There simply isnt enough time

[AbandonShip]

I realised this now. There's simply not enough time to enjoy life. Your prime is too short and life can only be enjoyed in your prime.

Its beyond over past 30. The ideal time is between 18-30. But most people will spend it studying and then working a job that sucks the life outta them

Life= ultimate jewish scam

 

[Deleted member 6538]

Ascend or rope. Ill get that tattooed

 

[AbandonShip]

Ascend or rope. Ill get that tattooed

You'll be way past your prime after that. Ascension is a pipedream. Even if you become chad, how will you explain the drastic change to the people who always saw you as a sub human?

You'll be seen as a narcissistic loser who had to get surgeries to cope with his shitty genetics. I don't understand why people here dont get that.

Being a surgerycel automatically nukes your status in society unless you are a woman

 

[Lasko123]

I realised this now. There's simply not enough time to enjoy life. Your prime is too short and life can only be enjoyed in your prime.

Its beyond over past 30. The ideal time is between 18-30. But most people will spend it studying and then working a job that sucks the life outta them

Life= ultimate jewish scam

I see your point.Adam the first man lived almost 1000 years

 

[Deleted member 6538]

You'll be way past your prime after that. Ascension is a pipedream. Even if you become chad, how will you explain the drastic change to the people who always saw you as a sub human?

You'll be seen as a narcissistic loser who had to get surgeries to cope with his shitty genetics. I don't understand why people here dont get that.

Being a surgerycel automatically nukes your status in society unless you are a woman

Copus maximus. Escaping your genetic destiny is the greatest achievement you can have

 

[sandcelmuttcel]

You'll be way past your prime after that. Ascension is a pipedream. Even if you become chad, how will you explain the drastic change to the people who always saw you as a sub human?

You'll be seen as a narcissistic loser who had to get surgeries to cope with his shitty genetics. I don't understand why people here dont get that.

Being a surgerycel automatically nukes your status in society unless you are a woman

I'm going to ascend, change name ethnicity and location.

 

[AbandonShip]

I see your point.Adam the first man lived almost 1000 years

Are these claims logical?
@streege @Matheus

 

[AbandonShip]

I'm going to ascend, change name ethnicity and location.

It's not that easy you fucking idiot. Dont you have family, friends etc? Or are you thinking about faking your death? Jfl at ascensioncels. There is no ascension folks

 

[Deleted member 3635]

You'll be way past your prime after that. Ascension is a pipedream. Even if you become chad, how will you explain the drastic change to the people who always saw you as a sub human?

You'll be seen as a narcissistic loser who had to get surgeries to cope with his shitty genetics. I don't understand why people here dont get that.

Being a surgerycel automatically nukes your status in society unless you are a woman

this is why i am also moving countries after my ascencion

 

[sandcelmuttcel]

It's not that easy you fucking idiot. Dont you have family, friends etc? Or are you thinking about faking your death? Jfl at ascensioncels. There is no ascension folks

I have nothing my family is shit I can meet with my online friends when I change my location

 

[TsarTsar444]

thats why im coping with consuming the newest apple products

 

[Lasko123]

Are these claims logical?
@streege @Matheus

Yes man.There was no air pollution,the food,water they had was better

 

[Matheus]

Are these claims logical?
@streege @Matheus

Wtf about quoting some random dude who didn't ask nothing? I hope you'll enjoy this post because you ain't worth it
There is I would say four main theories of how we came to be which induce a different interpretation of the stories of genesis
- the dogma of evolution which is indoctrinated into young children as if it was verifiably true
- old earth creationism (OEC), basically the earth is as old as scientists say but we were created from Adam & Eve
- young earth creationism (YEC), earth is approx 7500 years old and we were created from Adam & Eve
- intelligent design (ID), basically evolution-lite, means God steered nature in a way as to create us humans. Basically we somewhat evolved into Adam & Eve, the two first humans.

