Warcraft II Forum

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: LiveFreeorDie on January 07, 2018, 11:24:14 PM

Title: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 07, 2018, 11:24:14 PM
Some people - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqUazSqXUzQ#)
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: tk[as] on January 07, 2018, 11:57:00 PM
war2 is dead thanks to people picking flowers instead of letting them blossom into the amazing flowers they're supposed to be...

there. i said it.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 09, 2018, 01:17:52 PM
This video is dedicated to all the people who have played W2 and have, for no reason, been belittled, mocked, banned, insulted, treated as less than human by the bullies of W2 whose self image and worth rests on their life's devotion and resulting skill in this 20 year old video game.

Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Antti_Kiviniemi on January 09, 2018, 03:28:42 PM
bobby fischer on chess:

Robert James Fischer on the top chessplayers - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6FoafuKOFA#)

bobby fischer said (rightly so) that there is systematic cheating in chess. bobby fischer was the most talented chess player, but the system made it almost impossible (but he did it anyway) for him (and everyone else like him) to rise to the top.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 09, 2018, 03:29:09 PM
Boys' reaction to bullying will melt your heart - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdeuivQYnas#)

Imagine how much better the world would be if more people were like these boys who decided to not mock, tease, insult the weaker guy, but to embrace and accept and help him.

None of us have anything that wasn't given to us.

Even our very life, we did absolutely nothing to earn or create. It was a gift.

Our abilities, intellect, talents, appearance are given to us. Sure, we can hone them to a degree and work to better ourselves to some degree, but our very mind and body was not made by us, and we did absolutely nothing to NOT be born disabled, crippled, mentally retarded, disfigured, or in any other way "inferior".
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Antti_Kiviniemi on January 09, 2018, 03:41:17 PM
Niccolo Machiavelli: “How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.”
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: {Lance} on January 09, 2018, 06:09:28 PM
The best way to insure the destruction of anything in nature/reality is to make sure that the weak survive long enough to drag the rest of the population of that species to the grave with them.  Humans didnt survive this planet because they were weak.  The lived long and prospered because they killed, maimed, stole, and enslaved every usable resource that happened to cross their path and they were not 'nice' about any of it.  If they were,  they wouldnt have made it past year 1.

Let that sink in for a bit and then re-think the "everyone is a winner and gentle and nice" road that is being hand fed to kids today.  Live isnt a bunch of rosey people who give everything to you.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is destined for a miserable life that they themselves are the architect of,  not the bullies.  I was bullied many times as a kid and I am a better person because of it.  So some excuse that you suck at everything you do because poor you was bullied in school is just a weak cop out.  Some think that just because I was excellent with sports and what not that I never got bullied the way these 'kids today do and that I am to hard on them.  Thats just a bunch of horseshit.  They are made out of the same organic material that I was,  absolutely nothing is different about 'todays kids' other than the way they are being taught wrong,  the world isnt all candy and playdates.  I dont take shit from anyone and I certainly dont rely upon anyone to provide for me either.

Grow a pair.  Thats what I teach.  In the end only the strong will survive.  That's been the case for 4 billion years and its not going to change any time soon just because it's not nice.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 09, 2018, 08:58:20 PM
In the end only the strong will survive.  That's been the case for 4 billion years and its not going to change any time soon just because it's not nice.

True, but this premise relys on a continually multiplying population. That is not what we see on this server.

It's a game, an artificial framework, the grunts should do the bullying in game.

I'm pretty sure "Come to our server and get cyber-bullied to prop up my ego because I have a tiny penis" is not a slogan that is going to keep the game alive.

The weak will die out, and weak shit like that will make war2 die out.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 09, 2018, 10:09:55 PM
The best way to insure the destruction of anything in nature/reality is to make sure that the weak survive long enough to drag the rest of the population of that species to the grave with them.  Humans didnt survive this planet because they were weak.  The lived long and prospered because they killed, maimed, stole, and enslaved every usable resource that happened to cross their path and they were not 'nice' about any of it.  If they were,  they wouldnt have made it past year 1.

Let that sink in for a bit and then re-think the "everyone is a winner and gentle and nice" road that is being hand fed to kids today.  Live isnt a bunch of rosey people who give everything to you.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is destined for a miserable life that they themselves are the architect of,  not the bullies.  I was bullied many times as a kid and I am a better person because of it.  So some excuse that you suck at everything you do because poor you was bullied in school is just a weak cop out.  Some think that just because I was excellent with sports and what not that I never got bullied the way these 'kids today do and that I am to hard on them.  Thats just a bunch of horseshit.  They are made out of the same organic material that I was,  absolutely nothing is different about 'todays kids' other than the way they are being taught wrong,  the world isnt all candy and playdates.  I dont take shit from anyone and I certainly dont rely upon anyone to provide for me either.

Grow a pair.  Thats what I teach.  In the end only the strong will survive.  That's been the case for 4 billion years and its not going to change any time soon just because it's not nice.



Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Lance. Let's consider your ideas, though.

What you're saying Lance, is that it's alright to rape and kill children (and women) because you're stronger.

And what you're saying is consistent with the atheist/evolutionist worldview, which many people who are atheist/evolutionist minded don't understand when they assert that people shouldn't violate their "human rights" by being "crazy-idea-phobic" "racists" (extremely broad definitions encompassing anyone who disagrees with any of their incorrect ideas). In their undeveloped worldview, they believe it's wrong to disagree with them.

At least your idea that it's fine to murder innocent people and rape children is consistent with the atheist/evolutionist worldview.

If we are all just random particles in motion, nothing is wrong. This is what's being taught in schools today, but it's nonsense. It's illogical. We know right and wrong exist.

Watch this movie, and if you still want to believe that nothing exploded billions of years ago and created information and a clearly intelligently designed universe and atoms and cells and living creatures of all varieties all by accident by scientifically impossible means, you're welcome to believe it, but it is a fairy tale.

The Atheist Delusion Movie (2016) HD - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChWiZ3iXWwM#)

There is right and wrong, and the God that actually did make the world says it's wrong to kill other people because He made them and loves them. He also said it's wrong to harm the weak, the widows, poor, orphans, and that people should treat other people the way they want to be treated.

The types of ideas that weaker/younger/sicker/older people can be harmed or killed stem from the atheist/evolutionist worldview and show just how dangerous it is and how much damage it causes to a lot of people.



Title: Re: Some people
Post by: individualism results in littering on January 09, 2018, 10:22:23 PM
The best way to insure the destruction of anything in nature/reality is to make sure that the weak survive long enough to drag the rest of the population of that species to the grave with them.  Humans didnt survive this planet because they were weak.  The lived long and prospered because they killed, maimed, stole, and enslaved every usable resource that happened to cross their path and they were not 'nice' about any of it.  If they were,  they wouldnt have made it past year 1.


Ahha, human survival was predicated on genocide apparently. hot take.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 09, 2018, 11:03:46 PM
the atheist/evolutionist worldview

Ok Baby, I've just got to pull you up on this. I have never met an "evolutionist". The term is religious propoganda.

Just because I understand the evolutionary process does not mean that I use it as a philosophical base for how I live my life. Understanding what happened to get us to where we are does not legislate that as how we should move forward.

After millions of years of evolution humans have finally developed self-awareness. This is a very new thing. A couple of thousand years ago they were still nailing people to crosses. In another couple of thousand years I'm sure we will all have a better understanding of how to move forward. These are still turbulent times.
                                 :critter:
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 11, 2018, 12:06:52 AM
According to Collins English Dictionary (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evolutionist (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evolutionist))

Evolutionist: An evolutionist is someone who accepts the scientific theory that all living things evolved from a few simple life forms.

Propaganda: Propaganda is information, often inaccurate information, which a political organization publishes or broadcasts in order to influence people.

You said the term "evolutionist" is "religious" "propaganda" (inaccurate, misleading). In what way is it misleading or inaccurate? In what way is the term religious?

I'm going by the dictionary definition of the term.

After millions of years of evolution humans have finally developed self-awareness. This is a very new thing.

I'd be interested in any evidence you have to support this claim.

Just because I understand the evolutionary process does not mean that I use it as a philosophical base for how I live my life. Understanding what happened to get us to where we are does not legislate that as how we should move forward.

I absolutely believe that how one believes governs how one behaves. If one believes actions have no meaning and no consequences, that there is no judge of behavior, then one's own selfish desires will reign paramount, fettered only by the actions of others and physical laws.

There are instances where people behave CONTRARY to their own professed belief system by asserting values such as the value of human life when their belief system dictates that human life is accidental and meaningless. It's illogical to conclude that an accidentally formed pile of cells has intrinsic worth in an accidental and meaningless universe of random particles in motion, or to assert that there is such a thing as right and wrong. But we know that right and wrong exist. Even atheists use God's law code to judge others with, even though they deny His authority. For example, a non-believer in God accuse others of "lying", "cheating", "stealing", etc., which in their belief system have no basis for being wrong at all. But God put in each of us a conscience, that we can choose to dull and ignore by repeatedly shushing it and doing what we want anyways.

