itsnobody #fundie

itsnobody #fundie itsnobody.wordpress.com

Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error I encourage people to question, criticize, scrutinize things so that they can see that I am correct.

The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism of their arguments is specifically because they are anti-science fanatics and know that their arguments and beliefs are wrong and false, so they ban and block anyone from questioning, criticizing, or scrutinizing their arguments. If a statement is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism, so why do atheists intentionally prevent criticism for?

Since I know my statements are true I intentionally encourage criticism.

Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science.

There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument.

115 comments

old comment by UHM

"The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism"
Being called stupid, superstitious or delusional is not "disallow"ing free speech or open criticism. Free speech works both ways: you have the right to say something stupid, and I have a right to call you stupid.

"If atheists really take their arguments seriously then they must be foolish, idiotic, senseless, or not understand anything about logic or science."
I wonder which of us went to an actual logic course at a philosophic seminar, was that you or me? Given that you just attacked an entire argument group not by it's validity but by it's style - I can make a good guess.

old comment by dionysus

The way I've seen it, it's usually the atheists that have open comments and the religious that are more likely to close their comments. And the more religious they are, the more likely that their comments section is heavily moderated if not denied completely.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"There simply is no such thing as a logical atheistic argument."

Just two words completely annihilates your argument: Talking Snake.

'You may lie with your mouth, but with the mouth you make as you do so you none the less tell the truth.'

-Friedrich Nietzsche

'What's true, is true for you'

-L. Ron Hubbard, founder of $cientology

Your 'true' - and therefore literal - 'Word of God' states as a 'fact' (*snerk!*) that all things were created by God (even Satan, of course [/'Omniscience']), therefore reptiles with human speech abilities must exist to this day, so go out there and find for me a python that answers to the name 'Monty', and can sing "The Lumberjack Song", chop-chop, or Dinsdale here will nail your head to the floor! [/Doug Piranha-levels of sarcasm]

Jason Lily-livered, is that you?! [/Merry-Go-Round/Maypole/Dance of Circular Reasoning]

old comment by NotaReptile

Read the first paragraph, then the second itsnobody.

You're a hypocrite. You criticize atheists for not accepting criticism, yet by your own words you don't pay attention to criticism. After all you "know" that your argument is "flawless", so anyone who disagrees with you is automatically wrong in your mind.

You're not encouraging criticism, you're outright saying that you'll look at it. but will never give it a chance.

As for the banning, I'm pretty sure most atheism sites has a very lenient ban policy specifically to avoid blocking criticism. This very site has a major troll problem but there isn't much we can do about without changing the ban policy.

old comment by michael3ov

"Knowing my beliefs to be true, flawless, faultless, and without error"

That is your main problem. That is the main problem of everyone like you. You never question your own beliefs. You probably cannot even think of the last time you changed your mind on an issue. Therefore you are in no way a critical thinker,

Critical thinkers tend to question their beliefs all of the time. By question I mean re-examine. They can also remember when they have changed their stance on an issue because nobody is ever 100 percent correct on all things but critical thinkers are always striving to improve their grasp on truth.

"Atheistic arguments are so laughable and weak, I don’t know how anyone can seriously take atheistic arguments seriously. "

That is simply ridiculous. Most so called "atheistic arguments" are refutations of theistic arguments.

I am sure that you think the ontological argument is simply the pinnacle of theistic thought. That argument is so damn silly that it is hard to refute.

Many other arguments, such as Aquinas' five ways, where formulated when the collective knowledge of mankind was much smaller than it is now. The cosmological argument creates the question of who or what created the first cause? It isn't "atheistic arguments" that are silly, it is theistic arguments that do not stand up to logic.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/free-and-open-challenge-to-atheists/

Just a few comment posts down (emphasis added):

@Anonymous

"To those of you taking this blog seriously, you must have a really low estimation of theists. Itsnobody describes himself thusly on his twitter:

“I’m the expert at argumentation logic (the best of all time), interested in science, logic, reasoning, truth, and destroying arguments.”

Do you actually think he is stupid enough to think he is the greatest expert on argumentation logic of all time when he has never shown any knowledge of predicate logic, Herbrand-Fitch proofs or set theory etc.? Read through the history of this blog, and you will see that he is only trolling. Most of you already know where to find more sophisticated versions of the arguments used here. Reading a chapter on the existence of god in an introductory philosophy book will cover all of this and more in a fair and impartial manner. Why are you wasting your time here? It is an obvious Poe."

And an extremely dedicated one, at that. Nowhereman here is no more religious than I am.

old comment by itsnobody

I saw this "Atheist Group" at the University I use to attend, everyone there was White, the place was like a White Supremacy Organization.

I had never really seen one group with that many White people before.

Instead of calling a "White Supremacy Organization" you can just call it "Atheist Group" instead.

When you look through the yearbook and see the "Atheist Group" you can't really tell if it's a White Supremacy Organization or not, lol.

Sweden is so racist that they think that Eastern Europeans are actually African.

A Swede said to me "I'm not a racist, I have a friend from Croatia".

Liberia, Siberia, Nigeria, Serbia, etc...it's all the same to them.

All atheists can do in response is throw lame personal attacks at me in desperation, since they know that I'm right and they are wrong.

Atheists knowing their beliefs, arguments, and ways to be false don't allow people to question, criticize, or scrutinize their statements like how I do.

If a statement really is true it will stand up to any amount of criticism, this is why prior to atheists taking over science criticism was encouraged, not discouraged.

My blog site is among the only one in the world where full-fledged free speech is allowed, because I'm not afraid of criticism and know that the truth lives off criticism.

There aren't any atheist sites I'm aware of that allow full-fledged free speech and criticism, they are weak, afraid, and useless.

If you know that you're wrong like atheists do of course you would just cry, throw personal attacks, ban/block, or not allow criticism.

I'll always be the King on top, a one man army, I can take down the entire atheist community with ease.

The truth will forever live off free and open criticism!

It's the free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

old comment by itsnobody

Atheists can't really handle that modern science has proven that free-will is non-existent.

They can't handle that certain individuals like me are chosen and that the reality behind everything is in control of us all.

The main argument atheists/anti-science fans/free-will believers use to support free-will is non-determinism.

Atheists being foolish don't even realize that non-determinism falsifies evolution, ROFL!

Atheists in general don't understand much about science.
Enough said.

Other humans can't use their minds the way that I can, only certain individuals are chosen.

I had already figured out how to experimentally prove the existence of God, an afterlife, multiple timelines, and many other things, but I don't have the resources to do it right now (I need like 1GW of power).

It's pretty easy to do, if you have the equipment and resources.

I figured out that everything is composed of tiny timeline-portals, this explains the connection between time and location, and resolves other issues in physics.

I wonder if I'll ever get the resources to prove my hypotheses.

I had this video on YouTube called "Atheists/Racists are trying take over" but some atheists cried and got it removed for "hate speech", always trying to force and impose their fictional ways and beliefs onto the world.

Primitive atheists with their primitive minds can't stop me, I'll always crush them.

I ruin atheistic arguments and break them up apart so easily, it's boring now, I have to focus on preparing for atheists/racists trying to takeover.

The dream of a Whites-only type of society is finally coming back.

Back in 1988 no one in Sweden (atheist country) supported the Nazi party, it's only in 2010 that they finally gained support.

You have to realize that every White atheist is in on this White Nationalism Nazi thing together as one, that's why the atheist community refuses to oppose White Nationalism and racism.

100% of all modern day atheist countries (New Zealand, Sweden, Latvia, Estonia, Denmark, etc..) are racist/White

Nationalist/Nazi...it's going to happen in the US too once the atheist/racist population goes up.

It's not mere correlation, it's direct causation, the atheist/agnostic/non-religious population directly causes White Nationalism and racism to thrive.

The atheist community voices their position on things like gay rights or abortion rights because they actually care, they don't say anything against racism or White Nationalism, because they don't disagree with it.

The only way a non-white can get support from the atheist is if they claim to be gay.

If you're a non-white non-gay you can't really get any support from atheists/racists.

Just because someone is born as a non-white non-gay doesn't mean that you should hate them like atheists do.

It's free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

If we expand the size of the government, increase regulations, and increase taxes we can automatically stop migration, immigration, and hold non-whites down all without any type of anti-immigration laws!

Think Progressive, Think a Whites-only type of society!

Time is running out, I just hope that I can succeed before atheists/racists take over!

I encourage people to do the right thing - view atheists as subhuman as opposed to human.

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux

"Dude, I'm of the theist stripe (Specifically, a Christian-flavored Deist), and I acknowledge that there are logical atheist arguments. And what the hell does science have to do with philosophy?"

- Like where? What are your examples of logical atheistic arguments? There aren't any.

Science is a logical form of empiricism, and form of philosophy.

"Remember, 'nobody', the only true wisdom exists in knowing that you know nothing."

- That's just a false saying, I think it came from the Greeks who just did lots of pseudoscience, mathematics, and junk.

In order to determine the truth in science you empirically test a hypothesis then go by what scientific evidence, empirical testing logic, valid reasoning tells us, not the atheistic/anti-science reasoning of just going by authority, polls, and incredulity.

From an empiricist point of view only conclusions drawn from repeatable experiments and direct observations can be regarded as "true" or the closest thing to "truth".

This means the worst case scenario for a conclusion drawn from a repeatable experiment is that it's "extremely extremely accurate".

I would say the only true wisdom is realizing the absolute truth.

old comment by Azereaux

@itsnobody

I like how you ignored my second line, which essentially makes your point about the outgrowth of science from (interestingly enough, Greek) philosophy. Further, your dismissal of the classical Greek's contributions (something many Christian philosophers of the late middle ages and Renaissance would chide you for) is... honestly kind of funny.

A logical argument for the nonexistence of a god... not my belief system, but I'll give it a go:

There is a lack of indisputable empirical evidence for any sort of divine being. Provide an undeniable, indisputable piece of evidence. As there are none, your claim lacks substance. I can demonstrate the existence of a computer by showing you one. I can demonstrate gravity by dropping something, and can give you more precise data by dropping it in a vacuum. Evidence of the Creator... not so much. You could point to book A as such... except that someone else points to book B in refutation of your claim, while someone brandishing book D says you're all wrong.