Some are more unbelievable than others. I don't think YEC is much more than some weird idea. I'm torn between OEC and ID, tending more towards ID. In either case, your denomination determines how you interpret genesis. Catholics believe this is allegorical and that the original sin wasn't eating a literal apple, but obviously I don't expect you to know that.
Creationists don't necessarily believe that Adam literally 1000 years, though it's a much more common belief among them than among intelligent design proponents who infer that the point of saying he lived so long is to make the point that he was still created perfect and that we descendants of Adam are that much more fallen than him.
My search for truth is still not done, but as you can see there is a lot more depth than a fedora-hat-wearing atheist would imagine. Besides some lifeforms on earth live for very long, is this claim logical? Perhaps we're so different from Adam that he indeed lived 1000 years.

 

[AbandonShip]

Wtf about quoting some random dude who didn't ask nothing? I hope you'll enjoy this post because you ain't worth it
There is I would say four main theories of how we came to be which induce a different interpretation of the stories of genesis
- the dogma of evolution which is indoctrinated into young children as if it was verifiably true
- old earth creationism (OEC), basically the earth is as old as scientists say but we were created from Adam & Eve
- young earth creationism (YEC), earth is approx 7500 years old and we were created from Adam & Eve
- intelligent design (ID), basically evolution-lite, means God steered nature in a way as to create us humans. Basically we somewhat evolved into Adam & Eve, the two first humans.

Some are more unbelievable than others. I don't think YEC is much more than some weird idea. I'm torn between OEC and ID, tending more towards ID. In either case, your denomination determines how you interpret genesis. Catholics believe this is allegorical and that the original sin wasn't eating a literal apple, but obviously I don't expect you to know that.
Creationists don't necessarily believe that Adam literally 1000 years, though it's a much more common belief among them than among intelligent design proponents who infer that the point of saying he lived so long is to make the point that he was still created perfect and that we descendants of Adam are that much more fallen than him.
My search for truth is still not done, but as you can see there is a lot more depth than a fedora-hat-wearing atheist would imagine. Besides some lifeforms on earth live for very long, is this claim logical? Perhaps we're so different from Adam that he indeed lived 1000 years.

Jfl you just discredited yourself in this post
Not even gonna bother arguing with you anymore.

 

[Deleted member 3702]

I see your point.Adam the first man lived almost 1000 years

and get cucked by a snake lmao

 

[JMax]

Dont you have family, friends etc?

 

[Lasko123]

and get cucked by a snake lmao

True

 

[Matheus]

Jfl you just discredited yourself in this post
Not even gonna bother arguing with you anymore.

Jfl you didn't even start

 

[AbandonShip]

Jfl you didn't even start

Evolution is verifiable and has been verified. Inb4 you go" bu.. but theres no proof of macro evolution"

There is proof of both micro and macro evolution.

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Wtf about quoting some random dude who didn't ask nothing? I hope you'll enjoy this post because you ain't worth it
There is I would say four main theories of how we came to be which induce a different interpretation of the stories of genesis
- the dogma of evolution which is indoctrinated into young children as if it was verifiably true
- old earth creationism (OEC), basically the earth is as old as scientists say but we were created from Adam & Eve
- young earth creationism (YEC), earth is approx 7500 years old and we were created from Adam & Eve
- intelligent design (ID), basically evolution-lite, means God steered nature in a way as to create us humans. Basically we somewhat evolved into Adam & Eve, the two first humans.

Some are more unbelievable than others. I don't think YEC is much more than some weird idea. I'm torn between OEC and ID, tending more towards ID. In either case, your denomination determines how you interpret genesis. Catholics believe this is allegorical and that the original sin wasn't eating a literal apple, but obviously I don't expect you to know that.
Creationists don't necessarily believe that Adam literally 1000 years, though it's a much more common belief among them than among intelligent design proponents who infer that the point of saying he lived so long is to make the point that he was still created perfect and that we descendants of Adam are that much more fallen than him.
My search for truth is still not done, but as you can see there is a lot more depth than a fedora-hat-wearing atheist would imagine. Besides some lifeforms on earth live for very long, is this claim logical? Perhaps we're so different from Adam that he indeed lived 1000 years.

I don't know how anyone could ever believe that either OEC or YEC are remotely true, especially when its weighing countless amounts of evidence against the words of an old book (pretty much only passed through tradition). ID also doesn't follow the theory of evolution, as biological lifeforms wouldn't just spawn into two new, complete perfect humans like Adam and Eve.

If you view the creator of all life and objects as God, which is the most intuitive view and makes sense with the current information that we have, then ever major religion becomes complete horseshit. This isn't a fedora-hat-wearing atheist view either lol, the insane amount of logical inconsistencies in the bible (and every other religious collection) make those views look like an utter joke.

 

[Matheus]

Evolution is verifiable and has been verified. Inb4 you go" bu.. but theres no proof of macro evolution"

There is proof of both micro and macro evolution.

Check out transitional life forms, the conceptual impossibility of them and the lack of archeological evidence. I'm not gonna bother too much with you ngl but "is verifiable and has been verified" is such a false assertion.

 

[Deleted member 9355]

It's true that for many people, life will never begin.
You will be tall, but have something else missing.
You will get surgery for face, but a small inconvenience will destroy your mental state for a week because life is a lot of suffering.
You will get NT but you'll still feel not enough.
You will die with a lot of unresolved mental stuff.
The fact that what matters "by evolution" is that most people stay alive, not that they live a good life or anything

 

[AbandonShip]

Check out transitional life forms, the conceptual impossibility of them and the lack of archeological evidence. I'm not gonna bother too much with you ngl but "is verifiable and has been verified" is such a false assertion.

What about the fossil evidence? Or studies comparing dna? Why are we more genetically similar to chimps than chickens?

 

[Tony]

Copus maximus.

copus meximus julios cezerosus lossus

 

[Matheus]

I don't know how anyone could ever believe that either OEC or YEC are remotely true, especially when its weighing countless amounts of evidence against the words of an old book (pretty much only passed through tradition). ID also doesn't follow the theory of evolution, as biological lifeforms wouldn't just spawn into two new, complete perfect humans like Adam and Eve.

If you view the creator of all life and objects as God, which is the most intuitive view and makes sense with the current information that we have, then ever major religion becomes complete horseshit. This isn't a fedora-hat-wearing atheist view either lol, the insane amount of logical inconsistencies in the bible (and every other religious collection) make those views look like an utter joke.

YEC I agree, OEC idk. I'm no expert on the subject of cosmogony but I know enough to hold my ground, that's why I hesitate between ID and OEC. ID ofc doesn't follow evolution, but it mirrors the concept of using "inferior" life forms to form new ones in an incremental manner.
Explain the second part and please list those inconsistencies. I don't know every one of them but that might material to learn about

 

[Golang]

Pretty much, ethnics die at 25 tho since that's when most ethnics start balding hard.

If by 25 I don't magically ascend with my rhino I'm going ER on ethnics. This ofc if I get away from my family since I can't get rhino with them around.

 

[Salludon]

Too many streets to shit. Too little time.

 

[Tony]

If by 25 I don't magically ascend with my rhino I'm going ER on ethnics.

@FBI @Thongmaster jfl on wtchlisterino

 

[Tony]

Too many streets to shit. Too little time.

View attachment 774351

meny* lern englesh u goetfukker

 

[Deleted member 6538]

@FBI @Thongmaster jfl on wtchlisterino

thx doc. wil kep my eyes on him

 

[Matheus]

What about the fossil evidence? Or studies comparing dna? Why are we more genetically similar to chimps than chickens?

