This has me curious. Not agreeing or disagreeing I want to explore this a bit.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
So, I am pretty sure they have found dinosaur bones from hundreds of millions of years ago. If so, and they were wiped out by the meteor in Yucatan, or some other global catastrophe, how did new life start? If not from micro or macro evolution, was there a placement event of all new species on earth? If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God? Alien drop-off? Or some other means?
It seems to me that life has an incredible desire to thrive and survive. Think of an embryo frozen on ice for years for IVF. Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Contrast life and growth with today's mRNA vaxx. I am convinced they want to change human DNA for control purposes. Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution, not even micro or macro. It can happen immediately with an mRNA shot.
I am truly curious to hear responses. I'm in the mood for mind expansion.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God?
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
The alien seeding theory is just an attempt to remove God from the equation while still acknowledging intelligence being required for the creation/existence of life. It is intelligent design, but rejection of God. It also is pointless because you can still ask the question "who created the aliens?" It just kicks the can down the road. It's turtles all the way down.
There is no millions of years. Go to ICR.org. Millions of years is given to us by the anti God portion of the scientific community. We’ve been lied to about everything.
They have tried for decades? to successfully document a genetic change in fruit flies, which have such a short life cycle that it allows what would be equivalent to 10s of thousands of years of life cycles of longer life cycle animals, after exposing them to radiation, chemicals, etc., with no success. Any mutation they have documented dies, or at least can't reproduce. You only have to go to the fantastically intricate and complex structure of individual cells to KNOW that there is no way that could have resulted from evolution.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Darwinian Gradualism (DG) went through some evolution itself when the Precambrian Explosion was discovered. The amount of complex life that literally exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian era - and then remained static (no change) in their "evolution" - forced Stephen J Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibrium, which states the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.
Punctuated Equilibrium and Special Creation - from the Fossil record's point of view - looks almost exactly the same.
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Enjoy, he gets quite irate in his speeches as he really contends with the way the evolutionist cheat in the experimentation and he really shows it and he exposes it.
You'll love him, he's easily one of the best scientists this world has at the moment.
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
A logic course in college is literally a math credit, but I digress.
Simply put, Math quantifies while Logic clarifies. Math provides accurate numericle results, but little intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Logic provides a greater understanding of cause and effect, but usually only first order estimates of quantitative results.
Taking the definition of code it's easy to see that code functions on logic (and sometimes pure math which requires logic to understand).
Math is also a system of symbols for communication. Any math problem can be rewritten in plain English.
In fact, our system of math symbols is merely a description of the inherent truth and accuracy of math. There is no symbol for pi in the universe, we created the symbol. Pi has always existed.
Math is the code, logic is the key. Our interpretation of both is what we discuss and write on paper, but they already existed. We discovered a way to describe them.
An idea exists before you use a code to communicate or obscure it.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
I also don't buy organisms hitching a ride on comets and asteroids, then somehow managing to survive impact and the unimaginable heat, then somehow replicating through hundreds of thousands of years as the planet cooled.
In order for evolution to occur as Darwin theorized, mutation rates would have to be way higher than observations show they are. We don't see enough failed mutations.
Something 'guides' mutations in a beneficial direction, and they seem to occur when environmental conditions necessitate.
Oh I call them out. And then they make 3 handshake accounts and tell me I’m fking retarded. Because I make sense and they don’t. Typical faggot feds and antifa sissy behavior
I think The Great Awakening can encompass many things. I always hedge my bets on the fact that our controllers have lied to us about EVERYTHING. Our history is written by the rulers. Are the rulers good people? Lots of people think “Qanon” is a Psy-Op to make people docile and trust the plan. Basically do nothing while the Great Reset moves right along.
Now, myself, I’ve been down every rabbit hole there is. You need to research everything then use your own discernment about what you believe is true. If you say something like evolution is truth or the world is a ball, then you should at the very least understand the other side of the argument.
There is too much banning people on here and shaming people for sharing information. If someone posted about some crazy story of Hillary Clinton eating the face off a child, I’d want to get to the bottom of that. Or if someone shared a video of a lizard person here, I’d want to see it and use my own discernment. If there is no conclusive answer then I put it aside and wait.
Too much censorship on this free speech platform IMO. Stop being a know-it-all to all things under the sun and stars. It’s an ugly look. Very liberal trait.
We are getting divided. This place is becoming unfriendly and divisive despite everyone calling each other 'fren'. I had always seen this place an aggregation for articles and news pertaining to the GA and Q subjective material peppered with prayers for one another and support when we needed it as well as sharing possible cancer cures, etc.
But now it's becoming a place to attack ideas that don't follow the 'norms', to attack people if they believe in FE, Creationism, aliens, chemtrails, etc. regardless of you support for the great awakening and regardless of if you don't even try to push those ideas on others.
Even if you aren't posting or arguing these ideas there is an apparent need that you be insulted and you can't respond or defend your belief because you get banned. It's like WWG1WGA ...as long as you believe exactly as we do. This is the message being sent. despite Q stating the deeper you go the more unreal it becomes.
Easily the most intelligently written comment from a handshake I have seen, but It's not without it's flaws.
Firstly I agree: human history has been distorted. Everything once controlled and regulated by man, including the Bible is subject to scrutiny. Any idea that was once used to control the masses needs to be held to account.
Now, where you're wrong is a couple of assumptions: one, we are NOT a free speech platform. GAW is focused primarily on Q and Q related topics. We clearly state in our rules that fringe conspiracies belong over on CW. Two, who the mods decide to ban is for their reasons. The mods are here at their leisure, unpaid maintaining the flow of information completely free on their time. Will they make mistakes? Yes. Are they perfect? Fuck no and thankfully none of them pretend to be.
If you want to host a free speech .win go right ahead. I'm sure the mods might even let you advertise it so they can send you GAW's trimmed fat. Then you can experience how quickly your "free speech" platform will develope rules and regulations.
True free speech on the internet or really anywhere is an impossibility. Humans do need rules to live by. This is why the Founders gave us the Constitution. While it does limit government's power it also limits our own when it comes to dealing with citizens. You have to respect the rights of everyone else same as they are required to respect yours. This is why defamation is illegal. This is why you can't speak with impunity. Your rights end where mine begin. It's long past time we get back to understanding what that means.
