Great post jimbo!. The debate is endless because it boils down to "my god is bigger than your god" with the added effect of the evolutionists in denial of their own religiosity. Skeptics remain unanswered.

Always remember, Joseph, that you yourself are an evolutionist.

re: 'Devere'....m8: yr on "a hiding to nuthin`" with this creation vrs evolution 'debate'......informed & committed creationists and/or 'intelligent design' (ID) advocates would make mince-meat of most of yr arguments!

(i'm speaking from personal experience here: but: i 'spose if yr content to just 'debate' the issue on VNNF, then yr not gunna come to that much grief!)

for any-one really interested in the latest 'cutting edge' arguments: try 'talk.origins' on USENET

the 'leading lights' on the ID side are: Dembski, Denton, Berlinski, Wells, ReMine, Behe, Johnson et al
(some now even label Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, his assistant Leslie Orgel and the late Sir Fred Hoyle and his assistant Chandra Wickramasinghe as 'creationists'......they'd deny it of course!....but their theories of 'directed panspermia' or 'evolution from space' could, again, be seen by some as little better than 'special pleading' in order to 'dodge' the evidence and where it inexorably leads!)

Dawkins isn't really a serious 'evolutionist academician': he's more of a populariser........similarly: Gould (dec)....who was a kike, BTW!
(that said: Gould was a more prolific, comprehensive and detailed populariser than Dawkins.....who only really produced two or three good books!...many believe, however, that: Dawkins is correct in saying 'punctuated equilibrium' is little better than 'creationism in drag'!....it really does come down to 'strict Darwinism/neo-Darwinism' or literal creationism...as Douglas Futuyma points out!)

serious evolutionists would be: Ernst Mayr, Lewontin, Edwords, Maynard-Smith, Kimura, Stebbins, Michael Ruse et al...dunnno how many of those are still around...it's a good few yrs since i was really 'involved', re: talk.origins debates

no more!

i spent/'wasted' nearly three fuckin' years of my life forever debating this topic!..........it's a dead-set 'rabbit hole'!

(jimbo!)

Thanks for the rabbit-hole warning. There's no changing religionist minds with facts and truth. That's clear. As for USENET evolution/creationism debating, I'm not really interesting in the debate for debate's sake. My purpose is to introduce WN's to White Western science generally via one of the pillars of White Western science -- evolution. That necessarily involves getting past a certain amount of Christian brainwashing anti-science anti-evolution propaganda.

Our people have for the past 60 years been steadily indoctrinated against science, one of the foundations of White Civilization. They need to regain -- or for most, gain -- an appreciation of their heritage. Only the White Race could have and did create science. And evolution is a cornerstone of biological science, of biology.

Unfortunately, Christianity views it as a threat and has done a pretty good job at brainwashing our people. Unfortunately too, jew "scientists" have twisted White science to suit their anti-white agenda, making it difficult for the brainwashees to tell fact from fiction. We've had a pretty good run in these two threads of that inability for even WN brainwashees to tell fact from fiction. They actually think evolutionary science is just another religion. This is simply the regurgitation of Christian propaganda. Unfortunate. But I'm really trying to reach not only to Joseph and Cthelhu and so on, but other WN's who might be reading this thread.

Time to reclaim our heritage for our people -- so that, when and if we get another chance at it, we can found the next White Civilization on truth and reality, instead of lies and fears.

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

Evolution: Fact or Belief?

an interesting read regarding religion:

Blacked out Through Whitewash

Unlocking the Mystery of Life: The Scientific Case for Intelligent Design

Evolution: Fact or Belief?

an interesting read regarding religion:

Blacked out Through Whitewash

Wow. Now I don't feel so alone. Thanks, MadThumbs.

Can't wait to hear your comments, Devere.

Wow. Now I don't feel so alone. Thanks, MadThumbs.

Can't wait to hear your comments, Devere.

I think you better start with "Blacked out through Whitewash," Joseph -- before you get too ga ga.

I'm not going to bother to try to refute everything in that "afro-centric" article. I'll just point out a couple of things. The article in its last section says the following:

Are whites the albino offspring of Black Africans? White skin is a form of albinism. It appears that whites have &#8220]White skin is NOT a form of albinism. Specific whiteness genes are involved in the evolution of normal white skin. Here is the relevant point in the article I posted earlier in this thread:

Humans of European descent, Cheng's team found, bear a slightly different mutation that hobbles the same protein with similar effect. The defect does not affect melanin deposition in other parts of the body, including the hair and eyes, whose tints are under the control of other genes.

A few genes have previously been associated with human pigment disorders -- most notably those that, when mutated, lead to albinism, an extreme form of pigment loss. But the newly found glitch is the first found to play a role in the formation of "normal" white skin. The Penn State team calculates that the gene, known as slc24a5, is responsible for about one-third of the pigment loss that made black skin white. A few other as-yet-unidentified mutated genes apparently account for the rest.

However, IF the Aryan race evolved from earlier sub-humans who evolved in Africa, doubtless those sub-humans had black skin to protect them from the tropical African sun. Therefore, it may be true that Aryans evolved from a black negro-like creature. On the other hand -- I personally think what is more likely (though it may not yet be supported by the fossil evidence) -- is that the black sub-human African negro-like creature -- say, homo erectus -- left Africa long before homo sapien sapiens (the Aryan race) evolved. If this pre-human made it to the Caucasus Mountain area (a near certainty), they may well have evolved white skin before or during their transition to homo sapien sapiens. We will probably never know this detail.