Now, there are reasoned and logical arguments both for and against the existence of a divine being. "Reasoned" does exclude arguments like "because X said so" and "X is true because Y is true because X is true."

Yes, I know I'm bad at this... is difficult for me to construct the counterargument for my own position when it comes to metaphysics. Much easier with ethics and politics...

However, I have concluded that you're a troll. Not a bad one, either, but less creative than you could be. Give it time, and study the words of DJS and other such nutters (Dunamis comes to mind, and Anna Dheil) and you too can imitate a crazed fundie.

EDIT: Just read the other bit... Time Cube is not a good source for Inspiration. That particular Genius's Jabir is rather out of control...

old comment by itsnobody

@KingOfRhye

But how? There aren't any modern day atheist countries that aren't extremely racist or nationalist.

That's the problem with you people.

You're not understanding what I'm saying...Sweden (an atheist country) is so racist that they think that Eastern Europeans are actually African.

They think that Eastern Europeans are tall, athletic, loud, violent, commit crime, get into fights, can run fast, and are actually African.

The most celebrated liberal atheist biologist James D. Watson gave his full rebuttal of Martin Luther King Jr.'s delusional creationist claim that "all men are created are equal":
"there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but people who have to deal with black employees find this not true" - Liberal atheist biologist, James D. Watson, October 2007

Liberal atheist biologists like James D. Watson, Richard Lynn, JP Rushton, and others have concluded that certain ethnic groups are more aggressive, more prone to crime, that some can run faster, and that some are more intelligent than others.

100% of all atheist countries in modern times are racist...I've never met a non-racist atheist...the atheists I know support gay rights but oppose non-white immigration and support racism and nationalism...it shows you their attitude and mentality.

If there really are non-racist atheists they would speak up and oppose racism like what they do on things like gay rights or abortion rights, but they never oppose racism, because they don't disagree with racism.

It's free market, free speech, free society!
Together we can make the dream of a Whites-only type of society come true - Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

old comment by itsnobody

@Anon-e-moose

I don't support either Creationism or Evolution.

Obviously something as ridiculous as evolution is false as I've already proven on my blog site....but I wonder what's really true and what really happened in the past.

There aren't any evolutionists who value evidence.
I've proven this by pointing out the fact that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will even though the scientific evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution.

Evolutionists' standards of evidence is just imaginations and speculations...apparently evolutionists have no issue with denying repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete forms of evidence in science) to believe in free-will but have an issue with people who doubt imaginations and speculations that support evolution...ROFL!

It's more rational to doubt evolution than it is to doubt the evidence on free-will.

Almost all of the evidence supporting evolution = imaginations and speculations (things not experimentally verified as accurate)
All of the evidence telling us that free-will is non-existent = Repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete form of evidence in science)

Thus we can see that evolution isn't even a real scientific theory, it's merely a science fiction story!

Being foolish, evolutionists don't even realize that non-determinism falsifies evolution...non-determinism is usually used as evidence that free-will exists but nothing can evolve in a non-deterministic universe.

I just don't know how anyone can really believe in evolution based on the evidence.
Physics and chemistry clearly tells us that evolution is false because of entropy.

From physics and engineering we know that you can imagine all types of things that sound true but would never happen in reality....so evolutionists' imaginations and speculations isn't equivalent to evidence.

The reason why I believe that free-will is non-existent is because of the evidence.
The reason why I believe that evolution is false is because of the evidence.

There aren't any atheists who value evidence.
Enough said.

old comment by itsnobody

@KingOfRhye

Well I haven't worked out all the details...but I figured out that everything is composed of tiny timeline portals and that the concept of location and distance as we know it is merely an illusion...this explains everything, almost.

Using just 5 KW of power I achieved interesting results...but it still wouldn't conclusively prove that the effects really are from timeline portals...if I have lots of power I can just open up a really large portal so that effects couldn't be denied.

With this technology I can certainly change the world...it's really real I know that it'll work from the experiments I've already done.

I can do all types of things with this technology like cure or well-treat all negative health conditions (even curing old age), alter behavior (like permanently eliminate aggression), instantaneously travel to any location, materialize objects, visit other worlds, time-travel into other time-periods, and more.

I can also prove that an afterlife and God really do exist. I figured out that consciousness was composed of another type of energy closely connected to electricity, light, and magnetism...but unfortunately for free-will believers it doesn't favor free-will.

I also figured out that God was physically infinitesimal in size, difficult to know, both personal and impersonal.

I don't know if the world is really ready for this...or if someone might try to suppress the technology...others probably figured this stuff out before. I still need more money to build a power plant.

Based on modern science I've concluded that I was chosen for a special purpose as one of the Earth's highest souls. Higher beings come and go, but if I don't achieve perfection this time, my existence would've been wasted!

It's the free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type society!

old comment by Some Guy Passing Through.

[Chorus]
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
When you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait
To look in the mirror.
Cause I get better looking each day.
To know me is to love me.
I must be a hell of a man.
Oh Lord It's hard to be humble,
But I'm doing the best that I can.

I used to have a girlfriend,
but I guess she just couldn't compete,
With all of these love-starved women,
Who keep cowering at my feet.
Oh I probably could find me another,
But I guess they're all in awe of me.
Who cares?
I never get lonesome.
Cause I treasure my own company.

[Chorus]

I guess you could say I'm a loner.
A cowboy out lone, tough, and proud.
I could have lots of friends
If I wanted.
But then I wouldn't stand out from the crowd.
Some folks say that I'm egotistical.
Hell I don't even know what that means.
I guess it has something to do
With the way that I fill out my skin tight with jeans.

[Chorus]

I'm doing the best that I can.

old comment by

Anon-e-moose

@Some Guy Passing Through.

Let me join you in that sentiment, via this by The Beatles:

(*Sings*)

'He's a real nowhere man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody

Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man, please listen
You don't know what you're missing
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?

Nowhere Man, don't worry
Take your time, don't hurry
Leave it all till somebody else lends you a hand

Doesn't have a point of view
Knows not where he's going to
Isn't he a bit like you and me?

Nowhere Man, please listen
You don't know what you're missing
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command

He's a real Nowhere Man
Sitting in his nowhere land
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody
Making all his nowhere plans for nobody!'

old comment by itsnobody

@Anon-e-moose

But how? In response all the fools (atheists) have are personal attacks...that's their idea of debating.

Whenever you debate with evolutionists they NEVER EVER EVER dare discuss empirical observations and scientific evidence...instead they just change the subject to discussing authority, incredulity, and other anti-science ideas...LOL.

Here's how the debate will go:
- The evolutionist will say something ridiculous debunked by physicists and engineers
- I would destroy them will real hard facts and evidence
- The evolutionist would quickly change the subject towards authority and incredulity rather than actual scientific evidence and say something like "most scientists say that evolution is true it doesn't matter what the evidence shows".

LOL!

Enough said.

old comment by itsnobody

@Frogflayer

"p.s. I also believed in predetermination until I studied quantum mechanics at uni. "

LOL! Non-determinism falsifies evolution! So this means that you don't believe in evolution?

Evolution requires a deterministic universe and a magical type of determinism too...things have to repeatedly increase in order overtime from a primitive form of bacteria into all species that ever existed...obviously quite impossible because of the entropy.

What physics and engineering tells us that is that overtime species would remain nearly the same, become weaker, or become extinct...not repeatedly increase in order and complexity...lol.

"I want to know more about these tiny timeline portals and exactly where they fit into the time-cube.

As for nobody you could always ask those nice people over at CERN if thet have a spare Watt or two. "

- It's pretty easy to understand...think of the double-slit experiment...instead of their being a magic collapse there wouldn't be any collapse...when you look through you see the electron in your timeline when you don't look through you see the effects of other timelines.

I've concluded that everything is composed of tiny timeline portals...this seems to resolve the issues and explain almost everything.

old comment by itsnobody

So in conclusion we can clearly see that atheists and evolutionists don't value evidence and science, they were just lying all along.

Polls show that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will...ROFL...being stupid they don't even understand how non-determinism falsifies evolution...real stupid people.

All of the evolutionists I've spoken to in real life also believe in free-will confirming how stupid evolutionists are...they don't understand basic science and can't understand how non-determinism falsifies evolution lol.

Things can't evolve in a non-deterministic universe...it's impossible...evolution requires determinism so it requires free-will to be non-existent...stupid idiots.

The scientific evidence telling us that there's no free-will is literally a million times more concrete than the evidence supporting evolution...how can anyone doubt it?

On the other hand the scientific evidence supporting evolution isn't even scientific evidence...it's imaginations and speculations...of course I doubt it...it's rational to doubt imaginations and speculations.

Non-determinism still doesn't support free-will as many free-will believers think...instead it would just be the same as saying "someone who has an unpredictable uncontrollable brain disorder has free-will"...obviously not.

Neurons are much larger than organelles and atoms how would non-determinism work for the brain?

If your brain behaves too non-deterministically it means you would die since the brain is a vital organ!

The brain absolutely MUST behave in a certain deterministic manner for you to continue living that's why a bullet to the head or head-related injuries can kill you!

You wouldn't even be able to have any coherent thoughts or perception if your brain behaved non-deterministically.

I just don't know how anyone can really believe in evolution based on the evidence...I guess evolutionists don't really value evidence and believe in evolution because they're biased towards it, not because of evidence.

Certain individuals are chosen and destined to achieve certain things just like modern science has proven...atheists and evolutionists can't handle it since they are anti-science and don't go by evidence.

Enough said.

old comment by itsnobody

Yeah so I started a new petition to get society to view atheists as subhuman mostly because of the racism and nationalism caused by atheists like in 100% of all modern day atheist countries...like in Sweden an atheist/racist country they are really racist and nationalist and always say things like "nationalism isn't racism" or "Nazism isn't racism"...real stupid people.

You can sign the petition here - https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/petition-to-view-atheists-as-subhuman/

I also proved that evolutionists don't value evidence here - https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/concrete-proof-that-evolutionists-do-not-care-about-evidence/

old comment by FundieVision Inc

What's this? Has a new troll come to play with us? Oh joy! My favorite troll has been absent and neglecting his shitposting duties. You'll do nicely until he returns.

"muses thoughtfully"

1. Citation needed on the "Atheist country says" bit. That tends to be more the fundementalist religious zealot group. Given your attempt to label us atheists subhuman, I'm sure you've got tons of proof that shows us exactly why and how atheists are subhuman and why atheist countries are bad?

