Evolution sure is strange...

[HarrierDuBois]

Ti does not lack nuance
Its Ne blindspot so ISxPs and low Ne users in general, Ne and Ti are the most nuanced functions

Stranger, is this true, do you have to ACTIVELY think? Uh oh...

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Almost like it doesn't make sense.

But magic sky man does

One has evidence, the other is schizophrenia

 

[HarrierDuBois]

But magic sky man does

One has evidence, the other is schizophrenia

Least reduced strawmanning on org btw.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Least reduced strawmanning on org btw.

Religion is an entirely social construct created by humans who had no knowledge of anything. Literally created by low IQ deathnics 2000-5000 years ago

In no other scenario would anyone be allowed to make an argument with 0 evidence and pass it as fact without being critiqued

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Religion is an entirely social construct created by humans who had no knowledge of anything. Literally created by low IQ deathnics 2000-5000 years ago

In no other scenario would anyone be allowed to make an argument with 0 evidence and pass it as fact without being critiqued

Low IQ? Then write a book as thoroughly connected as the Bible is. Say what you will about it's validity but low IQ is the last thing required to create this. Cross references below:

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Low IQ? Then write a book as thoroughly connected as the Bible is. Say what you will about it's validity but low IQ is the last thing required to create this. Cross references below:
View attachment 2772495

Wtf is that supposed to be?
My theory is bible and all religious books were stories just like modern ones not meant to be taken as non-fiction, but got misunderstood through time

 

[HarrierDuBois]

Wtf is that supposed to be?
My theory is bible and all religious books were stories just like modern ones not meant to be taken as non-fiction, but got misunderstood through time

What empirical evidence do you base that thoery on?

 

[optimisticzoomer]

What empirical evidence do you base that thoery on?

None, same as religion
But I don't expect anyone else to follow that theory

 

[HarrierDuBois]

None, same as religion
But I don't expect anyone else to follow that theory

Because it's the least likely theory from a logical standpoint. Christ ftw.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Because it's the least likely theory from a logical standpoint. Christ ftw.

So you believe jesus turned some bread and fish into enough to feed thousands?
Moses parted the ocean? Noah got two of every animal (geographical limitations?) on a boat?

And then jesus disappeared and doesn't help with current hunger

Idk if these things are meant to be believed, some say they're just symbolic or some shit. I say intended as fiction

 

[Deleted member 48352]

A helpless, critter, scavenging for food(rodent) avoiding predators...

Gave rise the most complex, Apex predator that has dominated the planet and invented many unique, complex things and civilization and technology.

nigger are ur retard ? we never evolve from rodent , u even know anything about taxonomy ?

 

[Deleted member 22888]

Like the predictable impotent imbecile you are all you can do is scoff at another's belief.

Muhh symbolism. Where is it implied that it's meant to be symbolic? In the biblical texts it's pretty much always clear when something a parable, vision, poetry or symbolism. There is nothing the indicate that the Genesis account is supposed to be anything but a literal creation story. And treated as such all throughout the books.


Do you do anything but regurgitate existing information from other and exclude that which doesn't conform to your wishful worldview? Because if you actually thought about those statements maybe you would actually realize how ridiculous those claims actually are. First off, starting with the atheistic creation story of abiogenesis. All the amino acids must have come together to form proteins, then those proteins would have to assemble themselves to form a proto cell wall, then those proteins would have to get coated with fatty acids to form a cell and only then you'd have to have the same happen for multiple organelles, for it to be still missing DNA. Now with this very simplified description you can already see how unlikely (not just unlikely, but entirely impossible) such thing would have happened. Let alone all the required condition the environment would have to meet and for the earth to be formed in the first place (let's not get into that). Now you'd also need DNA to get into these new-formed organelles, but not just any, but DNA that encodes for the cell to reproduce. Then the new created cell would have to gather the resources (instructions for this act being performed all in it's randomly formed DNA btw) but that wouldn't happen, since there would be no amino acids for it to do so as there is no life.

But if you don't believe this and you are a theistic evolutionist. Then still, no matter how many billions of years you give it. It would not be possible for the progeny of some initial species to deviate so much that they'd produce all of earth's species. It would definitely not be possible for a fish to become human. Just thinking about it reveals many reasons as to why. For example what would be the evolutionary incentive for fish to develop limbs and crawl out of the marine environment? There is also the fact that sexual reproduction would not allow for such thing to happen. Because just because a single animal mutating a new trait would result in it likely being lost in it's offspring after reproducing with a mate not sharing said change, and most definitely being lost in the offspring's offspring. There also has to be a framework of extremely intertwined genes together working for speciation to be possible in progeny. The genomic model a random chance would produce would be so simplistic that further speciation would just be completely impossible off it.


No there is not. You trust other's claims at face value just because of "credibility". The evidence meh at best. And lots is deliberately made up and you can't verify it. Saying this gets you labeled a "low iq conspiracy theorists", but it should be common sense.



Just suck up someone's doctored dog shit as evidence theory. And fossils are the result of a worldwide flood.
You clearly also lack any knowledge in engineering, because sharing components among designs is a much better path to take than making everything from the ground up. It's not the evidence of us having a common ancestor or whatever bullshit, it's the evidence of a designer that designed his creation with common parts. Now you can go on not using your mind to come to these logical conclusions because it's "unscientific".

I’m not reading all this bro. Have a good day

 

[HTN_Mentalcel]

I’m not reading all this bro. Have a good day

Cunt he spent even longer typing

 

[Deleted member 22888]

Cunt he spent even longer typing

It literally doesn’t matter and I don’t care. I already stated I believe in god and evolution. Nothing he says provides a new analysis or viewpoint to this discussion. Nigga wrote an entire essay for nothing

 

[Akhi]

denying evolution is like denying gravity

some people being incapable of understanding it doesn‘t make it wrong

 

[StrangerDanger]

Stranger, is this true, do you have to ACTIVELY think? Uh oh...
View attachment 2772490View attachment 2772489

I do both, in everyday mode I trust my intuition but it will only take you so far, when trying to understand things in depth Ti is far superior

 

[HarrierDuBois]

I do both, in everyday mode I trust my intuition but it will only take you so far, when trying to understand things in depth Ti is far superior

I have never used Ti in my entire life. I just have an extrapolated bigger picture understanding of everything. My detail orientation, short term memory, and internal logical reasoning are all lackluster.

 

[StrangerDanger]

I have never used Ti in my entire life. I just have an extrapolated bigger picture understanding of everything. My detail orientation, short term memory, and internal logical reasoning are all lackluster.

What
So you have never used your own logical reasoning to derive a judgement

 

[HarrierDuBois]

What
So you have never used your own logical reasoning to derive a judgement

Probably sometimes. 99% of my judgements are just fundamental comprehensions of the world I just am aware of. Also 99% of the outcomes I achieve come in the shape of fully established eureka moments, satisfying when all the pieces fall into place and I just feel a string in the subconscious get pulled. Also check discord.