WHY would the government trick us?

A few. As in, not enough to make anything of merit.

As in you just want to dismiss it because you don't like it and are desperate to cling to your imaginary fiend.

Did your soup make a puppy? Did it spontaneously even make an amoeba?

The idea is to make simple life. Not complex life.

And remember the timescale. This primordial soup had billions of years to do it.

A. Either it is a failure, as there is no design behind it,
B. Or it is a success, because someone brewed the soup according to a working recipe.

i.e. you will just arbitrarily reject it at all costs.

Simple as that. And that is what proves Intelligent Design. In order to make any of this work, Intelligence made a Design.

So you are saying your dishonest rejection of reality proves intelligent design?

Before we even talk about primordial soup, it wouldn't be able to make anything without bonds.

And bonds form spontaneously, with no intelligence required.

Do you get to decide what is and isn't meant by a word?

No.
Just like you don't.
Again, recreating conditions to see what happens is not designing the outcome.

intelligent design
noun
1. The belief that physical and biological systems observed in the universe result chiefly from purposeful design by an intelligent being rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes.
2. The purposeful design perceived in the universe or one of its parts and attributed to such a being.

Do you see the word "God" in this?

Did you bother reading it at all?
Notice key parts:
"Purposeful design"
"Rather than from chance and other undirected natural processes"

So if you just place a bunch of chemicals together to see what happens, that is not purposeful design. That is not by chance.

And human beings doing this now does not mean it is the only way it could have happened. Especially when those humans are recreating conditions on early Earth.

If humans can recreate conditions to show what happens in those conditions, that means those conditions occurring naturally, i.e. without intelligence behind it, can result in the same outcome.
i.e. no need for intelligence.

If your best argument is humans making the experiment to test it, then you have no argument.

Also, they assume somehow that chance or natural processes are outside the domain of God.

No, they just don't invoke a magical being when there is no reason to.

This is a God who makes the tornadoes, and the grasses grow.

Prove it.

Wasn't the entire point of your bringing up this BS to pretend your imaginary fiend exists?
Now you are just baselessly asserting it exists to try to justify you pretending it does.
That is entirely circular.

But you can't say he doesn't exist, not without lying. There surely was a cause for the tornado hitting it.

Sure I can.
There is no evidence for its existence at all.
There is no reason for thinking it exists.

All your BS does is push the problem.
If you want to say there must be a cause for these natural processes, and the underlying physical laws driving them; then why shouldn't this apply for your imaginary POS as well?
All the arguments for the universe needing a creator applies equally to your god.
So if the universe needs a creator, so does your god.
At that point your god is entirely useless, as whatever created your god could just create the universe directly.

This leads to an infinite regress of entirely useless beings.
There is no reason to think any of them exist.

DNA is a code.

Made of chemicals.
Chemicals, which spontaneously react.

Like you do all the time. You and Data think I'm being stupid while you deny painfully obvious things and push nonsensical things

No, we don't. You are projecting again.

You deny so painfully obvious things, and push pure nonsense, and then flee from the refutation of your BS.
For example, in the other thread, where you push the pure nonsense that your eyes can magically tell what is moving, which leads to delusional BS like thinking when you are driving down a highway the entire universe is moving around with you stationary; and the pure nonsense that the sun simply getting further away will result in it keeping the same angular size and magically disappearing from the bottom up; while denying the painfully obvious thing of the behaviour of the sun instead being entirely consistent with the sun going around a corner and being blocked from view.

Quote

i.e. how is your god meant to exist without someone creating it?

I don't ask what created God

Because you don't want to.
You want to assert it exists, and stop there.

Because it shows how intellectually bankrupt your claim is.

Saying crap like "it is beyond our thinking" is just a pathetic cop out.
Why not apply the same BS to abiogenesis? Or basically anything else you appeal to to pretend your imaginary POS needs to exist?

Again, if the universe needs a creator, so does your imaginary POS. So what created it?

And do you know the big difference? We know what created your god. Primitive men, who created as an idea to explain what they couldn't and to control other people.

The purpose of science is to understand God's creation. Not simply miracles, but how things work.

Right, and primordial soup theory is one possible explanation for how God created life.

No, no, you don't understand.

Evolutionary theories are like a tree.


So when I say that primordial soup or meteors (or UFOs or whatever) are not a different theory, what I mean is that this is just tacked-on cosmology to Darwin's ideas. If you really want to get to a different theory vs a subset of the same theory, you have to study Darwin's rivals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution

So when I say that primordial soup or meteors (or UFOs or whatever) are not a different theory, what I mean is that this is just tacked-on cosmology to Darwin's ideas.

So what if it is?  It's not as if Darwin set out to create a grand unified theory of evolution.

No, no, you don't understand.

No, I do understand. I just recognise you're spouting crap.

Abiogenesis is not part of evolution.
Evolution starts with life.
It does not care how it got there.

None of that helps demonstrate your imaginary fiend exists.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 06, 2024, 04:37:41 PM

So when I say that primordial soup or meteors (or UFOs or whatever) are not a different theory, what I mean is that this is just tacked-on cosmology to Darwin's ideas.

So what if it is?  It's not as if Darwin set out to create a grand unified theory of evolution.

I suppose not.

What I guess I'm saying is that when you look at evolutionary theories, there were a pretty big number of these rival ideas, and then kinda "Oh Darwin has it figured out. We needn't bother anymore." It just sorta stops.

 And unfortunately, science is increasingly getting like that.

 Is the Earth cooling or warming? Should we be concerned or not? Nope, now climate change is here, and we have consensus on it.

Is the Earth a disc or square or some other shape? Nope, we know the Earth is an ellipsoid sphere, and we have a consensus on it.

Is there a God who made the world is not? Well Hawking thinks it's not necessary to invoke God in the cosmology, and we have a consensus on it.

Yeah, except uhhhh guys that's not science.

Science is the study of the natural world through repeated testing. By definition, any time you've accepted a consensus, you have stopped testing and decided the group knows best.

Remember when there was a consensus that COVID wasn't created in a lab, and then they found gain-of-function research? Pepperidge Farms remembers. The point being that consensus can be quickly overturned. You cannot trust mob opinion, you have to do the science not trust it.

The science is being done, reams of it. I did evolutionary science as part of an ecology degree back in the late eighties and then there was tons of science that backed it up, fossil, genetic, anatomy, biogeography, molecular biology, and since then it has grown.

You not understanding or looking for it, but instead cleaving to your “good book” and those that wish science wasn’t there because it threatens their world view is irrelevant.

Even the word theory you misunderstand, as far as science is concerned “a theory, is understood to be a body of thoroughly tested and verified explanations for a set of observations of the natural world.”
Just because in common parlance it can mean a guess or whatever the babblings the poorly educated come up with to try and make sense of things, that is not what a scientific theory is.

It doesn’t explain the origin of life, it explains its diversification.

If you want to put a god in the mix because you like things simple and can kid yourself that said deity doesn’t need the same explanation for its existence, fine, evolution doesn’t preclude a god, but it does make it unnecessary, which I guess is the scary part.

What I guess I'm saying is that when you look at evolutionary theories, there were a pretty big number of these rival ideas, and then kinda "Oh Darwin has it figured out. We needn't bother anymore." It just sorta stops.

I don’t think that anyone who knows anything about evolution ever said that.  I don’t know why you would think that anyone, except maybe a science denier, would.

What I guess I'm saying is that when you look at evolutionary theories, there were a pretty big number of these rival ideas, and then kinda "Oh Darwin has it figured out. We needn't bother anymore." It just sorta stops.

Yes, people trying to cling to their religion, where they don't want evolution to happen.

It was not "Oh Darwin figured it out".
Instead, it was the evidence supported that idea, and that idea was coherent.

And unfortunately, science is increasingly getting like that.

You mean it actually gets answers, supported by mountains evidence, which doesn't agree with your hopes and dreams?
That isn't a problem.

Yeah, except uhhhh guys that's not science.

Because you aren't even attempting to honestly represent it.
It is your strawman.
So no, your strawman isn't science.
But that isn't surprising.

Science is the study of the natural world through repeated testing. By definition, any time you've accepted a consensus, you have stopped testing and decided the group knows best.

No, it isn't that simple.

Science is about examining the natural world, coming up with hypotheses to try to explain what is occurring, making predictions based upon these hypotheses and then testing these predictions.
Then if you get a model that works, you try to find the limitation of those models, as well as putting the model to practical use.

We don't need to repeatedly test if Earth is round, because it is so heavily integrated into modern life.
Any time a plane goes on a flight, or a ship tries to cross an ocean, that is based upon the round Earth, using paths based upon a round Earth and technology based upon a round Earth.
Every time you take out your phone or other GPS enabled device to determine where you are, that is using technology based upon a round Earth.
Every time you decide to look up when sunrise or sunset will be, that is performing calculations based upon a round Earth.

If Earth wasn't round, so many problems would appear here.
If you like, you can consider those "tests".
e.g. every time someone uses GPS to navigate, they are "testing" if Earth is round.

Just like with computers, we have computers built, we don't need to repeatedly test what happens when we place different types of semiconductors together.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 07, 2024, 06:18:49 AM

What I guess I'm saying is that when you look at evolutionary theories, there were a pretty big number of these rival ideas, and then kinda "Oh Darwin has it figured out. We needn't bother anymore." It just sorta stops.

I don’t think that anyone who knows anything about evolution ever said that.  I don’t know why you would think that anyone, except maybe a science denier, would.

Not aloud. But unless you count epigenetics (I don't, part of Darwin's theory) or woke ideas about genes and social justice, there have been no new genetic theories in almost 200 years.

This means that what happened was that the scientific community taught it as settled science, and now we focus on DNA technology, effectively doing unnatural selection rather than continuing to question whether natural selection is in fact a valid description of how evolution works.

Well, that’s because there is no need, the mass of evidence, the mechanisms, all play out, time after time.

The deeper we investigate genetics, the fossil records, molecular biology (see above) the more it is apparent that Evolution ticks the boxes, you don’t need new “genetic theories” when the one you have works.

Other than religious people who see evolution as a danger to the “godditit” simple explanation, the scientifically literate are happy for this reason.

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

"Our ignorance is God; what we know is science."

Was this a quote of the day?

The deeper we investigate genetics, the fossil records, molecular biology (see above) the more it is apparent that Evolution ticks the boxes, you don’t need new “genetic theories” when the one you have works.

Wrong again.

Evolution fails the "child's question" test.
e.g.

---

Kid: How did you come about?
Me: I was born from my parents (shows picture)
Kid: And them?
Me: They were born from their parents.
Kid: How were the first humans made?
Me: Ummmm, they evolved from monkeys.
Kid: And where do the first monkeys come from?
Me: They evolved from simpler life forms.
Kid: And where did those come from?
Me: Even simpler life.
Kid: And...?
Me: The first life was probably single celled bacteria.
Kid: But how did that life come about?

---

BRANCH 1
Me: Life arose in a series of water and sulfur vents.
Kid: But how did the life actually happen? And how were there sulfur or water vents in the first place?

---

BRANCH 2
Me: Life arose in outer space. A meteor carrying these bacteria hit Earth.
Kid: But how did the life actually happen? And what kind of world made life before Earth? Doesn't that just put off the question until later?

---

BRANCH 3
Me: Life arose in a primordial soup.
Kid: Okay that explains how life happens... but how did this random mass of amino acids ever combine into even one living thing able to reproduce (the kid explains that her creepy uncle explained reproduction to her shortly before doing something to her that got him put away for a very long time)? And how were creatures with male and female ever able to survive? Wouldn't they have to inbreed or something? Like alot? 

---

If you invoke God, you might be able to explain that God makes things and they can evolve from there (or something), and being a God of creation, he is perfectly capable of making himself. If not, this conversation always ends with an awkward "Uhhhhhhh... I dunno."

Simple answers are for simple people, I didn't realise I was talking to a child.

What you propose is a god of the gaps, as science answers questions you retreat with your deity to another gap, whereas science is happy to say what happened billions of years ago may never be truly known, you need a child's answer, fine,go back to your book of myths.

Oh, look at that fast response! Only ten minutes passed.

A paid government disinformation employee on their shift.

Most of the rest of the population (besides people like me, who don't work normal jobs) would be on lunch break.

This means you are either in a vastly different time zone or you are basically on all day to respond.

What you propose is a god of the gaps...

The "god of the gaps" is a simple answer. The answer proposed is, "Theists invoke God whenever they get to a point where they don't know." So yeah, you're relying on a simple answer to my explanation.
Does that make you a simple person or a child? Should I use single syllable words?

God is not of the gaps. There is an actual beginning point of creation that atheists have no account for.

See that purple line? That's your gap, not mine. You can't explain what came before that, how the purple line came about in the first place, nor what caused this Cambrian explosion. Truthfully, you can't explain anything.

Is my explanation the best ever one? No, I could concede that gods rather than God created everything. I could concede that a race of immortal humans did it, or that everything came from a giant ball. If someone gave an explanation that worked, I'd accept it.  But "nothing exploded and created everything" doesn't cut it.

Let's continue the line of question:

---

Me: I believe God is the author of life. That meteor carrying life was made by him. And when it hit Earth, it mixed with other life existing on Earth to make the Cambrian explosion.
Kid: But how did that life come about? And what about the life on Earth?
Me: You remember how your creepy uncle Joseph R Biden explained sexual reproduction? Well these are mostly asexual life, so they just fission off into copies. But to have variety, genetic differences needed to be introduced. This is called bacteria conjugation.

So God made one type of life on Earth, and then he made this meteor carrying another life. When it collided with Earth, it carried with it surviving bacteria that mated with what was already there.
Kid: Okay, that part makes sense. But what created God?
Me: (Explains theology)
https://www.gotquestions.org/who-created-God.html
You got any other questions?
Kid: Well, uncle Joseph didn't really explain when sex is appropriate... he also sniffed my hair.
Me: When you're older. At least 16, depending on where you live. And when it's consensual. (Explains consent)
And never for kids under 12, which you are.
Kid: Got it.

---

Well you exhibit the D1 gene, that of paranoia and an inflated ego, no government is interested in you, and FYI, I'm in the UK, have a very easy job where I get to do pretty much what I want, arguing here is relaxation, I'm now at home.

As for you not getting my point, that's evident, I will try to explain.

There are two main ways humans have filled in the gaps, the first and oldest is religions, yours is not the first.
Humanity as part of its evolution has enhanced pattern recognition as the basis of our thought processes (In extremis apophenia & pareidolia), it allowed us to see significance in the interplay of things and draw conclusions thereof, as well as recognising faces. Like you they reasoned that as they and other creatures could make things, then it stood to reason that they and all things around them were made, as it was beyond their capabilities, whatever did it was greater than they, and gods were born.
With the advent of civilisation and the written word we could recall the thoughts and inventions of others, knowledge grew and the greatest of thinkers could benefit from minds like theirs and build on it, and so logic, reason and enlightenment starts to fill in the gaps that forebears attributed to gods.

This from Hippocrates 300yrs plus BC.
“ People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.” 
And he was right, and many religious people have no problem with this, but others see this erosion of their gods influence to its conclusion and for many reasons hate that, so like you they look at what science hasn't answered and leap on it, saying ah there is where our god is. It's a fallacy.
 
That science only has hypothesis's about what happened 440 million years ago isn't a problem or what caused the advent of life billions of years in the past, frankly I would be suspicious of  anyone who said they had cracked it considering the time lapse and only being able to imagine the conditions in which it was generated. But evolution explains everything since.

That you have to point out that gap in our knowledge 444 million years ago and shout gotcha! Is an admission of all the things that science does know and just how much it has answered since your god was invented, how far it has shed light into the gloom of superstition.

Will we ever really know what happened at the beginning? Probably not. Will it stop us looking No, and will we ever be happy again with a simplistic, “well that was god!” I hope not.

Not aloud. But unless you count epigenetics (I don't, part of Darwin's theory) or woke ideas about genes and social justice, there have been no new genetic theories in almost 200 years.

Have you not heard of sideways gene transfer?
Or retroviruses?

This means that what happened was that the scientific community taught it as settled science, and now we focus on DNA technology, effectively doing unnatural selection rather than continuing to question whether natural selection is in fact a valid description of how evolution works.

What is the point of questioning if you are never going to accept the answer?
Plenty of people have done plenty of experiments on evolution.

Evolution fails the "child's question" test.

No it doesn't, as it doesn't attempt to address it.
But more importantly, SO DOES YOUR GOD!

And no, you can't get out of it by saying God made itself, after all, how would it make itself before it existed to make itself?

So even with a god, you still reach the awkward point of "I don't know" or "Shut you heathen or you will be executed for heresy!!!"

And you are also incorrect. A bacteria is far too complex to be the first life.

The first form of life was likely a much much much more primitive cell. And people are still working on that.
But this is moving away from genes.
There is also the question of if it would have been protein first, or RNA first.

Most of the rest of the population (besides people like me, who don't work normal jobs) would be on lunch break.

Firstly, welcome to the world of time zones.
If you open their profile you can see their local time (assuming they have set it correctly and DST hasn't broken it).
They are 5 hours ahead of you.

Secondly, some people might use their lunch break to show the stupidity of people on the internet.

This means you are either in a vastly different time zone or you are basically on all day to respond.

God is not of the gaps.

Yes it is.
You have no actual basis to say it was a god.
You have no evidence it was a god.
Your god solves nothing.
Instead you have your wilful ignorance, where you then assert it MUST be a god.

There is an actual beginning point of creation that atheists have no account for.

That is your baseless claim.
There is no evidence to support the claim of creation.

See that purple line? That's your gap, not mine. You can't explain what came before that, how the purple line came about in the first place, nor what caused this Cambrian explosion. Truthfully, you can't explain anything.

That is the gap you are trying to fill with your imaginary fiend.
Instead of accepting that we don't know, you insert your god, with no rational basis at all.

Do you know what God of the gaps?
You have a gap, you can't explain, you insert god.
Filling that gap with god doesn't mean it isn't a god of the gaps.

If someone gave an explanation that worked, I'd accept it.

And when someone gave an explanation, like a god, that doesn't work, you still accept it.

Kid: Okay, that part makes sense. But what created God?
Me: (Explains theology)
You got any other questions?

Yes. You have entirely failed to explain why your god shouldn't need a creator but the universe does.
You still have a massive gap you cannot fill. A gap made much worse than the one you tried to fill with god.

And that is why you didn't bother actually answering the question in your pathetic example, and instead just left it as "(Explains theology)", because there is no answer.

Ultimately the question is why is there something rather than nothing?
Any thing you try to invoke to answer this question will be something and will just push the problem back, instead asking why is there this thing.
Ultimately, the only actual possible answer is no thing, i.e. nothing.
There can be no reason for why there is something rather than nothing, as any reason would be a something which needs an explanation.

You want to apply that to your god, but that just throws an extra useless step in.
Sane people recognise that, and either discard that extra step, or admit there is no basis to force that step in and have different reasons to believe.

Likewise, even if we want to just focus on life, that is really focusing on complexity. For this there are 2 options:
1 - Complex things can arise through natural processes from less complex things.
2 - Complex things must come from things as complex or more complex than themselves.

If option 1 is true, then abiogenesis and evolution are possible and there is no need for your god.
If option 2 is true, then your god must come from another god that created it, making it entirely useless.

Again, any "reason" you try to invoke the universe or life needing a creator, that will apply just as well to your god.
Any excuse you give for your god not needing a creator can apply equally to life and/or the universe.

Well you exhibit the D1 gene, that of paranoia and an inflated ego, no government is interested in you, and FYI, I'm in the UK, have a very easy job where I get to do pretty much what I want, arguing here is relaxation, I'm now at home.

Genetic theology likes to make up this notion that all maladies are due to genes.  Just as previous centuries thought everything was demons.

Sorry buddy, most personality issues are based on the personality. There is no paranoid gene, just as there is no gay gene, depressed gene, or transgender gene. I should know, I can trace my transgenderism back to an event. There might be a psychopathic gene, but for the most part, nope.  These disorders are difficult to treat not because of DNA (that's a copout to avoid treating them), but because they are persistent feelings. Paranoid people, for instance, are subjects of frequent betrayal.

But it is good that you are not a spy or paid troll, probably. You are just a loser. That is a relief.

Have you not heard of sideways gene transfer?
Or retroviruses?

I've heard of the latter, yes. DNA sequencing sometimes uses retroviruses to basically hack DNA so they can rip it apart and resequence it.  It never seems to occur to them that maybe the retrovirus is still around after they do that, and maybe this can cause the diseased meat or vegetables to cause illness. 
Prior to retroviruses, they had much lower tech means of crossbreeding. For example, grafting and selective mating. Forgive me if I trust those a little more.

“ People think that epilepsy is divine simply because they don't have any idea what causes epilepsy. But I believe that someday we will understand what causes epilepsy, and at that moment, we will cease to believe that it's divine. And so it is with everything in the universe.”
And he was right, and many religious people have no problem with this, but others see this erosion of their gods influence to its conclusion and for many reasons hate that, so like you they look at what science hasn't answered and leap on it, saying ah there is where our god is. It's a fallacy.

It is true that we don't know what causes disease so we come up with things to fill the gaps.  But you are completely delusional if you think that attaching the word "science" to the thing solved the issue. I'm merging the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. And they have a passage where a guy has epilepsy. And they say it is caused by a demon. The disciples then ask "Why couldn't we cure this guy?" And Jesus answers, "This is cured by prayer and fasting." Guess what. He's right.  A ketogenic (sugar fasting) diet lowers the risk of epilepsy, as noted in the film First, Do No Harm.  Indeed, epilepsy is also one of the risk factors for diabetes.

Science has told you that it has it all figured out, and that religion is just a bunch of backwards superstitions. Let's examine that.
1. Religion was sometimes used as a means of encapsulating science. For instance, in one myth about Coyote, all the animals mentioned are constellations in the sky.  Likewise, the Yin Yang closely resembles the pattern of (I think it was the constellations) over the course of a year. And of course, the fasting thing above.
2. Meanwhile, "trusting the science" can very easily be a grave error, if the science is part of the military industrial complex.    We were told COVID was a disease and not a psy-op. Yet despite people staying indoors, staying away from people, they got sick. Wait a second, how? The theory of germs (also known as contagion) implies things like contact, or a medium, or a method of transfer. But people are supposed to have gotten sick through nothing more than reading alot of newspapers and web articles, deciding they were ill. A placebo, basically. Or to put it less delicately, their faith made them sick.

Real science is the method by which we study the world created by God. In The Discoverers, they mention how no culture but the Western (under Christianity) made such strides in science.  They discuss the Greeks, and how they made strides for awhile, but then their science was all about propping up philosophy (if this sounds familiar, it is, this is what woke science is doing). The Chinese only applied science mainly to either support the government, or to research alchemy and immortality.  Plus the whole Taoism thing meant they had certain science that was too against nature for them to want to study. The Africans were a bunch of shiftless no-accounts who had an easy time gathering fruit, and never developed much beyond that. The Muslims (despite their advances in plagiarism) actually were against science to a large extent. Why then, they ask, did Western culture make such strides in science? Well, like the Jewish culture, they believed in a creator God, and that the universe was constructed according to order.  Unlike the early Jews though (secular and Reform Jews are more cool about this), they weren't burdened by endless laws, and were able to ask questions about the created world without assumptions.

One of these assumptions is that the world has not been created and is not constructed according to order. Tesla was one of the last real scientists, and most modern scientists are either working off of his ideas, or publishing papers of theoretical science to magazines, mainly to sell products or push doctrines via media.

We're pushing ourselves into a dead end, and the day is coming where none of us will understand how to do anything.

Hell, one article on school literacy talked about how one of the teachers wanted to "move away from reading and writing."  And of course, cursive has been declining to the point where many people can't read fancy writing (like the US Constitution).

Genetic theology likes to make up this notion that all maladies are due to genes.  Just as previous centuries thought everything was demons.

Really? Straight off the bat you blatantly lie to everyone?
No, there are a variety of reasons.

Paranoid people, for instance, are subjects of frequent betrayal.

Are they? Or do they just continually feel that way because they view the world as betrayal?

I've heard of the latter, yes. DNA sequencing sometimes uses retroviruses to basically hack DNA so they can rip it apart and resequence it.

If you have heard of it, you have entirely misrepresented it.
But you seem to understand a key part of it and why it shows you are wrong.
The point is retroviruses are a relatively recent discovery, and updated evolutionary theory.
Retroviruses show the possibility of gene transfer which doesn't simply come from the parent.

It is true that we don't know what causes disease so we come up with things to fill the gaps.

Yes, you have a god of the gaps.

And they say it is caused by a demon.

And they were wrong.
Thanks for showing the pile of garbage you follow is wrong.

Science has told you that it has it all figured out, and that religion is just a bunch of backwards superstitions. Let's examine that.

No, it hasn't.
That is your strawman of it.
Science admits it does not know.
Such as admitting we don't know yet how the first life came to be and may never know.
You are not satisfied with that so you pretend to know, claiming your imaginary POS did it.

We were told COVID was a disease and not a psy-op.

Because it is a disease, caused by a virus.
Your wilful rejection of reality doesn't change that.

Yet despite people staying indoors, staying away from people, they got sick.

Care to provide a single documented example rather than just paranoid delusional BS?

Real science is the method by which we study the world created by God.

No, it isn't.
Real science doesn't invoke your imaginary POS because there is nothing scientific about it.

In The Discoverers, they mention how no culture but the Western (under Christianity) made such strides in science.

So they lied?

The Muslims (despite their advances in plagiarism) actually were against science to a large extent.

Just like the Christians, when science went against their delusional fantasies.

Why then, they ask, did Western culture make such strides in science?

Because they put religious BS aside and looked at reality.

We're pushing ourselves into a dead end

No, YOU and people like you are trying to push everyone there; clinging to outdated delusional BS and doing whatever you can to object to reality and progress.

If you have heard of it, you have entirely misrepresented it. But you seem to understand a key part of it and why it shows you are wrong. The point is retroviruses are a relatively recent discovery, and updated evolutionary theory. Retroviruses show the possibility of gene transfer which doesn't simply come from the parent.

Yes, and grafting and other methods allowed gene transfer in a way that was safe. You could splice two types of grape together so the one had roots that were hearty against disease, and branches that were good for wine.  You can also hybrid them.

But if you're so certain that the technology is safe, you ought to try lean pork made with spinach genes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1780541.stm

Quote

If you have heard of it, you have entirely misrepresented it. But you seem to understand a key part of it and why it shows you are wrong. The point is retroviruses are a relatively recent discovery, and updated evolutionary theory. Retroviruses show the possibility of gene transfer which doesn't simply come from the parent.

Yes

So you accept you were blatantly lying to everyone when you claimed there has been no new genetic theories in 200 years.

grafting and other methods allowed gene transfer

Grafting does not allow gene transfer.
It is more like one plant just growing off another.

Grafted plants fuse to one another using healing to make scar tissue. If the grafting fails, the branch simply dies. It's  genetic engineering at its most prehistoric (literally discussed in the Bible).

https://treejourney.com/which-fruit-trees-to-graft-together-and-how-to-do-it/

Grafting also allows exact clones of the branch tree. This is how bananas developed, with the Cavendish being an exact clone and most bananas being too seedy. Grafting is safe, exact for the lack of variety meaning an issue of disease resistance.

I challenged you to eat pork crossed with spinach. Are you going to eat it? I want a YouTube of it.
Otherwise, admit that GMO is diseased food. Unlike grafting or hybriding, GMO involves a real virus.

And technology is not theory. It's practice.
When I say "no new theories" what I mean is that scientists are just carrying out Tesla's ideas. Do you know that he had even an idea of using electric pulse to charge nearby devices, something only recently being carried out with docking stations? And for the most part, we haven't dispensed with the grid to make some better technology (all of our devices are hooked in, making them costly to the end user).

The scientist who figures out how to get devices to power themselves (solar and wind are still too inefficient) is the next frontier. Until then, I maintain "no new ideas."

Its not genetic engineering.

Getting a new kidney is not genentic engineering.

Getting a blood transfuoon is not genrtic engineering

Grafting a bramch to another plant is not genetic engineering.

Grafted plants fuse to one another using healing to make scar tissue.

i.e. nothing to do with genes or genetic engineering at all.
It is simply joining 2 plants together.
It is commonly used for plants like avocados, because the seeds do not necessarily bare fruit like the fruit they came from, so you instead take a small clipping and put it on some new root stock.

It can also be used to make fancy trees, like a combined citrus tree with limes and limes and oranges and so on.

literally discussed in the Bible

Was it? Or was vague BS said which you can manipulate into pretending it is?

Grafting is safe

Only in the sense of taking an existing safe plant and grafting it to another plant.
But that says nothing about how to get that safe plant that you want.

I challenged you to eat pork crossed with spinach. Are you going to eat it? I want a YouTube of it.

I have no access to it. So how am I meant to?
I am also under no obligation to provide you a video of it.

Otherwise, admit that GMO is diseased food. Unlike grafting or hybriding, GMO involves a real virus.

Why would I admit to such utter BS?

There are plenty of ways to make GMO foods. They don't necessarily involve viruses.
There is no indication any virus was used for that pork.

Yet again, you are just spouting delusional BS with no basis in reality.

If you want to liken something to a disease, how about fungus growing on things, kind of like grafting a plant onto another plant?
The plant you are grafting on can in many ways be likened to a parasite.
Especially when you are only keeping the root stock of the original plant. That is stopping its ability to procreate and using a life support system.
Sure sounds like a diseased plant.

When I say "no new theories" what I mean is that scientists are just carrying out Tesla's ideas.

Firstly pure BS.
As a reminder, this is what you said:

Not aloud. But unless you count epigenetics (I don't, part of Darwin's theory) or woke ideas about genes and social justice, there have been no new genetic theories in almost 200 years.

Tesla said nothing about genes, and you were specifically appealing to genetic theories.
Now you want to spout BS by claiming you were actually talking about Tesla.

And for the most part, we haven't dispensed with the grid to make some better technology

Because the grid is vastly superior in basically all cases.
Wireless charging only provides convenience, but is vastly less efficient and more prone to failure.

And look at the massive hypocrisy of you. You object to 5G because of all the energy it transmits but you want wireless power which will operate at orders of magnitude more energy?
You are clearly just objecting for the sake of objection, not because you have any actual argument or because you have actually bothered thinking about it.

The scientist who figures out how to get devices to power themselves (solar and wind are still too inefficient) is the next frontier. Until then, I maintain "no new ideas."

i.e. you will reject all new ideas until science turns into magic?
You will willingly reject reality, until it matches your fantasy.

Great job showing everyone how dishonest and wilfully ignorant you are.

That is correct. Your "science" is magic.

It wants to shut down thousands of years of farming and HVAC because "cows fart, oh noooes" and "smoke heats the entire globe."

There is no globe, if you don't like meat don't eat it, and I'm sorry but the moment someone tells me that I need to hope that the winter day was sunny enough or windy enough to keep me from freezing to death is the moment I tell some noob wizzrobe to go fuck off.
 
Your "science" thinks it can readily replace an industry that with a few gallons keeps a car running for hundreds of miles, and has gone up in mpg from the last 50 years. We can continue to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars. Or we can toss that away for the magical thinking that tells us that charging for hours is in any way/shape/form efficient. Get it to 15 minutes, and we'll talk.

Btw, we could kill off the oil baron's strangehold on our economy in about 5 minutes. Just start gasifying all plastic. We have enough real oil that we could recycle that for years and years. Like diamonds it's not rare. We're being told it's rare after they turn it into medicine that gives us cancer and plastic. We're being told it's dangerous to the environment and not to use it. All the while they cut trees to clear land for solar/wind farms. The same trees that turn carbon into food.

What this is really about:

• Your government wants you disarmed so they can use lethal force against you
• Your government wants you immobile so you can't run away
• Your government wants you exposed to the elements so you die without lifting a finger
• Your government wants you to genocide you, because they don't like how lately you're not giving them enough human sacrifice
• Your government is run by lizard people who eat the dead. Their goal is to kill you and then scavenge the corpse.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, but if you think you can fool anyone here, you are the greater fool. But then, I am probably talking to someone with a forked tongue, so yeah. If we're gonna end up prey to the beastkin, I prefer the fox girls. They're at least cute, and only eat your liver (it grows back).

That is correct. Your "science" is magic.

It wants to shut down thousands of years of farming and HVAC because "cows fart, oh noooes" and "smoke heats the entire globe."

There is no globe, if you don't like meat don't eat it, and I'm sorry but the moment someone tells me that I need to hope that the winter day was sunny enough or windy enough to keep me from freezing to death is the moment I tell some noob wizzrobe to go fuck off.
 
Your "science" thinks it can readily replace an industry that with a few gallons keeps a car running for hundreds of miles, and has gone up in mpg from the last 50 years. We can continue to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars. Or we can toss that away for the magical thinking that tells us that charging for hours is in any way/shape/form efficient. Get it to 15 minutes, and we'll talk.

Btw, we could kill off the oil baron's strangehold on our economy in about 5 minutes. Just start gasifying all plastic. We have enough real oil that we could recycle that for years and years. Like diamonds it's not rare. We're being told it's rare after they turn it into medicine that gives us cancer and plastic. We're being told it's dangerous to the environment and not to use it. All the while they cut trees to clear land for solar/wind farms. The same trees that turn carbon into food.

What this is really about:

• Your government wants you disarmed so they can use lethal force against you
• Your government wants you immobile so you can't run away
• Your government wants you exposed to the elements so you die without lifting a finger
• Your government wants you to genocide you, because they don't like how lately you're not giving them enough human sacrifice
• Your government is run by lizard people who eat the dead. Their goal is to kill you and then scavenge the corpse.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, but if you think you can fool anyone here, you are the greater fool. But then, I am probably talking to someone with a forked tongue, so yeah. If we're gonna end up prey to the beastkin, I prefer the fox girls. They're at least cute, and only eat your liver (it grows back).

You win!

I can't argue with that logic! You got me. I am a lizard person with a forked tongue. How did you know? Did the fact I blink sideways give me away?

Remember when I asked for your P.O. box that time? God, I was feeling so hungry just thinking about hiding in the shadows waiting for you to gingerly attend to your P.O. box. I would have dressed up as a fox girl because we all know how you like them, and have no respect for your own liver, then when you least expected it................hahahahaha! I would have even brought my own white  plastic knife and fork, fresh out of the picnic packet.

It's not that there is no globe, it's simply that you have no room in your life for the globe. You are a man of your immediate environment with no aspirations to explore outer space.

That is correct. Your "science" is magic.

No, YOUR idea of what progress is is magic.

It wants to shut down thousands of years of farming and HVAC because "cows fart, oh noooes" and "smoke heats the entire globe."

No, it doesn't.
That is just your strawman.

There is no globe

That is just your wilful rejection of reality.

I'm sorry but the moment someone tells me that I need to hope that the winter day was sunny enough or windy enough to keep me from freezing to death

And no one is saying that.
Instead, it is saying to switch to better sources of energy to stop harming everyone.
Again, your objects are basically the same as people objecting to the prohibition of leaded petrol.

Btw, we could kill off the oil baron's strangehold on our economy in about 5 minutes. Just start gasifying all plastic.

How many times are you planning on spouting this crap?
That would do so little it isn't funny.

We have enough real oil that we could recycle that for years and years.

If you are burning it, you can't recycle it.

What this is really about:

The massive ecological damage fossil fuels due, which is only building over time, making it worse, making us need more power which causes even more damage.

You are welcome to believe otherwise

All sane people would.
Why would any sane person believe your paranoid delusional BS and wilful rejection of reality?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 18, 2024, 09:42:09 PM

That is correct. Your "science" is magic.

It wants to shut down thousands of years of farming and HVAC because "cows fart, oh noooes" and "smoke heats the entire globe."

There is no globe, if you don't like meat don't eat it, and I'm sorry but the moment someone tells me that I need to hope that the winter day was sunny enough or windy enough to keep me from freezing to death is the moment I tell some noob wizzrobe to go fuck off.
 
Your "science" thinks it can readily replace an industry that with a few gallons keeps a car running for hundreds of miles, and has gone up in mpg from the last 50 years. We can continue to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars. Or we can toss that away for the magical thinking that tells us that charging for hours is in any way/shape/form efficient. Get it to 15 minutes, and we'll talk.

Btw, we could kill off the oil baron's strangehold on our economy in about 5 minutes. Just start gasifying all plastic. We have enough real oil that we could recycle that for years and years. Like diamonds it's not rare. We're being told it's rare after they turn it into medicine that gives us cancer and plastic. We're being told it's dangerous to the environment and not to use it. All the while they cut trees to clear land for solar/wind farms. The same trees that turn carbon into food.

What this is really about:

• Your government wants you disarmed so they can use lethal force against you
• Your government wants you immobile so you can't run away
• Your government wants you exposed to the elements so you die without lifting a finger
• Your government wants you to genocide you, because they don't like how lately you're not giving them enough human sacrifice
• Your government is run by lizard people who eat the dead. Their goal is to kill you and then scavenge the corpse.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, but if you think you can fool anyone here, you are the greater fool. But then, I am probably talking to someone with a forked tongue, so yeah. If we're gonna end up prey to the beastkin, I prefer the fox girls. They're at least cute, and only eat your liver (it grows back).

You win!

I can't argue with that logic! You got me. I am a lizard person with a forked tongue. How did you know? Did the fact I blink sideways give me away?

Remember when I asked for your P.O. box that time? God, I was feeling so hungry just thinking about hiding in the shadows waiting for you to gingerly attend to your P.O. box. I would have dressed up as a fox girl because we all know how you like them, and have no respect for your own liver, then when you least expected it................hahahahaha! I would have even brought my own white  plastic knife and fork, fresh out of the picnic packet.

It's not that there is no globe, it's simply that you have no room in your life for the globe. You are a man of your immediate environment with no aspirations to explore outer space.

Hooray! I win!
(Ignores the rest of what you said)

Also, lizard ppl can't dress as fox girls. Their beady sideways-blinking eyes and lack of divine presence gives them away all the time. The fox girls are symbiotes with the human race (they are able to live without killing anyone) while the lizard ppl feed off of it. I would know the difference. The lizard people in religion are called the ashura, when the fox girls are the sattva. A grade-school student knows the difference.

That is correct, I have no aspirations to fly anywhere there is no atmosphere. Only fools try to smash a barrier that outside has no air. Such fools would be in mortal danger, yet they are goofing off... sort of like... they are on a set.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 18, 2024, 10:31:37 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 18, 2024, 09:42:09 PM

That is correct. Your "science" is magic.

It wants to shut down thousands of years of farming and HVAC because "cows fart, oh noooes" and "smoke heats the entire globe."

There is no globe, if you don't like meat don't eat it, and I'm sorry but the moment someone tells me that I need to hope that the winter day was sunny enough or windy enough to keep me from freezing to death is the moment I tell some noob wizzrobe to go fuck off.
 
Your "science" thinks it can readily replace an industry that with a few gallons keeps a car running for hundreds of miles, and has gone up in mpg from the last 50 years. We can continue to produce cleaner and more fuel efficient cars. Or we can toss that away for the magical thinking that tells us that charging for hours is in any way/shape/form efficient. Get it to 15 minutes, and we'll talk.

Btw, we could kill off the oil baron's strangehold on our economy in about 5 minutes. Just start gasifying all plastic. We have enough real oil that we could recycle that for years and years. Like diamonds it's not rare. We're being told it's rare after they turn it into medicine that gives us cancer and plastic. We're being told it's dangerous to the environment and not to use it. All the while they cut trees to clear land for solar/wind farms. The same trees that turn carbon into food.

What this is really about:

• Your government wants you disarmed so they can use lethal force against you
• Your government wants you immobile so you can't run away
• Your government wants you exposed to the elements so you die without lifting a finger
• Your government wants you to genocide you, because they don't like how lately you're not giving them enough human sacrifice
• Your government is run by lizard people who eat the dead. Their goal is to kill you and then scavenge the corpse.

You are welcome to believe otherwise, but if you think you can fool anyone here, you are the greater fool. But then, I am probably talking to someone with a forked tongue, so yeah. If we're gonna end up prey to the beastkin, I prefer the fox girls. They're at least cute, and only eat your liver (it grows back).

You win!

I can't argue with that logic! You got me. I am a lizard person with a forked tongue. How did you know? Did the fact I blink sideways give me away?

Remember when I asked for your P.O. box that time? God, I was feeling so hungry just thinking about hiding in the shadows waiting for you to gingerly attend to your P.O. box. I would have dressed up as a fox girl because we all know how you like them, and have no respect for your own liver, then when you least expected it................hahahahaha! I would have even brought my own white  plastic knife and fork, fresh out of the picnic packet.

It's not that there is no globe, it's simply that you have no room in your life for the globe. You are a man of your immediate environment with no aspirations to explore outer space.

Hooray! I win!
(Ignores the rest of what you said)

Also, lizard ppl can't dress as fox girls. Their beady sideways-blinking eyes and lack of divine presence gives them away all the time. The fox girls are symbiotes with the human race (they are able to live without killing anyone) while the lizard ppl feed off of it. I would know the difference. The lizard people in religion are called the ashura, when the fox girls are the sattva. A grade-school student knows the difference.

That is correct, I have no aspirations to fly anywhere there is no atmosphere. Only fools try to smash a barrier that outside has no air. Such fools would be in mortal danger, yet they are goofing off... sort of like... they are on a set.

That's a shame. I was just reading how NASA is offering up to three million dollars prize money for anybody who can help solve the problem with waste disposal in space and recycling in space.

Someone as knowledgeable and creative as you with your farm, could potentially come up with the winning solution. It would certainly help you with some of that debt.

The only problem, is you would have to actually research space crafts and space stations and space itself. These are things you preach dont and can't exist, though, right? Because there is no globe according to you.........

So.....unless you can dig deep and learn all about that which you refuse to believe, I guess all that easy prize money will go to someone else.

But why don't you? We all had to tear our hair out, learning what you bunch of tards believe, in your flat earth psychosis.

The fox girls are symbiotes with the human race (they are able to live without killing anyone)

That's just what they want you to think, while they slowly kill people and blame the lizzard people.

Only fools try to smash a barrier that outside has no air. Such fools would be in mortal danger, yet they are goofing off... sort of like... they are on a set.

No, plenty of people do things that put them in "mortal danger" either actual or simulated.
It just varies depending on how dangerous it is.

Even in a plane at cruising altitude, if you were exposed to the air outside, with nothing to assist you breathing, you would die.
Yet look at how people act on planes.

That's just what they want you to think, while they slowly kill people and blame the lizzard people.

Bah, humbug. The foxes and lizards are also known as Seelie (fox) and Unseelie (lizards) courts. Or Eelfinn (fox) and Aelfinn (snakes). They comprise a large category of immortal beings from mermaids to classical angels and demons, to just weird things (such as Cthulhu). The foxes are not good, but they ally with God, even though they have their own desires and needs, and a way of thinking that is somewhat alien to humanity. The snakes allied against God, and live in a way that depletes the Earth and consumes its prime occupants.

In any case, I'm not afraid of the lizard people. Because I know that El Cantare has my back.

No, plenty of people do things that put them in "mortal danger" either actual or simulated.

There is a difference between skydiving (potentially survivable with the right equipment), and entering a vacuum chamber (the right equipment does not last).