Fidget spinner? I don't know how they do things at over at Nintendo, but over here we instance a "round" 3D spherical world, derived from a "flat" 2D matrix of initial seed data and spatial coordinates, transformed by a "linear" 1D temporal vector. Now, we don't have deep pockets like Nintendo and can't afford a lot of server resources, so in order to perform at acceptable levels we had to set the Planck constant way higher than optimal. This caused all sorts of crazy glitches for interactions beyond a certain deviation from the spatial-temporal origin. Not necessarily a problem, but before we could make any compensatory adjustments to the rest of the system to account for the anomolies, the bean-counters insisted on moving to release. They said that it was "good enough" to meet the deadline set by marketing because the glitches wouldn't occur for any directly observable projections. We balked at releasing it in that state because we knew it would eventually bite us in the ass, but in the end they had their way and it went into the final production environment. As we expected, it wasn't long before the complaints were rolling in about unreliable performance under certain "edge cases" that ended up being not-so-edge at after all. We can't afford to fix the root problem yet because that would mean halting the service and cutting off our revenue stream while the project is still in the red. So for the time being we're stuck with applying band-aid patches to this mess for who-knows-how-long. Deadlines be damned, just a bit of extra development time could have saved everyone from this headache.
until everyone can go to space and verify what the earth is i will always question any evidence. if the last 2 years has taught me to not just trust the science.
You don’t need to be in space to know the earth is curved.
The sun doesn’t appear to get smaller or change shape as it sets. If the light comes from an object, that object generally does not change distance from its observer, or if it does, that change is too negligible to be seen.
So we can say that the sun travels across the sky as if it were on a sphere. (the sphere is the shape of constant distance in three dimensions.)
Now consider that different people across the world experience different times of day at the same time. Easily verifiable with modern communication.
If someone somewhere sees the sun straight up while we see the sun to the side, the earth must be curved.
There are numerous inconsistencies with the ideas in those two videos.
First of all, they only focus on the moments surrounding sunset and sunrise, not accounting for the entire rest of the day. If these ideas were true, the effects of perspective and “water-in-the-air lensing” would not perfectly cancel out the way they appear to. The sun would change speed and size throughout the day- not observed.
Second, if the sun’s apparent size is due to glare, then why is its image so clearly defined at sunset? Instead of being a blob of light with a definite cutoff (which one of those videos shows) it would appear blurry.
Third, the perspective diagram she repeatedly shows makes no sense. The “planes” of perspective are not made of physical points in space, for one thing, and for another, as the diagram itself shows, the sun would only appear to “set” if it got further than infinitely far away from the observer. Why not give a diagram that traces the supposedly curved lines of sight through to the observer’s visual sphere? Maybe you’d see that the sun would have to become flattened as well, long before it reaches the horizon?
If there’s one thing that tells me flat earth is definitely fake it’s the flat earth priests’ constant insistence to “never make models”. Why do they always get hung up about the word “model”? Human beings model everything they can’t immediately sense. Is it really that big of a stretch to imagine that something is happening beyond what we can see? That the sun still exists when we can’t see it? So we should be able to make models to guess where it would be, and compare those guesses with what we do see. The flat earther’s fear of models tells me that flat earth is impossible to accurately model- and is therefore not descriptive of reality.
If you actually explore those communities, you'll see that the shape of the earth isn't as important as the blatant lies and propaganda from the likes of NASA, the Smithsonian, Bill Nye, Tyson, et cetera.
The point is to stop trusting the science.
Also, the true nature of this realm IS NOT CLEAR, so stop clucking like all the other circle jerks on the internet.
We never got the common ancestor that is vital to the theory of evolution. There's no more evidence for evolution than creation based ideology yet it is touted as fact by the same retarded scientists who said COVID was gonna kill everyone.
The lack of conclusive evidence aside, I'm a Christian. God created man in His image. Period.
*Their image. The text reads across multiple translations "Let Us make man in Our image." Jesus later goes on to say "And the two shall become one and they are no longer two but one." "Let us make man in Our image" "And the two shall become One"... Just something to ponder...
The Great Awakening neither rises or falls on whether the Earth is flat or not, Darwinism is true or false, or if there is a Dome above the earth.
If someone brings theses ancillary issues up within a discussion about the Great Awakening, then I would submit that person doesn't understand what the GA is all about.
lol! Yeah. FE is the deal breaker. Have you tried telling your normie friends how an ancient Babylonian cult rules the world or that the Military is in control?
I can't even get them to admit that people have plead guilty to election fraud while literally holding the news article mere feet from their eyes.....
Now to be fair, I DO believe that there's a chance that evolution is fake. Look into all the weird stuff and "conspiracies" that revolve around dinosaurs and their bones. It's a weird rabbit hole to go down, but one with some merit.
Now as for the rest of it, yeah those people are retarded fed plants 99% of the time
Most of the Oil deposits in the world were created from the great flood. Massive amounts of organic material being buried under pressure very quickly. The process occurred rapidly, not over eons of time.
The weight of evidence appears to favor an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks. See Levorsen, A.I., Geology of Petroleum, 2nd ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp. 3–31, 1967.
The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas.
The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin:
Petroleum porphyrins … have been identified in a sufficient number of sediments and crude oils to establish a wide distribution of the geochemical fossils.
~ Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 128, 1984
See this article for more information regarding this line of research.
But there are elements in crude oil that are never found in any plants or animals. They refuse to explain this or even to notice it, even though the facts are readily available.
Nobody has ever said oil comes from dinosaurs. The most popular theory is that ocean plankton died and settled in significant enough quantities to produce highly organic rich sediments, which were later "metamorphosed" into hydrocarbons. There are places today where such rich plankton accumulation occurs, with oil-like substances associated with the recent sediments. However, there are many hydrocarbon deposits where such a theory is very difficult to use as an explanation for their formation.
Yes, they actually did. Just one example, Sinclair Oil used a dinosaur in their advertising. We were taught that in school.
The list of elements contained in crude oil do not match the list of elements in any life, animal or vegetable. So oil isn't made of plankton either. Crude oil is mostly hydrocarbons, but not entirely. So the presence of hydrocarbons can't explain it.
Russian scientists have said for years that oil was created by a process deep in the earth. That's why a lot of oil wells are deeper in the earth than any life ever existed.
I've tried to look into this, I have a simple question if you either of you can answer?
How deep is oil found?
How deep in the earth is the plankton's or trees found in the fossil record? (I say trees and plankton as I thought it was old trees and early lower fossils)
If oil is deeper than the fossils it can't possibly be a fossil fuel.
I'm not an evolutionist so I don't believe the theory but can't find a concise answer to this on the internet.
The "oil from dinosaurs" is just a symbolic way of saying it comes from ancient life. No scientist would ever state that, since the biomass of every dinosaur that ever existed could not supply a minute fraction of the carbon required for even one major oil reservoir.
