Welcome to General Chat - GAW Community Area

Anybody got an opinion on Jim Rickerts?

He smells a bit funny, seems like.

I am grateful for the flip fone but i type 200wpm and gotta bang these keys 12 times to say 'fine' and risk deleting everything if i use caps and punctuation kek whatta time to be alive and remember we are all bein tested so shine babee shine!

What’s up with the reflecting pool? Is it genuine negligence?

Before I go any further: I apologize to the locals that are hurt by my humour. I will not use cerebral pop culture references to outwit trolls. Also, I have basically lost everything one can lose, in a matter of months. I Love All of U, and I really just need to start living again. To me, the safest place to start, is with the ones that understand me.

This song is dedicated to all the regular contributors to GAW. You bring the World closer to the Heart of the matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyhW2v0NDM0

u/#ridetofreedom

"Thank You for your attention to this matter.". 💕🇺🇸😁

https://greatawakening.win/p/1ASswgIrTF/

The guy in the back looks a bit familiar: https://www.facebook.com/reel/953094521066159

Just want to note, is it just me, or does anyone else get the feeling we have finally reached cruising altitude, and the storm is about to burst down there, underneath us?

What a ride. Be grateful that you are alive at this time in history, frens!

"This One's for the Unborn"
(A parody of "This One's for the Children" - New Kids On the Block)

[Intro]
This is a very serious message
So all of you please listen

[Verse 1]
There are some people living in this world
A bundle of joy inside
They have much love to sow
They are the unborn
Who were yearning to see their mother
Just remember, we were them
Remember, they are our brothers

[Pre-Chorus]
I'm not trying to darken up your day
But help the unborn to live
And show them all our better way

[Chorus]
This one's for the unborn
The unborn of the world
This one's for the unborn
May God guide their soul

[Verse 2]
Many people are living
What millions had denied
Some people have the future
From babies who were cast aside
So for the sake of the unborn
Say that life is the only way to go
'Cause they are our tomorrow
And people, they've got to know

[Pre-Chorus]
I'm not trying to darken up your day
But help the unborn to live
And show them all our better way

[Chorus]
This one's for the unborn
The unborn of the world
This one's for the unborn
May God help their soul
This one's for the unborn
The unborn of the world
This one's for the unborn
May God show them His throne

[Outro]
This one's, for the unborn
(It's only for the unborn, the unborn of the world)
This one's, for the unborn
This one's, for the unborn
(Only for the unborn)
This one's, for the unborn
(The unborn of the world)
This one's, for the unborn
(Many people are living
Many unborn denied)
This one's, for the unborn
(But this one's for the unborn
And I'm so sad)
This one's, for the unborn
(The unborn of the world)
This one's, for the unborn
(Many people are living
What unborn were denied)
This one's, for the unborn
(But this one's for the unborn
To-day!)

The Inquisition Episode 40 - The Mafia that runs the US and the rest of the world

https://substack.com/@st0rmywaters/note/p-200962876?r=wm6vw

Very interesting. Drops many names and events in history you may not have been aware of

Imagine a world where there are more employers than there are job seekers.

The employers would be in competion with each other instead of the job seekers.

Criticizing a Perfectly Engineered Eye: Evolutionists Humiliate Themselves BY RANDY J. GULIUZZA, P.E., M.D. | THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 2026

https://www.icr.org/article/15

Updated and modified from Guliuzza, R. J. 2016. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Can’t See Eye Design. Acts & Facts. 45 (10): 16–18.

Robert H. Goddard was a visionary trailblazer in modern rocketry. He built the first liquid fuel rocket, launched the first rocket payload, and received 214 patents. NASA lauded his accomplishments: “Now known as the father of modern rocketry, Goddard’s significant achievements in rocket propulsion have contributed immensely to the scientific exploration of space.”1

Despite his impeccable scientific work, Goddard was treated shamefully by newspaper reporters who, by comparison, understood nothing about rocketry.

