How can anyone deny the reality of Creation?

[Questioner]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Philo...ctural-Systematic/dp/1623567181&tag=ff0d01-20

Given the brilliant theosophical, mathematical and theoretical work by savants such as Alan White here, and other thinking men and women, I really don't know how the denialists still continue to deny the truth of Creation, in favor ugly, outdated 19th century nonsense such as evolution, or "ugly-lution" as it's more appropriately known, if the average dietary, hygienic, and mating habits of the single, usually white, irreligious, mouth-breathers who masturbate to anime are any indicator, and I'm sure to the gentlemen and the ladies, they are, heehee.

Sure, there are still many superstitious idiots who fetishize Charles Darwin and other outdated 19th century claptap, despite the overwhelming evidence that Darwin, at best, was just a latecomer to the evolution scence, theories of that variety, some much arguably better than Darwin's, having been around since the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, in cultures East and West, as well as a component of many other theories of Darwin's contemporaries, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes' Common Law theory, at worst almost implying that the historical myth of Darwin is highly exaggerated, if not outright false, and that he merely stole his silly biological theories from others, possibly even his contemporaries in the field.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, then yes, I'd assert that Creation, and its Creators, are made in the image of God(s):

[image]

While ugly-lution, the rapey, aesthetically-challenged Neanderthals who salivate of it are made in the image of the beasts they have so much more in common with, right down to non-consentual mating habits, he he he:

Pathetic; it's really no wonder why these hideous specimens identify so much more closely with the apes of our genetic or ancestral past than do superior men and women, generally speaking..

 

[alang1216]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

So which is the real creation story Camelot or Tolkien?

 

[ding]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

So which is the real creation story Camelot or Tolkien?

That ~14 billion years ago God willed the universe into existence and through the laws of nature - which existed before space and time itself - predestined that beings that know and create would arise.

 

[JGalt]

Or the way I always put it, liberals are pond scum. God made me in His own image, therefore I am directly descended from God.

Liberals who believe in Darwinism on the other hand, believe that mankind evolved from single-cell life forms, up the chain to humans. Therefore they are direct descendants of pond scum.

 

[cnm]

Or the way I always put it, liberals are pond scum. God made me in His own image, therefore I am directly descended from God.

Therefore, so is Obama. Right?

 

[Questioner]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

So which is the real creation story Camelot or Tolkien?

Which is the real evolution story, Anaximander, Charles Darwin, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Hindu mysticism? And why, why on earth would that, specifically white, Western version of evolutionary theories and thought be the "real one", beyond pure circular reasoning in reference to archaic arguments from authority on behalf of Francis Bacon's 16th century method, and the various laws and approximations of mathematics contained therein, or other 19th century archaisms and quaint little superstitions in regards to validity and childlike appeals to the authority thereof?

 

[Questioner]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

So which is the real creation story Camelot or Tolkien?

That ~14 billion years ago God willed the universe into existence and through the laws of nature which existed before space and time itself beings that know and create arose.

Correct, on this the illiterate and uneducated often object solely on some silly and outdated appeal to the authority of the Baconian method and its rather dated theories, while at the same time contradicting themselves and making arguments against the fact(s) of Creation, such as those I've shared here, usually on the basis of some childish pop philosophical grounds, or in regards to mathematical ideas or notions such as "perfect" (not even the actual contents of the Bible, is if that was ever being argued to begin with) rather than strict and authoritarian deference to and faith in the Bacon method itself, showing how silly, denialistic, anti-intellectual, and so forth their quaint evolutionary superstitions, and folk wisdom, simplistic fandoms and regurgitation of bad arguments of dated, childish individuals and arguments, such as the accused sexual assaultant Lawrence Krauss, quaint and late Chris Hitchens and his childish mythical faith and beliefs in that little intellectual movement so known overly venerated by the faithful as the "Enlightenment", and other silly rhetoric which is as intellectually and factually as out of date and noncontemporary as what's known as the Protestant reformation - and beliefs as archaic and debunked to death as the ancient Greeks, Plato, Thrasymachus, and so forth, held to be true by the mouth breathers simply because they "want to", it's convent and makes sense to someone of an IQ of 90-100 or so, not requiring the actual thought and mental energy necessary for higher and superior understanding.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

 

[Questioner]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

 

[norwegen]

We came from the ground, Creation says. So does evolution.