A couple of thousand years ago they were still nailing people to crosses. In another couple of thousand years I'm sure we will all have a better understanding of how to move forward. These are still turbulent times.

People are still being killed by crucifixion today.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2000-years-later-crucifixion-still-1921768 (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2000-years-later-crucifixion-still-1921768)

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27245852 (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27245852)

The idea that people are improving and advancing is entirely false. If anything, people are devolving, and I think there's evidence to support the idea that people were much more intelligent in the past than they are today, based on findings of ancient civilizations including buildings that were built by technology or mechanics we can't understand today. I'll post some links. :)

I appreciate you sharing your thoughts Lamby, and I'd love to discuss further.

These Ancient Relics Are So Advanced They Shouldn't Exist... - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAsWFgpvYhA#)

The Antikythera Mechanism, an ancient, highly advanced computer from 100 BC "shouldn't exist".

There are many more, but even this one is quite interesting.

Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 11, 2018, 02:33:23 AM
 ::) *SIGH* ok I'll try to make this brief, and only cos I like you. BUT you have to promise not to get offended ok? So just remember you like me and you asked!

According to Collins English Dictionary (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evolutionist (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/evolutionist))......

Collins also contains the "word" MILF (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/milf), that does't mean it isn't a term invented by people peddling online porn in the late '90s.

The creationist viewpoint comes from the bible, it is part of belief system (i.e. Christianity) that governs how people view the world, how they should behave in it, their moral code, their view of history etc.... just about everything.

Adding an "ist" onto the end of the word evolution implies that anyone who understands the evolutionary process is a member of some other competing cult that is trying to replace religion with its own version. This is quite frankly laughable.


After millions of years of evolution humans have finally developed self-awareness. This is a very new thing.
I'd be interested in any evidence you have to support this claim.

Hmm. Well if you don't believe in evolution, then you don't. I have already wasted a fair bit of time discussing the proof of evolution in another thread, I really don't feel like looking it up and quoting it here because I don't actually think you're interested in it, only using it as a vehicle to propose that it is invalid. If you were actually interested in learning I would be far more inclined to spend my time teaching you about it.

Please feel free to provide any evidence you have that a single word in the bible is true. No no, don't paste that youtube link - I'll save you the trouble. There isn't any. None. Zero. Zip. Zilch. Nada. Nothing (that's the whole 'faith' bit right?).... but if it makes you feel better, then I'm happy that it works for you.

Just because I understand the evolutionary process does not mean that I use it as a philosophical base for how I live my life. Understanding what happened to get us to where we are does not legislate that as how we should move forward.
I absolutely believe that how one believes governs how one behaves. If one believes ...... their own professed belief system by asserting values ...... "lying", "cheating", "stealing", etc., which in their belief system ....

Really you are smart enough to understand this. This is the whole point. Evolution is not a "belief system". It's just what happened while life was evolving. I also know what happened in World War II, but understanding that does not mean that I want to start shooting people.

I have a moral code that does NOT include lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, bullying, racism, homophobia and a whole lot of other stuff that the bible is quite ok with. The notion that my morals have anything to do with my understanding of how life evolved is utter nonsense, and I think by now you should know me well enough to know that.

A couple of thousand years ago they were still nailing people to crosses. In another couple of thousand years I'm sure we will all have a better understanding of how to move forward. These are still turbulent times.
People are still being killed by crucifixion today. (link to list of horrible deaths)

Hmm. Well a few hundred years ago it was commonplace for 'kings' to have dungeons where they could lock up whoever they wanted and torture them with an array of horrific devices. This was normal and accepted. It's true that some people still do this sort of thing but these days we tend to hunt them down and remove them from society. Not perfect, but an improvment.


The idea that people are improving and advancing is entirely false. If anything, people are devolving, and I think there's evidence to support the idea that people were much more intelligent in the past than they are toda...... (link to some article on a coroded chunk of clockwork that may or may not have done anything in the first place)

The Antikythera Mechanism, an ancient, highly advanced computer from 100 BC "shouldn't exist".

Where is the evidence that this old corroded box of gears ever did anything at all... let alone that it's a computer.... let alone that it's "highly advanced"?

... but ok lets say, just for argument's sake, that it's not a paperweight, or piece of jewelery, or a torture device, or a failed experiment that never worked, or a sex toy, or who-on-earth-knows-what, and lets assume that it is a "computer".

How "highly advanced" is it compared to the computer you are using to post on this forum? Why would anyone call something that is just a few gears in a box "highly advanced" when it is clearly very simple??... the answer is in the context: because it was (supposedly) highly advanced for something that was made way back when technology was so primative.

So your example has actually just disproved your own premise.

                                    :critter:


                 .... please, mercy! No more. You win: GOD put dinosaur fossils in the ground to trick us! It's all true. I concede. Science is a lie. My computer actually works on holy spirit flowing out of the wall socket ;) .... with much love.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 11, 2018, 03:17:04 AM
Where is the evidence that this old corroded box of gears ever did anything at all... let alone that it's a computer.... let alone that it's "highly advanced"?

Actually looked up the wikipedia page for this, it's a really interesting thing. From the inscriptions it was designed to plot the planetary rotations etc. There is a huge amount of conjecture about what it would have contained and there are various reconstructions based more on "what would have been there to do what they wanted" than what is actually in the remains. But even the experts that have spent years studying it say it is "one of the great wonders of the ancient world—but it didn’t really work very well!".

I think it is a facinating and wonderful ancient artifact - but comparing it against my computer that can look up it's wikipedia page and post on the forum at the same time as also calculate the positions of all the planets correctly, not to mention the X-Ray CT technology used to investigate the remains it's not really proof that technology is 'devolving' is it?
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Ywfn on January 11, 2018, 11:33:41 AM
If a new player builds their hall 10 spaces away from the mine, and makes buildings in their path, what's your general thought process?  Probably that they're incredibly new to RTS games in general, a little slow mentally, or maybe just screwing around.  Perhaps even some combination of those things.

Ponder that for a moment, and you'll know pretty much exactly how I feel about someone when they try to put forward arguments against evolution.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 11, 2018, 05:01:38 PM
Ponder that for a moment, and you'll know pretty much exactly how I feel about someone when they try to put forward arguments against evolution.

@Ywfn

Someone could say the exact same thing in reverse.

"I feel like people who believe in evolution are retarded."

I don't feel that way, but I could say it, and have in effect really said nothing other than my feeling.

Feelings do not determine reality.

Feelings do not determine truth.

Feelings are feelings.

Why do you feel that way?
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM
Collins also contains the "word" MILF, that does't mean it isn't a term invented by people peddling online porn in the late '90s.

Are you saying your definition of evolution is different from the one in this dictionary?

There are a number of different things that have come into existence and need to have their own origin. Only one of these 6 have been observed by people, which is variation within kinds (called "microevolution").

Stellar evolution: the origin of stars
Chemical evolution: the origin of the elements
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, matter from a "big bang" of nothing exploding into the universe
Organic evolution: the origin of life from non-life
Macro-evolution: the changing of animals from one kind of animal to another kind of animal (either quickly, called punctuated equilibrium or slowly, called gradualism)
Micro-evolution: variation within a kind of animal (long fur, short fur, light skin, dark skin, long snout, short snout, long legs, short legs, but still the same kind of animal)

ONLY micro-evolution is scientific. The rest are outside of the realm of science, and beliefs in origins in these areas involve faith, whether it's faith in a Creator or faith in an unknown, unscientific, non-existent "self-replicating molecule" that Dawkins has great faith in because it "had" to have existed (but there's no evidence for it).

Micro-evolution is not animals changing from one kind of animal to another kind of animal, as macro-evolution requires, but variation within a kind of animal. Variation happens. This is real. This can be studied scientifically. Animals have been designed with a built-in variability, but that variability has limits. You can get long legs or short legs or long fur or short fur on a dog, but you can never get a dog with wings, because the information for wings is simply not in the genetic code for dogs.

There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.

And the wings have to work properly the first time or the creature will just be carrying around extra weight and baggage that is both useless and cumbersome and would have no reason to be retained. Wings are clearly a designed feature that can't come into existence randomly or by trial and error or chance.

Same with an eye. You can't have a non-functioning eye that serves any purpose, being half-complete. The eye needs all the parts functioning correctly out of the gate for it to work.

How about the circulatory system. Which came first? Blood, blood vessels, or the heart? If you have blood but no vessels or heart, where is it going to go and how is it going to get to the cells? If you have blood vessels but no heart or blood, what are they good for? If you have a heart, but no blood vessels or blood, the heart's useless. These things are a very complex system that all need to come into existence simultaneously in order to work properly and allow for life.

How about male/female? Which came first, the male or the female? If the male came first, where did he put the sperm while waiting for the female to evolve? If the female came first, how did she get pregnant to produce a child while waiting for the male to evolve?

Male and female have to come into existence simultaneously for the system to work.


Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 11, 2018, 05:33:24 PM
Please feel free to provide any evidence you have that a single word in the bible is true.

God knew that the world was round before scientists discovered it.

Isaiah 40:22

He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
    and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
    and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

God knew the earth was hung on nothing (which seemed impossible to ancient man) before humans discovered it. Humans had previously believed ideas such as the world rests on the back of a large turtle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Turtle)

Job 26:7

He hangs the earth on nothing.

God knew about invisible particles that make up everything we see before science discovered atoms.

Hebrews 11:3

By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.

God knew about germs and disease long before humans discovered them, and instructed the use of running water for cleansing, which doctors in the 1800s still hadn't figured out. Ignaz Semmelweis was mocked, ridiculed, and rejected for suggesting that doctors wash their hands before examining birthing mothers (who were dying from puerperal fever at alarming rates). The mortality rate for mothers dropped by 90% when handwashing was used.

Leviticus 15:13

And when he who has a discharge is cleansed of his discharge, then he shall count for himself seven days for his cleansing, wash his clothes, and bathe his body in running water; then he shall be clean.

Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 11, 2018, 05:36:58 PM
I have a moral code that does NOT include lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, bullying, racism, homophobia and a whole lot of other stuff that the bible is quite ok with.

The Bible isn't okay with these things.

Tell me about your moral code? :)

What is right and wrong and how do you know?

What is that code based on?

If the physical is all there is, and there is no author of the universe, then how can there be a basis for morality?

How can there be a basis for reason, if our existence is a chance accident? How can we trust our thoughts? And why does it even matter?

If we randomly evolved following the explosion of nothing billions of years ago, on what can the concepts or ideas of "right" and "wrong" be based?

Also, if the device is "clearly very simple" as you suggest, then it should be an easy task for you to make one. I invite you to post pics and videos of your very simple creation. ;)
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: CumSavorer4385 on January 11, 2018, 06:18:51 PM
the fuck is this thread lol
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: CumSavorer4385 on January 11, 2018, 06:20:30 PM
The best way to insure the destruction of anything in nature/reality is to make sure that the weak survive long enough to drag the rest of the population of that species to the grave with them.  Humans didnt survive this planet because they were weak.  The lived long and prospered because they killed, maimed, stole, and enslaved every usable resource that happened to cross their path and they were not 'nice' about any of it.  If they were,  they wouldnt have made it past year 1.

Let that sink in for a bit and then re-think the "everyone is a winner and gentle and nice" road that is being hand fed to kids today.  Live isnt a bunch of rosey people who give everything to you.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is destined for a miserable life that they themselves are the architect of,  not the bullies.  I was bullied many times as a kid and I am a better person because of it.  So some excuse that you suck at everything you do because poor you was bullied in school is just a weak cop out.  Some think that just because I was excellent with sports and what not that I never got bullied the way these 'kids today do and that I am to hard on them.  Thats just a bunch of horseshit.  They are made out of the same organic material that I was,  absolutely nothing is different about 'todays kids' other than the way they are being taught wrong,  the world isnt all candy and playdates.  I dont take shit from anyone and I certainly dont rely upon anyone to provide for me either.

Grow a pair.  Thats what I teach.  In the end only the strong will survive.  That's been the case for 4 billion years and its not going to change any time soon just because it's not nice.

You're not only a petty cheater at video games but you're a deranged psycho who does weird hacking/stalking shit on people on this forum. You're also probably like 60 years old at this point. Please get bowel cancer and die
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: CumSavorer4385 on January 11, 2018, 06:22:00 PM
Babyshark is a deranged right wing meme sharing Facebook mom with an opioid and alcohol problem who should shoot some fentanyl ASAP
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: individualism results in littering on January 11, 2018, 07:24:58 PM
Quote
There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.

yea i don't think that's how evolution works.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 11, 2018, 09:46:15 PM
Collins also contains the "word" MILF, that does't mean it isn't a term invented by people peddling online porn in the late '90s.

Are you saying your definition of evolution is different from the one in this dictionary?

My point was about the term "evolutionist" not the word "evolution". In fact that was the first dictionary definition you quoted. Pretty sure you are just trolling me now.

There are a number of different meanings for the word evolution and the different things that have come into existence.

No. There is only one meaning for the word evolution, and that is not it. Evolution describes a change that happens over time, it does not describe the origin of any basic object, only how a system changes.

Stellar evolution: the origin of stars
Chemical evolution: the origin of the elements
Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, matter from a "big bang" of nothing exploding into the universe
Organic evolution: the origin of life from non-life
Macro-evolution: the changing of.....
                                                ......ONLY micro-evolution is scientific
Ok if you really want to know then pay attention to this bit: None of those things are scientific. I'm pretty sure you've sourced them from some religious propoganda material or other, but I do know they didn't come from science or the correct definition of the word "evolution". This is just someone trying to construct a house of cards on top of a bed of split-hairs in order to deny the blatently obvious.

There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.

I believe it's called "evolution". It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

And the wings have to work properly the first time or the creature will just be carrying around extra weight and baggage that is both useless and cumbersome and would have no reason to be retained. Wings are clearly a designed feature that can't come into existence randomly or by trial and error or chance.

Spend enough time jumping from one tree to the next and the guy with the best surface area to mass ratio has an advantage --- SUGAR GLIDER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_Glider)

Same with an eye. You can't have a non-functioning eye that serves any purpose, being half-complete. The eye needs all the parts functioning correctly out of the gate for it to work.

Not if you are a simple prehistoric creature living in a swamp full of similar creatures and you just want to find the sun. Then all you need is a single photo-sensative cell and you can tell which way the top of the swamp is. This would be so helpfull that your offspring would continue to develop more of these cells.

How about the circulatory system. Which came first? Blood, blood vessels, or the heart? If you have blood but no ....  (etc)

Ok this is a good one. 1) blood 2)blood vessels/heart
Many simple creatures dont have a proper circulatory system, they just have their organs floating around in a bunch of goop. When they move the goop kinda squishes around. the next thing that develops is valves, which just have a tendancy to allow more goop to squish in one direction that the other, which encourages the goop to actually circulate. at this point the entire creature can be thought of as a heart ... or a blood vessel. Obviously over many generations the creature with the best circulation has a definate advantage so the system becomes more and more refined.

How about male/female? Which came first, the male or the female? If the male came first, where did he put the sperm while waiting for the female to evolve? If the female came first, how did she get pregnant to produce a child while waiting for the male to evolve?

You'll like this. hehe. men are a virus. way back when life was very simple a chunk of dna came about that worked by sticking its dna into something else and letting that thing replicate it, instead of replicating by itself. This was a massive boon for life because it enabled the transfer of genetic traits and encouraged diversity which led to much faster and more efficiant evolution. The sperm, the womb and all the related naughty bits evolved later once this system was already in place.

This is why, despite the fact that asexual reproduction was around first, the forms of life that have evolved from the sexually reproductive branch (plants/animals/us!) have evolved much further in a shorter amount of time than the asexual forms of life like bacteria, which remain very simple.


Ok, now I've explained some evolution to you, here's a couple of questions:


The bible was written by men right? I mean even if they are writing down what they remembered hearing Jesus say or whatever else was going on at the time, they were all just men ya? There is no gospel of Jesus, let alone a gospel of GOD. So then after these men wrote it down the way they remembered it, then other men transcribed what they had written multiple times, and into multiple languages. Then a bunch of men sat down and decided which of these stories they thought were best and which ones they didn't like, then they put those stories into a book and called it "The Bible" and declared it to be the word of GOD. Men did that right?

As I understand it the bible tells you not to covert another man's wife (with the implication that she is his property), but it doesn't say you shouldn't rape your own wife ya? ... or famale slaves, or children?? (altar boys spring to mind!).... now I'm certainly not saying that GOD didn't forbid these things when he was spelling out our morals for us, but perhaps some MEN edited those bits out?

Hehe... also the bible says that PI = 3 ..... Yeah like I'm pretty damn sure GOD knows how to draw a circle, but I'm guessing that the men who were writing all this stuff down then rewriting it etc. probably didnt have the math skills to write down 3.14159265358979323846 so they just kinda rounded it down ya?.... the word of GOD.... they just kinda.... sorta... rounded it down a bit - ya?  ???



Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 11, 2018, 10:52:50 PM
I have a moral code that does NOT include lying, cheating, stealing, raping, killing, bullying, racism, homophobia and a whole lot of other stuff that the bible is quite ok with.


The Bible isn't okay with these things.

Not all of them, and ....a whole lot of other stuff... and the bible has a very long history used of being used to justify hate crimes.

Tell me about your moral code? :)


I believe I just did give you a very simple outline above, but further to that....

What is right and wrong and how do you know?

What is that code based on?


.... the entire point is that we are required to take resposibility for our own deeds, to weigh the consequences of our actions and interactions and make judgement as to their virtue or malevolence based on what we find in our own souls. Life if far to complicated to just look up all the answers on a cheat-sheet. 

Furthermore no such cheat-sheet exists to cover all possible moral dilemmas (http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/). The obvious ones (Tho shalt not kill) seem easy but life is not always black and white.

If the physical is all there is, and there is no author of the universe, then how can there be a basis for morality?

How can there be a basis for reason, if our existence is a chance accident? How can we trust our thoughts? And why does it even matter?

If we randomly evolved following the explosion of nothing billions of years ago, on what can the concepts or ideas of "right" and "wrong" be based?


Now we are straying out of ethics and into general philosophy. I'm sorry if these questions are keeping you up at night, but I have no problem whatsoever with the notion that I have a moral obligation based simply on the fact that I am a sentient being that knows right from wrong, therefore I should behave appropriately or I am denying my own essece.

Neither a rock floating through space nor a venemous jelly-fish know right from wrong so cannot be judged for either wiping out the dinosaurs or fatally stinging a surfer.

I do, therefore I am, and should.

Also, if the device is "clearly very simple" as you suggest, then it should be an easy task for you to make one. I invite you to post pics and videos of your very simple creation. ;)


Haha, nice. If I still had my shed and all my tools actually I could reproduce that device. It would take many many hours of painstaking work, and I would never even consider doing it, but it is quite possible.

But as we are just talking about the complexity of the device, I (or you) could quite easily cut out scaled replicas of all the components out of construction paper without very much effort and thus demonstrate its relative simplicity.

None of us, with or without a shed, tools or construction paper is going to create an accurate representation of the complexity of a multi-core processor.... nice try ;)


             - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


The real dilemma for me here is that I don't actually want to argue against your religion. I like you, bible and all. I am not the mean kid in the schoolyard that wants to take your bible and throw it on the roof, but please excuse me if I just read my science book ok?

                                                             :critter:

Title: Re: Some people
Post by: CumSavorer4385 on January 12, 2018, 09:29:22 AM
Why argue with her, she's retarded and a liar
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 12, 2018, 01:06:41 PM
Hehe... also the bible says that PI = 3 ..... Yeah like I'm pretty damn sure GOD knows how to draw a circle, but I'm guessing that the men who were writing all this stuff down then rewriting it etc. probably didnt have the math skills to write down 3.14159265358979323846 so they just kinda rounded it down ya?.... the word of GOD.... they just kinda.... sorta... rounded it down a bit - ya?  ???

@Lambchops Hey, really enjoyed our talk last night. I appreciate your willingness to share your views and talk about them, which is a trait that the vast majority of people who believe in evolution are unwilling or unable to do. So I appreciate that. :)

I only have a bit of time, so I'll address this point and come back to the others later.

The assumption, which is a false assumption, from which you have concluded this, is that the shape of the object in question is a cylinder. The object in question is not a cylinder.

The Molten Sea described in 1 Kings 7 is NOT a cylinder!

1 Kings 7:23-26

23 And he made the Sea of cast bronze, ten cubits from one brim to the other; it was completely round. Its height was five cubits, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference.

24 Below its brim were ornamental buds encircling it all around, ten to a cubit, all the way around the Sea. The ornamental buds were cast in two rows when it was cast. 25 It stood on twelve oxen: three looking toward the north, three looking toward the west, three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east; the Sea was set upon them, and all their back parts pointed inward. 26 It was a handbreadth thick; and its brim was shaped like the brim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It contained two thousand baths.

(https://i.imgur.com/VAz5JiQ.jpg)

The diameter from brim to brim is obviously NOT the same circle as the circle forming the circumference of the vessel. The circle from brim to brim is a larger circle than the circle forming the vessel body.

There is no mathematical problem here.

The concept that modern man is smart and ancient man was dumb is completely faulty.

And I will accept the Antikythera Mechanism made of any material you wish, so long as it works. Construction paper is fine, cardboard, Play Dough, whatever you want to use is fine.

I can't wait to see it! :)
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 12, 2018, 07:48:39 PM
Quote from: BabyShark on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM

    There is no known scientific mechanism that allows for the creation of new information required for new features, like wings or lungs or bones or kidneys or a mouth or feathers.


I believe it's called "evolution". It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

You are saying "if I have a name for it, that proves it".

I have a name for my beliefs about origin. It's called Creation. It's a very well known, well studied and well documented process.

That proves it.

You're going to have to do better than that. :)

The reality is that there is NO mechanism that allows for the ADDITION of NEW information for new functional structures in living things. The addition of NEW information has NEVER been observed. There are exactly ZERO instances of this being observed EVER. ZERO. NONE.

All mutations can do is scramble or delete existing information. They can NEVER add NEW information. It's not found in science.

This one fact alone is enough to dump the entire "theory" down the drain of implausible ideas.

This is one area where belief is required, and why I call evolutionism a religion, which as you will come to realize upon closer examination, it is. And its proponents defend it with religious fervor, and vehemently attack and oppose anyone who dares point out scientific problems with their philosophy. You have to believe that the genetic code can magically produce new information to produce new structures and information that wasn't there before. In actual science, where people can test, observe, demonstrate, witness, this does not exist. It's a fantasy.

This is an insurmountable problem for the evolutionist view.

In terms of meaningful information arising out of nothingness and intelligently designed functioning organisms, machines, life systems that all are intricate and complex and marvellous coming into existence on their own, you proposed the following:

"A monkey at a typewriter would type out all of Shakespeare's works given enough time." (You specified infinite time.)

1. You can believe that, but it's outside of science. It is impossible to test or prove this scientifically, because you can't test with infinite time. This is a belief, an opinion, not science.

2. This is one of many types of impossible things or "miracles" that evolutionists have faith in, and the medicine to cure impossibility is always enormous, inconceivable amounts of *time*. A frog can become a prince, just mix in 3 teaspoons of time. These are fairy tales, not science.

3. A monkey (intelligently designed organism) trained by a human (intelligently designed intelligent organism) who sat the monkey at a typewriter (an intelligently designed machine) could possibly, with significant effort from the human coaxing with rewards and assistance, produce a small number of disjointed words, such as "as", "I", "jar", "hat" mixed up in a massive pile of jibberish.

Ie. jfwio ejifj io mwe iqio mj[CEFMKIVK AWREV K'WFOM Q'WOMOIMJMDOIA' sdj;iowe;miweimomvawej;awjef9qjfovkvdmkladmfvvflfgbkkjkjkmlfklmfdkgfgeakorwweo'rwejoi'wfji'ofwjeifw'pfw'pfw'jfJ'GFVEMK'LAEGVMAGE EGM'BAM' VWM'VEFM'OIVAEM'I e'avnvRM'rm'er

Ok, I mashed the keyboard (I turned off caps lock partway through lol just because *shrug*). Here we see if, we, do, we, lad, or, we, we, of, if, MAGE, AM.

Wow, randomly produced words! Perhaps the word MAGE because it's a W2 fan!?!?

First of all there is no coherent information here.

Does this scenario accurately represent the situation when absolutely nothing existed?

We have a human being (a remarkably intelligent specimen of the most intelligent species on earth at that ;)) at a computer (intelligently designed by even more intelligent specimens) pressing buttons that represent letters that make up language. This isn't an equivalent scenario to absolute nothingness. When you have NOTHING, you have no computer. You have no letters. You have no one pressing the buttons.

How long it will take nothingness to nothing the nothing into something can't even be addressed by science because we can't reproduce nothingness.

Even scientists desperately trying to make life in a lab aren't reproducing the conditions under which life arose without intelligent design, because by their concentrated efforts, they are injecting intelligent design into the process, but still failing miserably at producing life from non-living material.

Even if they put a living frog in a blender, so that they now have all of the atomic components and chemicals needed to make life, they are going to have a very poor outcome in trying to reassemble that frog into a living animal.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 12, 2018, 08:41:22 PM
As I understand it the bible tells you not to covert another man's wife (with the implication that she is his property), but it doesn't say you shouldn't rape your own wife ya? ... or famale slaves, or children?? (altar boys spring to mind!).... now I'm certainly not saying that GOD didn't forbid these things when he was spelling out our morals for us, but perhaps some MEN edited those bits out?

Men are not expected to love property. Men are commanded by God to love their wives.

Ephesians 5:25-33

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, 26 that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, 27 that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. 28 So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. 30 For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.


That sure doesn't sound like property to me. Love, nourish, cherish, one flesh. You don't become one flesh with an object. You don't love an object.

And what is love, according to God?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8b

4 Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; 5 does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; 6 does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

8 Love never fails.


What's rape? (Google search result)

Rape: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent

Does rape sound like it coincides with God's definition and command to love other people? I don't think so.

You mentioned altar boys. I'm Christian, not Catholic.

Catholics forbid priests from marrying women. The Bible forbids forbidding men to marry and calls such teaching the doctrine of demons.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry


Catholics also idolize a human (pope) above God, teach that you can pay money to have your sins forgiven, and pray to humans like Mary (idolatry). The Catholic church wandered away from the truth of the Bible and has been taken over by demonic doctrine and has led many astray from the truth. The presence of abuse and sin within Catholicism lines up with the Bible's teaching of the depravity of man and his need for a Savior.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 12, 2018, 09:25:04 PM
Quote from: BabyShark on January 11, 2018, 05:18:29 PM

    Stellar evolution: the origin of stars
    Chemical evolution: the origin of the elements
    Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, matter from a "big bang" of nothing exploding into the universe
    Organic evolution: the origin of life from non-life
    Macro-evolution: the changing of.....
                                                    ......ONLY micro-evolution is scientific

Ok if you really want to know then pay attention to this bit: None of those things are scientific. I'm pretty sure you've sourced them from some religious propoganda material or other, but I do know they didn't come from science or the correct definition of the word "evolution". This is just someone trying to construct a house of cards on top of a bed of split-hairs in order to deny the blatently obvious.


You're getting into a tizzy over terminology. I'm trying to be careful to define terms to avoid confusion.

You keep calling things propaganda but have yet to demonstrate any truth to this term. Propaganda implies dishonesty or deception or an inaccurate implication to persuade people into a certain way of thinking apart from facts and logic and truth.

It doesn't matter WHAT you call it. Stars exist. Chemicals exist. Life exists. The universe exists. Time, space, and matter exist. Animals exist. If you want to call the origin of stars Starorigination or SuperStarFormationTheory or Stellar evolution, call it whatever you want, but stars do exist, and unless you're asserting that all of these things existed infinitely forever backwards in time, which you're welcome to believe but is outside of science because you can't test or repeat or observe it, they had a beginning.

Did they have a beginning other than what the Bible teaches in Genesis 1:16?

 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also.

No one has ever seen a star form. We have apparently seen stars "die", but no one has ever seen a star form. This poses a problem for evolutionists, because with more stars than humans can count (hundred billion trillion), they should be coming into existence regularly in order to have this many when we have only seen them die.

God knows exactly how many stars there are, and get this, He knows every star by name.

Psalm 147:4

He counts the number of the stars;
He calls them all by name.

Take a quick peek at the comparison of sizes starting with the moon all the way to the largest star we know about VY Canis Majoris. The universe is...HUGE.

We need to look at the universe we live in and recognize how very, very tiny we are before its Almighty maker! Arrogance melts away when we fall on our faces before the living God who created the heavens and the earth!

This is a really neat video that starts with the smallest particles and goes out and out and out to the observable universe, with the realization that there is unknown-to-man at both ends.

The Smallest to the Biggest thing in the Universe! (HD) how Big is the Universe - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMLPJqeW78Q#)

It is spectacularly beautiful! I'm just blown away by the works of God!
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 12, 2018, 10:17:06 PM
You'll like this. hehe. men are a virus. way back when life was very simple a chunk of dna came about that worked by sticking its dna into something else and letting that thing replicate it, instead of replicating by itself. This was a massive boon for life because it enabled the transfer of genetic traits and encouraged diversity which led to much faster and more efficiant evolution. The sperm, the womb and all the related naughty bits evolved later once this system was already in place.

This is why, despite the fact that asexual reproduction was around first, the forms of life that have evolved from the sexually reproductive branch (plants/animals/us!) have evolved much further in a shorter amount of time than the asexual forms of life like bacteria, which remain very simple.

"Way back when life was simple." Life isn't simple. Even the simplest living cell is more complex than a space shuttle, and needs all the parts to work properly together in order for the cell to be alive.

I understand that evolutionists make up just-so stories and long imaginary tales to explain their ideas, but again, it's not science. It's conjecture. Wishful thinking.

Show me scientific evidence of the claims, not fictional productions of fantasy.

No human besides Adam has seen a time before men and women existed. There is no evidence that sexual reproduction came about by gradual, chance processes.

"A simple chunk of DNA" DNA isn't simple. DNA also can't do anything by itself. It can't go hunt down victims to attack or squirt into. It's in instruction manual, a code, that needs a processor and a power source to make use of the information. Outside of a living cell, it isn't going to be doing much of anything.

The human reproductive system is so complex and perfectly designed that obviously you can't have the womb coming along "later", because if the mother didn't have a womb, there isn't going to be a baby who can start trying to develop one randomly by chance mutations.

Even with all the knowledge humans have obtained over 6000 years of trying to understand the reproductive system, and in spite of how much we've learned, we still are left with a lot of awe-inspiring mystery.

Two cells becoming one cell. Mystery.

That one cell becoming 26 billion in time for birth. Mystery.

The beginning of labor. Mystery.

To try to gain an appreciation for what we take for granted, think about how hard it would be for you, with all your intelligence, to MAKE that.

Imagine trying to design a single cell that turns into a human being. Imagine having access to unlimited personnel, science experts, funding, machinery, medical equipment.

You wouldn't be able to do it in your lifetime.

The above explanation of how male and female originated is so simplistic and undetailed and entirely lacking scientific evidence. The idea that there was some reproduction happening without a womb would, if it were true, make the womb unnecessary. If it is sexual reproduction, I can guarantee you that the womb is absolutely essential. A person can't have a baby without a womb, and if you could, you wouldn't need to get one. The same is true for every other part. If you can reproduce without a penis, you wouldn't need to get one. And the penis is such a glorious marvel and source of pleasure that its existence is 100% not an accident.




Title: Re: Some people
Post by: Lambchops on January 12, 2018, 10:28:51 PM
Ok, just briefly:

on the molten sea:

The words in the bible, which you say are infallible, are describing a molten sea and giving its dimensions. People can draw as many pretty pictures of excuses as they like. Which page of the bible is that illustration on?

If the bible is describing the diameter of one part of this vessel which contains the 'sea' then describing the circumferance of another part of it and attributing them both to the same thing, then that is an error intself.

Why would GOD in his perfect wisdom choose to provide these irrellivant dimensions in his all too brief accout to his beloved creations. Maybe GOD suggested to some MAN that "hey you should tell them about the molten sea, that's pretty cool" ... and then some man did his best to describe it, and just kinda roughed out the dimensions eh? Seems a bit more likely than the holy spirit commanding someone to accurately measure completely different parts of an odd shaped vessel then attribute the measurements to the contents of the vessel. Doesn't sound like the kind of mistake GOD would make, more like that of a man.

 on wives and commandments.

Thats all nice and you can interpret it with nice unicorns and rainbows or as "her body is my body" i.e. "she is my property" and should respect me. That is about the interpretation, not the words.

Just please direct me to the passage in the bible that mentions consent, I mean if the holy spirit in its perfect wisdom thought we needed paragraphs incorrectly describing some old pot, surely there's a word or two in there on consent? As we are describing the perfect morals for all of humanity, I'm pretty sure that will be in there somewhere (hopefully carved into a stone tablet ;))

on multiple prefixes for the word "evolution".

Ok. Firstly, I'm not in a tizzy. I wouldn't tizzy at you :)
There was no confusion. The introduction of all these "diferent types of evolution" is just a word game that attempts to obfuscate the issue (hence propoganda). The fact that it comes from a religious source is evident because every one of them is described as being "the origin" of something. This is obviously written from a religious viewpoint as that is what gets creationists in a tizzy (lol) the origin of life.

As I said immediately prior to the quoted section "There is only one meaning for the word evolution, and that is not it. Evolution describes a change that happens over time, it does not describe the origin of any basic object, only how a system changes."

Even Darwin (who was neither prophert nor messiah, just a man with the start of an idea) entitled his book "on the origin of species" NOT "on the origin of life". It attempts to describe how life evolves over time, thereby how new species come about, it has nothing to do with how life was created in the first place.

on "proof"

There is an absolute mountain of evidence that proves evolution. Fossil records dating back millions of years. Just because you dont live long enough to see it happen in front of you does not mean it doesn't happen. I believe last time I had this discussion I ended up saying: I don't have to actually throw myself into the sun to prove I will be burnt, just knowing it's hot, and that hot things will burn me is sufficiant.

So how are you going at proving the existance of GOD? .... not like oh the world is so wonderful therefore GOD must have made it, I mean like maybe a fossilised GOD footprint or something?

      .... and BTW which page of the bible describes the computer you're using to post these messages? ;)

on hey you missed a bit

The bible was written by men right? I mean even if they are writing down what they remembered hearing Jesus say or whatever else was going on at the time, they were all just men ya? There is no gospel of Jesus, let alone a gospel of GOD. So then after these men wrote it down the way they remembered it, then other men transcribed what they had written multiple times, and into multiple languages. Then a bunch of men sat down and decided which of these stories they thought were best and which ones they didn't like, then they put those stories into a book and called it "The Bible" and declared it to be the word of GOD. Men did that right?
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 15, 2018, 05:51:59 PM
The Molten Sea

The description in the Bible describes exactly the item pictured. It even describes the brim turning out like a lily flower. It makes perfect sense to me.

What DOESN'T make sense is the idea that people "back then" were too stupid to be able to do basic math calculations but were smart enough to build things requiring perfect math. We see ancient ruins all over the world, many of which puzzle today's experts in how they were made. Stone workmanship and structures that have lasted for 500 or more years are clearly not the work of imbeciles.

(https://i.imgur.com/5a7VmOE.jpg)

In contrast, today's houses are made slightly more durable than cardboard boxes. Does that prove people are getting stupider or lazier, or perhaps both?

(https://i.imgur.com/nVPzyFJ.jpg)

Rape


I don't know where you would ever get the idea from the Bible that God approves of rape. There are a number of historical accounts recorded in the Bible where rape happened, but it's always depicted as the evil that it is. If you provide chapter and verse of where you would get that idea, that would help.

I've already proved that God doesn't approve of rape, because I would say it's very clear that rape is not acting in love, kindness, gentleness, selflessness, self-control, and so on, which God commands all people to act in towards each other.

Terminology "Evolution"

I already stated that it doesn't matter as much what terms you use, but rather that the people having a discussion understand what the other person's meaning is.

You are saying that evolution means a very vague "change over time", and does not address origins, such as the origin of life, the origin of stars, the origin of chemicals, the origin of time, space, and matter.

"Change over time" happens. Squirrels turning into birds does not, nor is there any evidence to suggest that it does.

You do apparently accept macro-evolution (the belief that animals change from one kind of animal to another - you specified that the squirrels and monkeys that grew wings are today's birds).

IF you hold to the idea that evolution cannot answer origins questions, then your worldview has no foundation to stand on.

It is true that answering origins questions lies at least partially outside of science, since science is the study of the world around us that we can observe with our five senses in the present. We can't experiment on the past, and if we weren't there to observe it, we have only writings of others who were there to tell us what happened. Whether we believe the accuracy and honesty of the writings we have from the past is another issue.

If your worldview can't address the basic questions of the existence of certain things we see, then how can it reliably address anything else without a solid foundation to stand on?

If you are willing to concede that origins questions can't be answered by observable, testable science, then your views aren't in line with what's commonly accepted and taught in school, which is that nothing or an "infinitely dense dot" depending where you're looking exploded. POOF. Even IF such an event had occurred, it would be impossible to determine scientifically, since it happened in the past and was observed by exactly zero people. Imaginations and speculations of what may or may not have happened billions of years ago lies far, far from the realm of science.

You can read these amusing fairy tales at sites like these:

https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html (https://www.space.com/13347-big-bang-origins-universe-birth.html)

https://www.big-bang-theory.com/ (https://www.big-bang-theory.com/)

They also admit that they have no clue how this works or could happen, but IT DEFINITELY HAPPENED! HONESTLY, KIDS. IT HAPPENED. And don't you dare question it or you will get an F on your next science test!

The purpose for the existence of evolutionism is to remove God from the picture. There is no scientific reason for people to believe in, protect, and promote these fairy tales, nor to fire, harass, insult, intimidate any scientist (and there are many of them) who points out problems with their ideas or who thinks intelligent design of the universe is a rational explanation for the amazing design one can observe everywhere in nature.

Lies in Textbooks

The textbooks are full of lies, that schools continue to teach to the kids, which leads to adults who simply accept it as fact without ever fully researching or thinking about the claims made.

Here's an example. Ernst Haeckel was so determined to promote the idea of evolution that he faked drawings that were used in textbooks for decade and are STILL IN TEXTBOOKS TODAY. KNOWN FRAUDS ARE STILL USED TO SUPPORT THE LIES OF EVOLUTION.

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/ (https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/)

He wanted people to believe in evolution so badly that he used lies to support his ideas.

He wanted it to look like all embryos look the same.

Below the fraudulent drawings are photographs of the real embryos.

(https://i.imgur.com/U8BEGfk.jpg)

Horse evolution - known to be false, still in textbooks

(https://i.imgur.com/r9570mL.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/uG8G4qD.gif)

According to the textbooks, the Eohippis was the size of a fox, was a meat eater and had 18 pairs of ribs. What they fail to mention is that the next horse had 15 ribs, then 19 ribs then back to 18. This is clearly not the same animal evolving.

Problems with Horse Evolution:

1. Made up by Othniel C. Marsh in 1874 from fossils scattered across the world, not from the same location.

2. Modern horses are found in layers with and lower than “ancient horses”.

3. The “ancient horse” (hyracotherium) is not a horse but is just like the hyrax still alive in Turkey and East Africa today!

4. Ribs, toes and teeth are different.

5. South American fossils go from 1 toed to 3 toed (reverse order)

6. Never found in the order presented.

7. 3 toed and 1 toed horses grazed side by side.


“Many examples commonly cited, such as the evolution of the horse family or of the sabertooth ‘tigers’ can be readily shown to have been unintentionally falsified and not to be really orthogenetic.” (George G. Sympson, “Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record”. Scientific Monthly, Vol. 71 October 1950, p. 264).

Quoted section taken from https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/horse-evolution-fraud-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/ (https://sepetjian.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/horse-evolution-fraud-exposed-60-years-ago-still-in-the-textbooks/)

Lies and Frauds about Ape-Men "Missing Links"

From Joseph Mastropaolo Ph.D. Emeritus Professor of Biomechanics, California State University, Long Beach:

From my earliest memory, my public school biology education must be the greatest betrayal of my life. I feel ever so strongly that every lie and betrayal of my life, or anyone known to me, cannot begin to compare with the lies, betrayals, and ruined lives caused by the teachings of my public school biology teachers.

From elementary school through to graduation from college, we were told about the missing link. It was the ape-man peering at us from the biology book. It was what convinced my friends to become atheists and convinced me to become an agnostic. The most famous ape-man was the “Piltdown Man,” Eoanthropus dawsoni, the dawn man discovered by Dawson. Five books were written on this crude forgery constructed by fitting the jaw of an orangutan to the skull of a man.

The orangutan’s teeth were abraded artificially to resemble human flat wear, and chemical analysis revealed the skull and jaw had been stained the same brown color using chromium and acid iron sulfate, with neither chromium nor sulfate occurring in the locality of the dig. It was so transparent a fraud that it had to be guarded for 40 years in the British Natural History Museum. For 40 years, the world was led to believe that the missing link between apes and man had been found.

Another ape-man, the “Nebraska Man,” Hesperopithecus harold cookii, this time associated with the American Museum of Natural History, was concocted from a single tooth from a wild pig. The ape-men were frauds, but they converted hundreds of my classmates to amoral atheism as if they were true. We blindly believed our teachers textbooks and had our lives ruined with great efficiency nonetheless.


Many formerly evolutionist atheist scientists have been converted to the truth after coming to recognize the lies and impossibility of the teachings of evolution. Dissenting from the religion of evolution can cost people their jobs, because the religion is so intolerant of being questioned, like all false religions are.

Many famous scientists were creationists:

Johannes Kepler
Isaac Newton
Galileo Galilei
Francis Bacon
Blaise Pascal
Robert Boyle
Carolus Linnaeus
Louis Pasteur

And many others, including the inventor of the MRI machine, Raymond Damadian.

And below is a long list of scientists living today who possess a doctorate in a science-related field who believe in the biblical account of creation (killing the false idea that all scientists believe in evolution) plus many scientists from the past who believed in a creator:

https://creation.com/creation-scientists (https://creation.com/creation-scientists)

The notion that only "retarded" people believe in Creation is clearly false.
 


Darwin


When we're talking about Origin of Species, let's not forget the whole title.

(https://i.imgur.com/7VLPUgS.jpg)

Darwin also did not come up with the idea of evolution on his own, nor did it stem from scientific observation. He was influenced by his grandfather Erasmus Darwin who was already promoting evolutionary ideas and by the writings of Charles Lyell and James Hutton and others.

If you actually read Darwin, you will see that he talks about other races like they are primitive animals.

It was Darwin's writings that influenced Hitler to create a supreme race and help evolution along by having fun with (ie. torturing) and destroying the "inferior races". Humans who were considered "less evolved" animals were also displayed in zoos.

(https://i.imgur.com/JbUeWbQ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/AG0CTNI.jpg)

These ideas are both disgusting and dangerous. Not to mention, they are lies.

Macro-evolution has no evidence to support it. The idea that animals can change into other kinds of animals is outside of science. It's faith-based just as much as Creationism is. No one has ever seen an animal produce a different kind of animal. There is no mechanism for adding new genetic information into the genetic code, nor is there any evidence that this has ever happened.

What we DO observe is what's misleadingly labelled microevolution, which is simply variation within kinds. This happens. This one is scientific. And all the examples of "evolution" used are examples of variation within a kind of animal. Horses produce big horses and little horses. Dogs produce a great variety of dogs from Great Dane to Chihuahua and the sad can-barely-walk-and-can-barely-breathe bulldog to the super-long back-breaks-super-easily dachshund. Roses produce a variety of roses. Corn produces a variety of corn. All still the same kind of living thing from beginning to end. No one has ever observed a banana give birth to a monkey, or a corn produce an elephant, or a cow produce a whale. The transitional forms, which should exist if the evolutionary story were true, should far outnumber the "end" point creatures that we see today. These transitional forms are sweepingly absent.

The modern evolutionary idea also teaches that it was reptiles and dinosaurs that turned into birds, not squirrels and monkeys. Supposedly, mammals came later.

There is no reason to believe that a bone found in the dirt can do something that living animals have never been observed to do, which is to produce something other than their own kind of animal.

The "earliest" fossil bats and birds already appear fully flighted and just like today's animals.

I'll start a new post to discuss FOSSILS.
Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 15, 2018, 07:14:15 PM
Fossils

Dr. Michael Denton said that 97.7% of living orders of terrestrial vertebrates are found as fossils.

The majority of fossils found are creatures that look just the same as today's animals.

Evolutionists aren't particularly excited about these, because it doesn't help support their views.

They are finding so many of what they call "living fossils".

Even the famed supposedly 65-million-year-old coelacanth, which they believed lived at the same time as dinosaurs (and it did! just wasn't millions of years ago) was found ALIVE and well in 1938 off the coast of South Africa.

Their response. "Oh, wow, it didn't evolve at all in tens of millions of years!"

The coelacanth was touted as the missing link between fish and land animals. It was supposed to be the ancestor of all land animals, the animal that was coming out of the water. Yet...it's still here...and it's still a fish! Oh dear. What a calamity.

Now scientists have come up with a new story to cover for this blunder that was previously taught as FACT and anyone who questions it is a retard (like Ywfn says, anyone who questions FACTS of evolution is a retard!) Now they have decided, "Oh, this thing is just evolving slower than anything else because it's genes are remarkably stable!"

Yeah, the genes of it and every other living organism on the planet!

Facts are things that can be observed, tested, repeated, demonstrated, measured, or experienced with the 5 senses.

The notion that fish started walking onto land and left their gills behind in the water to get lungs instead is not a part of science. People are welcome to believe these fishy stories all they want, but calling it science is entirely inaccurate.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/ (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dna-sequencing-reveals-that-coelacanths-werent-the-missing-link-between-sea-and-land-25025860/)

The "420 million year old" elephant shark is even more tragic for the evolutionists. An animal hasn't evolved in 420 millions years. Maybe, it's because the theory is baloney!

There is zero evidence for one kind of animal turning into another kind of animal.

The vast majority of mutations are harmful to the creature, if not fatal.

Mutations involve a scrambling or deletion of existing information, NEVER, EVER, EVER a GAIN of new information or new instructions on making new organs and body parts that the parent organism did not have.

Evolution, in order to progress, requires the addition of NEW information and new instructions for new parts. This has not been observed and this does not happen in real life. This is not a part of science. This is faith. It is as religious as the belief in God.

Intentional breeding with a specific goal in mind (like to create a dog breed with super short legs or a curly coat) takes mutant animals and reproduces those intentionally until the genetic diversity and normal genes are removed from that population pool. "Pure" breeds or specifically bred types of corn, cattle, chickens, etc. have LESS genetic diversity and information than the parent animals, not more, and are sicker and weaker than the genetically diverse animals.

What you start with? dog
What you end with? dog
Change in kind of animal? no, none


Bacterial Resistance


If a virus attacks a specific protein in bacteria, and a mutation causes some bacteria to be produced without this protein, they are protected from that threat by having a mutation that appears to be, momentarily beneficial.

This is a LOSS of information, not a gain. And these bacteria are sicklier and weaker than the normal bacteria in the long run. And they are still bacteria!

Species at start: bacteria
Species at end: bacteria
Change in kind of life form? no, none

And they are still always the same KIND of animal or organism that they were at the beginning.

Back to Fossils

Evolutionists admit that there is a complete absence of fossils of transitional creatures.

Harvard evolutionist Stephen J. Gould: “I regard the failure to find a clear ‘vector of progress’ in life’s history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record.”

“Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study.” 

University of Chicago paleontologist David M. Raup: “Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information — what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appear to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem has not been alleviated in the last 120 years and we still have a record which does show change but one that can hardly be looked upon as the most reasonable consequence of natural selection.”

“In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found–yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.”

University professor, paleontologist, curator of two museums, George Gaylord Simpson:  “This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists.”

UC San Diego biology professor David S. Woodruff: “But fossil species remain unchanged throughout most of their history and the record fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.”

University of Hawaii paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Steven M. Stanley: “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.”

Paleontologist Dr. Colin Patterson: “About the lack of direct illustrations in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them…..I will lay it on the line–there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”

The evidence for one kind of animal changing into another kind of animal is NOT found in "the fossil record".

How do fossils form, anyways?

Is the Google search result true?

Fossils are formed in a number of different ways, but most are formed when a plant or animal dies in a watery environment and is buried in mud and silt. Soft tissues quickly decompose leaving the hard bones or shells behind. Over time sediment builds over the top and hardens into rock.

People don't see fossils forming very often in nature today, yet there are millions of fossils all over the world.

When an animal dies in nature, usually the flesh and often even the bones are devoured and anything left decays.

It takes special conditions for fossils to form...like a worldwide flood catastrophe. There is evidence that the entire world was underwater, just like Genesis says in the Bible. There are marine fossils found on Mount Everest. There are marine fossils found all over the world.

I believe the fossils formed in the flood catastophe, when there would have been enormous amounts of mud and water travelling rapidly to bury these creatures alive and under pressure and just the right conditions for fossils to form.

It's not a slow process.

A fossil fish seen below died rapidly during the process of giving birth.

(https://i.imgur.com/5A26AsQ.jpg)

Here is a fossilized fish mid-bite.

(https://i.imgur.com/hCulPTp.jpg)

These things did not die and get buried slowly. These creatures were buried alive and rapidly, as they would be in catastophic flood conditions, as would a vast quantity and assortment of animals.

Soft tissue (blood vessels, blood cells) has been found in dinosaur remains. These things cannot survive from 70 million years ago from when these creatures are believed by some to have existed.

The discoverer, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, "Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this."

Scientists wrong again.

They have been scrambling to come up with new stories and ways to explain away yet more evidence that contradicts their notion of "science", which is in effect their religion that they must protect at all costs, regardless of what the evidence shows.

Dinosaurs were created on day 6 of creation week, along with other land animals.

There is plenty of evidence to show that dinosaurs (this word was invented in 1842) existed alongside human beings. Before that, they were often called dragons or other names.

(https://i.imgur.com/IGMNd1R.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/aJ6He6J.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/mqUkZUK.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/5MeqWd2.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/A5vcuwP.jpg)

Some of these images and carvings are thousands of years old, but people started digging up dinosaur bones in the last few hundred years.

The evidence indicates that the people making the pictures and carvings and writing the stories of these huge reptiles (dragons or dinosaurs or whatever you'd like to call them) actually SAW these creatures!

There are many historical accounts of battles with dragons (aka dinosaurs).

On Proof

You can't compare the "science" of those two things.

In one instance, you can feel the sun's heat, and observe on earth that the sun's heat can harm, blind, or kill people by excessive exposure. These lie within what can be observed.

On the other hand, bones found in the dirt do not talk. Nor do they have dates stamped on them. What people conclude about fossils found in the ground can be a number of things, depending on their worldview lens that they are looking through. "Dating" methods rely on assumptions.

We can observe or study certain things like the half-life of an element, such as the decay of radioactive potassium to the gas argon.

You can measure the rate of decay, but to use it to estimate ages for rocks or fossils, you have to assume the quantities present of each at a certain point in time in the past, which can't be tested.

When samples of recent Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand lava flows (1949, 1954, 1975) were tested at a commercial lab, the "scientific" dates were millions of years. The methods do not work on samples of known age, but are assumed to work on samples of unknown age? This is illogical.

The reality is that all the dates derived by these methods that evolutionists don't like are thrown out, while they keep the ones tha suit their ideas.

The methods have repeatedly proven to be unreliable.

They date the fossils by the rocks and the rocks by the fossils. "The fossils date the rocks more accurately."

It's all based on faulty assumptions and an incoherent worldview.

So if a rock is dated at an age that is "too old" or "too young" for the fossils found in there, the dates are discarded because the fossil's presence "proves" that it's older or younger.

This isn't science. This is picking and choosing what you like and calling it science, when the dating methods are proven to not work reliably on samples of known age. It's also circular reasoning to date fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils.

All the evidence in the world lines up with what the Bible teaches.

God created the heavens and the earth and all living things according to their kinds in 6 days. Man sinned and death came into the now-cursed world. There was a global flood to judge man for wickedness. Most of that water is still here. The earth is covered with mostly water. Many ancient underwater cities have been found, some of which likely are advanced pre-flood civilizations.

Man was created intelligent and I believe far more intelligent than people today. The actual archaeological findings fit the Bible perfectly, with many discoveries of advanced technology in ancient ruins that some believe must be proof aliens visited earth long ago.

People are so brainwashed with the lies of "primitive" ape-like cavemen and evolutionary thinking seen in textbooks and mueums, which have been shown to be lies and frauds, that all contrary evidence is hidden and suppressed.

Giant human fossils were hidden because it didn't fit their worldview.

Evolutionists are so ardent in supporting their worldview that they are willing to fabricate evidence for it and destroy evidence against it, as seen when the Smithsonian destroyed tens of thousands of giant human skeletons that did not fit in with their beliefs that everything is getting bigger and better and stronger over time. What we tend to observe is things getting weaker and sicker and dying.

SMITHSONIAN ADMITS TO DESTRUCTION OF THOUSANDS OF GIANT HUMAN SKELETONS - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDMXkiUeCqs#)

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/ (http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/smithsonian-admits-to-destruction-of-thousands-of-giant-human-skeletons-in-early-1900s/)

There is TONS of evidence all over the world, not only of giant humans, but giant animals as well. These are HIDDEN and SUPPRESSED because they DO NOT FIT evolutionist worldview!

The evolutionist worldview is FALSE. The real evidence goes against those ideas over and over and over again on every level in every field of science.

More giant bones found thought to be 5000 years old:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/skeletons-china-giants-5000-year-old-archaeologists-discovered-jiaojia-jinan-shandong-a7824326.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/archaeology/skeletons-china-giants-5000-year-old-archaeologists-discovered-jiaojia-jinan-shandong-a7824326.html)

Photos of giant skeletons, footprints, graves, ancient armor, living giants:

http://www.6000years.org/giants.html (http://www.6000years.org/giants.html)

Why, WHY, would honest scientists hide evidence???

Because they are more interested in promoting an atheistic worldview than presenting all the evidence and showing the truth, that the evolution story does NOT fit the evidence!

Giant humans fit just fine with the Bible. "There were giants in the earth in those days." (Before the flood) And we find giant human fossils, most likely formed during the flood with all the other fossils of everything that died in that worldwide catastrophe.

Did you know that many, many different and separate cultures and peoples from all over the world  from ancient times all have global flood legends?

On Hey You Missed Something

If the Bible were written by stupid primitive man and is not the Word of the living God who made the heavens  and the earth, it should be full of errors. Yet it isn't.

You have made an attempt to prove that there was a math error in the Bible, but that's been proven not a problem at all when you take into account the description provided of the non-cylindrical object.

It should be full of errors.

On the contrary, the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. It was written by people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit, so is in fact the Word of God.

How do you explain "pre-scientific" knowledge in the Bible from "primitive imbeciles" of thousands of years ago? Like the fact that the things we see are made of invisible things like atoms and molecules? The fact that the world "hangs on nothing", which was recorded in Scripture an estimated 3500 years ago when many couldn't fathom this apparent impossibility and believed, for instance, that earth rested on a giant turtle's back?

There should be so many errors that finding them would be like collecting shells on the ocean shore. I'm still waiting, after decades of examination, to find these.



Title: Re: Some people
Post by: LiveFreeorDie on January 16, 2018, 08:30:41 PM
Ancient Civilizations Very Advanced and Intelligent, also Underwater (Possibly Pre-Flood) Cities Found

Harappa and Mohenjo Daro

Ancient advanced civilizations built these expertly planned cities with water and sewage systems so well designed that it looks like the entire city was planned before it was built. They had highly advanced knowledge of mathematics and a sophisticated system of weights and measures. They had bathrooms, toilets, combs, soaps, medicines, dentistry, toys, and a language that people have been unable to decipher.

(https://i.imgur.com/KpNiLXj.png)

(https://i.imgur.com/BPSgkop.png)

Underwater City (Possibly A Pre-Flood City) of Pavlopetri

Thought to be 5000 years old, which if true, would put it before the flood which was about 4400 years ago. Streets, homes, temples, tombs, and a water system have been found. The original name of the city is unknown.

(https://i.imgur.com/5gj0HHB.jpg)

There are actually NUMEROUS underwater advanced cities and civilizations that have been discovered (and of course, we don't know how many there are that haven't been discovered).

Following taken from https://www.ancient-code.com/antediluvian-civilizations-submerged-ancient-cities/: (https://www.ancient-code.com/antediluvian-civilizations-submerged-ancient-cities/:)

Antediluvian civilizations: submerged ancient cities

(https://i.imgur.com/qLTPeAt.jpg)

Even though most scientists will deny it, among the scientific community there has always been that slight possibility pointing towards the existence of the so-called antediluvian civilizations that were destroyed 11,500 years ago due to the sudden and extreme rise in Earth sea levels.

Numerous ancient cities have been discovered in the recent years pointing toward a strong possibility of the existence of ancient civilizations and cities like Atlantis.

Worldwide cultures have left written texts that speak of great floods, some of them are the following: Atrahasis (Sumerian myth), the epic of Gilgamesh (Babylonian legend), the Bible (the Hebrews), Shujing (classical Chinese history ), Matsya Purana and Shatapatha Brahmin (Hindu sacred texts dating from the first millennium BC), Plato’s Timaeus and Crizia (Greece) and the Popul Vuh (the Maya civilization), among others.

Bimini underwater street

One of the first cities to be found under the sea was actually discovered in the vicinity of the island of Bimini in the Bahamas. While swimming, in September 1968, Dr. Valentine suddenly saw what he believed was a paved street with huge blocks of rectangular and polygonal shaped stones under water. The stones that make up the construction have lengths up to five meters and are “perfectly” sculpted. Strangely, the underwater stones bare a mysteriously close similarity with the stones found at Sacsayhuaman, the imposing ancient structure located a few kilometers from Cusco, at 3300 meters above the sea level. According to Dr. Valentine and other researchers like underwater archeologist Robert Marx, believe these underwater structures are clearly artificial and they believe they have originated in the glacial era.

Mysterious submerged streets off the coast of Florida.

In 1969, the crew of the US submarine Aluminaut found another incredible discovery in the vicinity of the coast of Florida. According to reports, they had found the remains of an underwater city 900 meters below the surface. Among mysterious structures, they believe they found a gigantic “avenue” of 20 kilometers in length. According to the crew, traces of aluminum, silicon and magnesium oxide were found.

The submerged monuments of Yonaguni.


(https://i.imgur.com/fWl4Lk6.jpg)

One of the most incredible discoveries of underwater structures was made in 1987 in the vicinity of the Yonaguni Island. The oldest of the Ryu Kiu islands in Japan. The Yonaguni monument is a megalithic formation found 40 meters below the surface, that, according to numerous researchers, points towards the existence of and ancient civilization that inhabited the area.

Masaaki Kimura, a marine geologist at the University of Ryu Kyu, has studied the underwater structures for 15 years. According to Kimura, these underwater structures are the remains of a 5,000-year-old city.
According to the underwater archeologist Sean Kingsley, the submerged city of Yonaguni would correspond to a pre-Flood era city when glaciers covered much of the northern hemisphere and the sea level was lower than today.

The submerged city of Khambhat

In 2000, researchers discovered, off the coast of Gujarat in India, mysterious structures that pointed toward the existence of an ancient city on the seabed. In 2001, the discovery was confirmed by the Minister for Science and Technology Murli Manohar Joshi when he officially admitted that it was an underwater city that was destroyed by the great flood. In the same year, the remains of wood and pottery were found in the vicinity of the archeological site. These findings were carbon-dated. According to the tests, researchers believe these mysterious underwater ruins are between 13,000 to 31,300 years old. The underwater city of Khambhat is believed to be the oldest underwater city found to date.
The mega city found in the Caribbean

Researchers were performing underwater explorations in the Caribbean Sea, off the coast of Cuba with the help of a robotic submarine in May 2001. What they found at a depth of 600 meters was anything but what they expected to find. An area of over 20 square kilometers covered in structures, pyramids, and other manmade buildings. It’s a gigantic underwater complex that according to mainstream archeology and researchers, does not exist. According to geologist ManuelIturralde, who participated in the research, it is possible that the submerged ruins found belonged to an antediluvian civilization, dating back to 10.000 BC. Images of the ocean floor confirmed the existence of gigantic granite blocks, circular and perpendicular formations. This discovery has led to several theories that propose that theYucatan peninsula was once connected with Cuba with a narrow earth bridge. Researchers from Mexico believe that these underwater remains could be attributed to an ancient civilization like the one that built ancient Teotihuacan.


End of article

Some underwater cities have a more recent, known history, like Port Royal, Jamaica, which was called one of the most wicked cities in the world at the time, which was thrown into the sea by an earthquake in 1692 and Lion City, Shi Cheng, China, which was intentionally flooded by the government for making a dam.

All the same, it's fascinating stuff!