In 1920, the Smithsonian published his original paper, ‘A Method for Reaching Extreme Altitudes,’ in which he included a small section stressing that rockets could be used to send payloads to the Moon. Unfortunately, the press got wind of this and the next day, the New York Times wrote a scathing editorial denouncing his theories as folly. Goddard was ridiculed and made to look like a fool.1

This editorial foolishly mocked Goddard by insinuating he knew less than a high school student. These newspaper reporters were incredibly arrogant and had overestimated their own self-importance, leading them to criticize a man clearly out of their league. What do they have in common with scientists today who are writing error-laden articles ridiculing God’s engineered biology? A lot. One word sums up both: folly.

In 1920, editors failed to reign in reporters from printing opinions on space flight, about which they knew little. Similarly, books and articles by poorly informed evolutionists peddling criticisms that biological organs like the human eye are poorly designed slip through the review of evolutionary biologists today. Some include: The Not-So-Intelligent Designer by Abby Hafer, Human Errors by Nathan Lents, or astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson’s “Stupid Design” argument.2 Does scientific evidence justify their assertions or expose them as unscholarly bluster about biological systems they don’t understand?

Evolutionists Play “Gotcha” with God: Human Eyes Are “Wired in Backwards”

Figure 1. A rod photosensor cell. The outer segment is the light-sensitive portion. The inner segment and nucleus are essential for cell metabolism and replenish the outer segment. The synaptic body connects the photosensor to the nervous system that transfers data from the sensor to the brain. Image credit: Kosigrim, public domain Evolutionary biologists suppose that organisms evolved bit by bit over long ages in ruthless struggles to survive. They visualize a purposeless process where death is embraced as the means of iteratively fractioning out random genetic mistakes to build creatures. Brown University’s Kenneth Miller explained how evolutionary beliefs contrast with the position that organisms are engineered by an intelligent Creator: “Though some insist that life as we know it sprang from a Grand Designer’s Original blueprints, Biology [sic] offers new evidence that organisms were cobbled together layer upon layer by a timeless tinkerer called evolution.”3

A tinkerer would have made many mistakes—especially compared to the creations of craftsmen. Of all craftsmen, God certainly tops the list. Thus, evolutionary theory predicts organisms are poorly designed. If the biological world is riddled with flawed designs, then evolutionary biologists argue that’s powerful evidence for evolutionary tinkering, not the work of God.

So, evolutionists determined to show that even human eyes emerged by tinkering. Cells in your eye that detect incoming light (that engineers would call photodetectors or photosensors) have photosensitive elements at one end and convey that data by a nerve fiber at the other (Figure 1). In some creatures, the photosensitive elements face incoming light, and nerves exit the back. This arrangement is called verted. Other eyes, including those belonging to vertebrates, are inverted. Here, photosensitive elements face the back, while nerves exit the front. These nerve fibers converge at some location to form the single large optic nerve; they then make a right-angle turn and exit the back of the retina (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Enlarged cross section through an inverted retina. Light enters the cornea on the side of the retinal ganglion cells (RGCs) and travels through transparent nerve fibers and nuclei before striking a cone or rod photosensor. The retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) layer handles the high metabolic requirements of photosensors. Very high blood flow through the choroid meets the high energy demands and removes excess heat. Image credit: Beatrice Belgio et al. CC BY-SA 4.0 Since the evolutionary theory predicts poor design in organisms, evolutionary biologists readily envision supposed design flaws in the inverted arrangement. Richard Dawkins believes anyone can simply look at an inverted retina and see that it’s obviously wired backwards. Since he undoubtedly knows some things about engineering, he believes himself skilled enough to make judgments about the bioengineering of eyes, much like how the reporters criticizing Goddard knew some things about physics. Dawkins opines,

Any engineer would naturally assume that the photocells would point towards the light, with their wires leading backwards towards the brain. He would laugh at any suggestion that the photocells might point away from the light . . . yet this is exactly what happens in all vertebrate retinas. Each photocell is, in effect, wired in backwards . . . the wire has to travel over the surface of the retina, to a point where it dives through a hole in the retina (the so-called ‘blind spot’) to join the optic nerve. This means that the light, instead of being granted an unrestricted passage to the photocells, has to pass through a forest of connecting wires, presumably suffering at least some attenuation and distortion (actually probably not much, still, it is the principle of the thing that would offend any tidy-minded engineer!).4

To Dawkins, creationists—and God—are caught in a dilemma: either God didn’t design the human eye, or He made a sloppy mistake.