But oil doesn't come from any life, ancient or modern. The lists of elements contained in each is different, and there's no way to explain the difference except that the whole idea is false. Oil came from an entirely different process.
Incorrect question, as crude oil contains elements that aren't in hydrocarbons. There is much more than carbon and hydrogen in crude oil. There is a long list of elements found in oil, and some of them don't occur in animals or plants. Also, there are elements found in animals and plants that don't occur in oil.
Go research the composition of crude oil compared to plants and animals for yourself. That's the only way you'll believe it, apparently.
The oil from dinosaurs idea came from Rockefeller during a conference around 1897 or so, this was to induce a higher price point for sales based on the idea of limited resource. Oil is a naturally recurring liquid mineral that will never run out. Additionally, it was Rockefeller who pushed the entire medical industry away from natural treatments to chemicals. He wanted a way to use the waste products from petroleum processing. He spent money on hospitals, medical schools, all for the purpose of money generation and control. If one wanted to become a Doctor at that time, you either signed on with the new pharmaceutical chemicals for treatment or you had to pick another career, the schools, research facilities and hospitals wanted to get paid, so they of course switched as well. Move forward to present day and the world is a world of shit medically speaking thanks to Rockefeller.
Remember, " a patient cured, is a patient(money source) lost"
I love how evolution being fake gets lumped in with flat earth. The two aren’t even remotely comparable.
Macro evolution or cells mutating and gaining benefits has practically no evidence and endless evidence to the contrary. Also there’s the fact that when lesser breeds with greater the result is overall a lesser. Say you quantified genetic traits into a number, 1.0 being highest 0.0 being lowest. If a 1.0 and a 0.5 mixed the result is a lowering to 0.75 from 1.0 not a raising. After a while positive genetic traits and good genes are lost permanently and cannot be recovered so we, at a macro scale, can stay the same or recover a bit of what was lost (temporarily) but we can never make permanent genetic gains but CAN make permanent genetic losses. Run the system long enough and it will ALWAYS trend downwards, every ancient civilization understood this and wrote about this as the Age cycle or Yuga Cycle in Sanskrit (I forget the Greek term).
No I’m not getting any of this from the Bible and I think the world is clearly more than a few thousand years old. The evidence for that is enormous and doesn’t rely on faulty scientific dating nonsense.
Except evolution is fake. The chronological evidence is written in the Bible.
The only solution I can think of is how man was made on the 6th day. Perhaps those first 6 days lasted 6000 years who knows, Gods timing is very cryptic it seems.
Been saying this for two years. Flat earth always smelled of a deep state conspiracy theory infiltration poison pill to me. The ultimate dumb conspiracy theory to discredit all legit conspiracy theories through guilt of association. No matter what “conspiracy theory” they want to discredit, they call them flat earthers.
That's pretty much it, I've been saying this forever, they muddy the waters of true theories with absolute BS, which completely turns the normies off, by design.
I love discussing the creation of the earth with atheists. Typically goes like this:
Atheist: if god real y i monke?
Me: We have just as much in common with dolphins as we do with apes. Mammalian DNA is all very interconnected but it doesn't mean we came from pre-human creatures who then f*cked with monkeys to make us.
Most of what we know about what is directly outside our planet, i.e. orbit and the moon and the Van Allen Radiation Belt is a giant lie from NASA. They absolutely did not go to the moon in 1969 in the way they told us. Did it happen? Do we have hidden technology? Maybe. But the global TV event of the moon landing is obvious nonsense. If you haven't seen the "lunar lander" in person at the Smithsonian, it is garbage shoddily welded together covered in gold foil and crappy canvas that wouldn't even make a functional tarp for a picnic. There is no fricking chance this piece of crap would stay pressurized if space is indeed the total vacuum they say it is.
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-NASM2016-03147
What a piece of trash. And NASA says "They no longer have the technology to go to the moon".
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-module-lm-2/nasm_A19711598000
Bart Sibrel does an excellent job of completely tearing apart the mainstream narrative in his documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon." Complete with publicly-available documentation.
https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4
We are rarely shown any video of moon landings anymore- almost exclusively pictures, because we have been so trained to spot crappy special effects that the video just looks ludicrous now. It's insane how fake the footage looks, but that's not the proof.
Keep it simple not stupid.Simple truth,vaccine no long time study for example.There are many rabbit holes that are traps.Sideline's to the true story.And the truth is strange enough.
Exactly. The flat earth idiots exist only to derail conversation. And their arguments are so weak and easily disproved. They don't even understand the size difference between a commercial airliner and the earth. They say that an airplane's nose would constantly have to point downward to travel across the globe. Seriously, idiots.
It's weird how the Bible describes the Earth as having "four corners" and a "firmament".
Wouldn't it be super weird... like SUPER WEIRD if it were true?
Imagine trying to convince everyone that Q is real and they laugh at you, but you laugh at people who consider the biblical explanation of the earth to be true.
The Earth is Flat. That world map hanging down over the chalkboard must have really made quite an impression on you. Personally, I was really into the spinning globe in the rear of the classroom.
Evolution is not wrong, but it does not apply to modern humans.
The reason you can't find a missing link is that the missing link came from a test tube. We are a created species. We were created to be a slave, and there are some on the earth that still believe we should be a slave species.
Micro evolution (adaptation) is true.
Macro evolution (we all came from single celled organisms that poofed into existence) is a lie.
Welcome to read many accounts of reasons why. One of the best well known in recent years is https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/.
Correct.
Micro is observable. Different breeds of dogs. White boy getting a tan from being in the sun. etc....
Macro has never been observed. Speciation (a new species evolving from an existing species) is a myth.
I dunno, the protein clots in the jabbed are looking like a new species..
Heh...I feel ya there.
Are they going to turn into that zombie mutant from Prometheus the movie?
Maybe, lol. That scene. What a way to go!
This has me curious. Not agreeing or disagreeing I want to explore this a bit.
Is it possible that macro hasn't been observed because it can take hundreds of thousands or millions of years? Is the scale of macro so large that we simply could never observe it in a human lifetime?
So, I am pretty sure they have found dinosaur bones from hundreds of millions of years ago. If so, and they were wiped out by the meteor in Yucatan, or some other global catastrophe, how did new life start? If not from micro or macro evolution, was there a placement event of all new species on earth? If macro doesn't exist, how did all of today's species get placed on earth? Hand of God? Alien drop-off? Or some other means?
It seems to me that life has an incredible desire to thrive and survive. Think of an embryo frozen on ice for years for IVF. Once placed in a mother's womb, life takes off and expands exponentially. In just a few weeks, the body is formed and the heart starts to beat.
