How can anyone deny the reality of Creation?

[Questioner]

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.

And who cares? Evolution is a multiculturalist theory, hailing back to 15th - 19th century Britain, and Francis Bacon's scientific methodology - outside of that relatively tiny industry, it's no more valid or relevant than any other silly theory, or body of mathematical approximation or abstraction.

As a Slav, you can't even make any assertions on the basis of evolution within Francis Bacon's natural sciences anyway, given that they originated in Britain and Western Europe; so all of your childish assertions on "evolution" further prove how much of a multiculturalist you are.

Get over it, Evolution is supported.

No. It's a childish and overrated theory for simple and superstitious people, having been a component of folk wisdom and various strains of evotuionary thought since as far back as the pre-Socratic Greek philosophers and others; long before Darwin stole it, that's all it is.

Most of the nonsense you and other uneducated and superstitious people read or learn about it isn't even contemporary anyway, it's just outdated information from outdated 19th century theorization and such. Computer sciences will likely just render those archaic natural sciences more or less obsolete anyway, as far as new areas of learning and discovery in the 21st century and information age. They'll be regarded as archaic as alchemy is, outside perhaps of whatever trivial pragmatic purposes they serve within the small context of their own industries.

The structuralist-systematic philosophy of Creation, is arguably intellectually and aesthetically superior in pretty much every area, in regards man and womankind's place in the cosmos.

 

[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..

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

Basically yeah, eventually I would be fine with having creation become the standard philosophy thought in public schools and universities in America, Britain, and Europe, and having the archaic Baconian sciences scrapped altogether, other than perhaps as niches within certain industries and areas of specialization, but as far as general learning goes, I believe creation and the philosophy it's based on, not necessarily exclusive to "evolutionary thought" as a whole, made the new standard. (Along with the archaic and mythical Baconian scientific teleologies which rely on outdated myths, folk wisdom, and superstitious philosophical axioms to propagandize their legitimace to the uniformed via mass media and archaic, historically unsound clichés, about the "Dark Ages" and so forth, it's so tiresome having to deal with inept idiots like that who lack anything resembling a margin of self awareness, sound historical interpretation, or any semblance of awareness or well-rounded scholarliness outside of their archaic industry and the simplistic methods, such as induction, which it is based and predicated on to begin with.

Not that the superstitious and barely educated would have any reason to worry about this anyway, since they don't even learn more than a paltry K-12 understand of evolution or any other dated subject to begin with, primarily consisting of drilling and rote memorization and repetition rather than meaning or deeper comprehension.

It's not like someone with an average IQ of just 100 would be apt at learning any subject, evolutionary, scientific, or otherwise on the same level of mastery as a Newton, an Einstein, or otherwise if they merely subsist on the outdated and archaic scientific information offered to them at the paltry K-12 or MI minim levels offered to them by higher learning institutions anyway.

If one goes by the 10,000 hour rule at least, then to become a true "master" at any endeavor, such as a Newton or an Einstein in the bacon Ian natural sciences, or a Tiger Woods at golf, a roger Federer at tennis, and so on, it's not like the average, let alone the "bare minimums" are anything in comparison at all.

 

[harmonica]

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..

how can anyone NOT deny Creation?
..do you believe in evolution?

 

[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..

how can anyone NOT deny Creation?

You're most likely just repeating childish and archaic clichés from archaic mass media stereotypes and misinformation, and don't know what creation is, such as in the Structural Systematic-philosophy, or what "creative emergence" is in regards to contemporary evolutionary thought.

Mass media is marketed to the IQ 100 or 6th grade reading level, so honestly the lack of contemporary information and archaic, 19th century clichés, dishonestly, and misinformativeness no longer suprises me at this point in my life; I really just underestimated how uneducated or barely educated the average person is, and how foreign a concept reading an actual book written at a high level of writing really is, with dishonest, contextually-devoid, or just plain misniformative and archaic mass media making up the majority of their informational diets and stunting their knowledge and comprehension of the actual real world, society(ies), systems, thinkers, philosophies and axioms which make up the world they're a part of, as if they're willfully ignorant or simply apathetic, too lazy or motivated by higher moral or intellectual endevours to actually learn about it, or correct and change their false beliefs and axioms, merely and primarily simply because they find simple axioms, even if ultimately untrue or falsifable, to be merely useful, simple, and convenient to the simple minds and associated functions such archaisms serve. That's really just all it is, sadly...

..do you believe in evolution?

Evolutionary though on the whole contains some useful and helpful information, but that's about - no cure the false dichotomies and so on.

 

[Hellbilly]

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.

John 3:16


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk