Can sane me doubt Evolution-ism?

[gnostic]

I cannot take anyone seriously, who constantly post pointless YouTube videos to make even more senseless points.

 

[ecco]

Actually, it's fishier than you think. Look at the second word in the Thread subject, take a look at the claim made in post 27, and the location of the eavesdropping in post 32. There are many hints that make me just want to back away from dialogue with this individual.

RE: Post #32. Ya made me look. Yeah. That brings up a great big "Hmm".


ETA: Just saw this...

I am one of the top scientists, look up the links to my CV and Dark Matter and UFO demonstrations.

One has to wonder. I'd sure look at the links that show the scientific credentials for @questfortruth and even the aforementioned website.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Aren't somebody entertained?

Yes. I made it to the end of this thread (so far), didn't I?

We've got you claiming to be a top scientist and logician, that patients in a mental hospital are more sane than (I'm not sure what) because they get meds, that fish are human (and vice versa), and that you have disproved the theory of evolution with some haikus.

It's not HBO, but it is entertaining.

 

[questfortruth]

It's not HBO, but it is entertaining.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

If somebody would vote for me, I promise to build a mental Clinique in every district, any corner of the world.

Okay. You got my vote.
When do you break ground on the new medical facilities?

 

[questfortruth]

Okay. You got my vote.
When do you break ground on the new medical facilities?

There were no elections for the President of Earth. In such elections, if there would be my candidacy, then I promise, if I get elected, make more mental cliniques. With your money, not my money of course.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There were no elections for the President of Earth. In such elections, if there would be my candidacy, then I promise, if I get elected, make more mental cliniques. With your money, not my money of course.

Ahh...well, you're already backtracking on promises like a professional politician. Accept a few bribes from big pharma, or an oil company and you're away.

 

[tas8831]

I am extremely good in doing top science. Please read my CV in the link in the thread. Thank you.

Judging by the things you write in these posts, you are not good at anything scientific, by a long shot.

But it is illogical absurd: fish is human. Why? Because it is not peer-reviewed.

See?

 

[tas8831]

If only you could see that I see!

I see God, I see life, I see disproof of Adolf Hitler's most favorite book and author.

You see fantasies and nonsense.

"Countless conservative religious and political tracts have attempted to undermine Darwinian evolutionary theory by arguing that it had been endorsed by Hitler and led to the biological ideas responsible for the crimes of the Nazis. These dogmatically driven accounts have been abetted by more reputable scholars who have written books with titles like From Darwin to Hitler. Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s great German disciple, is presumed to have virtually packed his sidecar with Darwinian theory and monistic philosophy and delivered their toxic message directly to Berchtesgaden—or at least, individuals like Daniel Gasman, Stephen Jay Gould, and Larry Arnhardt have so argued. Many more scholars are ready to apply the casual, but nonetheless, telling sobriquet to Hitler of “social Darwinian.” In this essay I have maintained these assumptions simply cannot be sustained after a careful examination of the evidence...
Moreover, Hitler explicitly denied the descent of species, utterly rejecting the idea that Aryan man descended from ape-like predecessors. And most of the Nazi scientists I have cited likewise opposed that aspect of Darwin’s theory. Hitler did speak of the “struggle for existence,” but likely derived that language from his friend and supporter Houston Stewart Chamberlain, an avowed anti-Darwinian. Moreover, by Hitler’s own testimony, his anti-Semitism had political, not scientific or biological roots; there is no evidence that he had any special feeling for these scientific questions. And in any case, remote and abstract scientific conceptions can hardly provide the motivation for extreme political acts and desperate measures. Among Nazi biologists, at least those publishing in an official organ of the Party,..
In order to sustain the thesis that Hitler was a Darwinian one would have to ignore all the explicit statements of Hitler rejecting any theory like Darwin’s and draw fanciful implications from vague words, errant phrases, and ambiguous sentences, neglecting altogether more straight-forward, contextual interpretations of such utterances. Only the ideologically blinded would still try to sustain the thesis in the face of the contrary, manifest evidence. Yet, as I suggested at the beginning of this essay, there is an obvious sense in which my own claims must be moot. Even if Hitler could recite the Origin of Species by heart and referred to Darwin as his scientific hero, that would not have the slightest bearing on the validity of Darwinian theory or the moral standing of its author. The only reasonable answer to the question that gives this essay its title is a very loud and unequivocal No!"

Was Hitler a Darwinian​

Eagerly awaiting your scholarly retractions and apology for relying on strawman lies.