2. You show an incredibly level of condescenion and arrogance, I'm sure you've got the proof to back it up? Show me three peer reviewed studies in well regarded academic journals backing up your theories about evolution, determinism, and God.

3. Timeline portals huh? Prove it. Show me scientists who support your theory, and none of this "The world isn't ready to have it' bullshit. Citation needed.

All I see is a bunch of claims and no evidence beyond your own personal rantings and website. Not good enough, and you know it. So please, prove to us your theories with science..

It's was nice to meet you troll-chan. I'm sure we'll become better acquainted as you attempt to infest our website and fail miserably.

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@Thal

“The main reason why atheists intentionally disallow free and open criticism ”

Fundies such as mrnobody simply can't get it through their denser than lead skulls that we Atheists demand to be proved wrong:

image

The fundies' 'God' appearing to everyone in the world simultaneously - even as Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty" - would make us convert like a shot. He appearing in the dock at court - in a Kitzmiller vs. Dover-esque case - where an empty cage is wheeled in, and he just poofing a completely new lifeform into being within such would destroy Science as we know it. 'God' appearing next to Ken Ham in a debate with Bill Nye. Not a lot to ask, is it mrnobody?

But too much for you to prove we Atheists wrong. And remember, the Burden of Proof, and all that jazz: you claim that a 'God' exists, therefore the onus is on you to prove your claims, and to the satisfaction of we Atheists.

Otherwise, no evidence, no acceptee. And Science is proved right.

http://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/free-and-open-challenge-to-atheists/

@Anonymous

"To those of you taking this blog seriously, you must have a really low estimation of theists. Itsnobody describes himself thusly on his twitter:

“I’m the expert at argumentation logic (the best of all time), interested in science, logic, reasoning, truth, and destroying arguments.”

Reality destroys your 'argument', if you ever had one in the first place. You're a Troll, mrnobody. Prove me wrong.

old comment by Thal

@isnobody
“things have to repeatedly increase in order overtime from a primitive form of bacteria into all species that ever existed”
Evolution says the exact contrary: there is no predetermined direction. If your statement was true, there would be no more bacteria since we are at the next “order” stage. An organism don’t need to grow in complexity, it just need to be able to reproduce. Plus evolution actually require the selection of ERRORS during DNA duplication. If anything, too much order would be a kill to evolution and a go for intelligent design.

“obviously quite impossible because of the entropy”
Entropy increase in a CLOSED ADIABATIC environment. Earth is not because it receives vast amounts of energy from the sun, which photosynthesis converts into new chemicals that all life forms use (though some simpler organisms uses geothermal energy). If you consider the sun+earth system, the entropy is indeed increasing.

“What physics and engineering tells us that is that overtime species would remain nearly the same, become weaker, or become extinct”
That’s exactly what happens on the individual scale, the organisms try it’s best to remain fully functional until errors and wear prevent it from functioning. On a species scale, reproduction enable to mix DNA with different types of damages. If an individual accumulates too many damages, natural selection do the work, the individuals that are functional strive. One way to put it is that DNA damage and errors are prevented or compensated at the expense of the individual.

“I've concluded that everything is composed of tiny timeline portals”
So basically the parallel universes theory ? That’s a advanced physics, still hotly debated and of no consequence at all on evolution.

“being stupid they don't even understand how non-determinism falsifies evolution”
Well for one I find that the superdeterministic approach to quantum physics very appealing to explain some of the latest results in quantum entanglement (PNAS, 2013, “quantum erasure with causally disconnected choice”). Still, the theories of quantum potential of a system (a non-deterministic approach) could explain the results too. So it’s open for (passionate) debate.
Now again, that has no consequence whatsoever on evolution. Whether the initial conditions of the universe loaded the dice or not doesn’t change its reliance on causality.

“The brain absolutely MUST behave in a certain deterministic manner for you to continue living”
Determinism isn’t causality: determinism is basically saying “brain HAVE TO exist based on the rules and initial condition of the universe”. Whether this is true or not doesn’t change how your brain function, but it requires causality because, as you pointed out, triggering neurons in a random pattern would mean death. Neurons have to work in a cause-consequence pattern.
Similarly, whether life was determined to happen is not relevant: evolution is a set of rules and mechanism, it only need causality. It explains HOW life work, not if there is a good reason for it to exist in the first place.

“Certain individuals are chosen and destined to achieve certain things just like modern science has proven”
And you realize evolution is the only theory about life considered as scientific by modern standards, right? Honestly, you showed you don’t understand entropy, evolution, the difference between quantum physics and its metaphysical implication, but worst of all you can’t tell the difference between determinism and causality. The latter being the very basis of modern science and the main drive in current quantum physics research! I doubt modern science has ever proven you anything.

old comment by itsnobody

@Anon-e-moose

I don't support Ken Ham or Creationism, I support treating evolution the same as any other scientific theory, which it isn't.

Evolution isn't even a scientific theory, it's a science fiction story.

Polls show that 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will thereby proving that evolutionary biologists are stupid, uneducated, and don't understand anything about science, lol.

If you're willing to question the unbelievably concrete evidence telling us that there's no free-will you should definitely be willing to question the unbelievably weak evidence supporting evolution, but this isn't the case.

This proves that the reason why evolutionists believe in evolution has absolutely nothing to do with evidence, real stupid people, dumb, dense, idiotic.

There's a reason why evolutionists don't allow people to question, criticize, or scrutinize their laughable claims, it's because evolution is protected like a religious belief and not treated the same as any other scientific theory open to criticism.

old comment by itsnobody

@Thal

So then if that's true go ahead and point me to an atheistic website that allows people to question, criticize, and scrutinize their claims with full-fledged free speech like how my blog site does?

There aren't any, in the end atheists just breakdown and cry, ban and block or disable comments, because they know how weak and worthless they are, nothing more than savages, untrustables, untouchables, subhuman beings.

If a statement really is true then it will stand up to any amount of criticism and scrutiny, that's why criticism and scrutiny use to be an important principle in science prior to atheists taking over.

I allow full-fledged free speech because I know my statements to be true, atheists have to hide, and cry, and breakdown and stuff.

old comment by itsnobody

@FundieVision Inc

Throwing personal attacks at me doesn't refute any statement that I made, it shows you how weak and worthless atheists are, nothing more than savages.

They still don't even understand how evolution requires a deterministic universe, stupidity of their level shouldn't be tolerated.

1. There are lots of sources indicating that Sweden is an atheist country...that's why they're racist/nationalist/Nazi-ish

2. There are lots of peer-reviewed journals showing evolution to be deterministic...here's an article about it : New York University. "Evolution Is Deterministic, Not Random, Biologists Conclude From Multi-species Study." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 19 November 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071119123929.htm>.

Here's the actual paper - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207021938

3. Many physicists believe in or already favor the MWI..it's only a matter of time before it's proven, I've already figured how to prove it, but I'm not still not sure if MWI is true.

old comment by itsnobody

@Thal

"Evolution says the exact contrary: there is no predetermined direction. If your statement was true, there would be no more bacteria since we are at the next “order” stage. An organism don’t need to grow in complexity, it just need to be able to reproduce. Plus evolution actually require the selection of ERRORS during DNA duplication. If anything, too much order would be a kill to evolution and a go for intelligent design. "

Dumb and dense like a typical fool (atheist)...multiple studies have shown evolution to be deterministic, the non-deterministic and stochastic effects on evolution are evidence against evolution and falsify evolution.

The reason why you don't understand this is because you like other evolutionists don't understand anything about science.

Evolution DOES require a growth in complexity, species have to go from a primitive form of bacteria and repeatedly increase in complexity into every species that's ever existed...which of course is quite impossible, lol, I don't know how anyone can believe such a ridiculous science fiction story.

The errors are evidence against evolution...it makes a species more likely to be extinct rather than evolved.

Physics and engineering predicts 3 things for species: Remaining nearly the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct.

That's the only form of evolution possible, becoming weaker, according to modern physics.

For humans for instance non-determinism makes us dead!

If any of your vital organs behave too non-determistically then you die.

So what would happen overtime according to modern physics is that every species would quickly go extinct not continue evolving as evolutionists imagine...if they evolve they would evolve into weaker forms of life.

"Entropy increase in a CLOSED ADIABATIC environment. Earth is not because it receives vast amounts of energy from the sun, which photosynthesis converts into new chemicals that all life forms use (though some simpler organisms uses geothermal energy). If you consider the sun+earth system, the entropy is indeed increasing. "

- The open/closed system idea invented by evolutionists is just a junk science fiction idea.

Bioengineering absolutely proves that the 2LOT does apply to bacterium and cells on Earth in open systems as bioengineers can't use bacteria to make a perpetual motion machine of the second kind.

The Sun's energy would increase entropy unless there were pre-set complex mechanisms that used the Sun's energy to decrease entropy.

Michio Kaku placed perpetual motion machines as a Class III impossibility, same as evolution, just impossible.

"Now again, that has no consequence whatsoever on evolution. Whether the initial conditions of the universe loaded the dice or not doesn’t change its reliance on causality. "

- Wrong again...non-determinism falsifies evolution..in order for things to reproduce, grow, stay alive, etc...cells have to be behave in a orderly deterministic manner.

Non-determinism, disorder, unpredictability = species go extinct and die

"And you realize evolution is the only theory about life considered as scientific by modern standards, right? Honestly, you showed you don’t understand entropy, evolution, the difference between quantum physics and its metaphysical implication, but worst of all you can’t tell the difference between determinism and causality. The latter being the very basis of modern science and the main drive in current quantum physics research! I doubt modern science has ever proven you anything. "

- LOL...dense like a typical fool...you don't understand anything about science and already admitted that neurons and the brain have to behave deterministically for humans to stay alive and have coherent perception...that means no free-will.

The reason why evolution is even considered as scientific is because of the atheist-controlled media protecting evolution.

People are allowed to question the evidence on free-will, GR, QM, and other scientific theories that are backed by heavy experimental verification with all types of unscientific crackpot junk but they aren't allowed to question evolution with valid scientific criticisms even though almost all of the evidence evolutionists have is their imagination (nothing experimentally verified as accurate) ROFL!

