Egregoros · Phoenix Framework

Post

Remote status

Context

Phantasm (away)

>This project argues that trade is the origin of most problems: from climate change to slavery, waste and pollution, corruption, crime, you name it.

>I sure do love sometimes eating exotic food imported from other parts of Earth.
<Do you know that by eating imported food via trade you are causing climate change, corruption and slavery?
>

Hoss "Sneed (Formerly Chuck)” Delgado

@Hoss@shitpost.cloud remote

The world got a lot more retarded the day retarded people became convinced formatting their retarded thoughts as thesis statements would make them less retarded.

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

That guy banned my server after I made a fool out of him by proving that "There is only one race, the human race" constitutes a denial of Darwin's theory.

Austere Aeronautical Scholar Zeppelin

@vonzeppelin@poa.st remote

@cjd @phnt @Hoss it's very interesting how liberals don't actually believe in evolution. they only liked it because it was a way to attack Christianity. they do not want to grapple with concepts like "the sahara desert as a speciation barrier"

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

Atheists (for the most part) are rebellious Christians.

They reveal their underlying assumptions when they say things like "40% chance you would have been born an African".

If you're not religious then there is no "you" before you're born (or technically: conceived)...

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

It's funny because was not raised religious, so for me at an instinctive level, the idea of dying and meeting Saint Peter is kind of on par with the idea of dying and meeting Vishnu or something...

That said, to the extent Christianity teaches people not to be dumb, I fully recognize its utility.

So as much as I have difficulty imagining how it is to believe there's a fundamental truth which is Jesus, I have an even HARDER time imagining what it would be like to accept the baseline assumptions of Christianity (the soul, hell, etc), but to actively rebel against the teaching.

Shitlib-Atheism is such a weird mentality to me...

Hoss "Sneed (Formerly Chuck)” Delgado

@Hoss@shitpost.cloud remote

Spiritually speaking, I'd consider myself an agnostic, but two millennia of history has shown us that Christianity produces the best civilizations across the board. Therefore, I support Christianity remaining the dominant spirituality in the western world.

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

Same on both points.

However, they gotta do something about their Little Boat Ideology, because that shit is not working and that alone is enough to collapse the entire church.

☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️

@KingOfWhiteAmerica@poa.st remote

@cjd @Hoss @phnt @vonzeppelin I affirm the basic historical validity and reliability of the Genesis Narrative, up to and including a Global Flood. AMA 😂

The key factor missing in most Creationist narratives, isn’t lack of “Scientific-ness” - it’s an underdeveloped sense of Intentionality, and its significance.

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

Any sufficiently advanced creationist theory is unfalsifiable - which is really the best place for a religious ideology to position itself.

☦️KingOfWhiteAmerica☦️

@KingOfWhiteAmerica@poa.st remote

@cjd @phnt @vonzeppelin @Hoss Indeed, the huge vast majority of even White Mankind aren’t in any position to falsify much of anything current within the establishment dataset and paradigm. It’s really a priesthood by every metric. And we find ourselves beholden to them very much like the typical shopkeep in medieval Europe was beholden unto the Papal Church. The Ivory Tower remains gatekept by everything they can throw into it.

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

Well, it depends on how far you want to stretch it.

If you adopt the "humans are unique metaphysical entities not subject to evolution like animals are", I obviously can't PROVE you wrong more than I can prove we're not in Plato's cave...

BUT, for all intents and purposes, that doesn't really fit with the data. Darwin's evolution is something you can see in plants and animals, you can control it by breeding them, you can even model it in a computer program, and everything works out exactly as predicted. Human behavior does as well - so it's overwhelmingly likely that this is how it works.

But if you say "sure it may be like that, but God set it up" then legitimately unfalsifiable...

Agartha_Noble

@AGARTHA_NOBLE@shortstacksran.ch remote

@cjd @phnt @KingOfWhiteAmerica @vonzeppelin @Hoss I think there's even solid indications that just the "meat suit" if you want to call it that, suffers from all the same shortcomings and foibles of evolution- even before talking about the Soul!

Sunburns, for example. On Whites, it's a result of relatively thin skin and no pigmentation to absorb UV before it can cause critical DNA damage; this is detected by RNA damage, which will lead to apoptosis. You can see a clear gradient of pigmentation on the "more pigment better" spectrum, all the way down to the equator (before the age of jet travel really fucked up the distribution), which is the solution that the human strain has broadly settled on; REGARDLESS of whether or not that's the best answer! (It's not; we need a protein that can more rapidly recover photonic damage, which might end up coming from photolyases).

Evolution appears to be broadly driven by incremental selection and improvement, followed by extraordinary leaps and chasm-crosses on the whims of fate, and there's a dozen or so examples of human molecular-and-superstructures which indicate this is the case.

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

I don't remember the exact numbers here, but I'm gonna say actual mutations account for maybe 3% of evolution, the HEAVY LIFTER is random recombination. Everyone has 2 copies of their DNA, one from each parent - but every parent has 2 copies, so sperm and egg creation is randomly selecting each gene from father or mother genome. That gives you randomness within known-working limits, which is a big amplifier.

Agartha_Noble

@AGARTHA_NOBLE@shortstacksran.ch remote

@cjd @phnt @KingOfWhiteAmerica @vonzeppelin @Hoss Random mutations are really pretty low, I think lower than that by an order of magnitude...

Ok, it's about 50-100 mutations per child. Roughly. And those mutations are SNP, so like one base-pair changing... fifty or a hundred base-pair swaps in a genome 3.2 billion base-pairs in length, is vanishingly small; prevents new traits from emerging.

Replying to @AGARTHA_NOBLE@shortstacksran.ch

Caleb James DeLisle

@cjd@pkteerium.xyz remote

Sounds right, like I said I don't have the numbers...

Replies

Replying to @cjd@pkteerium.xyz

Agartha_Noble

@AGARTHA_NOBLE@shortstacksran.ch remote

@cjd @phnt @KingOfWhiteAmerica @vonzeppelin @Hoss It's one of those things where it's just way, WAY lower than you'd think. That's also taken as a snapshot during prime reproductive age- as time increases, mutations start going exponential.