Try our free social site WTMX

Evolution and Dinosaurs Debunked (2019)

Reinhold Elstner
Published on 08 Oct 2021 / In Hoaxes / False Flags

Evolution and dinosaur hoaxes

Show more
2 Comments sort Sort By

Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest

Just because evolution is wrong does not mean dinosaurs are fake! You are a fucking retard who never passed high school!

   0    0
mikaowx 15 days ago

Hey there, big bang and some parts of the evolution theory might be wrong that doesn't mean the whole concept is erroneous. There are definite fossile evidences supporting the hypotheses. The whales fore and rear fins have shown to be rudimentary or left over legs. They have all the bones we have in their fins besides they are viviparous mammals like us. Some pythons have very small legbones which indicates they either started to become walking animals or have been demoted to what they are now. There are many interesting links among animals. One of the most relevant to us humans is how monkeys became anthropoid apes. On the other hand Eric Dubay sounds very scientific but Mr Dubay wouldn't stand a chance talking to professionals in those fields just as he wouldn't have a chance against a commercial pilot who has criss-crossed around the globe several times, had to make his own flight plans everytime taking the curvature of the earth into calculation.

   0    0
EastSaxon 14 days ago

Those who believe in abiogenesis (aka the Theory of evolution) believe they are the product of random chance and therefore they see everything including themselves as ultimately pointless. Those who believe in abiogenesis are generally hedonistic, have little to no investment in future generations, hardly care about society beyond their personal freedoms, and either choose not to have children or generally produce disfunctional families. Those who believe in the Theory of Evolution are much more likely to go extinct. That's an indicative phenomenon, don't you think?

   0    0
mikaowx 14 days ago (edited)

@EastSaxon: Believers in god are sometimes delusional thus prone to many unwanted traits. That kind of gullibility makes humans unsuspecting victims of any crime. To tell you the truth I am not a believer in either of those classic sides. This "much more likely to go extinct" and the other assumptions are the very shaky fabric of the issue here. I would argue with that. Meaningless you say. What gives meaning to you I say. I had believer friends whose parrents divorced and their families became equal to having none. I knew people who were atheists and were determined and pretty awesome family people too. There is no "much more likely". That's manipulation believers who have evangelizing agenda use to convince people believers in god are much more likely to be successful. If experience or evidence doesn't support theory you must change the theory. BTW believers in evolution believe in the laws of nature which govern chances and rule manifestation. The laws of nature aren't pointless nor they are hedonistic. People might be but I think that's not the question here is it? Restraint concerns both sides depending on what background you are coming from. Nature has strict rules like gravity. Human nature being part of nature itself has rules too.

   0    0
EastSaxon 14 days ago

@mikaowx: I used to believe in the Theory of Evolution until a few years ago, and I thought of life and myself as pointless. Life just seemed like a prison sentence, where I had to do pointless work to keep me going in this pointless world, and for that reason I was hedonistic because I had no higher wants in life.

A few years ago Neil deGrasse Tyson tried to explain the evolution of the eye, and then I was like: pause the video! There's no way an eye could've evolved! They've just shot themselves in the foot! And that was it, the logical conclusion was that it was created. And then the question was: Well who created it? Well if the creator is of this world then something must've created the creator, but that just leads to an infinite series of creators which is invalid because there must be an ultimate creator. So the idea comes that the creator is not of this world but separate from it: supernatural.

Who created the Big Bang? Pure magic or a supernatural creator?

Now I believe that God created me and this world and everything in it, and that things aren't just pointless outcomes for no reason other than chance. I don't get depressed any more and I'm glad to be here, I feel happy, I'm no longer hedonistic, and I want to have children. That's testimony! I'm a reformed man!

Man has purpose because God concieved of us, just like a car has purpose because the White man conceived of it.

I firmly believe that belief in evolution is why the West is full of hedonistic nihilists, and if people believed that God created this world and all its creatures and not in abiogenesis and trans-species evolution, then people would again be in harmony with this world. I see belief in God and his creation as a law of nature, hence why I think those who violate this law of nature are generally degenerates who tend towards extinction.

Believing in God is different to believing in Christianity. Christianity is a further stage. I just believe in God and I don't call myself Christian and wouldn't go to church because somehow they don't understand God (or at least it's rare and those ones stay away from the church). Most "Christians" believe in evolution, so they're not really God believers, and their churches are full of niggers and gays, which further proves the fact.

   0    0
mikaowx 13 days ago

@EastSaxon: If we wanted to be honest all the people on this earth would declare the unquestionable; we don't know how life started and why and everyone of us are just theorizing trying to prove their personal beliefs. The complexity of nature is inexplicable but we are constantly learning. Does that mean there had to be a creator? Absolutely not. If we assume god created animate and inanimate including humans who created god? Was he always there appearing from scratch? And if we accept a god has always been there he didn't need to be created why can't we accept the universe and life didn't have to be created they have been there just like god? This is the cornerstone at which it is decided whether one chooses to believe in a creator or not. What's the difference accepting one or the other without knowing? You must understand your subjective feelings are not what we call objective reality. Feeling right is one thing. That can be worked on without believing in a god. Being in sync with objective reality is another. One's feelings don't prove the existence or the inexistence of anything or anyone. It only means someone managed to trick the mind into believing something and it was easier to believe and feel good than not to believe and feel bad or bravely face the question with a blissed out I don't know. When a non believer is purposeful and responsible and healthy he wants to establish family, he wants to be happy, he is determined and goes about his way playing his role.
If you were to conflate the big bang theory with the theory of evolution of the species you would have been mistaken. They are separate issues. Animate and inanimate. Any sane person has a chance to live a purposeful life.

   0    0
EastSaxon 13 days ago

@mikaowx: Science cannot verify the existence of supernatural creation, but it has eliminated harmful alternative theories of nature, like abiogenesis, trans-species evolution, and the Big Bang. And as far as I know, this leaves just two theories for existence: 1. supernatural creation (from a timeless/spaceless supernatural realm); 2. infinite existence, i.e., that non-existence never existed, which presupposes no purpose and no beginning: a trivial theory. Therefore, there is only one non-trivial theory: supernatural creation.

As the theory of supernatural creation cannot be scientifically verified, and nor can any alternative theory, you have opted to believe that "The complexity of nature is inexplicable but we are constantly learning." To be consistent in your position, you must also reject belief in all parts of reality that cannot be scientifically verified. You must therefore reject belief in: moral truths, conscience truths (qualia), beauty truths, literary truths, logical truths (science requires logic, but logic does not require science), even scientific truths (nature is orderly, it follows regularity, pattern, and structure); also science cannot verify things like forgiveness, purpose, or hope, so you must also reject these things as unknowable.

These things have results in the physical world, but they are not physical themselves. Life is more than we can quantify scientifically. The paradox is that if you only believe what is verifiable by science, which is a form of naturalism (i.e. that nothing but the physical world exists), then you cannot believe even that.

If humans were just physical things, it would make us essentially no different than animals or rocks in an ultimate sense, so when a plane of 300 special and sacred persons goes down, according to naturalism, there are just 300 homosapiens that died. They are replaceable. But if naturalism is in error, then we are so much more than these bodies and what you see in the mirror; we are not simply replacable.

I know that belief in supernatual creation has had a profoundly harmonising effect on me and has made me stronger in every aspect of my life, and I know there's no contradictory evidence.

   0    0
Peck Erwood
Peck Erwood 13 days ago

There is not "definite" fossil evidence supporting this

   0    0
mikaowx 12 days ago

@Peck Erwood: There are examples I mentioned in the previous post. Read them. There is definitely evidence to support transitional-species theory even in contemporary biology. How did the fossils got here in the first place? Do you think they were manufactured for us by some evil government ? If you've ever watched a non ape monkey it is easy to see the similarities in both behaviour and looks. The next step would be the apes. There are pre ape and pre human fossils to back this claim up. I am not claiming I know what and how life came into being. Paleontologists would tell you an awful lot of surprising nuances that occored in the past that have evidence in the fossil record, examples of class-level transitions, tetrapods and fish, birds and dinosaurs, and mammals and "mammal-like reptiles" I am not necessarily a believer I am open to debate but I see a pattern.

   0    0
mikaowx 12 days ago

@EastSaxon: Belief doesn't start and end with the belief in a supernatural person creating the universe and life. So no I am true to my position without rejecting other ideas. Abiogenesis and big bang are separate from phylogenesis. They hypothesize the very origins of animate and inanimate life not the obvious pattern that one is able to observe through the existing examples and records. I am not a paleontologist but I have provided you actual evidence to prove my point. You on the other hand have not proved any proof so far yet continued like all believers in god to emphasize your belief and feelings are the proof god exists and all this couldn't have been possible without a supernatural being floating above our heads.
"science cannot verify things like forgiveness, purpose, or hope, so you must also reject these things as unknowable" what on earth do these things have to do with the existence of god? That's all gibberish. Forgiveness, purpose, hope? Aren't they separate issues regardless of one's belief or unbelief in god? The science of human nature e.g.: psychology, is very much able to describe and analize these values and with the help of neuroscience they are capable of mapping the whole mechanism. Science shows belief in a supernatural creator who just happened to exist by chance would be the same as accepting the universe and life happened by way of chance. It isn't me who is denying the existence of evidence now to support my belief.

   0    0
EastSaxon 12 days ago

@mikaowx: I never said that belief starts and ends with the belief in a supernatural person creating the universe and life. And that doesn't reconcile your paradoxical belief that we can only know what is verifiable by science.

By claiming that we can only know what is verifiable by science, you are not just rejecting God but metaphysics, which is an error because science cannot function without metaphysics.

Psychology cannot scientifically verify forgiveness, and a neuroscientist cannot detect forgiveness with a brain scan, but I know when somebody has forgiven me. Science deals with the natural/physical world and doesn't deal with the metaphysical. God and forgiveness are both metaphysical, so if you cannot accept that forgiveness exists, something that is knowable but not verifiable by science, then you cerainly won't accept that a supernatural creator exists, which is unknowable (hence why it's called faith).

Do you understand now why I'm speaking to you about metaphysical things?

The most worrying thing about a person with your belief, is that you believe there is no such thing as morality because science cannot verify it. You are therefore much more susceptible to immorality. The more that people believe that morality does not exist, the more that immoral behaviour will become socially acceptable.