Transitional life forms are necessary for evolution to be true but present no conceptual coherence. Imagine an eye, it's very complex, you can't expect it to just pop into existence over a single generation. It must be layered into countless mutations and incremental changes. So, following the theory, either :
- a layer of mutation is harmful and the whole series of layers is eliminated for each individual carrying this mutational layer
- each layer of mutation is neutral (eg having a 100th of an eye doesn't impair survival) but the statistical occurence of each layer stacking itself properly into a complex system like an eye is abysmal and even more since harmful layers of mutation remove the entire mutation for that individual
- a layer is beneficial and thus spreads among populations increasing the chance of more complex mutations occuring. But half an eye can't really be argued to be beneficial, in this case, and in general with very complex systems a mutational layer isn't beneficial until the system is complete
Overall the chance of a complex system brought to completion is statistically negligible. Imagine that then for an imbrication of complex systems that is a human being.
Besides there is no archeological evidence for such transitional lifeforms, for evidence chimps with half an eye. It famously bothered Darwin himself in his time that such evidence didn't exist.

There are other arguments, but this is one of the strongest. I hope you understand it as it's hard to conceptualize.

For your second point, that's why I think ID has a core of truth

 

[AbandonShip]

Transitional life forms are necessary for evolution to be true but present no conceptual coherence. Imagine an eye, it's very complex, you can't expect it to just pop into existence over a single generation. It must be layered into countless mutations and incremental changes. So, following the theory, either :
- a layer of mutation is harmful and the whole series of layers is eliminated for each individual carrying this mutational layer
- each layer of mutation is neutral (eg having a 100th of an eye doesn't impair survival) but the statistical occurence of each layer stacking itself properly into a complex system like an eye is abysmal and even more since harmful layers of mutation remove the entire mutation for that individual
- a layer is beneficial and thus spreads among populations increasing the chance of more complex mutations occuring. But half an eye can't really be argued to be beneficial, in this case, and in general with very complex systems a mutational layer isn't beneficial until the system is complete
Overall the chance of a complex system brought to completion is statistically negligible. Imagine that then for an imbrication of complex systems that is a human being.
Besides there is no archeological evidence for such transitional lifeforms, for evidence chimps with half an eye. It famously bothered Darwin himself in his time that such evidence didn't exist.

There are other arguments, but this is one of the strongest. I hope you understand it as it's hard to conceptualize.

For your second point, that's why I think ID has a core of truth

The eye didnt evolve the way you think. It wasnt like we had half an eye for some generation and then a full eye. That makes no sense.

First there was a more rudimentary form of eye. Like a light sensitive screen.

Seeing some light is better than seeing no light. Then it gradually became "better". A curved screen (like a bowl) is better than a flat one since it can tell the direction where the light is coming from. So gradually it became curved. Keep in mind that this happened over hundereds of thousands of years.
A curved screen with a small opening is even better(like a pin hole camera).

Now if you add a small amount of transparent fluid in front of the hole then it effectively acts as a lens. Lens alllows to focus light. Which means sharper images. Which means better visibility.

 

[Schizoidcel]

After 25-ish time goes by faster too, so look forward to that too.

 

[Baldingman1998]

Evolution is verifiable and has been verified. Inb4 you go" bu.. but theres no proof of macro evolution"

There is proof of both micro and macro evolution.

https://looksmax.org/threads/how-does-religion-explain-this.225849/

 

[AbandonShip]

After 25-ish time goes by faster too, so look forward to that too.

It's insanely fucked up tbh. I want to do so many things but there simply isnt enough time.

 

[AbandonShip]

https://looksmax.org/threads/how-does-religion-explain-this.225849/

Video doesnt work due to the censorship friendly government in my country

 

[TsarTsar444]

It's insanely fucked up tbh. I want to do so many things but there simply isnt enough time.

if you are lowinhib enough start a drug business with weed, shrooms or coke, shrooms are the easiest to grow, you can make alot of montly money without doing anything and use that money for everything you want

 

[AbandonShip]

if you are lowinhib enough start a drug business with weed, shrooms or coke, shrooms are the easiest to grow, you can make alot of montly money without doing anything and use that money for everything you want

I am not low inhib enough.