 

[tas8831]

Just the one??? Out of around 35000 known species? Not sure its statistically significant

He is right - cladistically, we are sarcopterygian fish (to be specific). Which is to say that the basal ancestor of modern bony fish and us are the sarcoptergii,

I always found that designation to be somewhat arbitrary, because you can go back further (but then the ancestor is even more fishy), or further forward (where the ancestral clade could be, say, Stegocephalian tetrapods.

 

[ChristineM]

He is right - cladistically, we are sarcopterygian fish (to be specific). Which is to say that the basal ancestor of modern bony fish and us are the sarcoptergii,

I always found that designation to be somewhat arbitrary, because you can go back further (but then the ancestor is even more fishy), or further forward (where the ancestral clade could be, say, Stegocephalian tetrapods.

And further and further still to chemoheterotrophs. We've swam a lot f water and swung in many trees since then

 

[questfortruth]

Was Hitler a Darwinian
Eagerly awaiting your scholarly retractions and apology for relying on strawman lies.

The Quest For Truth is sorry for any wrong posts he made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

DISPROOF OF EVOLUTION-ISM CAN BE FUN

Disproof #1
If God would not make monkeys, which animal (or plant, insect, fish, microbe)
would Darwin choose for us as the next of kin
(the closest relative)? And to the farthest relative?

You are fish, says the video. No, the fish is a human. It is all the point of my thread. Please read the thread with a serious mental effort to understand the point: the fish is a human.

The first step to understand the point: fish is human, is this: I am extremely good in doing top science. Please read my CV in the link in the thread. Thank you.

So, you have not made this important step. But if you do, then you will see, that I have a top-journal level result here. The NEW result in biology, the breakthrough:

fish is human.

It is Science fact: human is fish,

But it is illogical absurd: fish is human. Why? Because it is not peer-reviewed.

I have heard conversations in mental hospitals, I tell you, they are much saner. Why? The people there get their medicine. If somebody would vote for me, I promise to build a mental Clinique in every district, any corner of the world. If you disagree with "fish is human", then you agree with Creationism.

There is a common ancestor between humans and monkeys, isn't he? Then due to the humankind has shot the genetic material into the monkeys [namely the common ancestor Bob had four kinds: one pair were humans, other pair were monkeys], then monkeys must be considered as fully humans. They look very different but are natural humans. Why? Because Bob has given birth to humans, so Bob must be human. Then Human Bob can not give birth to monkeys, therefore these two monkeys, which were born are in fact, humans. Therefore, all monkeys are humans. And all other animals, plants, fish, amoeba, viruses are human too. Do you copy?

If the bird (or mosquito, or snake) is a human, then he must be born by a human Elsa and John.

Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? (John 6:60).

I have the lowest authority in the world and the greatest talent from God in the world. But because of low authority, I quote: "One day the evil spirit answered them, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know about, but who are you?”"
Acts 19:15

God replies:
“This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”
Mark 9:7

Disproof #2

Each and every human gets born by a human only
and gives birth to a human only. That is humankind.

If you are not sure concerning yourself, be
positive, the President of the USA
(pick up the cutest one) is a human. And be sure
that at least one of the monkeys in the forest
(pick up the ugliest monkey) is not human. Thus,
there is no common ancestor between monkeys and
humans.

But on the next level of enlightenment, you should
compare humans not to the monkey (it is a brain work to find ten differences),
but to birds, or dogs, or insects, or trees, or amoebae, or viruses.
You get more convincing disproof of Evolution-ism because
in this theory all living beings are humans.

PROOF OF GOD AND UFO: Is Our World an Intelligent Simulation?, viXra.org e-Print archive, viXra:2104.0152
PROOF OF MY SANITY: Science and Psycho

Ow boy

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, God more likes this:

If God would not make monkeys, which animal (or plant, insect, fish, microbe)
would Darwin choose .....

If Thor did not have a hammer, then how would the Romans have crucified people?

 

[tas8831]

And further and further still to chemoheterotrophs. We've swam a lot f water and swung in many trees since then

Indeed. In the end, regardless of what specific clade we want to claim allegiance to, the actual line(s) of descent are the same. It is just a matter of naming things.

 

[tas8831]

The Quest For Truth is sorry for any wrong posts he made.

Let's hope that those are not employed as weasel words, but very good of you to do so.

 

[Bear Wild]

If Thor did not have a hammer, then how would the Romans have crucified people?

Please do not mix Thor up with the Romans please. Thor's hammer Mjollnir was forged by dwarves and was never used by the Romans. Romans had no problem crucifying people without Thor's hammer. Plus Thor always stood up for mankind would not have approved.