Contrast life and growth with today's mRNA vaxx. I am convinced they want to change human DNA for control purposes. Moving a few genes around can definitely change a person. It's basically high speed evolution, not even micro or macro. It can happen immediately with an mRNA shot.
I am truly curious to hear responses. I'm in the mood for mind expansion.
Thank you in advance to all who comment.
If the evolutionist do not incorporate millions & millions of years the theory is DOA. Imo
Impossibility is a massive understatement.
Darwinian Evolution is a "Time of the Gaps" argument
Just add Time and anything is possible!
Agreed 👍
Or just add enough universes and you get even more than anything being possible.
All good questions.
Notice, though, that you are admitting Macro is unobservable. Once one admits this, then, by definition, one is no longer doing Operational Science where one deals with testable, repeatable events. The beginning of the Universe is a singular event that hasn't happened before. The Origin of Life is a singular event that only happened once. The origin of Man only happened once, as well. These events are not repeatable. Therefore, when one opines about these events, they are doing more of a Forensic Science. At this point, the Creationist and the Evolutionist are in the same boat. They're both looking at what they can see (Dinosaur bones, Rocks, etc...) and trying to piece together what happened in the past. Just like a Forensic Scientist at a crime scene.
Furthermore, the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows that Time is deleterious and works against order. Entropy is observable and unavoidable.
All the variations found within all the Species on the Earth were found within the information (DNA) of the original Species. There were much less animals on the Earth at the beginning. As time progressed and animals mated, the variations became expressed. God likes variety and programmed that variety into the original DNA molecules so that Life could diversify (within their species - i.e Kind begets Kind) and multiply.
Life is, indeed, amazing. This ability to multiply and grow screams of a Master Programmers touch. The amount of molecular engineering occurring on the microscopic level is truly astounding. So much so, that no amount of wind, rain and randomness (throw in as much Time as you want, too) will get you the results we see today under our microscopes. Darwin's microscope couldn't peer into the simple cell in order to view the exquisite engineering masterpiece that he called "simple." The cell is anything but simple. We have inordinate complexity right from the rip. DNA is extremely complex. The inner workings of the cell are extremely complex. But they both need each other to "survive." You cant have one, without the other. There is no gradual path to the existence of a functioning cell. You need both the DNA and the Cell that surrounds it to be preset at the same time. And any experiment (Miller/Urey Experiment) attempting to prove that Life could've arose by itself only shows that a Mind (Miller and Urey) was required to get it started. I digress.
Don't forget, though, that these "changes" aren't happening all by themselves, at random, over massive amounts of time. There are intelligent minds behind the experiments. And they are making these "moves" with purpose (something utterly repulsive to Darwinian Evolution). Therefore, this would be an argument for Intelligent Design, not Darwinian Evolution which states there was no Mind involved at all.
Just a few precursory thoughts for ya...
u/1Markseeker I am so glad I asked some open ended questions to you and the board. I absolutely love to hear this sort of feedback and truly appreciate it.
One of the things that sets this community apart from so many others is the collection of minds with the ability to discern.
If readers here do not believe they are good at discerning or are surrounded by people that don't discern well, one of the best ways to develop a discerning mind is to ask open ended questions, seek opposing points of view, and, keeping an open mind, consider all perspectives.
If doctors around the world would have practiced this methodology, millions of lives would have been saved the last two years. It's an important ability to strengthen and protect.
I hope readers here take the same delight that I have in reading all these responses.
Thank you one and all. 👏🏻
My pleasure!
The feeling is mutual
Be funny if an alien species were to laugh at our "laws of thermodynamics."
Man, talk about a forum/discussion slide.
Aliens = Fallen Angels
Interdimensional Beings
Man, talk about a CIA created distraction.
Aliens = foreign agents
Why stories of alien sightings started post WWII? = Operation Paperclip
If Aliens exist and "seeded" our Planet (which I think is another fairy tale), then Darwinian Evolution is false.
The alien seeding theory is just an attempt to remove God from the equation while still acknowledging intelligence being required for the creation/existence of life. It is intelligent design, but rejection of God. It also is pointless because you can still ask the question "who created the aliens?" It just kicks the can down the road. It's turtles all the way down.
Bingo! Well said.
There is no millions of years. Go to ICR.org. Millions of years is given to us by the anti God portion of the scientific community. We’ve been lied to about everything.
They have tried for decades? to successfully document a genetic change in fruit flies, which have such a short life cycle that it allows what would be equivalent to 10s of thousands of years of life cycles of longer life cycle animals, after exposing them to radiation, chemicals, etc., with no success. Any mutation they have documented dies, or at least can't reproduce. You only have to go to the fantastically intricate and complex structure of individual cells to KNOW that there is no way that could have resulted from evolution.
Great example of Mutations being deleterious and working against Darwinian Creation account.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Darwinian Gradualism (DG) went through some evolution itself when the Precambrian Explosion was discovered. The amount of complex life that literally exploded onto the scene during the Cambrian era - and then remained static (no change) in their "evolution" - forced Stephen J Gould to postulate Punctuated Equilibrium, which states the hypothesis that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change.
Punctuated Equilibrium and Special Creation - from the Fossil record's point of view - looks almost exactly the same.
We can't observe evolution over a long period of time because until much more relatively recently we have been able to properly document it.
To discount it entirely isn't really all that big brain.
Until something can be proven, we only have different theories. We cannot prove or disprove drastic evolution over that period of time.
In fact, even from a creationist point of view, the above statement that you responded to is silly.
If it's so fantastical to believe that "single celled organisms poofed into existence one day and evolved", why is it suddenly okay to believe that we were poofed into existence as whole humans?
I enjoy different theories and opinions, but I needed to touch on this point because we have a very large religious userbase.
Science is very interesting, and instead of "trusting the science", we should trust the scientific method. And the scientific method has not been employed long enough in civilization to properly observe and document any speciation anyway.
So TL;DR is: we just don't know. I don't want people to fall into the same pitfalls from the opposing sides of the argument. Evolution and creation also does not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive.
On a quick tangent on pitfalls: When society agrees on something that we have been unable to properly observe, we run into issues where we don't want to accept that we were wrong.
The big bang theory as one notable example doesn't make a ton of sense on its face. It wasn't the only theory, and there were better theories that made more sense, such as Plasma Cosmology.
But instead of properly exploring and asking these questions, and challenging it, society was made to accept one theory as the end all, and schools rarely if ever teach of these other theories, because no one wants to admit that people were wrong.
And yet we recently had an event that seriously detracted from the big bang theory. When we are (inevitably) wrong about the fundamental theory of universal creation, we will have missed decades of valuable research focus. Most research became complacent due to commonly accepted science that we could literally not observe.
They also fearmonger about the end of the universe, something that also can never be observed.
So, ultimately the point is this:
When civilization cannot directly observe something, the solution is not to just accept one side or the other, but to continue to teach young minds to question those theories for hundreds or thousands or millions of generations to come.
That goes for evolution vs creation, Big Bang vs Plasma Cosmology, etc.
When discussion dies on a subject, the truth will die with it until resurrected by something entirely unrelated like a new space telescope.
I dont want to be a victim of a strawman here. So I'll try and clear up my position a little bit more. I'm a Creationist. I believe there was a Mind (God) behind the creation of the Universe and the appearance of Man. How (or by what mechanism) God brought everything into existence we don't know yet (I do think it fascinating that all the major founders of Modern Science were all Bible believing Christians who simply thought that "doing Science" was merely "thinking God's thought after Him"). So maybe at some point in the future we will discover the technology God used to bring material Reality into existence.
But I think we can say with some level of certainty that the process was guided. IOW, it was not a random, unguided, and purely natural process. Theistic Evolution is an option on the table, but even that theory has its issues. The main issue, IMO, is Information. We need information in order to create things and design new species. Information always comes from Minds. Always.
SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) has spent millions looking for a simple message from outer space. And a "simple" message is all they need to conclude it must've originated from an intelligent mind. Well, we have the informational equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica stored on a practically invisible, biological hard drive called DNA. But somehow DNA doesn't need a Mind to explain it's origin and continued existence? DNA (literally a codebook for all of Life) can come into existence all on it's own with no explanation other than randomness and chaos (which aren't explanations). Meh. This, to me, stretches Scientific credulity.
Even Richard Dawkins and Carl Sagan (two staunch Evolutionists) have to admit to Alien seeding (the involvement of Minds) to explain the inordinate amount of complexity we find in the origin of Carbon based life forms.
Here's a quick syllogism to consider:
1) Codes only arise from Minds
2) DNA is a code (even Bill Gates admits this seeing he's trying to hack it)
3) Therefore, DNA came from a Mind
Overall, here are the choices on the table. There are no others:
Nothing created everything
Something created everything
My money is on #2
The probability of single cell forming through an unguided process is unbelievably small, beyond the point of probability into impossible.
I watch the work of Dr James Tour on YouTube, he is I'd say the leading champion of OoL research and really explains it in simplified layman terms.
He also exposes the false science the evolutionists use to propagandise the public and education system.
I highly recommend his channel and lectures
https://m.youtube.com/c/DrJamesTour
Thank you for this!
Enjoy, he gets quite irate in his speeches as he really contends with the way the evolutionist cheat in the experimentation and he really shows it and he exposes it.
You'll love him, he's easily one of the best scientists this world has at the moment.
Yes the chances of life evolving from rocks is similar to the chances of a print shop exploding and creating a dictionary. And that would be just one life form. Mind boggling to think about
Codes are math, logic.
Codes don't arise from minds, they are discovered.
Therefore, a mind discovered a code.
That code has always existed in the math.
Well, this is a confusing statement, because Math isn't Logic either. Consider the very definition of "Code."
A Code is a system of signals or symbols for communication. Not the same as Math. And Codes never form by purely natural, unguided processes. They come only from Minds.
Yes, they always come from Minds. And they're discovered by Minds.
A logic course in college is literally a math credit, but I digress.
Simply put, Math quantifies while Logic clarifies. Math provides accurate numericle results, but little intuitive understanding of cause and effect. Logic provides a greater understanding of cause and effect, but usually only first order estimates of quantitative results.
Taking the definition of code it's easy to see that code functions on logic (and sometimes pure math which requires logic to understand).
Math is also a system of symbols for communication. Any math problem can be rewritten in plain English.
In fact, our system of math symbols is merely a description of the inherent truth and accuracy of math. There is no symbol for pi in the universe, we created the symbol. Pi has always existed.
Math is the code, logic is the key. Our interpretation of both is what we discuss and write on paper, but they already existed. We discovered a way to describe them.
An idea exists before you use a code to communicate or obscure it.
It's not a strawman, or even a debate. I wasn't even directly challenging the statements made, except to say that just because you believe in one doesn't mean you can't also be on board with the other.
We don't know the true origin, and we do not need to believe that what we believe to be true is mutually exclusive with what the other side believes to be true.
One side believes in evolution. One side believes in creation. But creation can lead to evolution nonetheless, so even if we did evolve from single celled organisms and our civilization somehow lived long enough to prove it, it doesn't also discount or remove an omnipotent influence of creation -- or vice versa.
I angered a few people, but that's fine. I'm not going to pretend to care about feelings, but I do care about the pursuit of knowledge and we simply can't prove anything from thousands, tens of thousands, millions, billions of years ago or from now.
So my only point is: No matter what side of belief anyone falls on, you should be able to understand that one does not necessarily negate the other.
We do have evidence just short of proof in notable evolution IIRC in regards to our brains and bodily structures, though evolving to a new species is only a hypothetical belief system in the same way that the big bang theory is.
With no way to directly observe it, there is no way to use the scientific method to prove it, and therefore there is no reason to blindly trust the science.
Oh, and lastly as a side note: Shame on the people who had to politicize religion or science. That's a critical divide right there that should never have existed.
Good discussion.
In all fairness to the positions on the table, they are mutually exclusive. They both can’t be true. Definitions are important here.
If we define Darwinian Evolution as a mindless, unguided, entirely natural process, then it stands in direct opposition to any creation story that posits a Mind, and both theories cannot both be true. One must be false.
Theistic Creation = Mind Involved
Darwinian Evolution = Mind not involved.
Fantastic comment here ☝🏻👏🏻
Especially:
Yes, there are more holes in darwinism than the Bible's take
At least your secure enough to admit the Bible isn't perfect.
Even God can draw a straight line with a crooked stick.
It is perfect. Always has been and always will be.
Very well said.
Another good video on the flaws in Darwinian evolution: https://youtu.be/SOtGb8hKyWE
I also don't buy organisms hitching a ride on comets and asteroids, then somehow managing to survive impact and the unimaginable heat, then somehow replicating through hundreds of thousands of years as the planet cooled.
Agreed.
Just another fairy tale for those wanting to avoid a creator God.
I see now. Your other comment above about aliens and the 2nd law makes more sense now. Sorry for the tone of my above comment.
Correct.
In order for evolution to occur as Darwin theorized, mutation rates would have to be way higher than observations show they are. We don't see enough failed mutations.
Something 'guides' mutations in a beneficial direction, and they seem to occur when environmental conditions necessitate.
Or the Earth is way older than people think..
It's almost like there are higher minds ordering everything isn't it?
Indeed, fren.
Indeed. Happens here too.
Yep, every time something big is about to happen we get brigaded by tards who won't stay over in Conspiracies.win.
Oh I call them out. And then they make 3 handshake accounts and tell me I’m fking retarded. Because I make sense and they don’t. Typical faggot feds and antifa sissy behavior
I think The Great Awakening can encompass many things. I always hedge my bets on the fact that our controllers have lied to us about EVERYTHING. Our history is written by the rulers. Are the rulers good people? Lots of people think “Qanon” is a Psy-Op to make people docile and trust the plan. Basically do nothing while the Great Reset moves right along.
Now, myself, I’ve been down every rabbit hole there is. You need to research everything then use your own discernment about what you believe is true. If you say something like evolution is truth or the world is a ball, then you should at the very least understand the other side of the argument.
There is too much banning people on here and shaming people for sharing information. If someone posted about some crazy story of Hillary Clinton eating the face off a child, I’d want to get to the bottom of that. Or if someone shared a video of a lizard person here, I’d want to see it and use my own discernment. If there is no conclusive answer then I put it aside and wait.
Too much censorship on this free speech platform IMO. Stop being a know-it-all to all things under the sun and stars. It’s an ugly look. Very liberal trait.
We are getting divided. This place is becoming unfriendly and divisive despite everyone calling each other 'fren'. I had always seen this place an aggregation for articles and news pertaining to the GA and Q subjective material peppered with prayers for one another and support when we needed it as well as sharing possible cancer cures, etc.
But now it's becoming a place to attack ideas that don't follow the 'norms', to attack people if they believe in FE, Creationism, aliens, chemtrails, etc. regardless of you support for the great awakening and regardless of if you don't even try to push those ideas on others.
Even if you aren't posting or arguing these ideas there is an apparent need that you be insulted and you can't respond or defend your belief because you get banned. It's like WWG1WGA ...as long as you believe exactly as we do. This is the message being sent. despite Q stating the deeper you go the more unreal it becomes.
Go download Michael Tsarion's Origins & Oracles series on a torrent site. One of the best watches you'll find on the topic of our origins.
Easily the most intelligently written comment from a handshake I have seen, but It's not without it's flaws.
Firstly I agree: human history has been distorted. Everything once controlled and regulated by man, including the Bible is subject to scrutiny. Any idea that was once used to control the masses needs to be held to account.
Now, where you're wrong is a couple of assumptions: one, we are NOT a free speech platform. GAW is focused primarily on Q and Q related topics. We clearly state in our rules that fringe conspiracies belong over on CW. Two, who the mods decide to ban is for their reasons. The mods are here at their leisure, unpaid maintaining the flow of information completely free on their time. Will they make mistakes? Yes. Are they perfect? Fuck no and thankfully none of them pretend to be.
If you want to host a free speech .win go right ahead. I'm sure the mods might even let you advertise it so they can send you GAW's trimmed fat. Then you can experience how quickly your "free speech" platform will develope rules and regulations.
True free speech on the internet or really anywhere is an impossibility. Humans do need rules to live by. This is why the Founders gave us the Constitution. While it does limit government's power it also limits our own when it comes to dealing with citizens. You have to respect the rights of everyone else same as they are required to respect yours. This is why defamation is illegal. This is why you can't speak with impunity. Your rights end where mine begin. It's long past time we get back to understanding what that means.
In B4 smoothbrain chorus: B-b-but earth really IS flat!!!
Uhhh Earth is actually a fidget spinner, ok? My uncle works at Nintendo so he would know
Fidget spinner? I don't know how they do things at over at Nintendo, but over here we instance a "round" 3D spherical world, derived from a "flat" 2D matrix of initial seed data and spatial coordinates, transformed by a "linear" 1D temporal vector. Now, we don't have deep pockets like Nintendo and can't afford a lot of server resources, so in order to perform at acceptable levels we had to set the Planck constant way higher than optimal. This caused all sorts of crazy glitches for interactions beyond a certain deviation from the spatial-temporal origin. Not necessarily a problem, but before we could make any compensatory adjustments to the rest of the system to account for the anomolies, the bean-counters insisted on moving to release. They said that it was "good enough" to meet the deadline set by marketing because the glitches wouldn't occur for any directly observable projections. We balked at releasing it in that state because we knew it would eventually bite us in the ass, but in the end they had their way and it went into the final production environment. As we expected, it wasn't long before the complaints were rolling in about unreliable performance under certain "edge cases" that ended up being not-so-edge at after all. We can't afford to fix the root problem yet because that would mean halting the service and cutting off our revenue stream while the project is still in the red. So for the time being we're stuck with applying band-aid patches to this mess for who-knows-how-long. Deadlines be damned, just a bit of extra development time could have saved everyone from this headache.
Cut curved spacetime appears flat on the largest scale.
Not everything in Kansas is flat.
Your sarcasm is the most plausible flat Earth theory with the most credibility...
It's not flat, doofus. It has peaks and valleys.
I see there are at least 3 people in here who's sense of humor is flatter than the earth.
Edit: Make that 6
until everyone can go to space and verify what the earth is i will always question any evidence. if the last 2 years has taught me to not just trust the science.
Amen
You don’t need to be in space to know the earth is curved.
The sun doesn’t appear to get smaller or change shape as it sets. If the light comes from an object, that object generally does not change distance from its observer, or if it does, that change is too negligible to be seen.
So we can say that the sun travels across the sky as if it were on a sphere. (the sphere is the shape of constant distance in three dimensions.)
Now consider that different people across the world experience different times of day at the same time. Easily verifiable with modern communication.
If someone somewhere sees the sun straight up while we see the sun to the side, the earth must be curved.
i dont believe in either and you getting so upset as if you are in a cult and i cant see the true light i humorous
You can imagine me being upset all you want. I’m just correcting mistakes where I see them.
There are numerous inconsistencies with the ideas in those two videos.
First of all, they only focus on the moments surrounding sunset and sunrise, not accounting for the entire rest of the day. If these ideas were true, the effects of perspective and “water-in-the-air lensing” would not perfectly cancel out the way they appear to. The sun would change speed and size throughout the day- not observed.
Second, if the sun’s apparent size is due to glare, then why is its image so clearly defined at sunset? Instead of being a blob of light with a definite cutoff (which one of those videos shows) it would appear blurry.
Third, the perspective diagram she repeatedly shows makes no sense. The “planes” of perspective are not made of physical points in space, for one thing, and for another, as the diagram itself shows, the sun would only appear to “set” if it got further than infinitely far away from the observer. Why not give a diagram that traces the supposedly curved lines of sight through to the observer’s visual sphere? Maybe you’d see that the sun would have to become flattened as well, long before it reaches the horizon?
If there’s one thing that tells me flat earth is definitely fake it’s the flat earth priests’ constant insistence to “never make models”. Why do they always get hung up about the word “model”? Human beings model everything they can’t immediately sense. Is it really that big of a stretch to imagine that something is happening beyond what we can see? That the sun still exists when we can’t see it? So we should be able to make models to guess where it would be, and compare those guesses with what we do see. The flat earther’s fear of models tells me that flat earth is impossible to accurately model- and is therefore not descriptive of reality.
bro trust the science
Big dipper.
If you actually explore those communities, you'll see that the shape of the earth isn't as important as the blatant lies and propaganda from the likes of NASA, the Smithsonian, Bill Nye, Tyson, et cetera.
The point is to stop trusting the science.
Also, the true nature of this realm IS NOT CLEAR, so stop clucking like all the other circle jerks on the internet.
User name not exactly checking out there, Bucko.
Yes.
Darwinian Evolution IS fake..... and gay.
A true Creation fairytale.
Darwin is full of shit.
We never got the common ancestor that is vital to the theory of evolution. There's no more evidence for evolution than creation based ideology yet it is touted as fact by the same retarded scientists who said COVID was gonna kill everyone.
The lack of conclusive evidence aside, I'm a Christian. God created man in His image. Period.
*Their image. The text reads across multiple translations "Let Us make man in Our image." Jesus later goes on to say "And the two shall become one and they are no longer two but one." "Let us make man in Our image" "And the two shall become One"... Just something to ponder...
That first verse refers to the Trinity.
100%
The Great Awakening neither rises or falls on whether the Earth is flat or not, Darwinism is true or false, or if there is a Dome above the earth.
If someone brings theses ancillary issues up within a discussion about the Great Awakening, then I would submit that person doesn't understand what the GA is all about.
lol! Yeah. FE is the deal breaker. Have you tried telling your normie friends how an ancient Babylonian cult rules the world or that the Military is in control?
I can't even get them to admit that people have plead guilty to election fraud while literally holding the news article mere feet from their eyes.....
Now to be fair, I DO believe that there's a chance that evolution is fake. Look into all the weird stuff and "conspiracies" that revolve around dinosaurs and their bones. It's a weird rabbit hole to go down, but one with some merit.
Now as for the rest of it, yeah those people are retarded fed plants 99% of the time
This is a good one.
For example, the fairy tale from the oil companies that oil is formed from dinosaurs. The elements don't match. Easy to research.
Most of the Oil deposits in the world were created from the great flood. Massive amounts of organic material being buried under pressure very quickly. The process occurred rapidly, not over eons of time.
But oil doesn't contain the same list of elements as living things. So it's provably impossible.
The weight of evidence appears to favor an organic origin, most petroleum coming from plants and perhaps also animals, which were buried and fossilized in sedimentary source rocks. See Levorsen, A.I., Geology of Petroleum, 2nd ed., W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, pp. 3–31, 1967.
The petroleum was then chemically altered into crude oil and gas.
The chemistry of oil provides crucial clues as to its origin. Petroleum is a complex mixture of organic compounds. One such chemical in crude oils is called porphyrin:
~ Tissot, B.P., and Welte, D.H., Petroleum Formation and Occurrence, 2nd ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, p. 128, 1984
See this article for more information regarding this line of research.
But there are elements in crude oil that are never found in any plants or animals. They refuse to explain this or even to notice it, even though the facts are readily available.
Nobody has ever said oil comes from dinosaurs. The most popular theory is that ocean plankton died and settled in significant enough quantities to produce highly organic rich sediments, which were later "metamorphosed" into hydrocarbons. There are places today where such rich plankton accumulation occurs, with oil-like substances associated with the recent sediments. However, there are many hydrocarbon deposits where such a theory is very difficult to use as an explanation for their formation.
Yes, they actually did. Just one example, Sinclair Oil used a dinosaur in their advertising. We were taught that in school.
The list of elements contained in crude oil do not match the list of elements in any life, animal or vegetable. So oil isn't made of plankton either. Crude oil is mostly hydrocarbons, but not entirely. So the presence of hydrocarbons can't explain it.
Russian scientists have said for years that oil was created by a process deep in the earth. That's why a lot of oil wells are deeper in the earth than any life ever existed.
You are correct.
I've tried to look into this, I have a simple question if you either of you can answer?
How deep is oil found?
How deep in the earth is the plankton's or trees found in the fossil record? (I say trees and plankton as I thought it was old trees and early lower fossils)
If oil is deeper than the fossils it can't possibly be a fossil fuel.
I'm not an evolutionist so I don't believe the theory but can't find a concise answer to this on the internet.
The "oil from dinosaurs" is just a symbolic way of saying it comes from ancient life. No scientist would ever state that, since the biomass of every dinosaur that ever existed could not supply a minute fraction of the carbon required for even one major oil reservoir.
But oil doesn't come from any life, ancient or modern. The lists of elements contained in each is different, and there's no way to explain the difference except that the whole idea is false. Oil came from an entirely different process.
petroleum and other hydrocarbons are composed of Carbon and Hydrogen, in varying lengths of chains. What of those elements are not found in life?
Incorrect question, as crude oil contains elements that aren't in hydrocarbons. There is much more than carbon and hydrogen in crude oil. There is a long list of elements found in oil, and some of them don't occur in animals or plants. Also, there are elements found in animals and plants that don't occur in oil.
Go research the composition of crude oil compared to plants and animals for yourself. That's the only way you'll believe it, apparently.
The oil from dinosaurs idea came from Rockefeller during a conference around 1897 or so, this was to induce a higher price point for sales based on the idea of limited resource. Oil is a naturally recurring liquid mineral that will never run out. Additionally, it was Rockefeller who pushed the entire medical industry away from natural treatments to chemicals. He wanted a way to use the waste products from petroleum processing. He spent money on hospitals, medical schools, all for the purpose of money generation and control. If one wanted to become a Doctor at that time, you either signed on with the new pharmaceutical chemicals for treatment or you had to pick another career, the schools, research facilities and hospitals wanted to get paid, so they of course switched as well. Move forward to present day and the world is a world of shit medically speaking thanks to Rockefeller.
Remember, " a patient cured, is a patient(money source) lost"
This is some "we never said the vax would stop transmission" shit.
There was a real effort to paint Darwin as the "humans are monkeys" crazy guy.
The guy did some pretty sweet research.
Really?
Darwin was a stonecutter.
I love how evolution being fake gets lumped in with flat earth. The two aren’t even remotely comparable.
Macro evolution or cells mutating and gaining benefits has practically no evidence and endless evidence to the contrary. Also there’s the fact that when lesser breeds with greater the result is overall a lesser. Say you quantified genetic traits into a number, 1.0 being highest 0.0 being lowest. If a 1.0 and a 0.5 mixed the result is a lowering to 0.75 from 1.0 not a raising. After a while positive genetic traits and good genes are lost permanently and cannot be recovered so we, at a macro scale, can stay the same or recover a bit of what was lost (temporarily) but we can never make permanent genetic gains but CAN make permanent genetic losses. Run the system long enough and it will ALWAYS trend downwards, every ancient civilization understood this and wrote about this as the Age cycle or Yuga Cycle in Sanskrit (I forget the Greek term).
Apparently Q is all about a literal interpretation of the bible.
No I’m not getting any of this from the Bible and I think the world is clearly more than a few thousand years old. The evidence for that is enormous and doesn’t rely on faulty scientific dating nonsense.
That is exactly Alex Jones' purpose. Always has been. It's effective which is why they employ that tactic.
And this is hey chemtards and reptards and other glowie faggots are not allowed here.
If you haven't looked into consistent snake-god-species representation in every culture, you haven't done your homework.
I ssssssssssseeeee you 😉🤝
“reptards”
I believe in nephilim and the idea that humans can(or could) breed with demons. Dose that make me a reptard?
But I read on a cereal box while backpacking through Siberia during winter that if I submit 7 box lids, I'd get a Earth keychain!
20 weeks after I got home it finally came in the mail and it was a disc!!!! Explain that with your science and logic!!!!
Just in case: /s
Except evolution is fake. The chronological evidence is written in the Bible. The only solution I can think of is how man was made on the 6th day. Perhaps those first 6 days lasted 6000 years who knows, Gods timing is very cryptic it seems.
Adaptation is real, evolution is BS!
Been saying this for two years. Flat earth always smelled of a deep state conspiracy theory infiltration poison pill to me. The ultimate dumb conspiracy theory to discredit all legit conspiracy theories through guilt of association. No matter what “conspiracy theory” they want to discredit, they call them flat earthers.
Young earth theory has a lot of evidence to support it.
That's pretty much it, I've been saying this forever, they muddy the waters of true theories with absolute BS, which completely turns the normies off, by design.
I love discussing the creation of the earth with atheists. Typically goes like this:
Atheist: if god real y i monke?
Me: We have just as much in common with dolphins as we do with apes. Mammalian DNA is all very interconnected but it doesn't mean we came from pre-human creatures who then f*cked with monkeys to make us.
Atheist: ... but y i monke?
Evolution is absolutely fake.
Most of what we know about what is directly outside our planet, i.e. orbit and the moon and the Van Allen Radiation Belt is a giant lie from NASA. They absolutely did not go to the moon in 1969 in the way they told us. Did it happen? Do we have hidden technology? Maybe. But the global TV event of the moon landing is obvious nonsense. If you haven't seen the "lunar lander" in person at the Smithsonian, it is garbage shoddily welded together covered in gold foil and crappy canvas that wouldn't even make a functional tarp for a picnic. There is no fricking chance this piece of crap would stay pressurized if space is indeed the total vacuum they say it is. https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-media/NASM-NASM2016-03147 What a piece of trash. And NASA says "They no longer have the technology to go to the moon". https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/lunar-module-lm-2/nasm_A19711598000
Bart Sibrel does an excellent job of completely tearing apart the mainstream narrative in his documentary "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon." Complete with publicly-available documentation. https://youtu.be/xciCJfbTvE4
We are rarely shown any video of moon landings anymore- almost exclusively pictures, because we have been so trained to spot crappy special effects that the video just looks ludicrous now. It's insane how fake the footage looks, but that's not the proof.
A thousand yeses
Keep it simple not stupid.Simple truth,vaccine no long time study for example.There are many rabbit holes that are traps.Sideline's to the true story.And the truth is strange enough.
Evolution IS fake.
More people became depressed leftists because Darwin opened the door to force God out of their lives, than any other cause.
Trillions of observations by billions of people over thousands of years show us that life forms are fixed.
Dog creates dog.
Cat creates cat.
Bird creates bird.
Human creates human.
It's not hard.
Exactly. The flat earth idiots exist only to derail conversation. And their arguments are so weak and easily disproved. They don't even understand the size difference between a commercial airliner and the earth. They say that an airplane's nose would constantly have to point downward to travel across the globe. Seriously, idiots.
It's weird how the Bible describes the Earth as having "four corners" and a "firmament".
Wouldn't it be super weird... like SUPER WEIRD if it were true?
Imagine trying to convince everyone that Q is real and they laugh at you, but you laugh at people who consider the biblical explanation of the earth to be true.
WEIRD.
The Earth is Flat. That world map hanging down over the chalkboard must have really made quite an impression on you. Personally, I was really into the spinning globe in the rear of the classroom.
I see what you're trying to say.
That's just what Doug used to say. See you later, new Doug!
Taika Waititi is kind of annoying, but Korg had his moments
Do you disagree with Pythagorus and that all that math and angle stuff?
just lightening things up, i'm not a flerf.
Everything is better with spinning. Spin to win.
Good meme.
No true Bible believing Christian that believes in creation believes any of those other things.
I’ve made a special post about it some time ago:
https://greatawakening.win/p/15JnYo0Tbe/warning-flat-earth-and-reptilian/
You’ve done it better: 1 picture is worth 1000 words. Thanks for the meme.
If you have time - add reptilians.
Evolution is fake.
Alex……. Jones……. The derp on the leash.
Earth isn't 6000 years old.
....but when Lara Logan talks about Darwin's funding I listen
Less than 10,000 years.
It's not a matter of the Earth being 6,000 years old, but how long what we consider to be modern man has been on Earth.
B-b-b-but JFK Jr.'s clone told me on Telegram!
Evolution is not wrong, but it does not apply to modern humans.
The reason you can't find a missing link is that the missing link came from a test tube. We are a created species. We were created to be a slave, and there are some on the earth that still believe we should be a slave species.