 

[Baldingman1998]

Video doesnt work due to the censorship friendly government in my country

If doesn't work still then use vpn

 

[AbandonShip]

If doesn't work still then use vpn

That atheist is low IQ to ask Fuckeer naik that question

 

[curryslayerordeath]

Transitional life forms are necessary for evolution to be true but present no conceptual coherence. Imagine an eye, it's very complex, you can't expect it to just pop into existence over a single generation. It must be layered into countless mutations and incremental changes. So, following the theory, either :

bro what you're describing is a [although slightly misinterpreted] mechanism of evolution that describes exactly how transitional species come about. you're debating against yourself lol.

- a layer of mutation is harmful and the whole series of layers is eliminated for each individual carrying this mutational layer

This does occur, it's why this forum even exists in the first place.

- each layer of mutation is neutral (eg having a 100th of an eye doesn't impair survival) but the statistical occurence of each layer stacking itself properly into a complex system like an eye is abysmal and even more since harmful layers of mutation remove the entire mutation for that individual
- a layer is beneficial and thus spreads among populations increasing the chance of more complex mutations occuring. But half an eye can't really be argued to be beneficial, in this case, and in general with very complex systems a mutational layer isn't beneficial until the system is complete

Not how mutations work, there would never be "half an eye" but rather small changes that change its functionality slightly. Over time, if the change in functionality is beneficial, it becomes more common (as these organism would survive at higher rates) and eventually becomes 'standard'.

Overall the chance of a complex system brought to completion is statistically negligible. Imagine that then for an imbrication of complex systems that is a human being.

How is statistically negligible lmfao, which one is more feasible: a well-described evolutionary force has acted on organisms for billions of years resulting in what we are now or some traditional tales that change with every civilization and contradict all evidence created what we are now? The improbability is extraordinarily heavily against any organized religion so far..

Besides there is no archeological evidence for such transitional lifeforms, for evidence chimps with half an eye. It famously bothered Darwin himself in his time that such evidence didn't exist.

There are other arguments, but this is one of the strongest. I hope you understand it as it's hard to conceptualize.

Darwin lived 2 centuries ago lol, many things have progressed since then. The evidence for transitional lifeforms is in every species around us! (the half an eye thing is completely misinterpreted so idk what to say towards that).

ID ofc doesn't follow evolution, but it mirrors the concept of using "inferior" life forms to form new ones in an incremental manner.

It follows the same idea of inferior life forms, but conjoins that weird "adam and eve" assumption with no logic, I guess kinda like a bridge between ditching conventional beliefs to the evidence that we know of.

 

[AbandonShip]

bro what you're describing is a [although slightly misinterpreted] mechanism of evolution that describes exactly how transitional species come about. you're debating against yourself lol.


This does occur, it's why this forum even exists in the first place.

Not how mutations work, there would never be "half an eye" but rather small changes that change its functionality slightly. Over time, if the change in functionality is beneficial, it becomes more common (as these organism would survive at higher rates) and eventually becomes 'standard'.

How is statistically negligible lmfao, which one is more feasible: a well-described evolutionary force has acted on organisms for billions of years resulting in what we are now or some traditional tales that change with every civilization and contradict all evidence created what we are now? The improbability is extraordinarily heavily against any organized religion so far..

Darwin lived 2 centuries ago lol, many things have progressed since then. The evidence for transitional lifeforms is in every species around us! (the half an eye thing is completely misinterpreted so idk what to say towards that).


It follows the same idea of inferior life forms, but conjoins that weird "adam and eve" assumption with no logic, I guess kinda like a bridge between ditching conventional beliefs to the evidence that we know of.

He shot himself in the foot with the half an eye argument

 

[Alexanderr]

What’s holding someone back from enjoying life at 31 when they can just fine at 30?

 

[Matheus]

The eye didnt evolve the way you think. It wasnt like we had half an eye for some generation and then a full eye. That makes no sense.

First there was a more rudimentary form of eye. Like a light sensitive screen.

Seeing some light is better than seeing no light. Then it gradually became "better". A curved screen (like a bowl) is better than a flat one since it can tell the direction where the light is coming from. So gradually it became curved. Keep in mind that this happened over hundereds of thousands of years.
A curved screen with a small opening is even better(like a pin hole camera).

Now if you add a small amount of transparent fluid in front of the hole then it effectively acts as a lens. Lens alllows to focus light. Which means sharper images. Which means better visibility.

Yes that's what I read too on the specific case of the eye. But you're arguing like a light sensitive screen is something that can happen over a single generation. Even that is extremely complex when talking about genetical mutations. Mutations are very rare and only on a handful of genes. If those genes aren't beneficial they don't get passed down. How then can anything remotely complex come into being instead of nothing? Conceptually you can't have discrete changes (light sensitive screen) in a framework that is based on gradual changes.
Besides there's still no evidence of such transitional life forms.

 

[AbandonShip]

What’s holding someone back from enjoying life at 31 when they can just fine at 30?

I mean there isn't a strict age limit but generally your body starts to deteriorate past thirty. You have less energy and vigour, are more prone to injuries, disease and overall misery.

 

[Alexanderr]

I mean there isn't a strict age limit but generally your body starts to deteriorate past thirty. You have less energy and vigour, are more prone to injuries, disease and overall misery.

This happens over the span of decades though, it’s not like you suddenly go from 100% to 60% in 5 years.

 

[AbandonShip]

Yes that's what I read too on the specific case of the eye. But you're arguing like a light sensitive screen is something that can happen over a single generation. Even that is extremely complex when talking about genetical mutations. Mutations are very rare and only on a handful of genes. If those genes aren't beneficial they don't get passed down. How then can anything remotely complex come into being instead of nothing? Conceptually you can't have discrete changes (light sensitive screen) in a framework that is based on gradual changes.
Besides there's still no evidence of such transitional life forms.

I never stated that the light sensitive screen evolved in a single generation. There may be even more rudiementary form of a light sensitive screen before.
I was just providing a reference point to start with.

 

[AbandonShip]

This happens over the span of decades though, it’s not like you suddenly go from 100% to 60% in 5 years.

Yeah. Thats why i said the age limit is between 18-30. Most mean peak at 25 in terms of everything and then it all goes downhill from there.

 

[Matheus]

bro what you're describing is a [although slightly misinterpreted] mechanism of evolution that describes exactly how transitional species come about. you're debating against yourself lol.

Explain

Not how mutations work, there would never be "half an eye" but rather small changes that change its functionality slightly. Over time, if the change in functionality is beneficial, it becomes more common (as these organism would survive at higher rates) and eventually becomes 'standard'.

See above reply to the other guy. You guys took me literally when I meant half an eye, my point is still the same. What I meant is some form of organ that is halfway through being a full blown eye, like indeed a curved light sensitive screen.

How is statistically negligible lmfao, which one is more feasible: a well-described evolutionary force has acted on organisms for billions of years resulting in what we are now or some traditional tales that change with every civilization and contradict all evidence created what we are now? The improbability is extraordinarily heavily against any organized religion so far..

Your opinion bro, I find rather implausible that one cell could have evolved into something so orderly and complex in a universe that tends toward more entropy and more disorder.

Darwin lived 2 centuries ago lol, many things have progressed since then. The evidence for transitional lifeforms is in every species around us! (the half an eye thing is completely misinterpreted so idk what to say towards that).

Wdym?

It follows the same idea of inferior life forms, but conjoins that weird "adam and eve" assumption with no logic, I guess kinda like a bridge between ditching conventional beliefs to the evidence that we know of.

Idk man, not an expert on that point. I just know that evolution isn't the objectively true end-all-be-all of how we came to be. Mind you I used to be a staunch evolutionist

 

[Matheus]

I never stated that the light sensitive screen evolved in a single generation. There may be even more rudiementary form of a light sensitive screen before.
I was just providing a reference point to start with.

Yeah a discrete reference point in a gradual system. There still must be a lot of steps to reach this point, and a lot of (not necessarily beneficial) mutations to arrange themselves properly