If you read peer-reviewed journals you'll see all types of unscientific junk, apparently you're allowed to be unscientific as long as you're not criticizing evolution but not allowed to be scientific if you're criticizing evolution.

It shows you how well-protected evolution is, and how it's not treated the same as any other scientific theory.

old comment by itsnobody

@KingOfRhye

"Yeah, ok, itsnobody is just a kook.

Atheism = racism???

Uh, no....I know plenty of atheists, not one of whom I would consider a racist. Just look at the big racist groups in the USA, you'll find they're more often than not Christian... "

- I explained in more details on my blog site...people have to realize what atheists/racists are trying to do society.

Larry Darby, former state director of the popular atheist group "American Atheists" is a holocaust denier, Tom Metzger founder of the Neo-Nazi group "White Aryan Resistance" is an atheist, Alex Linder owner and operator of the popular White Nationalist Nazi forum "VNN" is atheist...I'm sure many atheists reading this are White Nationalists or Nazis.

old comment by itsnobody

Hahaha, I'm the King.

Atheists are nothing more than savages, subhumans, untrustables, untouchables that I cripple and destroy with the sharp sword of the truth.

Atheists knowing their ways to be false have to protect their fictional superstitious beliefs like evolution from criticism and scrutiny.

Atheists and evolutionists can't handle that modern science has proven that free-will is non-existent and that certain individuals are chosen.

The reason why atheists doubt this but don't doubt the evidence on evolution is because they can care less about evidence.

Almost all of the evidence for evolution is imaginations...the idea from evolutionists is that "if you can imagine it happening, it's good enough evidence" for every other theory and hypothesis in science we're told that "imaginations aren't equivalent to scientific evidence".

How can anyone really believe in evolution based on the evidence?

You can imagine that a primitive form of bacteria "somehow by some unknown means just evolved into every species" so it's good enough evidence? ROFL.

This shows you the standards of evidence evolutionists have, nothing more than savages/anti-science clowns.

The evidence telling us that there's no free-will is based on repeatable experiments and direct observations (the most concrete forms of evidence in science)...yet atheists and evolutionists doubt the evidence...what a joke.

There aren't any atheists or evolutionists who value evidence like how I do...I go strictly by evidence.

I consider myself a strict empiricist, I go strictly by evidence, so by the evidence I can be certain that free-will is non-existent and certain that evolution is false.

What physics and engineering tells us is that overtime species would remain nearly the same, become weaker, or become extinct...not evolve into increasing complexity, what a joke.

The same thing that applies to everything else we've observed applies to species as well.

What's going to happen to my headphones, TV, car, computer, etc...overtime? It's going to remain nearly the same, become weaker, or breakdown and not work anymore...those are the 3 possibilities...the idea from evolutionists is that overtime my TV, headphones, car, computer, etc...could automatically become newer and better than it was when I first got it by chance...just fantasy.

Eventually in time every species will head towards extinction, including humans, just like physics predicts.

I have to prepare for what atheists/racists are trying to do to society, hopefully I can figure out enough technology before it's too late.

old comment by itsnobody

@KingOfRhye

No, I've already proven that they are connected.

There aren't any mainstream Christian denominations that accept White Nationalism or Nazism...so if there was no religion it would be a lot easier for White Nationalists and Nazis like it is in modern day atheist countries like Sweden.

On this normal atheist blog site (not meant to be a racist site) 100% of the atheists agreed with and supported White Nationalism - http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/11/atheism-and-white-power.html

Not one atheist came out to oppose racism and White Nationalism because not one atheist disagrees...that post has been up for almost 8 years now.

There's something called "Christian Identity"...but Christian Identity is not accepted by any mainstream Christian denomination so it ends up causing more problems for White Nationalists as the CI people have to fight off both the other Christians and the other WNs who hate Christianity.

Alex Linder (owner and operator of the White Nationalist forum VNN) has this to say about CI (Christian Identity):
"CI is sheer retardation.

For some reason, idiots just love to make predictions based on the Bible. These predictions are inevitably proven wrong, but that never stops the morons from coming back with new ones.

Only a certifiable retard would attempt to treat the Bible like the shit in it is real history rather than fictional tales.

There is not an ounce of difference between dispensationalist Rapture Bunnies and CI cretins." Alex Linder, atheist, owner and operator of the White Nationalist Nazi forum VNN

Religion, specifically Christianity being gone is going to be great news for Nazis and White Nationalists! They won't have to fight off anyone anymore!

Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, and all the atheist countries already have strong White Nationalist movements because they are atheistic and non-religious so no one there opposes them. They are nasty, angry, hate-filled people, the worst of all subhuman beings.

It must feel great to be a White Nationalist and an atheist, you have the ENTIRE atheist community on your side supporting you.

So it's not mere correlation, it's causation.

The atheist/agnostic/non-religious population directly causes White Nationalism and Nazism to rise.

Nazis always say things like "Christ-insanity comes from the Joo's texts".

They view Christianity as a disgusting Semitic religion from the Jews.

I have prepare for it when it happens...based on my predictions I think around the 2030s-2050s in the US...but by that time there's also the possibility of a global food crisis and other problems as well.

It's the free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society.

Think progressive, Think a Whites-only type of society.

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux it's not my fault you can't understand..atheists don't understand anything about science and logic in general...that's why 79% of evolutionary biologists believe in free-will...they don't even know that evolution requires a deterministic universe and requires free-will to be non-existent...and that non-determinism falsifies evolution...real stupid people, dumb, dense, idiotic.

What's going to happen overtime to species according to physics and engineering is that they're going to go extinct or become weaker, not evolve into anything with any overall genetic increase in complexity as evolutionists imagine in their delusional mind.

Physics and engineering shows us that you can imagine all types of things that sound true in your imagination that wouldn't happen in reality...so being able to imagine something isn't equivalent to scientific evidence.

It's just better for society if people started viewing atheists as fully subhuman as opposed to human or partially human.

old comment by Azereaux

@itsnobody

As someone that is, in fact, not an atheist... and minored in philosophy with my specialty being logic, no, evolution does not require determinism. If anything, for evolution to function, there is a required level of inherent chaos.

In a purely mechanical, deterministic world, DNA would replicate perfectly unless acted on by an outside source, which itself would only interact due to an external cause, which.... well, I'm sure a 'genius' like yourself recognizes a homunculus fallacy when you see one. Without the randomizing elements of a non-purely deterministic universe, evolution as we understand it would be impossible.

Therefore, evolution and determinism are incompatible with our current understanding of physics and (more importantly) biochemistry. And if complexity is always decreasing, then please explain how technological development is possible, as I'm certain the motherboard in the computer I'm typing this on is far more complex than the sources of the silica, copper, and other metals (precious and otherwise) used in its construction.

Your understanding of thermodynamics shows that you may once have had it briefly explained to you. In broad strokes. In passing. While drunk. Any actual research beyond your hideously oversimplified grasp would point out just how sharp your errors are.

And yes, I'm debating with a bot just to kill time. Work is kind of slow today.

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux

Man I don't like talking to anyone this stupid...I already cited sources clearly showing that evolution is indeed deterministic.

I already said it here's the actual paper - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207021938

The reason you don't understand how is because as usual evolutionists don't understand anything about science, their idea of science is "you just imagine it happening, if you can imagine it it's good enough evidence".

Non-determinism means that DNA can't replicate, things can't grow, things can't reproduce, species can't stay alive, it means evolution would be impossible.

Organelles have to behave deterministic for species to stay alive, grow, reproduce, etc...non-determinism means these processes wouldn't work...meaning evolution wouldn't happen and couldn't happen.

From bioengineering we know that organelles behave mostly deterministic, the non-deterministic effects on organelles make things not work (eg..falsifies evolution).

Bioengineering basically falsifies evolution clearly telling us that physics and engineering is right rather than the wild imaginations of evolutionists.

In order for cells to replicate, reproduction to occur, species to stay alive determinism has to be true, you idiot.

If cells and organelles don't behave deterministically then reproduction, replicating, and species staying alive wouldn't be possible.

For evolution to work you need literally magic, a magical type of determinism where things remain in order and increase in order and complexity.

The process of cells replicating requires determinism and order...cells have to behave in a certain deterministic order for replicating to occur...this is proven by bioengineering...we've directly observed how cells work and it's deterministic with the non-deterministic effects falsifying evolution.

Non-determinism makes species dead. Like I read a story about someone who died because their lungs spontaneously collapsed...that's non-determinism.

Humans have 5 vital organs (the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver) if any of these stop behaving in a certain deterministic manner then you would die just like that!

The idea from evolutionists is that things evolved into order...what a joke...obviously not true. Genes that affect our vital organs too much would kill us because our vital organs have to behave in a certain deterministic manner for us to stay alive.

Because you're really stupid like your other idiotic evolutionists friends you still don't understand.

A real idiot.

"And if complexity is always decreasing, then please explain how technological development is possible, as I'm certain the motherboard in the computer I'm typing this on is far more complex than the sources of the silica, copper, and other metals (precious and otherwise) used in its construction. "

- LOL...maybe it's because technology is driven by intelligent human beings, not an undirected process like evolution is supposed to be.

"Your understanding of thermodynamics shows that you may once have had it briefly explained to you. In broad strokes. In passing. While drunk. Any actual research beyond your hideously oversimplified grasp would point out just how sharp your errors are. "

- Not so...the ones who don't understand thermodynamics are evolutionists...they don't understand anything science.

When evolutionists imagine evolution happening in their delusional mind it's just the same as someone looking at a perpetual motion machine diagram and imagining it working in their minds...it's just fantasy.

old comment by Thal

“The reason why you don't understand this is because you like other evolutionists don't understand anything about science”

I’m a chemist working in cancer research. I understand that when you don’t have arguments, trying personal attacks is a go. But please try better than that.

“multiple studies have shown evolution to be deterministic”

Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(1). Hint: the “beef” between intelligent design and evolution is that ID is deterministic while evolution is NOT.

“species have to go from a primitive form of bacteria and repeatedly”
Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(2). Plus if you answer my posts, at least read them, I already answered that. No step, no direction, only reproductive success.

“The errors are evidence against evolution...it makes a species more likely to be extinct rather than evolved”
Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(3). Species are modified because an error in DNA duplication hinder, improve or has no effect on the reproductive fitness of an individual. No error = no mutation = no selection = no evolution.