You have not provided any proof that phylogeny is true, and if you had, it would be groundbreaking because phylogeny is officially still a theory, and not a proven fact. It's ironic that you think you have proven phylogeny based on your feeling that it is correct, and that you emphasis your belief as if that somehow proves it.

If I layed out the evolutionary progession of the computer and claimed that it must have happened by random chance, it would be rejected, no matter how traceable the series, because it is known that man created it (which is not scientifically verifiable btw). The same is true for phylogeny, it doesn't matter how traceable the series, all it does is demonstrate a progression of similarity, but it does not prove they were stages of trans-species evolution.

The creation of all the creatures in the world could have happened without evolution.

   0    0
mikaowx 11 days ago (edited)

@EastSaxon: You have surely misunderstood me pal. I started by stating I am not a believer in god and I don't necessarily accept the entire hypothesis of evolution, phylogeny, origin of life and the universe theory in general but I am seeing patterns that are undebatably there. I never claimed I have definite proof, all I said was that some parts make perfect sense. I also stated it is better to not have an answer and acknowledge this fact with an "I don't know" or saying "it's my opinion" than believing something that is entirely based on the same belief blind evolutionists believe; e.g.: they know exactly what happened and that believers commit the same mistake when they accuse the ones who try to apply the scientific method based on proof when looking for answers, however scarce the sources of evidence are. Your whole belief is based on the notion a creator person has always been there from nothing why would a sincere seeker should be ashamed using the same assumption when talking about the origins of life and the universe? The metaphisical creation of things are entirely of another plane that has nothing to do with looking for the actual physical puzzles however impossible it may seem to get to know more about a subject. Atheists don't not reject metaphisics as a method nor do they avoid what is yet unverifiable scientifically. Pardon me but do forgiveness, compassion require a god? Aren't they separate human concepts? You are talking about morals as a bible student when the god of the bible exterminates people based on his wim and interest? Moral and laws are defined, given or taken by men not god. That is why anyone should be suspicious there is manipulation going on. There is no such thing as birth right do you agree? Humans give or take rights and laws that define what is considered what. When women weren't allowed to wear short clothes who decided it is considered the morally right thing to do? Now that they are allowed to wear anything they want in public don't humans decide that it is now morally acceptable to wear short clothes? Who decided it is immoral to walk on the streets buck naked? God? If it was allowed do you think you would give a damn you are seeing bare titties? African and south american tribes are still living breasts and reproductory organs exposed and nobody gives a hoot. And there comes the god of the hebrews who declares being naked is evil and that god wants to force people to accept his views? You can't be serious to believe this! Isn't it rather because the hebrews have an agenda to roll out their control and enforce their views on others? Why would they you might ask? Slavery starts with colonising minds pal. In ancient times the conquered had to worship the god of the victors and by accepting what the god of the hebrews envisions you already became a slave.

   0    0
EastSaxon 11 days ago


"Your whole belief is based on the notion a creator person has always been there from nothing why would a sincere seeker should be ashamed using the same assumption when talking about the origins of life and the universe?"

The choice of Evolution vs Creation is a false dichotomy because evolution does not deal with how the universe came into being, only at some point after it came into being. Some Evolutionists say existence started with a singularity, the Hydrogen atom, but they do not explain how that got there, literally teaching that cosmology doesn't require it, or that there was no universe in which that cause could have existed. They also don't explain why it would suddenly explode. They also don't explain how all the matter of the universe condensed into a singularity could defy the law of gravity in order to explode. Some claim: well gravity didn't exist at first, it came later, or they make the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent: Well that violation must have happened for there to be space between the planets. Some evolutionists concede that that can't have happened and come halfway by saying: well everything just always existed but life still evolved. In both instances, the question of the ultimate beginning is avoided. And it all seems like a lot of stubborn denial in desparate hope that there isn't a supernatural creator, that the universe we inhabit is meaningless and nothing ultimately matters. It makes no sense to me why somebody would willingly choose to believe that, and it only makes sense to me that a people who hate us are using their control of our governments and media to ensure this belief dominates our society, and that those who believe in supernatural creation are always presented in a bad light and as monolithic. In schools they teach us the history of Science Vs Religion, and how we were oppressed through the Dark Ages, but never is it taught how the Catholic church diverged from the Bible, and so you have things like the Galileo Canard, where we were led to believe that Galileo disproved the truth of the Bible, but the fact is that the Catholic church incorporated ancient Greek science on the nature of the universe, calling them pre-Christian Christians, who claimed that the Earth was in the centre of the solar system, but the truth is that the Bible says NOTHING on the nature of the solar system, only statements like the sun moved across the sky, and parts taken out of context.

"I also stated it is better to not have an answer and acknowledge this fact with an "I don't know" or saying "it's my opinion" than believing something that is entirely based on the same belief blind evolutionists believe"

Of course, you can say: "I don't know," but that isn't useful, and all you're doing is denying youself of its utility for the sake of clinging on to unworkable scientific explanations. Why deny yourself? They've done an excellent job of programming us from early childhood to think of believing in God as monolithic and that we will be associated as being one and the same as these stereotypical Christians who make belief in God look dumb.