I believe it.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?

 

[Questioner]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?

Evolution's just an ugly, little archaic 19th century theory for the most part, assuming that it wasn't just stolen from better variants on evolutiary thought to begin with.

Most of what passes on the archaic mass media about ugly-lution is just dated 19th century propaganda for people who can't read, or only read at the 6th grade level, and haven't intellectually evolved past the archaism of the 19th century to begin with.

In it's dumbed down popular incarnations, it's basically just a "religion" for ugly and socially worthless people, ironically the most devolved members of society fetishize it in the most unhealthy ways; I suppose even the ugly, hideous, and archaic need a "god", or a "sky daddy" of sort, when in reality most of their childish little views have more in common with a Ninja Turtles cartoon than anything else, including more contemporary books and writings on evolutionary thought itself, some useful information it does contain, though arguably said information was better socially contextualized in the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and other evolutionary thinkers, than that archaic old Codger Darwin, who if he didn't outright steal and plagiarize his theories from better authors, was at most someone in the 19th century who had barely even caught up to what had been postulated and a component of traditional folk wisdoms, some of which were even "religious" in their nature, since as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

 

[SaxxyBlues]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

Well thank-you for your rendition. I personally believe the creation of Man by God.

 

[Crepitus]

How can anyone deny the reality of Creation?

How can anyone believe that silly fairy tail?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?

Evolution's just an ugly, little archaic 19th century theory for the most part, assuming that it wasn't just stolen from better variants on evolutiary thought to begin with.

Most of what passes on the archaic mass media about ugly-lution is just dated 19th century propaganda for people who can't read, or only read at the 6th grade level, and haven't intellectually evolved past the archaism of the 19th century to begin with.

In it's dumbed down popular incarnations, it's basically just a "religion" for ugly and socially worthless people, ironically the most devolved members of society fetishize it in the most unhealthy ways; I suppose even the ugly, hideous, and archaic need a "god", or a "sky daddy" of sort, when in reality most of their childish little views have more in common with a Ninja Turtles cartoon than anything else, including more contemporary books and writings on evolutionary thought itself, some useful information it does contain, though arguably said information was better socially contextualized in the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and other evolutionary thinkers, than that archaic old Codger Darwin, who if he didn't outright steal and plagiarize his theories from better authors, was at most someone in the 19th century who had barely even caught up to what had been postulated and a component of traditional folk wisdoms, some of which were even "religious" in their nature, since as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

Evolution was proven by Richard Lenski's E-Coli experiments.

Now go play with your dolls.

 

[Questioner]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?

Evolution's just an ugly, little archaic 19th century theory for the most part, assuming that it wasn't just stolen from better variants on evolutiary thought to begin with.

Most of what passes on the archaic mass media about ugly-lution is just dated 19th century propaganda for people who can't read, or only read at the 6th grade level, and haven't intellectually evolved past the archaism of the 19th century to begin with.

In it's dumbed down popular incarnations, it's basically just a "religion" for ugly and socially worthless people, ironically the most devolved members of society fetishize it in the most unhealthy ways; I suppose even the ugly, hideous, and archaic need a "god", or a "sky daddy" of sort, when in reality most of their childish little views have more in common with a Ninja Turtles cartoon than anything else, including more contemporary books and writings on evolutionary thought itself, some useful information it does contain, though arguably said information was better socially contextualized in the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and other evolutionary thinkers, than that archaic old Codger Darwin, who if he didn't outright steal and plagiarize his theories from better authors, was at most someone in the 19th century who had barely even caught up to what had been postulated and a component of traditional folk wisdoms, some of which were even "religious" in their nature, since as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

Evolution was proven by Richard Lenski's E-Coli experiments.

You fail to understand what "proven" means. All you did is make a simplistic assertion or argument from authority fallacy on the basis of something or another.

Evolution, as in Darwin's theories thereof is "multicultural", in the sense that it's one of many of the theories that falls within the scope of the Englishman's Francis Bacon's scientific methodology.

So you prove yourself a fraud, having no problem with multiculturalism or the appropriation of theories from the English-speaking or Western world.