“The Eye Shows Poor Design” Becomes an Evolutionary Mantra

Kenneth Miller took the baton from Dawkins, claiming, “Evolution, unlike design, works by the modification of pre-existing structures . . . [it] does not produce perfection.”3 His example? “The eye, that supposed paragon of intelligent design, is a perfect place to start.” Miller parrots Dawkins’ disapproval:

Given the basics of this wiring, how would you orient the retina with respect to the direction of light? Quite naturally, you (and any other designer) would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. No one, for example, would suggest that the neural wiring connections should be placed on the side that faces the light, rather than on the side away from it. Incredibly, this is exactly how the human retina is constructed.3 (emphasis in original)

The former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Francis Ayala, joined the parade. For more effect, he started claiming that visual problems were caused by poor design: “Moreover, we know that some deficiencies are not just imperfections, but are outright dysfunctional, jeopardizing the very function the organ or part is supposed to serve. In the human eye, the optic nerve forms inside the eye cavity and creates a blind spot as it crosses the retina.”5 Then in a broad-brush flail against the Creator, he pronounced that “it is not only that organisms and their parts are less than perfect, but also that deficiencies and dysfunctions are pervasive, evidencing ‘incompetent’ rather than ‘intelligent’ design.”6

Joining “the eye is wired backward” chant while also mocking God was the zoologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Abby Hafer. She claimed the human eye would deserve an “F-grade in any decent design class.”7 An increasingly vocal denigrator of real biological design is the physiologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Nathan Lents. He summed up evolutionary biologists’ ridicule by alleging that all of “human anatomy is a clumsy hodgepodge of adaptations and maladaptations.”8

Science Literature Doesn’t Confirm Dysfunctional Eyes

But Ayala doesn’t document his claim that the human retina is dysfunctional. Nor would an online search of scientific literature show that neuroscientists are identifying any type of dysfunction. Like Dawkins, Miller honestly admits that there’s no evidence of dysfunction: “None of this should be taken to suggest that the eye functions poorly. Quite the contrary, it is a superb visual instrument that serves us exceedingly well.”3 By objective standards the eye is superb. But apparently the eye couldn’t be engineered because it’s not built the way Miller thinks it should be: “The key to the argument from design is not whether or not an organ or system works well, but whether its basic structural plan is the obvious product of design. The structural plan of the eye is not.”3

Scientific literature published concurrent with the assertions of Dawkins, Miller, Hafer, and Lents included thousands of articles describing complex biological systems, with each having multiple parts working purposefully together. In this sea of documented biological complexity and absence of documented poor performance, evolutionary biologists’ contentions of poor eye design ring hollow.

Bad Design or Optimized Design?

A view inside the human eye showing the retina, optic nerve, and macula Simply put, if our eyes were built according to the opinions of evolutionists, we’d all be blind. There is no excuse for this blunder. When they were writing, there was abundant information about how retinal tissues marvelously address competing physical challenges to convert light fluctuations into useful information.

Engineers regularly need to satisfy numerous competing interests concurrently. A hallmark of sophisticated engineering is deriving solutions to several conflicting demands in a single optimized design.9 Dawkins and the others never discuss eye optimization. Since the performance of one particular trait isn’t maximized, then it’s irrelevant to them to investigate the entity as a whole. This practice leaves them ignorant of good reasons for design tradeoffs and keeps them from recognizing other factors that need research.

For human eyes, an inverted retina optimally balances a minimum of five major factors for the retina to work properly.10 Photosensors must be inverted and embedded in the retinal pigment epithelium (Figure 2). This vital tissue removes waste from rapidly regenerating photosensors and helps remove heat.11 Its black granule pigment stops light from scattering. The choroid’s extensive network of blood vessels supports the high metabolic needs of photosensors and functions like a car radiator to absorb additional heat.12 Researchers have known for decades that the layer of “uninsulated” nerve fibers that leave photosensors are transparent.13 In addition, retinal Müller cells conduct light from front to back like fiber optic cables. One paper described their remarkable properties to include “the increasing refractive index together with their funnel shape at nearly constant light guiding capability [which] make them ingeniously designed light collectors.”14 Thus, light-sensitive molecules detect light regardless of which way the retina is oriented.