"Pardon me but do forgiveness, compassion require a god? Aren't they separate human concepts?"

Yes, they are separate things, and no, they do not require a belief in God. My point in raising metaphysics was because it is a prerequisite for believing in God.

"You are talking about morals as a bible student when the god of the bible exterminates people based on his wim and interest?"

I'm not a Christian, I'm simply a monotheist, but I do take interest in Christian theology. Why do you believe the accounts in the Bible are true accounts of God? I'm not saying they're not, but if you saw a thunderbolt strike a man dead, would you be certain it was an act of God or could it have been simply that we live in a dangerous world? I don't accept anything written in the Bible as being true simply because it's written in the Bible.

"Moral and laws are defined, given or taken by men not god."

Morality is like the laws of nature, it is not decided by man; there are moral truths, and they remain true regardless of people's customs or personal preferences. A moral society is a healthy society, and people tend to want to be healthy.

"There is no such thing as birth right do you agree?"

I disagree. It's a socially agreed right. You are born into things because we are more than just objects, and the same for nakedness, which is more than just nakedness because we are more than just objects. Women these days in the West basically walk around naked, wearing skin tight clothing. I don't want to look at another person's nakedness because I don't want to be drawn to that aspect of a person, nor would I want that aspect of my partner to be drawn upon by others. And of course there's also the concern for public hygiene, e.g. unwashed people dirtying publics seats, etc., and not to mention that many people's naked bodies are simply revolting to look at.

"Isn't it rather because the hebrews have an agenda to roll out their control and enforce their views on others?"

Supernatural creation is not limited to Abrahamic theology, and I don't believe it was to enforce their control or views on others. Many Europeans adopted Christianity when it was heavily persecuted by the Romans, thrown to lions etc., so there was no force at the beginning, but willful adoption even against brutal persection. What Christianity is today and what the Bible teaches are two different things.

"Slavery starts with colonising minds pal."

What you choose to believe is completely within your control. I think people whose minds have been colonised by the Theory of Evolution are much more likely to accept slavery because they see nothing beyond the physical, and those who believe in the supernatural will sacrifice their physical selves in belief of a higher purpose.

   0    0
mikaowx 10 days ago

@EastSaxon: The theory of evolution is dealing with the transformation of the species and as I mentioned earlier there is evidence when one sees the actual stages even in today's fauna and vegetation. The name big bang theory admits it's a theory; which BTW I find scentifically very unlikely, and it is dealing with the first manifestation of the physical universe likewise biogenesis is dealing with the possible origins of life. Separate issues. The themes of biogenesis and the issue of the big bang do not belong in the same category of how species evolved over time.

"Some evolutionists concede that that can't have happened and come halfway by saying: well everything just always existed" What is the difference between them and a beliver in god who is unable to explain why his entire thinking is based on a supernatural creator being who has always existed. Do you now see the similarity? If you accept that as the origin of the universe and life you have just avoided facing the unknown. It would have been cowardice not to look straight into the bull's eye and acknowledge we don't know. Why? Because admitting we don't know is a tremendeous advantage in terms of progress. Only when one sincerely admits he doesn't fully know and perhaps in the case of the universe we will never really know what happened in it's entirity will new possibilities appear. There will be new ideas new connections made between the dots. Until you cling desparately to something new realizations will not happen as if you had locked yourself up in a cage and thrown away the key.

"the universe we inhabit is meaningless and nothing ultimately matters"
Who says it is meaningless? What meaning do you give to the universe? The universe surely doesn't exist because of us human beings do you agree? If we humans died out tomorrow as a species the universe would not twitch a muscle. The sun makes life possible on earth. If the sun happened to blow up one day life would have cease to exist on earth in hours. Every living organism would die in the minus -100C+ cold. Would anyone care? One thing is for sure, no earthling would remain alive to care. Seeking is ultimate. It is boundless, timeless and infinite. The unknown is infinite. The known is just a little speck in the unknown. Luckily the known is ever expanding although it's an ongoing quest.

"I disagree. It's a socially agreed right" rights are defined by laws given or taken by human beings. There are no social agreements on rights. The plutocrats decide what to accept. They might swing to the direction of what the majority wants to win their consent when the interests of the overlords dictate but esentially the people in governments who represent the interests of the super rich make the laws for the invisible elite. For a handful of plutocrats. This is the underlying pattern in history no matter what the label they put on the system was. Since the definition of marality is "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour" one easily comprehends the south american tribes who live in the forests have different moral values they accept. Nakedness of breasts in their environment is accepted bythem human beings. That would be impossible to accept in our societies. Why? The controllers upthere have decided this is the moral value they want us to accept and you were indoctrinated from birth to think this is the only righteous way. To them natives seeing women's breasts is like looking at a tree. In our society people would stare, become excited and some would even be outraged if they saw a women walking bare naked on the streets. It would eventually be possible to manufacture universal morality on earth however it would take away the freedom of others who want to live in a different way. In other words the overlords would have to force or trick us into accepting them as universal values. The god of the bible is an instrument of this forced universal morality in the hands of the powers that shouldn't be. One god=one moral=one world trade=one religion=one world government etc.

"What you choose to believe is completely within your control" given you know what the consequences would be because they control people through consequences the people who believe do not always know what the conseqences of their actions are. Do not forget, thoughts, emotions, speech are actions too. Suppose you believed the regular christian bs. After some time you realize the whole crap was designed to manipulate people. Suppose the consequences of your blindness in belief would be that you have left your wife and kids because they wouldn't repent and come to jesus, you have been excommunicated from you r family, you have been alienated from society. These are very common results of faith among ex christians. They explain is that the alleged jesus said Luke 14:26 "“If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be My disciple." I hope you are now seeing what I am getting at. They deliberately separating people from family and friends to be able to excercise more control over them. All christian leaders know what they are doing but they are "doing it for the sake lord" and that sacred mission is justified even if it destroys lives.

   0    0
mikaowx 10 days ago

@EastSaxon: oh one more thing...
"those who believe in the supernatural will sacrifice their physical selves in belief of a higher purpose"
The most dangerous people on earth are the people who think they have higher purpose than others.
What is the reason? Because they are occupied with their higher purpose instead of getting dirty with the existing problems they are chasing their agendas while they want to do away with others. Most of the time they appear as philanthropists who are concerned with the world's problems they created in the first place. Elon musk is ocupied with the realization of his futuristic vision instead of seeing more than half of the world's population are living below the poverty line. Ever heard of Eugenics? Ever heard of jewish supremacy and their higher purpose? The freemasons with their depopulation agenda where they get to decide who are to be exterminated? How many lives have people with higher purpose have claimed in the course of history? In the united states it was legally supported until 1974; I think the last state was indiana which discontinued this abominable practice, that undesirables; e.g.: people whose family members were alcoholics, paupers, low birth working class citizens, low birth blacks or ppl who or whose families were victims of addiction and their offsprings may be subjected to sterilization by injection! Thousands of lawsuits are still going on as a result of this. Look it up.

   0    0
EastSaxon 10 days ago


Thanks to this exchange, I've understood what evolution really is and really isn't, so hopefully you'll be convinced.

1. "there is evidence when one sees the actual stages even in today's fauna and vegetation."

Phylogeny doesn't evidence biogenesis by itself, but it does supports faith in evolution, i.e. it makes it look like it's really possible that there is trans-species evolution going on, but there is no evidence that it is really going on, so you have to have faith. What you're seeing as evidence will only be evidence to those who have faith in evolution.

This is what prominent paleontologist and evolutionary biologist had to say:

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils... Evolution's Erratic Pace"
--Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist and evolutionary biologist, Natural History, Volume 86, Number 5, May 1977 (p. 14)

Transitional species in the fossil record are actually based on speculation/faith, e.g. the Rodhecetus (the most important transitional whale species), or are real species but with only minimal similarities, e.g. Pakicetus -- Ambulecetus -- Basilosaurus, or are simply frauds, e.g. Piltdown Man.

Calling biogenesis a scientific theory (or indeed the Big Bang, etc) is misleading because for a theory to qualify as scientific is must be either falsifiable, refutable, or testable. Biogenesis, etc., is simply a metaphysical pursuit. I think one of the biggest problems for evolutionists is that they are selling evolution as science when really it's faith and they're seeing things that affirm (but do not prove) their faith. They believe that the evidence so clearly demonstrates what they believe is true, that it simply must be true, and this is exactly what many of those who believe in supernatural creation are likewise doing.

2. "Some evolutionists concede that that can't have happened and come halfway by saying: well everything just always existed" What is the difference between them and a beliver in god who is unable to explain why his entire thinking is based on a supernatural creator being who has always existed.

If you believe in infinite existence, then you ought to also believe in the infinite existence of all living creatures because there's no reason why life wouldn't have evolved in the infinite past.

Furthermore, belief in a finite existence necessarily requires a source, and that source can only be from a supernatural realm. The only alternative to not believing in God is believing in infinite existence, and evolutionists have got around this problem by coming up with the concept of the Big Bounce, by imagining that the universe is in a cyclical state of expansion and contraction, which repeatedly contracts back down to a singularity and then repeatedly Big Bangs, but again this idea doesn't qualify as a scientific theory and is part of the metaphysical pursuit of evolution, a faith.

3. "admitting we don't know is a tremendeous advantage in terms of progress. Only when one sincerely admits he doesn't fully know and perhaps in the case of the universe we will never really know what happened in it's entirity will new possibilities appear."

Actually, taking the position of not knowing, is exactly the reasonable position to take because evolution, as I already argued, is not knowable, it is a faith. However, you've come a bit unstuck because, if I understand you correctly, it seems you've basically rejected the Big Bang and abiogenesis, and that's an unreasonable position; you have to have faith in them all, and you should likewise say with them: I don't know, I may never know, but I hold faith that that is true. It's fine to say you cannot argue them but you must simply hold faith that that's the true nature of the universe for your position to work.

4. "Who says it is meaningless? What meaning do you give to the universe? The universe surely doesn't exist because of us human beings do you agree? If we humans died out tomorrow as a species the universe would not twitch a muscle."

This is the fundamental problem I have with the faith of evolution. You believe it's meaningless, and you believe that we are ultimately insignificant: "the universe would not twitch a muscle." My faith is that there is meaning, and that we are ultimately significant, and that is part of what it means for me to have faith in the existence of God.

5. "Nakedness of breasts in their environment is accepted by them human beings. ... you were indoctrinated from birth to think this is the only righteous way."

I certainly was indoctinated into that as a child, but I agree with it as an adult for the reasons I mentioned. I do not feel oppressed by laws that protect against it, and have never felt a want to be naked in public, and I don't understand other Whites who want that. As for Negros, I see them as a separate species, so I don't look to them for any kind of normalcy.

4. ""What you choose to believe is completely within your control" given you know what the consequences would be because they control people through consequences the people who believe do not always know what the conseqences of their actions are."


5. "The most dangerous people on earth are the people who think they have higher purpose than others."

Communism is well known for being fiercely atheistic, which slaughted at least 100 million innocent people, so I disagree that Atheists are not a good contender for the most dangerous.

Elon Musk is an athiest: "His only faith is in science and in a systematic understanding of the universe and how the laws of the universe work, and in humankind."

6. "Eugenics"

It doesn't necessarily mean sterilisation or other physical interventions. It can simply be giving incentives to those deemed to be most desirable. I support this form of Eugenics. Eu + genics = good genics. There's also dysgenics, which is what's being done today, where welfare is supporting the worst of society to have lots of kids.

   0    0
mikaowx 9 days ago (edited)

@EastSaxon: Aren't some whales having tiny leg structures like us under the flesh of fins? They breathe with lungs and the fact they are mammals and unlike fish and they are viviparous are signs they either weren't fishes and are being changed into fishes or now being transitioned into terrestrial mammals despite they look like fishes living in water. Or pythons having vestigial legbones under the skin? Or for that matter human embrios for months live in fluid and breath oxygen through the blood. …and other nonaquatic vertebrates exhibit gill slits even though they never breathe through gills. These slits are found in the embryos of all vertebrates because they share as common ancestors the fish in which these structures first evolved. Look at the pictures of the structures here:

Doesn't this remind you of gills although they aren't called gills they function the same way. Thus fetises go through the early stages of development developing the same equipment fishes are using. Biologist have many more examples of these strange transitions surrounding us today and paleontologists have other examples of transitional life. It is however hard to believe cats have turned into monkeys in the first place. Nevertheless it could have been any mammals that made the transitional stage to monkeys. Monkeys walk on four, look like other mammals, live animal lives but the pre apes which we have fragments of fossils of, started to use more sophisticated methods of hunting and overtime their dna has been shaped by their actions and lifestyle until eventually became apes. If you've ever looked at apes from up close they seem to have unbelievable attention and understanding. The level of similarities are mindblowing even when looking at the body structure. One strain could have for reasons unknown; could it be an instant change of the environment? emerged from within the apes and developed their features into humans. This theory makes more sense to me then any god.
Of course I am not buying the big bang theory and I don't yet know how could a living being gang up from inanimate matter and energy but all this huge unknown factor is insufficient to suggest a creator being is behind all this.
May I ask whose one god is the one god you were speaking of? All one gods claim they are the only ones.

Communism came from judaism. The jewish bankers and financiers have been for ages striving for a world controlled by the jews and they admit it. Communism is just a tool invented, planned, financed, orchestrated and carried out by jews to spread it internationally and conquer the whole worldwith that erroneous lie. Since they were unable to succeed everywhere with the violent takeover they started to invent new methods through the frankfurt school etc. that's how we got cultural communism and socialism. It is however unquestionable that these plans are outlined in the old testament which goes back to at least 25 hundred years in time. We have plethora of evidence for ruthless genocide and world takeover plans in the old testament. The one god of the old testament allegedly said this. This implies he is aspiring to rule the world which in translation can be interpreted as the personification of the collective tribe in one person, the god of the jews is trying to give hints about what he is striving for what to do how to achieve.

   0    0
mikaowx 9 days ago (edited)

@EastSaxon: Have you ever looked at a skeleton of a stingray? Check it out online. It is like a terrestrial animal. It has head, ribs and extremely transformed armbones providing the umbrella around which unusual all-round gills are formed. Hind legs and tail are stemming from the vertebrae. We have vestigial tailbone remains at the base of the vertebrae too . Stingrays however breathe with gills. The unborn young stingrays are ovoviviparous, meaning they are nourished by egg yolk inside the mother's body. Just like human placenta is an egg yolk and the liquid around it is the egg white without a shell. There was no need for a shell inside the womb because the womb performs all the functions and more. Stingrays have gills and they breathe with gills even though their skeletons are the reminders of terresrtrial animals. The gills look like the slots terrestrial animals and humans have at the embryonic stage. Peculiar but true. These are living transitions.
This makes us conclude stingrays might have once been related to terrestrial life.

   0    0
EastSaxon 9 days ago

@mikaowx: While what you're telling me about these creatures is interesting, it isn't evidence in itself of biogenesis, it's just a faith based interpretation. Those who have faith in supernatural creation could likewise interpret it as having nothing to do with evolution but simply divine choice. Biogenesis does not qualify as a scientific theory and therefore cannot be verified by science, and there is much which has been verified by science which poses seemingly insurmountable problems to the faith of biogenesis, e.g. no evolutionist has managed to give a credible explanation of how the eye evolved, but its irreducible complexity remains unproven, so evolutionists are able to continue with their faith.

I don't believe in any specific God, I simply believe in a supernatural creator, but I do take interest in theological texts like the Bible, which is also a prerequisite to modern Western philosophy.

I recognise the Jews leading role in the Bolshevik Coup and the USSR, and I've I've seen quotes by Jews claiming that Communism is Judaism, but I've not investigated that claim, and by what your saying this simply means that Judaism is anything which serves the Jewish agenda. I do already believe that Jews are trying to control the world, primarily through central banks and the media.

Where in the OT are these unquestionable world domination plans written? The Jew in the video says he's following a code in the Torah (the first 5 books of the OT) which makes it seem that these Jews are re-interpreting it. I've not looked into Bible codes.

   0    0
mikaowx 8 days ago

@EastSaxon: I am not claiming I have definitive evidence but the evidence is compelling. Knowing this I always say "theory" when referring to any of these ideas. Believers in god aren't theorizing there is a supernatural creator despite having absolutely nothing based on hard evidence and facts. So who is relying more on faith then? We are using logic to connect the existing dots based on observation. Of course you don't have that option when contemplating on the origins of life and the physical universe.
Another discernable phenomenon which seems to support the theory in case of both the fossil evidence and the contemporary environment is the observable changes occuring in species after changing their environment of living due to some reason. Galapagos leguans have a subtype who for some reason were stranded in the nearby islands nobody knows when probably thousand of years ago. Since the terrestrial food sources were scarce on those islands they started eating moss and algae which over the long years have turned their color bluish green as the result of their diet. They now have swimming membranes between their claws to be able to go underwater and graze. I bet their digestion enzimes have also been changed to fit the diet. Changes occur both externally and internally. One should conclude that even the smallest changes in the environment and the lifstyle affects dna over a significant period of time. It affects size, shape, color, structure, brainsize, enzimes etc. It also explains how ordinary monkeys could turn into apes and eventually humans due to changes.
I've been listening to rabbis telling their odience the book of creation doesn't speak about the creation of the world and life in a literal sense. They are not to be interpreted literally. Christian pastors however do not understand what is going on. They never instruct anyone to see these stories as metaphorical fables. Even church fathers and other prominent people of faith had written about this.

“The learned may penetrate into the significance of all oriental mysteries, but the vulgar can
only see the exterior symbol. It is allowed by all who have any knowledge of the scriptures
that everything is conveyed enigmatically.”
Church father Origen, Contra Celsus (1.12) 2nd century AD

“We must not understand or take in a literal sense, what is written in the book on the
creation [Genesis], nor form of it the same ideas, which are participated by the generality of
mankind, otherwise our ancient sages would not have so much recommended to us, to hide
the real meaning of it, and not to lift the allegorical veil, which covers the truth contained
therein. When taken in its literal sense, that work gives the most absurd and most
extravagant ideas of the Deity. Whosoever should divine its true meaning, ought to take
great care in not divulging it.”
Rabbi Moses Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed (2.29) 16th century AD

IMHO the bible is more of an oriental mistery school type of literature because it's origins are deep in the middle east BUT since it had influence over western society we now have accepted it to be sort of a world heritage. Greek, roman, nordic, celtic and other less known philosophies and beliefs are considered to be the bases of western thought. I am convinced writing and civilization didn't emerge in one place alone. The proof of this are the eastern european digging sites which go back to the 6th milleneum BC. They were already using bronze tools, pottery, animal husbandry, irrigation, agriculture. Some of the settlements consisted of several thousand structures and more importantly they've found evidence they already had their writing. 150 pictograms were found, similar to phoenician. Only they were found to be earlier then phoenician and even sumerian scripts.
One of these cultures were named Vinča culture the other Cucuteni-trypillian culture. One might ask what agenda was behind the aspiration the "overlords" advertise mezopotamia as the cradle of civilization? The indus valley civilization have been proven to go back to at least 8-10 thousand years. One is able to observe the same develpment compared to the eastern european sites on the timescale provided. You get the picture.

To sum this up, theology is mostly dealing with human nature disguised in symbols only the ones who have been initiated to the meanings of the allegories understand. This is why rabbis propagate all the other treatises of judaism for example.

“The Bible is like water, the Mishna like wine: he that has learned the scripture, and not the
Mishna, is a blockhead.”
Rabbinical saying from the Gemara

the mishna is a book of commentaries divulging the meanings of the fables. As you see this bit of text inherently explains what Jesus turning water into wine as an allegory means.

   0    0
mikaowx 8 days ago

@mikaowx: Old testament bible codes regarding world domination and zionism. They interpret all scriptures as a war between the holy seeds aka. themselves and the unclean, idol worshippers e.g.: us non jews. Esau, Edom, Amalek, represents the west, the romans, people of european stock to them. The god of the jews has a plan to destroy all the nations, and us who they regard as Esav. The evil shells. They plan to take revenge on the non jews until nations disappear. The jews represented as Jacob in the text are planning to possess all the wealth of all the nations and the kingdom they are working to achieve is their world domination over us. Zionism is based on 25 hundred years old prophecies. The best way to predict the future is to create it, in this case in the form of self fulfilling prophecies. The old testament and yahweh is zionism. So is christianity disguised as opposition to judaism. Let me quote some of these pearls of jewish literature. There are a lot more though.

Jewish behaviour towards the rest of humanity has been shaped for milleneas by these verses:

Isaiah 49:23
Kings will be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. They will bow to you facedown and lick the dust at your feet.

Jeremiah 1:10;
See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, To root out and to pull down, And to destroy and to overthrow;

Isaiah 46:28
Do not be afraid, Jacob my servant, for I am with you," declares the LORD. "Though I completely destroy all the nations among which I scatter you, I will not completely destroy you.
To take possession of foreign lands e.g. rule over other people:

Deuteronomy 23:19;20
You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest.
You may charge a foreigner interest, but you may not charge your brother interest, that the LORD your God may bless you in all that you undertake in the land that you are entering to take possession of it.

Genesis 27:29
Let peoples serve you, And nations bow down to you. Be master over your brethren, And let your mother’s sons bow down to you. Cursed be everyone who curses you, And blessed be those who bless you!”

Leviticus 25:44;45;46
And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves.
Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.
You may leave them to your sons after you to inherit as property; you can make them slaves for life. But as for your brothers, the Israelites, no man may rule harshly over his brother.

Joel 3:16;17
The LORD also shall roar out of Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem; and the heavens and the earth shall shake: but the LORD will be the hope of his people, and the strength of the children of Israel.

Deuteronomy 15:6
"For the LORD your God will bless you as He has promised you, and you will lend to many nations, but you will not borrow; and you will rule over many nations, but they will not rule over you."
The Leading Role: -Deuteronomy 28:13 "And the Lord shall make thee the head, and not the tail; and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath;"
The takeover of everything without working for it: -Deuteronomy 6:10 "And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged, which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst not; when thou shalt have eaten and be full;"

Isaiah [d]40:15[/d]-17, 22-24; 54:1-4; 60:5, 8-12, 16-17; and 61:5-6 [d]40:15[/d]
Behold, the nations are as a drop of a bucket, and are counted as the small dust of the balance;
40:17 All the nations are as nothing before Him; they are accounted by Him as things of nought, and vanity.

because the abundance of the sea shall be turned unto thee, the wealth of the nations shall come unto thee.

60:11 Thy gates also shall
be open continually, day and night, they shall not be shut; that men may bring unto thee the wealth of the nations, and their kings in procession.For that nation and kingdom that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, those nations shall be utterly wasted. [***] 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the milk of the nations, and shalt suck the breast of kings; and thou shalt know that I the LORD am thy Saviour, and I, the Mighty One of Jacob, thy Redeemer.
They live without manual labour:
61:5 And strangers shall stand and feed your flocks, and aliens shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers. 61:6 But ye shall be named the priests of the LORD, men shall call you the ministers of our God; ye shall eat the wealth of the nations, and in their splendour shall ye revel.

Micah 5:7-8 (Micah 5:8-9 in the KJV) states:
“7 And the remnant of Jacob shall be among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, as a lion among the beasts of the forest, as a young lion among the flocks of sheep, who, if he go through, treadeth down and teareth in pieces, and there is none to deliver. 8 Let Thy hand be lifted up above Thine adversaries, and let all Thine enemies be cut off. [version of the Jewish Publication Society]” Psalm

72:11 Yea, all kings shall fall down before him: all nations shall serve him.
The Lord judges all the nations, nations disappear, israelites "the righteous" will remain and Israelites "Jacob" will posess all their belongings. Obadiah 15 "For the day of the LORD is near upon all the nations; as thou hast done, it shall be done unto thee; thy dealing shall return upon thine own head.

16 For as ye have drunk upon My holy mountain, so shall all the nations drink
continually, yea, they shall drink, and swallow down, and shall be as though
they had not been. 17 But in mount Zion there shall be those that escape, and
it shall be holy; and the house of Jacob shall possess their possessions."

Deuteronomy 7:2-3
“2 And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt
smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with
them, nor show mercy unto them: 3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with
them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt
thou take unto thy son.”

Ezra 9:11
Which thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land,
unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the
people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one
end to another with their uncleanness. 12 Now therefore give not your
daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor
seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the
good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.

Obadiah 17 But on Mount Zion will be deliverance; it will be holy, and Jacob will possess his inheritance. 18 Jacob will be a fire and Joseph a flame; Esau will be stubble, and they will set him on fire and destroy him. There will be no survivors from Esau.” The LORD has spoken.

   0    0
mikaowx 8 days ago

@EastSaxon: Here are two videos of the same world domination issue. Interestingly Mark Twain wrote a letter to Mr. Rockefeller in those days whose bible class he was attending earlier pointing out why he stopped attending classes. He encountered a jew there who as usual tried to whitewash the story of Joseph in egypt as a benevolent act of helping the egyptians solve their problems; similarly to the way christian preachers try to spin the tale. He outlined his views extensively in his letter. Worth watching.

the other is about the plan itself:

   0    0
Show more