As far as Baconian scientific theories just being little approximations from mathematics, many of which are highly dated, hailing from the 19th century or before, at least as far as outdated popular media on the subjects go, they're not particularly significant except to superstitious people who voyeurize mass media and simplistic arguments from authority on the subject or subjects in question.

Outside of the very limited scope in which Baconian scientific theories are used for their pragmatic purposes, akin to other theories, or bodies of mathematical approximation and abstraction, they aren't significant at all, their popular appeal just being the result of uneducated people voyeurizing the mass media and propaganda than any meaningful claim to legitimacy or authority outside of that very limited context.

The theory of Common Law, for example in the English-Speaking world, likely has more direct impact and bearing on everyday life, than silly and outdated popular speculations about evolution and silly things like that anyway, other than in the case of uneducated voyeurs and fetishists who spend more time fetishizing their childish, ugly, and archaic speculations about the subject in question than they do any actual "evolving", or (consensual) mating, reproduction, things like that - almost insinuating the idea that learning about evolution to begin with is worthless, since more often than not it seems to have a negative correlation with actual mating, survival, reproduction and things like that, as opposed to other and likely aesthetically superior pursuits to begin with, such as arts, sports, and music, or other mathematical and intuitive endeavors.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

I thought the theory of evolution is that we came out of the sea from a one celled organism. And DNA grew and changed as a process of evolution.

All the theory of evolution is about is our common ancestry, most of what passes for "evolutionary" discussion on the anti-intellectual mass media is just childish nonsense, rhetoric, marketing, and general aesthetic repellence for and by the aesthetically repellant.

Creation, as I've aptly demonstrated, is the superior philosophical theory in pretty much every area there is, if it weren't for "ugly people", I bet that 99% percent of the childish popular discussions about "evolution" (or de-volution, more appropriately, given the digusting and devolved nature of most of its fetishizers) would cease to exist.

I don't believe the theory of evolution. Perhaps for the animal kingdom. Man was greated by a God, remember Genesis?

Evolution's just an ugly, little archaic 19th century theory for the most part, assuming that it wasn't just stolen from better variants on evolutiary thought to begin with.

Most of what passes on the archaic mass media about ugly-lution is just dated 19th century propaganda for people who can't read, or only read at the 6th grade level, and haven't intellectually evolved past the archaism of the 19th century to begin with.

In it's dumbed down popular incarnations, it's basically just a "religion" for ugly and socially worthless people, ironically the most devolved members of society fetishize it in the most unhealthy ways; I suppose even the ugly, hideous, and archaic need a "god", or a "sky daddy" of sort, when in reality most of their childish little views have more in common with a Ninja Turtles cartoon than anything else, including more contemporary books and writings on evolutionary thought itself, some useful information it does contain, though arguably said information was better socially contextualized in the legal philosophy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and other evolutionary thinkers, than that archaic old Codger Darwin, who if he didn't outright steal and plagiarize his theories from better authors, was at most someone in the 19th century who had barely even caught up to what had been postulated and a component of traditional folk wisdoms, some of which were even "religious" in their nature, since as early as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers.

Evolution was proven by Richard Lenski's E-Coli experiments.

You fail to understand what "proven" means. All you did is make a simplistic assertion or argument from authority fallacy on the basis of something or another.

Evolution, as in Darwin's theories thereof is "multicultural", in the sense that it's one of many of the theories that falls within the scope of the Englishman's Francis Bacon's scientific methodology.

So you prove yourself a fraud, having no problem with multiculturalism or the appropriation of theories from the English-speaking or Western world.

As far as Baconian scientific theories just being little approximations from mathematics, many of which are highly dated, hailing from the 19th century or before, at least as far as outdated popular media on the subjects go, they're not particularly significant except to superstitious people who voyeurize mass media and simplistic arguments from authority on the subject or subjects in question.

Outside of the very limited scope in which Baconian scientific theories are used for their pragmatic purposes, akin to other theories, or bodies of mathematical approximation and abstraction, they aren't significant at all, their popular appeal just being the result of uneducated people voyeurizing the mass media and propaganda than any meaningful claim to legitimacy or authority outside of that very limited context.

The theory of Common Law, for example in the English-Speaking world, likely has more direct impact and bearing on everyday life, than silly and outdated popular speculations about evolution and silly things like that anyway, other than in the case of uneducated voyeurs and fetishists who spend more time fetishizing their childish, ugly, and archaic speculations about the subject in question than they do any actual "evolving", or (consensual) mating, reproduction, things like that - almost insinuating the idea that learning about evolution to begin with is worthless, since more often than not it seems to have a negative correlation with actual mating, survival, reproduction and things like that, as opposed to other and likely aesthetically superior pursuits to begin with, such as arts, sports, and music, or other mathematical and intuitive endeavors.

We share 50% of our DNA with a Banana.

Get over it, Evolution is supported.

 

[rylah]

Q. Who said Evolution is the antagonist of Creation?

 

[anynameyouwish]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Philo...ctural-Systematic/dp/1623567181&tag=ff0d01-20

Given the brilliant theosophical, mathematical and theoretical work by savants such as Alan White here, and other thinking men and women, I really don't know how the denialists still continue to deny the truth of Creation, in favor ugly, outdated 19th century nonsense such as evolution, or "ugly-lution" as it's more appropriately known, if the average dietary, hygienic, and mating habits of the single, usually white, irreligious, mouth-breathers who masturbate to anime are any indicator, and I'm sure to the gentlemen and the ladies, they are, heehee.

Sure, there are still many superstitious idiots who fetishize Charles Darwin and other outdated 19th century claptap, despite the overwhelming evidence that Darwin, at best, was just a latecomer to the evolution scence, theories of that variety, some much arguably better than Darwin's, having been around since the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, in cultures East and West, as well as a component of many other theories of Darwin's contemporaries, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes' Common Law theory, at worst almost implying that the historical myth of Darwin is highly exaggerated, if not outright false, and that he merely stole his silly biological theories from others, possibly even his contemporaries in the field.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, then yes, I'd assert that Creation, and its Creators, are made in the image of God(s):

[image]

While ugly-lution, the rapey, aesthetically-challenged Neanderthals who salivate of it are made in the image of the beasts they have so much more in common with, right down to non-consentual mating habits, he he he:

Pathetic; it's really no wonder why these hideous specimens identify so much more closely with the apes of our genetic or ancestral past than do superior men and women, generally speaking..

is this another group of people you want to murder? creation deniers?

when you are done slaughtering liberals, jews, atheists, evolutionists, gays. muslims, RINOS, moderates, rational people, decent people, honest people and people who are NOT human scum you and political chic are going to be very lonely

 

[Likkmee]

Toward a Philosophical Theory of Everything: Contributions to the Structural-Systematic Philosophy

https://www.amazon.com/Toward-Philo...ctural-Systematic/dp/1623567181&tag=ff0d01-20

Given the brilliant theosophical, mathematical and theoretical work by savants such as Alan White here, and other thinking men and women, I really don't know how the denialists still continue to deny the truth of Creation, in favor ugly, outdated 19th century nonsense such as evolution, or "ugly-lution" as it's more appropriately known, if the average dietary, hygienic, and mating habits of the single, usually white, irreligious, mouth-breathers who masturbate to anime are any indicator, and I'm sure to the gentlemen and the ladies, they are, heehee.

Sure, there are still many superstitious idiots who fetishize Charles Darwin and other outdated 19th century claptap, despite the overwhelming evidence that Darwin, at best, was just a latecomer to the evolution scence, theories of that variety, some much arguably better than Darwin's, having been around since the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, in cultures East and West, as well as a component of many other theories of Darwin's contemporaries, such as Oliver Wendell Holmes' Common Law theory, at worst almost implying that the historical myth of Darwin is highly exaggerated, if not outright false, and that he merely stole his silly biological theories from others, possibly even his contemporaries in the field.

If a picture's worth a thousand words, then yes, I'd assert that Creation, and its Creators, are made in the image of God(s):

[image]

While ugly-lution, the rapey, aesthetically-challenged Neanderthals who salivate of it are made in the image of the beasts they have so much more in common with, right down to non-consentual mating habits, he he he:

Pathetic; it's really no wonder why these hideous specimens identify so much more closely with the apes of our genetic or ancestral past than do superior men and women, generally speaking..

is this another group of people you want to murder? creation deniers?

when you are done slaughtering liberals, jews, atheists, evolutionists, gays. muslims, RINOS, moderates, rational people, decent people, honest people and people who are NOT human scum you and political chic are going to be very lonely