Got it.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Weak

            Metaphysics is outdated science.

            Consciousness as we understand it is a feeling that arises from the nervous system in tandem with the rest of the body. Every living thing with a nervous system, no matter how it's structured, has some form of this feeling, further influenced by the rest of the body.

            [...]
            There is no gap in the algorithm which requires God as an explanation.

            >Metaphysics is outdated science

            First you adhere to an ascendency principle in reality (evolution) now you extend ot to the realm of human ideas (progress, obsolescence of what is older). Where does all this tendency to truth come from anon? Human reason? Your particular human reason?

            Show me why a group of human minds should tend to truth.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Where does all this tendency to truth come from anon?
            The body.

            >Show me why a group of human minds should tend to truth.
            Truth is will to power. An organism seeks to discharge its strength and invents reality for that purpose.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You have to believe in a prankster god if you don't believe in common descent. There's no other way for phylogenetics to paint a consistent picture both in situations where common design would be relevant and in situations where it wouldn't be.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          idk life seems pretty comical to me

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    God-believers will simply never understand. They will never figure it out. You can explain it in a million different ways and they still won't get it. Evolution, like nature, is a completely inaccessible idea to them. The response will always be God of the gaps (the gaps being only in their brains).

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No you need to learn about metaphysics. And you need to examine consciousness more closely. Read more philosophy and philosophy of religion. It is far more complex and subtle than you know. How have you not noticed all the completely brilliant people who are religious or theist?

      Our existence is extremely weird and difficult to account for. Hard atheism is an extremely minority view in the whole of human history.

      You're too dismissive of the engineering and physics applications. After all, the development of e.g. calculus was an innovation that came from physics. Those subjects serve as an inspiration for mathematicians, I think.

      >It is entirely the study of proofs and conjectures. These require significantly more creativity and mental flexibility than plug-chug.
      I completely agree. But I don't see, why you couldn't study proofs and conjectures in real analysis or in linear algebra. Why does it have to be geometry?

      >primer on mathematics techniques necessary for higher level courses
      Sounds boring.

      >Don't you think a good biology education should start with a strong comprehension of the scientific experiment?
      I have no idea of how biology is taught and I don't know anything about pedagogy. Spontaneously, I'd say yes. On the other hand, I can see why the experiment is not as important in biology as it is in physics. If I wanted to study it, I'd look at the university curriculum and go to the textbook "classics", maybe ask for recommendations offline.

      >there is a massive problem in modern education with failing to recognize or teach creativity and critical thinking
      >In general students are asked to repeat "the right answers" and given good boy points for parroting the opinions of their professors/advisors.
      Personally, I didn't experience this.

      >Frankly many fields such as literature do not even make sense to teach in an academic department, as it is entirely based on reading and writing.
      I don't know anything about non-STEM departments, ngl. No idea what they'd actually do in let's literature for six semesters.

      Calculus is basically geometry over the reals. That is one sense of it anyways. Curvatious geometry. Its original motivating problem was to find the area under a curve and to find the tangent at an arbitrary point.

      Geometry is the classical foundation of mathematics, most especially Euclid. It was the introductory mathematics textbook for centuries, into the 19th and even 20th. It builds excellent rigor and critical thinking and forces one to become perfectly literate in mathematical argumentation.

      It was not tossed out because of pedagogical theory or obsolescence. It was removed from high schools and colleges because it is tedious, difficult, time consuming and demanding on both teacher and student. It requires significant one on one attention to properly teach/coach through. The reason they tossed it is budget cuts and a new generation of pragmatic educators who were focused on employment preperation.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >It builds excellent rigor and critical thinking and forces one to become perfectly literate in mathematical argumentation.
        You'd have the same thing with e.g. Rudin. Additionally, you'd learn a subject that's very important to more advanced mathematics. Contrary to classic Euclidean geometry.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Rudin is an absurd suggestion for introductory mathematics or introductory proofs.

          A student who has worked through all of Euclid could probably tackle Rudin in all honesty, without any additional text.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Metaphysics is outdated science.

        Consciousness as we understand it is a feeling that arises from the nervous system in tandem with the rest of the body. Every living thing with a nervous system, no matter how it's structured, has some form of this feeling, further influenced by the rest of the body.

        >you can't believe in God and evolution at the same time
        why not?

        There is no gap in the algorithm which requires God as an explanation.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          He's right though.
          Think about all that has happened for us to be here.
          Ironically the fact thet it's nearly impossible for that to have occurred naturally makes me at the very least think in metaphysical terms, about this condition.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >you can't believe in God and evolution at the same time
      why not?

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Your children is the only peace of mind god gave you buddy, he doesn't care that you can't comprehend such a length of time

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *