It's time to kill the "Neg Fraudhy" thread.

[Paul Kreul]

You won't. You use bad faith and dishonest tactics to debate your points. You even quibble over incredibly basic chit via gishgallop. It's not even worth it. Ask the mod who bans leftist voices here why the mere mention of my boy J Stals makes him piss himself and ban and mass delete everything said. LOL talk about snowflake.

I'm not aware of any dishonest tactics I intionally use, but yea, I get caught up in the name calling..but I realize that is a fault and don't try to justify it.

I don't know any MODS or have ever spoken with any other than RedRaider.

[Paul Kreul]

The chicken nugget thing is actually a rating system for absurd conspiracy theory, scientifically illiterate claims. Claims get rated with a certain number of nuggets based on how idiotically conspiratorial they are.


That's a way of shaming idiotic and dangerous misinformation claims. That's not at all like coming into a thread promoting discussion and just going "STFU chit smearing tranny fukker" or the moronic antics your ilk are always up to.


Kinda diversionary too, away from the fact this Bodhy Derangement Syndrome is just weird and needs to end. No one is disputing that here so far.

Like I said, you always try to justify your poor behavior, but get up n arms about everyone else's. I don't think you will ever change, and it probably carry's over to real life which is quite sad.

[ClivesTriceps]

[ExPatriot]

[Paul Kreul]

Bro u literally argued stars don't form naturally, n95s cannot filter covid particles (even when directly shown studies to the contrary), against the theory of evolution, and I don't even remember what else over the years. You are truly the most mentally insane person I have ever spoken to. Like legit.

Stars don't and masks don't(so shows the studies), and I'm still waiting for your example of a missing link..but anytime you want to jump into any of those, or vaccines, I'm happy to do so.

[Paul Kreul]

k well it has been directly observed so cope and seethe

https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/ab...a21318-13.html

You can literally see stars forming in real time, naturally.

That has nothing to do with my argument or proof there of.


Still waiting for that missing ink..has that been observed as well?

[Bodhy]

Like I said, you always try to justify your poor behavior, but get up n arms about everyone else's. I don't think you will ever change, and it probably carry's over to real life which is quite sad.

Taking down scientifically absurd and dangerous claims with a bit of humour, which the chicken nugget thing is, is lightyears away from your incessant chit-smearing and tranny insults, deliberate thread derails, and having a thread ongoing for a year just whining about the one poster.



You can't equate these two to do some form of damage control.

[ExPatriot]

To be fair, I haven't seen Paul directly call you a chit smearer. It's usually Bush, gwg, Clive, and other deplorables who go that route. Paul just posts bullchit.

[ClivesTriceps]

To be fair, I haven't seen Paul directly call you a chit smearer. It's usually Bush, gwg, Clive, and other deplorables who go that route. Paul just posts bullchit.

Stop talking to yourself you autistic degenerate

[ClivesTriceps]

I'm wincel, cuck. Kys.

Sure you are.

[Paul Kreul]

Post your argument again. Let's see the gish gallop about disorder and blah blah.

Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. Noah's Ark was real, an actual event. Every ancient civilization has a record of not just a local flood, but a world wide flood of disastrous proportions.

When you look at the four postulates of creation and hold them up against the 4 postulates of evolution, it is abundantly clear that only the postulates creation have been observed.

Evolution is based on four major ideas, none of them have ever been observed.

1. Life comes from non-life

Nope. Not a single example of life coming from non life.

2. All life forms we have today came from single cell life forms.

We do have single cell life forms that we call bacteria, but we DO NOT have 2 cell life forms, 3 cell life forms, not 4, nor 5 cell life forms. We go from single cell to complex, with no evidence that all life comes from single cell life forms

3. Time and chance drive evolution forward.

Time works against evolution. The chance of one simple 100 unit protein coming together by accident is mathematical impossibility, which I can explain if needed

4. What we see today, minor genetic variation in species is evidence of macro evolution

Since cats are diffrent colors, dogs are diffrent sizes, that means fish turned into cows. we know that this is not true Mandel proved that all the genes exist today, you can shuffle them around but no new genes are created. Variation is simply epigenetics.



Now we compare that with the 4 postulates of creation


1. Where there is a design there must be a designer

We see codes in DNA. Codes are evidence of intelligence. You have to translate from one language to another. Not a single example of that happening by accident

2. The earth, the solar system, the universe, the galaxies are young, measured in thousands of years not billions.

EWhat is the oldest living thing on the planet? (it's okay, I know you don't know), the oldest living thing on the planet are trees. How old are the oldest trees? 4,500 yrs..which takes us back to the year of the flood..2500BC

Solar nebuli. A solar nebuli is what we see from a supernova when a star explodes, it leaves a gas cloud, and with modern telescopes we can look deep into space and actually count the number of solar nebuli that are there. And how many are there? A supernova takes place about once every 26 yrs..how many do we have? ..6,000 yrs worth. That's impossible in a universe that is billions and billions of years old. Other evidence such as alpha decay that also shows the earth is 6,000 yrs old

3. Life we observe today are the basic kinds of animals and plant forms that were originally created, and we can test that.
You can breed dogs and breed cats, but you cannot breed cats with dogs, there are limits.

4. Earth experienced a world wide flood approximately 2500 BC, sixteen hundred and fifty six years after the world was created.

The world is filled with limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, it precipitates out of water, the entire earth was filled with water. Every mountain chain in the world, including Everest has sea life on top of that mountain. The mountains rose out of the water, so we know that there was a world wide flood, as evident in the writings


Now give your example of a missing link and stop pivoting. And don't five me Lucy the farce of that bankrupt Indian that ran out of funding and was a known fraud

[Bodhy]

Thread isn't about debating evolution. It's about the cringiness, and sell-by date, of the Neg Fraudhy thread.

[ExPatriot]

This is the new neg Fraudhy thread.

Neg'd.

Negged.

[turk75]

[EireGunner]

Be quiet ya autistic mental kunt

Edit: lmao autism boy negged me

[JUSA]

To be fair, I haven't seen Paul directly call you a chit smearer. It's usually Bush, gwg, Clive, and other deplorables who go that route. Paul just posts bullchit.

If you really want to help him, might educate him that attention-seeking (and also attention-giving) threads such as this have no chance of resolving people going after him and it's threads like this, and his own attitude within it, which are why people still do it.

Bodhy, if it truly bothers you and you don't get off to the attention (and I would think you wouldn't after the doxxing):
1. Be mature and ignore it
2. Be humble when you interact with people

If you do both, in time that thread will die on it's own and you will have a more positive interaction with every poster here.

I've spoken to my thoughts on that thread and my disagreement with people still participating in it. On your end, be mature, act like an adult and when you inevitably have disagreements with posters, as we all do, treat them respect. In your case, that will be hard because people do not give you respect in kind. Earn it by being mature and ignore the people who can not let go. There are posters, well only one, I just do not give the satisfaction of my attention any longer. They do not deserve it. You should embrace that mindset yourself, Bodhy.

[JUSA]

I am not a creationist but his post is interesting. I'm curious where he's outright wrong. Are there no 2, 3 or 4 cell organisms? I'm not as concerned with a few of his points, but that one did kind of stick with me.

How is laughing at him without refuting or debating either productive or show where he's wrong? When we all respond to people, we're not just responding to them, this is forum and you are responding to every person interested and paying attention. In this case, I probably agree with you but you did nothing to persuade me at all.

[Bodhy]

It's gish gallop. I'll address your first question here. If you understand what an "organism" is, you will see why you won't find many small number organisms. An organism needs to have some shared existence for all its constituent cells and yet be treated as a whole unit in terms of satisfying the criteria for life. I would hesitate to argue a bicellular lifeform could never exist. (After all, we were all very briefly bicellular during development.) There are some bacteria often found in pairs. But they do not function as a single unit in tandem persistently so we wouldn't consider them together as an organism, but rather, each cell as one.

In fact, the fact we don't see many 2 cell organisms as stable kind of shows how evolution worked. It all started with unicellular organisms, and replication was an innate feature of life. Self replication of protocells probably predates life itself. Anyway, the moment you get a single cell replicating, the population explodes by powers of 2. You wouldn't expect to see odd small numbered lifeforms except for unicellular ones, barring some bizarre evolved process where some odd number of cells are destroyed by the others and yet the whole still functions as a single organism. That would likely require more specialization than is seen in small number of cell organisms. And you wouldn't expect to see many small numbers because the cells can usually just keep replicating. There are exceptions, of course, and there actually do exist 4 celled organisms like certain kinds of algae. Why 4 and not 2? Like I said, maybe 2 is just too simple in some way to not just be a kind of pair of cells rather than functioning as a whole unit. It would be hard to tell the difference honestly. And why not 3? Well, that would require an insanely weird kind of specialization where the other cells destroy the odd man out. And since all the cells share the same instruction set, how could you destroy the symmetry to consistently get 3? That would actually be really cool to see if there were a clever way to make a 3 celled organism.

Furthermore, there are bacteria and fungi which appear in clusters of cells of 2,4 and 8 etc and there are organisms that can regulate transition from single to multicellular and could be a major link in understanding the transition from uni to multicellularity (there's a field devoted to this called the major transitions in evolution, which studies this as well as other transitions like sociality, sexual reproduction, language etc.)

Bacteria aggregate as colonies and biofilms all the time, it's no real mystery. It's why posters who studied science find debates like this painful, it's just a rehash of chestnuts long, long since refuted.

[RedInsectNProud]

Evolution cannot be scientifically proven. Noah's Ark was real, an actual event. Every ancient civilization has a record of not just a local flood, but a world wide flood of disastrous proportions.

When you look at the four postulates of creation and hold them up against the 4 postulates of evolution, it is abundantly clear that only the postulates creation have been observed.

Evolution is based on four major ideas, none of them have ever been observed.

1. Life comes from non-life

Nope. Not a single example of life coming from non life.

2. All life forms we have today came from single cell life forms.

We do have single cell life forms that we call bacteria, but we DO NOT have 2 cell life forms, 3 cell life forms, not 4, nor 5 cell life forms. We go from single cell to complex, with no evidence that all life comes from single cell life forms

3. Time and chance drive evolution forward.

Time works against evolution. The chance of one simple 100 unit protein coming together by accident is mathematical impossibility, which I can explain if needed

4. What we see today, minor genetic variation in species is evidence of macro evolution

Since cats are diffrent colors, dogs are diffrent sizes, that means fish turned into cows. we know that this is not true Mandel proved that all the genes exist today, you can shuffle them around but no new genes are created. Variation is simply epigenetics.



Now we compare that with the 4 postulates of creation


1. Where there is a design there must be a designer

We see codes in DNA. Codes are evidence of intelligence. You have to translate from one language to another. Not a single example of that happening by accident

2. The earth, the solar system, the universe, the galaxies are young, measured in thousands of years not billions.

EWhat is the oldest living thing on the planet? (it's okay, I know you don't know), the oldest living thing on the planet are trees. How old are the oldest trees? 4,500 yrs..which takes us back to the year of the flood..2500BC

Solar nebuli. A solar nebuli is what we see from a supernova when a star explodes, it leaves a gas cloud, and with modern telescopes we can look deep into space and actually count the number of solar nebuli that are there. And how many are there? A supernova takes place about once every 26 yrs..how many do we have? ..6,000 yrs worth. That's impossible in a universe that is billions and billions of years old. Other evidence such as alpha decay that also shows the earth is 6,000 yrs old

3. Life we observe today are the basic kinds of animals and plant forms that were originally created, and we can test that.
You can breed dogs and breed cats, but you cannot breed cats with dogs, there are limits.

4. Earth experienced a world wide flood approximately 2500 BC, sixteen hundred and fifty six years after the world was created.

The world is filled with limestone. Limestone is a sedimentary rock, it precipitates out of water, the entire earth was filled with water. Every mountain chain in the world, including Everest has sea life on top of that mountain. The mountains rose out of the water, so we know that there was a world wide flood, as evident in the writings


Now give your example of a missing link and stop pivoting. And don't five me Lucy the farce of that bankrupt Indian that ran out of funding and was a known fraud

How old were you when your parents dropped you on your head?

[fitnessislife]

Lol. Negged.

[Paul Kreul]

It's gish gallop. I'll address your first question here. If you understand what an "organism" is, you will see why you won't find many small number organisms. An organism needs to have some shared existence for all its constituent cells and yet be treated as a whole unit in terms of satisfying the criteria for life. I would hesitate to argue a bicellular lifeform could never exist. (After all, we were all very briefly bicellular during development.) There are some bacteria often found in pairs. But they do not function as a single unit in tandem persistently so we wouldn't consider them together as an organism, but rather, each cell as one.

In fact, the fact we don't see many 2 cell organisms as stable kind of shows how evolution worked. It all started with unicellular organisms, and replication was an innate feature of life. Self replication of protocells probably predates life itself. Anyway, the moment you get a single cell replicating, the population explodes by powers of 2. You wouldn't expect to see odd small numbered lifeforms except for unicellular ones, barring some bizarre evolved process where some odd number of cells are destroyed by the others and yet the whole still functions as a single organism. That would likely require more specialization than is seen in small number of cell organisms. And you wouldn't expect to see many small numbers because the cells can usually just keep replicating. There are exceptions, of course, and there actually do exist 4 celled organisms like certain kinds of algae. Why 4 and not 2? Like I said, maybe 2 is just too simple in some way to not just be a kind of pair of cells rather than functioning as a whole unit. It would be hard to tell the difference honestly. And why not 3? Well, that would require an insanely weird kind of specialization where the other cells destroy the odd man out. And since all the cells share the same instruction set, how could you destroy the symmetry to consistently get 3? That would actually be really cool to see if there were a clever way to make a 3 celled organism. (I can think of a few ways, but it would be complicated.)

My goal is not to persuade anymore. LOL he isn't here to learn. Nor is anyone reading this (except perhaps you might find this info interesting). As you can see, just to give an even superficial reply to a single claim takes this long. It isn't worth the effort trying to fight gish gallop.

Again, you have no evidence of 2 cell organisms whatsoever. Give examples, which you cannot. Nothing I posted is incorrect, because creation is observable, your model of evolution is not.

Solar nebuli alone proves creation, that you cannot get around

I've asked you at least 6 times now to give an example of your missing link..still have nothing I see

[deadwoodgregg]

What did I do?

You are the biggest liar on the forums.

Quite an accomplishment considering Z4 still posts.

[DuracellBunny]

It just wants you to post in this thread, instead of the other one, because it can delete this one.

[AlwaysFocus]

This is the new neg Fraudhy thread.

Neg'd.

repped

[AlwaysFocus]

Negged.

repped

[AlwaysFocus]

Lol. Negged.

repped

[nkiritsis13]

[Paul Kreul]

lmao k bro

everyone else will carry on with science while you scream into the wind

7 times now asking for your missing link..I’m guessing you have no proof of your claims

[ClivesTriceps]

7 times now asking for your missing link..I’m guessing you have no proof of your claims

There is no "missing link", the whole argument of there being one is fundamentalist religion propaganda. We could find every skeleton of every pre-historic human ever born and you'd still stick to your guns about evolution being false.

Here's a nice little tidbit about evolution happening in less than 40 years:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0417112433.htm

[Paul Kreul]

There is no "missing link", the whole argument of there being one is fundamentalist religion propaganda. We could find every skeleton of every pre-historic human ever born and you'd still stick to your guns about evolution being false.

Here's a nice little tidbit about evolution happening in less than 40 years:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0417112433.htm

That’s epigenetics & I’ve addressed this, never denied it. Much of what is usually attributed to mutations in the nature is simply adaptation, EPIGENETICS. It is a system that does not change the DNA, it regulates gene-expression and does not need those millions of years to do it. In fact a good example of epigenetic adaptation are the Galapagos finches. It was supposed until recently that changes in the size and form of their beaks required time periods typical to the Darwinian explanation, observations have however confirmed that the changes occur continuously (as rapidly is in a couple of years) and are reversible.