“Physics and engineering predicts 3 things for species: Remaining nearly the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct”

Physics and engineering doesn’t predict anything about living systems. The science for that is called Biology. Topic that, strangely enough, you avoid.

“If any of your vital organs behave too non-determistically then you die”

Again you confuse determinism and causality. Again if you answer my posts you could at least read them. Also a dictionary could help.

“The open/closed system idea invented by evolutionists is just a junk science fiction idea.”

I wasn’t aware Sadi Carnot was an evolutionist even before Darwin was born ! Wow ! And I never said life broke the 2nd law, just that you don’t understand it. That you deny the isolated adiabatic part of it proves my point.
What physics predicts is actually a growing entropy when no outside work is brought. To which life complies. (“Randomness and multilevel interactions in biology”, Buiatti et al., 2013, Theory Bioscience. OK this one is IF 1.7 but the article is exactly about the topic)

“The Sun's energy would increase entropy unless there were pre-set complex mechanisms that used the Sun's energy to decrease entropy.”

Too bad there isn’t a biological process that could harvest the Sun’s released energy to compensate for entropic barriers in chemical reactions and produce organics molecules that would enable to sustain life on Earth. Like I dunno, photosynthesis.
“and already admitted that neurons and the brain have to behave deterministically for humans”

Again: If you answer a post, read it. Causality is not determinism. Dictionary.
To your credit, claiming I don’t understand science when you can’t grasp the concept of causality is kind of cute.

“the atheist-controlled media protecting evolution.”

As a scientist I can tell you the media are not on our side (or anyone’s) until it can help them sell advertising space. Why do you think they keep the creation/evolution controversy alive in US but nowhere else? Because it sells in US and nowhere else.

“but they aren't allowed to question evolution with valid scientific criticisms”
“It shows you how well-protected evolution is”

Well wasn’t there like a big tv debate creation / evolution in US not long ago? Cry more about unscientific junk and allowing criticism.
Edit: I've seen also the post about "atheist forum allowing criticism". Well I don't know any atheist forum: that's not like we have an organized religion you know ? My best guess would be ... HERE ? I mean it's a place filled with nasty stupid unscientific atheist where your comments are apparently no edited out.

“If you read peer-reviewed journals you'll see all types of unscientific junk”

Agreed here, which is why we have peer review and impact factors: you know some journals will be more reliable than others and there is no guarantee. That’s why debate and criticism is allowed but most of it incredibly lacks in the “valid scientific” part. Like how you don’t cite any of these “solid scientific studies” that are supposed to contradict me. Or how you attack “evolution” on interpretations that it doesn’t give. You're against your own idea of evolution, and won't even be bothered with learning what it really is about.
An I'm the dense unscientific one. Cute.

old comment by Azereaux

@itsnobody

Well, now that I have a break...

"I already said it here's the actual paper - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982207021938"

Seems you didn't bother to read the paper. And lack the necessary grounding in biology to comprehend the terms involved. Then again, as others point out, you seem to be unable to distinguish determinism from causality or reliability, so I'm not surprised your grasp of more technical language is lacking.

"The reason you don't understand how is because as usual evolutionists don't understand anything about science, their idea of science is "you just imagine it happening, if you can imagine it it's good enough evidence". "

Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned imagination, by which I assume you mean the thought experiments often used in PHYSICS and ENGINEERING to demonstrate concepts through logic. I fail to see where you have derived this conclusion, and must conclude that you simply slapped a boilerplate refutation without bothering to pay attention.

"Non-determinism means that DNA can't replicate, things can't grow, things can't reproduce, species can't stay alive, it means evolution would be impossible."

Things operating in a non-deterministic fashion (read: errors in DNA replication, damage to existing DNA leading to replication errors, outside elements introduced into the replication process) is the fundamental basis of both micro and macroevolutionary theory, as well as modern biochemistry (in the subset of genetics). Your lack of understanding of the English language does not change the overall function of the cosmos.

"Organelles have to behave deterministic for species to stay alive, grow, reproduce, etc...non-determinism means these processes wouldn't work...meaning evolution wouldn't happen and couldn't happen."

How? Explain how something other than mechanical perfect determinism is inimical to the function of life. In your own words. I need the amusement.

"Bioengineering basically falsifies evolution clearly telling us that physics and engineering is right rather than the wild imaginations of evolutionists."

It seems the list of terms you don't understand is growing. Bioengineering doesn't falsify evolutionary theory any more than Aerospace engineering falsifies gravity. Perhaps you should look into this hip, trendy new field called "Biological Science". I know it may be a bit advanced, but a time-traveling genius like yourself should be able to grasp it.

"In order for cells to replicate, reproduction to occur, species to stay alive determinism has to be true, you idiot."

Explain how determinism is required for cell division (mitosis or meiosis). In proper English. And without repeating the exact same sentence 4 times worded differently.

"For evolution to work you need literally magic, a magical type of determinism where things remain in order and increase in order and complexity."

And it seems someone has forgotten system inefficiency in their thermodynamic calculations. Ever notice how much waste energy is produced in standard biological functions? Entropy continues to increase with each chemical reaction. But you supposedly already understand the physics of it, so I won't bore you with the details of the steady increase of entropy that makes life as we understand it possible.

"Non-determinism makes species dead. Like I read a story about someone who died because their lungs spontaneously collapsed...that's non-determinism."

That is unreliability. Determinism would be to say that the collapse of the lungs was preordained by the basic physical laws of existence, and could not be prevented by any means. Further, if you want to get technical, some people DO die because of spontaneous organ failure. Which your determinism would either A) say is impossible, or B) say was preordained from the instant of the Big Bang.

"Humans have 5 vital organs (the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys, liver)"

OK, let me stop you there. First, the kidneys are a paired system, and as an aunt of mine is evidence of, one can lose one without much loss of functionality. The brain can be damaged without death. The heart can be removed and replaced. And you left out the thyroid and the entire digestive system. (well, the minimums are the esophagus, small intestines, and large intestines, but I digress). But please, do go on about how the BRAIN operates in a strictly deterministic fashion (in sharp contrast with what biological science suggests).

"The idea from evolutionists is that things evolved into order...what a joke...obviously not true."

And here is a major misconception: That everything evolved 'just so' rather than steady systemic development over an inordinate amount of time. Or are you on about the idea that evolution has a 'direction' or some such other pseudoscientific malarkey? There is no direction. Just reaction.

"LOL...maybe it's because technology is driven by intelligent human beings, not an undirected process like evolution is supposed to be."

So, you assert that entropy can be reversed by intelligent operators, which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Then by all means, please go market your 200% efficient engine. I'm sure we will all be eager to see your intelligence overcome the laws of physics.

And my break is over. Thanks for the entertainment. Keep showing the world just how smart you are.

old comment by itsnobody

@Thal

"I’m a chemist working in cancer research. I understand that when you don’t have arguments, trying personal attacks is a go. But please try better than that. "

- But if you're a chemist then how can you believe in evolution?

Chemical engineering shows us that chemical reactions are in disorder nothing like the complexity and order found in organelles and the simplest forms of bacteria.

I didn't throw personal attacks, I used hard facts that ruined the fools arguments.

"Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(1). Hint: the “beef” between intelligent design and evolution is that ID is deterministic while evolution is NOT. "

- Proves you don't know that I don't support ID or Creationism...I support treating evolution the same as any other scientific theory, idiot.

"Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(2). Plus if you answer my posts, at least read them, I already answered that. No step, no direction, only reproductive success. "

- Dumb and dense...the evolution theory or should I say science fiction story says that a primitive form of bacteria overtime repeatedly increased in order and complexity into every species that exists and existed on Earth...what a bunch of crap I don't know how anyone can believe that story.

"Proves you don’t know what evolution is about(3). Species are modified because an error in DNA duplication hinder, improve or has no effect on the reproductive fitness of an individual. No error = no mutation = no selection = no evolution. "

- No, you're wrong, it is an error...these errors overtime make species weaker just like physics and engineering tells us

"Physics and engineering doesn’t predict anything about living systems. The science for that is called Biology. Topic that, strangely enough, you avoid. "

- Uh oh...I'm sorry but the laws of physics still applies to cells and bacteria.

I don't know where biologists got the idea that they can imagine their way out of the laws of physics.

"Again you confuse determinism and causality. Again if you answer my posts you could at least read them. Also a dictionary could help. "

- You're just using semantics, determinism, causality, whatever..it has to behave in an orderly predictable manner (determinism) for you to stay alive.

"I wasn’t aware Sadi Carnot was an evolutionist even before Darwin was born ! Wow ! And I never said life broke the 2nd law, just that you don’t understand it. That you deny the isolated adiabatic part of it proves my point.
What physics predicts is actually a growing entropy when no outside work is brought. To which life complies."

- LOL...just junk science fiction ideas...I've spoken to many physicists who told me that I was right that evolution would be impossible...I looked at the junk from physicists who support evolution and you can clearly see that their ideas are just crackpot science fiction ideas.

"Too bad there isn’t a biological process that could harvest the Sun’s released energy to compensate for entropic barriers in chemical reactions and produce organics molecules that would enable to sustain life on Earth. Like I dunno, photosynthesis. "

- Man you can't be this idiotic...you don't understand anything...there are complex pre-set mechanisms in plant cells that use the Sun's energy to grow...but evolutionists claim that these pre-set complex mechanisms "evolved" even though chemical engineering shows us that chemical reactions are in disorder, lol.

So where did these pre-set complex mechanisms that use the Sun's energy come from since chemical reactions are naturally in disorder?

They just magically appeared, that's evolution, magic, the supernatural.

"Again: If you answer a post, read it. Causality is not determinism. Dictionary.
To your credit, claiming I don’t understand science when you can’t grasp the concept of causality is kind of cute. "

- You're just using stupid semantics with "causality" and "determinism" so what about "causal determinism"?

If cells and organelles don't behave in a predictable systematic manner then you would die very quickly.

"As a scientist I can tell you the media are not on our side (or anyone’s) until it can help them sell advertising space. Why do you think they keep the creation/evolution controversy alive in US but nowhere else? Because it sells in US and nowhere else. "

- LOL...so then explain why people are allowed to question and criticize things like free-will, QM, GR, etc...with all types of unscientific crackpot junk but not allowed to criticize evolution with valid scientific criticisms?

"Well wasn’t there like a big tv debate creation / evolution in US not long ago? Cry more about unscientific junk and allowing criticism.
Edit: I've seen also the post about "atheist forum allowing criticism". Well I don't know any atheist forum: that's not like we have an organized religion you know ? My best guess would be ... HERE ? I mean it's a place filled with nasty stupid unscientific atheist where your comments are apparently no edited out. "

- Oh yeah I remember those days...the debate ended with "authority figures say evolution is true" not with "evolution is true because of X and Y evidence".

What authority figures believe is irrelevant unless it's accompanied by evidence.

The "story" of evolution from the 1990s changed now in modern times the "story" is different...lol..it's just a science fiction story.

"Agreed here, which is why we have peer review and impact factors: you know some journals will be more reliable than others and there is no guarantee. That’s why debate and criticism is allowed but most of it incredibly lacks in the “valid scientific” part. Like how you don’t cite any of these “solid scientific studies” that are supposed to contradict me. Or how you attack “evolution” on interpretations that it doesn’t give. You're against your own idea of evolution, and won't even be bothered with learning what it really is about.
An I'm the dense unscientific one. Cute. "

- After atheists took over science they changed the rule so that you're allowed to publish unscientific junk in peer-reviewed journals as long as you aren't criticizing evolution...but if you criticize evolution, even if it's a valid criticism you're not allowed to.

Real stupid people.

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux

"Seems you didn't bother to read the paper. And lack the necessary grounding in biology to comprehend the terms involved. Then again, as others point out, you seem to be unable to distinguish determinism from causality or reliability, so I'm not surprised your grasp of more technical language is lacking. "

- The paper clearly shows that evolutionary processes are deterministic.

"Nowhere in my posts have I mentioned imagination, by which I assume you mean the thought experiments often used in PHYSICS and ENGINEERING to demonstrate concepts through logic. I fail to see where you have derived this conclusion, and must conclude that you simply slapped a boilerplate refutation without bothering to pay attention. "

- Thought Experiments or imaginations are never used in physics as equivalent to scientific evidence...experimentation and direct observations are used as evidence in physics.

You can imagine all types of things that really sound true that would never happen reality...like Maxwell's Demon (evolution) just fantasy, imagination.

That's why we have experimentation to empirically test what's accurate or inaccurate.

"Things operating in a non-deterministic fashion (read: errors in DNA replication, damage to existing DNA leading to replication errors, outside elements introduced into the replication process) is the fundamental basis of both micro and macroevolutionary theory, as well as modern biochemistry (in the subset of genetics). Your lack of understanding of the English language does not change the overall function of the cosmos. "

- Like I said non-determinism falsifies evolution...those errors make a species weaker or more likely to go extinct, just like physics predicts.

So non-deterministic effects are evidence against evolution.

"How? Explain how something other than mechanical perfect determinism is inimical to the function of life. In your own words. I need the amusement. "

- It's pretty easy to understand the organelles in cells have to behave in a systematic predictable orderly manner for things to replicate, grow, reproduce, stay alive, etc...they behave like extremely complex nanomachines.

"It seems the list of terms you don't understand is growing. Bioengineering doesn't falsify evolutionary theory any more than Aerospace engineering falsifies gravity. Perhaps you should look into this hip, trendy new field called "Biological Science". I know it may be a bit advanced, but a time-traveling genius like yourself should be able to grasp it. "

- Aerospace Engineers experimentally verify that physics is accurate
- Bioengineers experimentally verify that physics is accurate...but physics contradicts evolution.

Evolutionists claim that "since it's an open system 2LOT and entropy doesn't apply" which has been proven false with bioengineering...it still applies in open systems on Earth.

"Explain how determinism is required for cell division (mitosis or meiosis). In proper English. And without repeating the exact same sentence 4 times worded differently. "

- If the organelles in cells don't behave in a predictable orderly manner then cell division wouldn't happen...it's pretty easy to understand.

What would happen if they behaved in an unpredictable disorderly manner is that the process wouldn't work or happen, if parts behaved disorderly the division would be improper.

"And it seems someone has forgotten system inefficiency in their thermodynamic calculations. Ever notice how much waste energy is produced in standard biological functions? Entropy continues to increase with each chemical reaction. But you supposedly already understand the physics of it, so I won't bore you with the details of the steady increase of entropy that makes life as we understand it possible. "

- Of course, so entropy falsifies evolution.

"That is unreliability. Determinism would be to say that the collapse of the lungs was preordained by the basic physical laws of existence, and could not be prevented by any means. Further, if you want to get technical, some people DO die because of spontaneous organ failure. Which your determinism would either A) say is impossible, or B) say was preordained from the instant of the Big Bang. "

- Well the cause of spontaneous lung collapses is still unknown, but it could also be deterministic, but it shows that if your lungs don't behave in a certain orderly manner that you would die.

"OK, let me stop you there. First, the kidneys are a paired system, and as an aunt of mine is evidence of, one can lose one without much loss of functionality. The brain can be damaged without death. The heart can be removed and replaced. And you left out the thyroid and the entire digestive system. (well, the minimums are the esophagus, small intestines, and large intestines, but I digress). But please, do go on about how the BRAIN operates in a strictly deterministic fashion (in sharp contrast with what biological science suggests). "

- Multiple sources indicate that these are vital organs.

They can function slightly damaged, but if they're too damaged then you're going to die.

Like people who drink too much alcohol too quickly die if the alcohol creates disorder in their brain affecting the vital centers.

Around 6 people die per day of alcohol poisoning in the US.

"And here is a major misconception: That everything evolved 'just so' rather than steady systemic development over an inordinate amount of time. Or are you on about the idea that evolution has a 'direction' or some such other pseudoscientific malarkey? There is no direction. Just reaction. "

- Your idea is a mere imagination just like almost all of the other "evidence" evolutionists have..."if you can imagine it, it's good enough evidence".

"So, you assert that entropy can be reversed by intelligent operators, which is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics? Then by all means, please go market your 200% efficient engine. I'm sure we will all be eager to see your intelligence overcome the laws of physics.

And my break is over. Thanks for the entertainment. Keep showing the world just how smart you are. "

- No I assert that humans building up technology is different from technology forming naturally from an undirected process, obviously.

Like a computer forming from an undirected process versus humans building up a computer.

Evolutionists claim that things more complex than computers formed naturally from undirected processes, not with the help an intelligent cause (humans building up technology).

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux

Read what? You still don't get how evolution is deterministic?

If organelles don't behave in a predictable systematic orderly manner then there would be no life, no reproduction, species would die instantly, and there would be no evolution.

Organelles have to behave in a certain systematic orderly predictable manner for any evolution to be even be remotely possible.

Plants wouldn't be able to grow if they didn't.

When we empirically observe the process of cell division we see systematic step-by-step predictable events happening...if these predictable events didn't occur (non-determinism) it wouldn't happen, the cell wouldn't form.

I'm referring more to the physics form of determinism.

old comment by itsnobody

@Anon-e-moose

"To join you in that sentiment:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

Read. If you dare, mrtrolleverybody.

Reality proves you wrong. "

- Uh oh! Look like someone is wrong.

Like I said physics predicts 3 possibilities: Remaining nearly the same, becoming weaker, or becoming extinct.

The form of evolution experimentally verified is becoming weaker...in the E. Coli experiment all populations became weaker just like physics predicts.

I agree with the form of evolution of species becoming weaker and weaker overtime.

I also agree with species extinction.

I don't agree with the form of evolution of things repeatedly increasing in genetic complexity, with any overall increase in complexity...just like magic, lol.

The only form of evolution ever experimentally verified as real is becoming weaker just like physics says, lol.

Everything else in evolution is just a bunch of imaginations.

"God appearing before everyone on the planet simultaneouly (even as Morgan Freeman in "Bruce Almighty"), and poofing a new lifeform in a cage in a Kitzmiller vs. Dover-esque court case, or GTFO.

'God' doesn't exist. Prove me wrong."

- I already figured out how to experimentally prove the existence of God, an afterlife, multiple timelines, etc...I don't know if the world is really ready for it.

I figured out that God was physically infinitesimal in size, seems to be like a place of limitless power and light, and both personal and impersonal.

I'm glad that I was chosen by God...only certain individuals are chosen like modern science has proven.

old comment by Azereaux

@itsnobody

Short answer: No. Predictable and Deterministic are NOT synonyms. And as to the function of cells following deterministic patterns, please explain cancer.

Long Answer: See the above posts by myself and several others. Also, there's this new field called "Quantum Mechanics" you may want to look into. They have... quirky ideas about determinism in physics. Redefine it however you want to make it fit your worldview, but in the end, the rest of reality disagrees with your assessment.

On the plus side, at least your incorrect definition of determinism is consistently incorrect, so props there. A certain someone who shall remain nameless (if only to avoid summoning it Candyman-style) can't even manage that.

old comment by itsnobody

@Azereaux

"Short answer: No. Predictable and Deterministic are NOT synonyms. And as to the function of cells following deterministic patterns, please explain cancer.

On the plus side, at least your incorrect definition of determinism is consistently incorrect, so props there. A certain someone who shall remain nameless (if only to avoid summoning it Candyman-style) can't even manage that. "

- Man you're really stupid...so then if you don't think that evolution is deterministic how can anything grow or live or survive in a non-deterministic disorderly unpredictable universe?

Cancers and other non-deterministic effects on cells falsifies evolution.

Cancers form because of non-determinism but remain alive because of determinism.

Evolution requires a magical type of determinism, that things can repeatedly increase in genetic complexity with an overall increase in complexity...

Determinism and predictability are directly connected. You keep playing semantics because you're a real idiot...you keep re-defining everything every time you're proven wrong.

Can you please explain yourself in more detail?

Engineering experimentally verifies the accuracy of deterministic physics for instance like Newtonian physics and GR.

Electrical engineering is a direct application of physics...the reason why we can replay videos and music is because of the systematic repeatable consistent laws and rules behind reality.

I'm talking more about physical determinism - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_determinism

Evolution requires that organelles behave in a systematic repeatable orderly predictable manner...there can't be any life or evolution with disorder.

old comment by God

Hi, uh, God here.
Look, I've just swung by to clear something up. itsnobody is not the perfect man. I mean, take a look at his eyebrows! You think that I'd create the perfect man with monsters like that?!?

Anyway, about this whole determinism thing. Just no. Do you have any idea how boring it would be micromanaging all your lives? Not to mention pointless? If I want to masturbate over control fantasies I play Sims like everyone else!

Now I know what some of you are thinking: If you're real, why don't you ever show yourself and prove it? One public appearance and all the ambiguity is gone, after all?
Well to tell the truth... I get panic attacks in large crowds. Zeus, great public speaker! Thor, man that guy would talk your ear off if you gave him half a chance. Real bro too, never hesitates to share a drink with a pal. Me? I'm just not so charismatic in person. Give me a pen and paper though...

Oh, that reminds me! I was thinking of coming out with a sequel. Bible 2: Satans revenge! I was going to set it in a post revelation Mad Max world where Jesus has come back to kick ass and take names fighting off hordes of demons with a shotgun and weaponized hedge-trimmer. Now a bunch of people here have been saying my last book didn't really live up to the hype so I was wondering if I could get a few of you to help me write the thing, like Jesus's buddies helped out with the last one.

Bless you all, and please stop fighting over my book. Don't you know high fantasy when you see it?!?

Sincerely, God.

old comment by Thal

"But if you're a chemist then how can you believe in evolution?"

That's called studying rather as opposed to judging based on opinions. Seeing how DNA replicate and works, knowing about chemistry, enzymatic catalysis, protein formation, reproduction, sex. And not staying on the name "evolution" and imagining it says it all. Take some time to learn what the supposed mechanism really are.

"Chemical engineering shows us that chemical reactions are in disorder nothing like the complexity and order found in organelles and the simplest forms of bacteria"
"No, you're wrong, it is an error...these errors overtime make species weaker just like physics and engineering tells us"
"Uh oh...I'm sorry but the laws of physics still applies to cells and bacteria"

Except even the simplest bacteria is based on a huge chain of chemical reactions. So how are chemical reactions more in disorder than what is found in other chemical reactions ?
And yes the laws of physics apply, remember when I said the 2nd law apply too ? Wasn't so long ago. But you can also say that quantum physics still apply to cars. That is true, but you don't need a deep understading of it to build a car (fortunately). And if you want to know about cars, you see a specialist, not a theoretical physicist.
Same with evolution, we have a field called *biology* for a reason. So no, physics and engineering don't make predictions about living system, biology is the field dedicated to that.
If you wish you can make analogies, but that's about it. Like how an engine will weaken and die over time, but the good news is: you can still build a new one ! Who knew ? What's the difference between living systems and engines already ? Ah yes: self replication.

"I didn't throw personal attacks, I used hard facts that ruined the fools arguments"

"you don't understand science" "idiot" "dumb and dense" these are hard facts, arguments and in no way a personal attack ? How ?
Also While I don't shy away from sarcasm, which I'm not necessarily proud of, you'll notice I refrain on name calling. For someone who claim to be open and scientific minded ... no comment.

"Proves you don't know that I don't support ID or Creationism...I support treating evolution the same as any other scientific theory, idiot"

Could you please cite the passage where I say you support one or the other ? I'm pointing out that the difference between ID and evolution is precisely that evolution is NOT deterministic in nature. Since you claim the contrary, it proves my point: you don't know what it is.

"the evolution theory or should I say science fiction story says that a primitive form of bacteria overtime repeatedly increased in order and complexity into every species that exists and existed on Earth."

No it doesn't say that. You already used that argument and repeating it won't make it true. Evolution is about reproductive success, not complexity. It even says the exact contrary when it comes to harsh environments or crisis.

"You're just using semantics, determinism, causality, whatever..it has to behave in an orderly predictable manner (determinism) for you to stay alive"
"You're just using stupid semantics with "causality" and "determinism" so what about "causal determinism""

Well, if it's semantics and they're the same thing, how can "causal determinism" be a thing ?
Since you're not willing to look at a dictionary:
To behave in a predictable manner is called causality. Determinism is being driven by a will or initial conditions in an unescapable manner. Like: do causality and initial conditions of the universe allow more than one outcome for any events ? That's causal determinism (or superdeterminism).
You can claim the universe is driven by causal determinism and life was bound to happen if you wish, but evolution is only about the causal part: what causes lead to what consequences for species ?

"If cells and organelles don't behave in a predictable systematic manner then you would die very quickly"

predictable systematic = the same cause will lead to the same consequences = causality. You're the one playing semantics here.

"so then explain why people are allowed to question and criticize things like free-will, QM, GR, etc...with all types of unscientific crackpot junk but not allowed to criticize evolution with valid scientific criticisms?"

I just gave you an example where it was obvious that criticism was not only allowed but enticed for monetary gain. If you choose to ignore the answer, why ask the question ?

"After atheists took over science they changed the rule so [whiny bla bla]"

Atheists never took over. Evolution was first constructed by christians, in a time when religion was more prominent than it is today. So really crying about an atheist conspiracy is a revision of reality. Heck, even some of the more prominent scientists of our time were believers: Einstein's criticism of quantum physics was "God don't play with dice".
If you were a scientist you'd know a lot of colleagues are christians, jewish, muslim, hindus, buddhists ... Nobody cares. There's no conspiracy against you, but you're not producing what is required: scientifically valid criticism. You respond to criticism with insults, you ignore laws of physics on the base of an "atheist conspiracy", you ignore the difference between determinism and causality, you ignore all the criticism that is allowed against evolution theory in US media, you want to discuss evolution but not biology ... and you wonder why your arguments are not considered scientifically valid ?

old comment by itsnobody

@Anon-e-moose

What an idiot...the E.Coli Experiment confirms that physics is right...all 12 populations became weaker just like physics predicts not like evolutionists imagine.

The only form of evolution possible is becoming weaker, that's what physics says, now we have evolutionary biologists with their crackpot imaginations.

That's the difference between physics and evolution, engineers have experimentally verified the accuracy of physics more than a billion times whereas almost everything in evolution never has been experimentally verified as accurate...it's just an imagination.

I don't consider imaginations to be equivalent to scientific evidence...I don't know why evolutionists have an issue with that.

old comment by itsnobody

@Thal

I created a blog post explaining how evolution requires determinism - https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2015/10/30/evolution-and-determinism/

Please redirect your comments about that there.

Like I said you would die if the organelles in cells behaved non-deterministically.

Bacteria is driven by chemical reactions but the chemical reactions are in an ordered complex way that normal chemical reactions don't display...if normal chemical reactions behaved in a complex orderly manner like bacteria then abiogenesis wouldn't be an issue.

Chemical engineering shows us that chemical reactions are in disorder, falsifying evolution.

Organelles don't behave anything like normal chemical reactions, they behave like chemical machines, cells and bacteria are like chemical nanomachines.

Bioengineers have reprogrammed bacteria, it's just like a chemical nanocomputer.

The idea from evolutionists is that chemical reactions just magically become ordered and complex overtime, repeatedly increasing in complexity, how ridiculous! It's just like believing in magic or the supernatural!

You also ignored the study I cited which showed that evolution is deterministic even in cases when it appears random.

You keep re-defining determinism, determinism and predictability are linked...since organelles MUST behave in a systematic orderly predictable manner for species to stay alive what do you label it as?

If things behaved chaotic and disorderly every species would die instantly.

Also the dating techniques evolutionists rely on REQUIRE determinism to be true....you can't measure time without determinism being true.

I thought evolutionists often ridiculed people for questioning the accuracy of the dating techniques?

The way the dating technique works is by pre-assuming determinism and using deterministic equations...determinism has to be true for billions of years for the dating techniques to be accurate.

old comment by itsnobody

Haha, I destroyed and crippled all of these fools (atheists)...always remaining the undisputed King!

Every physicist should know that evolution is false, it's already proven.

I don't know how anyone can believe in evolution based on the evidence.
I don't know how anyone can believe in free-will based on the evidence.

People have to realize what atheists/racists are trying to do before they take over.

I made a YouTube video a few years ago called "Atheists/Racists are trying to take over" and after it got popular some atheists cried and got it removed for hate speech.

Atheists post holocaust hoax videos, racist videos, and Nazi videos on YouTube and their videos aren't removed for hate speech by the nasty hateful YouTube moderators.

New Zealand is really racist against Asians.

Here's what New Zealanders do to Asians, if they see a male Asian walking down the street they'll first politely ask for directions saying something like "You know the direction to the airport? We're just trying to find some directions".

Then after the male Asian answers giving them detailed directions to the airport they say something like "So.......uhm....why don't you take your slit-eye there and just head back to your own poor rundown third world cardboard box house?"

It's real racism in New Zealand, an atheist/racist country.

A female atheist once said to me that "I just......don't like Asians".

But atheist countries like Sweden and Denmark might be even more racist...countries where they think that Eastern Europeans are actually African just because they think that Eastern Europeans are tall, athletic, loud, violent, and commit crime.

How are you really going to be that racist to think that Eastern Europeans are actually African?

The majority of White atheists support White Nationalism, they hate all non-whites, Africans, Asians, Arabians, Hispanics, Indians, Native Americans, and maybe also Eastern Europeans (some Whites don't consider Eastern Europeans as White).

They want to live in a Whites-only type of society, where everyone they see is White, and deal with is White....we can make that dream come true if you can support socialism.

The reason why White atheists haven't come out to oppose racism like how they voice up on their position on gay rights is because they disagree with hating gays but don't disagree with hating non-whites.

I hope I can encourage more people to view atheists as subhuman by signing my petition - https://itsnobody.wordpress.com/2015/10/25/petition-to-view-atheists-as-subhuman

All of the racist atheists I know support gay rights but also support racism...they are terrible people.

I'm trying to get society to view atheists as subhuman beings, as like nothing, untrustables, untouchables, the lowest possible form of life.

When I talk to an atheist, it's just like I'm talking to a dog, a cat, or some other domestic animal, since I view atheists as subhuman beings.

When I see an atheist crying I think in my mind "What a great joy, what a great joy, what a great joy it is that terrible low-life racist is now crying"...it's not really you know like a real human being.

The only way that a non-white can get support from the atheist community is if they claim to be gay.

Just because you know, someone is born as a non-white non-gay doesn't mean that you should hate them like White atheists do. They're born as a non-white non-gay, they can't control that they were born as non-white and non-gay. That's how they're born, they can't control that they're born that way.

I have never met any non-racist atheists before.

Right now the US is like one of the least racist countries but as the atheist/racist population grows White Nationalism is going to grow.

On this normal atheist blog site (not meant to be a racist site) 100% of the atheists who commented agreed with and supported White Nationalism - http://www.atheistrev.com/2007/11/atheism-and-white-power.html

They're normal White atheists...100% of all White atheists are in on this White Nationalism thing together.

There aren't any mainstream Christian denominations that support Nazism and White Nationalism that's why the rise in atheism/non-religion/agnosticism directly causes White Nationalism to rise.

Atheists are the nastiest most hateful people in the world, especially Swedes, the most racist hateful people that exist.

Modern science has proven that we don't have free-will, so I can predict that the atheist community will never ever oppose White Nationalism or Nazism like the Churches do so non-religion/atheism/agnosticism is going to be a dream come true for White Nationalists!

I have to prepare for what's going to happen before atheists/racists take over...it's really serious.

We don't have free-will and the human brain is most certainly deterministic so I predict that:
- There's going to be a global food crisis in the 2030s-2050s
- The human population will go up to around 10 billion then down to 500 million by the 2300s
- They're going to invent a new form of contraception that makes STDs become one of the leading killers (2030s/2040s)...people will stop using condoms because of it...the way it works is that a female uses it once and won't be able to get pregnant for many years
- There's a possibility of a big WWIII type situation with Russia and China heavily involved either against each other or against the US in the 2030s-2060s
- White Nationalism and Nazism will rise as religion declines...people in the US will be much more racist by the 2030s like how modern day atheist/racist countries are
- Eventually it will be scientifically proven that an afterlife, spirits, multiple timelines, extraterrestrials, God, and many other things really do exist....the only form of atheism leftover in the future will be impersonalism, this group will acknowledge that higher beings exist but believe that what's actually Supreme above everything is something like an impersonal force
- Eventually in time a being will arise, who will start a heavenly world on Earth, there will be no disease, no old age, no famine, no more suffering for a long time-period...but this might not happen for thousands of years in the future

I'm not sure if my predictions will be exactly accurate because I believe in the existence of multiple timelines...I haven't figured out how to predict which timeline I'll be existing in.

Even though multiple timelines really do exist it still doesn't favor free-will because you can't control which timeline you exist in.

The way it works is (as far as I know):
- There's certain possibilities that can occur
- If something happens outside of these possibilities then the world ends (the timeline phases out of existence)
- Certain things MUST occur otherwise the timeline will collapse out of existence...just like how the Earth must revolve around the Sun otherwise the world ends

So you would be able to predict what's possible with 100% accuracy.

So we don't have free-will either way...of course using the technology I'm working on it would be easy to alternate humans into radically different timelines, prove that an afterlife exists, multiple timelines exist, that the concept of location is an illusion, that God exists, etc...

It's really surprising to me that others haven't figured this out...it's really easy to perform the experiments if you have lots of power...so I'm guessing others have figured it out before...must be suppressed so I shouldn't talk much.

The technology is like easy to figure out...the main obstacle is the power consumption...others must not know about it I guess.

Because I believe that using the technology I figured out I could cure old age, and every negative health condition...this leads me to believe that I really might be the chosen one, but right now I believe myself to be merely a higher being.

Just imagine seeing an old wrinkly man go into my machine and then come out looking young and youthful, it would be great. If only I had the resources to build the machine.

Along time ago I was visited by higher beings from another realm where women don't exist, their facial features looked humanoid but obviously not human, they told me that I was highly mischievous but still the Greatest Being on Earth...Earth's highest soul...but I didn't really believe them...they really don't like women and told me to stay away from women as they are an obstacle to spiritual advancement.

It's pretty easy to experimentally prove the existence of multiple timelines, spirits, an afterlife, God, etc....I guess I'll just wait a while.

I guess that's all the information I'm willing to reveal...until the time is right.

It's the free market, free speech, free society!
Support socialism, support a Whites-only type of society!

old comment by Thal

@Azeraux

"OOh God... now it's prophesizing..."

It could be worse ... it could be reproducing.

@TMB

That's salted or sugared popcorns ? Cause I'm gonna need some after this long post discussing nematod vulvas. I'll need a drink as well. Or two.

@isnobody

been on your blog and. NEMATOD. VULVA.
You want to talk developmental evolution of ... the nematod vulva ? Ok, Ok. I'm not one to judge others on their fetish, it's cool.

First off, let's clarify a few things once and for all because you're still (very) fuzzy about it on your blog:
Determinism: only one outcome is possible. (that's it)
Causality: A cause invariably result in the same consequence or consequences. (you know: "functioning in an orderly systematic manner")
The difference: causality doesn't say which cause or consequence will happen.
Causal determinism: Cause X happened > only consequence Y is possible. Consequence Y is observed > only X can have caused it.
- An easy example: if you touch an object bare-handed, your fingerprints will be on it ; if your fingerprints are on it, it means you touched it. But until you touched it or fingerprints are revealed, no prediction can be made: no determinism (in the realm of our human possibilities).

Evolution: errors happen during DNA replication (mutations) which, combined to environmental pressure (selection), will improve / hinder / not affect reproductive success of an individual.
It is causal: a given set of causes (mutation, pressure) will invariably result in the same consequence (reproduction success/failure).
It is not deterministic: it doesn't presume on cause and don't need a specific result. As in: it don't need to grow complexity (your interpretation).

That leads us to: nematods. Do they reproduce ? Yes. Enough not to die out ? Apparently yes. Since they successfully reproduce enough to sustain their population, there's no drive to change. (or become more complex, just to hammer the point)

Now ... nematod vulva ... I'm picturing the poor PhD trying to explain his work to someone he met at a party.
I'm pretty sure you got all excited seeing the words "evolution" and "deterministic" in the same article (never together, strange!) but let's read it before jumping to conclusions in your most "scientific" manner.
It's about developmental drift: a phenotype (the shape of ... nematod vulva ... can't believe you're making me write this!) conserved over countless generations while the genotype coding for it is changing.
Their question is, since different types of development are possible, is development free of pressure (stochastic model) or submitted to constraints and selection (deterministic model).
Spoiler alert: if evolution is true, a highly conserved trait necessarily mean there is a pressure to conserve it. Because if the cause was random (no pressure) there should be many consequences (traits). Since vulva shape is a highly conserved trait in nematods, what do you think this study will find about its development ?

"In conclusion, our study shows that evolution of vulva development is strongly biased and only few aspects are likely to change in an unconstrained stochastic fashion"
A highly conserved phenotype is the result of a pressured development and not just random change... exactly as expected. Evolution resulting from selection: not new. Have you felt how the "evolutionists" trembled in 2007 when these lines were published ? Now you know why they didn't.

"A bunch of fools (atheists) I’ve been talking to didn’t understand how evolution absolutely REQUIRES a magical type of determinism to be true and therefore requires free-will to be non-existent so I’ll try to explain it here."

Nice of you to acknowledge credit where it's due. But I see you still can't refrain on insult. By the way, this is still hard facts and not personal attack ? You haven't answered that one.

For the datation problem you might want to revise your judgement: It is based on radioactive decay. Remember Schrödinger's cat ? Being dead AND alive because of quantum superposition during radioactive decay of an atom ... Yep Earth dating is quantum physics, this epitome of science you defend so fervently. Good luck proving QM is wrong about radioactive decay.

And thanks for the invitation on your blog, but you forgot that I'm only a racist subhuman. I wouldn't want to pollute your personnal space.

Edit: Just saw "You keep re-defining determinism"
Fun fact about internet: it stays. So some extracts from my previous posts:

Determinism is basically saying “brain HAVE TO exist based on the rules and initial condition of the universe”
Determinism is being driven by a will or initial conditions in an unescapable manner.
Determinism: only one outcome is possible. (that's it) < in this very post.

I was taught to rephrase when someone don't get my meaning. Sorry if that terrible exercise hurts your brain, but can you enlighten me and explain how any of these definition is contradicting the previous ?

"since organelles MUST behave in a systematic orderly predictable manner for species to stay alive what do you label it as? "

Causality. For like, the tenth time already ? Do you have an allergy to that word or something ?

old comment by God

@KingOfRhye: Thank you for your kind words, but to be fair as God I have something of an unfair advantage. Give the crown of best post to someone who had to work for it, they deserve it more.

@Frogflayer: I'll admit that my first work was less than perfect, but no-one's first piece is completely flawless is it? I've learned from my mistakes and intend to do some very thorough proofing this time to avoid continuity hiccups like last time.

I did initially consider the chainsaw, but I felt that the Evil Dead series was so good that anything I did would feel like a ripoff more than a homage. I also considered a flaming sword for a while but the modern audience doesn't have the same willing suspension of disbelief for magic as it did when I wrote the bible.

Doing a prequel for a book that literally starts at the beginning of its world might be a bit tricky even if I was that way inclined...

Thank you all for your kind feedback, here's hoping the bible 2 is as big a hit as the first one!

old comment by KingOfRhye

STOP with the damn "atheist=racist" shit already.

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand (atheist)

"The Church of Satan is neither racist nor sexist. We are equal opportunity haters of most human animalsrecall the “Seventh Satanic Statement.” Misanthropy is our general point of view, and we don’t exclude any race or either sex from this attitude." - Anton LaVey (atheist...yes, that's right, atheist)

I'm not saying there's NO atheists who are racists, but I'd bet the percentage is no more than it is than that of Christians who are racists. (Some Bible verses have been used as justification for racism for years and years, after all.)

old comment by Anon-e-moose

@KingOfRhye

"STOP with the damn "atheist=racist" shit already."

Trolling is all mrtrollseverybody has left.

And considering how Friedrich Nietzsche wanted anti-Semites shot, then that destroys his 'argument'.

In Soviet Reality, facts troll him. The Church of England openly acknowledge that much of the Bible - including Genesis - is purely fable & metaphor: as in not to be taken literally, so where does that leave him, other than mrtrollseverybody's Dunning-Kruger Effect that he relies upon for all that he does, re. his kookery: Trolling.

Trolls are mentally handicapped inferior subhumans. Just ask Brenda Leyland, mrtrollseverybody. Oh wait...!

itsnobody #fundie itsnobody.wordpress.com

115 comments

Confused?