As for the rest of the afro-centric article, my response can be summed up in one question. Given that high civilization MUST BE the product of a highly intelligent population -- that is, a population with a high AVERAGE IQ -- how could niggers, who have one of the LOWEST AVERAGE IQ's of any human form, wherever niggers are found in the entire world (no matter where they are found in the entire world) -- how could a low average IQ nigger population create and maintain nearly all of the highest civilizations of the ancient world? Did they suddenly devolve from White-level geniuses to the present day retarded niggers we all know and love so well? When did this happen? We certainly see no evidence of their being able to create or maintain advanced civilizations today. In fact, the opposite is all too painfully clear.

Remember that when the early White explorers (re-)discovered Africa, they found naked and near-naked black assed stone-age sub-humans who hadn't invented cloth for clothing, houses, the wheel -- and many couldn't start or maintain fire. Moreover, the typical vocabulary size of even their present day languages is 40 to 400 words. They had not invented numbers or counting beyond two or three (let alone simple arithmetic). They had no way of saying the monkey is on the fourth branch from the left -- and wouldn't be able to conceive of the concept four, in the first place. By contrast, the Oxford-English Dictionary lists 171,000 words in current use.

However, there are HUGE amounts of actual, physical evidence (like, for instance, THE BODIES [mummies], White skin and blond/red hair and beards intact) that the founders of ancient Egypt, Sumeria, Persia, India, Mycenae, Greece, Rome, plus many other high civilizations were Aryans. And I don't think even the mentally-challenged afro-centrists would try to claim that modern Western civilization has been created by niggers. Did niggers create wonderful (when they were White and wonderful) Europe and America and Australia and Russia, etc.?

The poster who posted the obvious idiocy of the afro-centric article posted the two anti-evolution videos. Even before I watch them, that tells me they're probably bullshit.

That's my initial take.

But I'll watch them.

No need to refute that goofy article. I didn't even read it. I was referring to the videos. They're quite potent.

The nigger-centric article tells you much about madthumbs -- maybe all you need to know. Always good to know who is on the other side of a conversation with you. Idiotic nigger-centricity is certainly a red flag re the videos. And they're kinda long -- over an hour each.

Evolution is backed by all possible scientific, logical AND observational evidence. Creation is backed by nothing except dubious testimonies. "Debating" both is equal of debating whether or not looking at the sun hampers your eyesight.

Exactly so.

'Unlocking the Mystery of Life`s Origin' makes a reasonable fist of presenting 'creationism' in a populist format.

It is to the dis-credit of main-stream evolutionists that they haven't done any-thing similar: if you discount Dawkins' books and a recent (2001)PBS-TV series on 'evolution'...however: the 'arguments' presented in that series were largely specious if not down-right 'ad hominem' attacks on various 'creationists' and, really, presented nothing substantive in the way of scientific evidence: @ least: nothing that most 'creationists' couldn't easily rebut!

Behe's 'irreducible complexity' argument is a tough nut for neo-Darwinists to crack, primarily because it resurrects the 'argument from design' formulated by the nineteenth century English theologian William Paley in his 'Natural Theology' and, also, to some extent, arguments haling back to Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica

Darwinists had hoped that this 'design argument' had been 'put to bed' by the eighteenth century Scottish philosopher David Hume apropos his 'strict analogies' but, un-fortunately for them, Hume's criticisms fall apart in the light of the discoveries in molecular biology over the last 50yrs or so!

AFAIK, no similar philosophical endeavour has emerged since to rescue Darwinism.

Be that as it may: Darwin's weightiest arguments were from his two vlm 'The Descent of Man' . The 'race issue' looms like an impassable Himalyan barrier to any universalistic philosophy. 'Creationists' will have to satisfactorily address that issue before they are or can be taken seriously!

(jimbo!)

Religion STARTS with a generalization and creates a myth to explain how that generalization was made manifest in the facts of the world we see around us. Religious generalizations are never objectively tested because any objective test would reveal the generalization to be false. Therefore, religion can only be used as an explanation for things that cannot be objectively proven -- such as Why is there anything? Why is there a universe? Religion -- because its premises are almost invariably false -- has, therefore, never resulted in the forward progress of human civilization.

Because of this failing in religion, the White race developed an alternative means to knowledge known as the scientific method -- i.e., Western science. This is a method to understand the truth about the universe by moving upward from objective facts, as determined by direct observation, to generalizations (inductive reasoning) -- and then extending these inductively derived generalizations via deductive reasoning to areas of knowledge not accessible, because of time or space barriers, to direct objective observation. The result of the scientific method has been all of the dazzling technology of the Western world. All technological inventions -- cars, trains, metal ships, space ships, computers, etc. -- derived from a scientific understanding of the universe. That's why only White Western Civilization invented these technologies -- because only White Civilization had, at its base, objective science.

As science explained more and more of what we see happening in the universe, religious explanations have necessarily receded more and more toward those areas beyond the reach of scientific explanation. Today, the only areas beyond the reach of science -- at least for now -- are Why is there a universe at all? and What happens to us after we are dead? Do we have an immortal soul? However, science is beginning to gradually encroach even on hese areas and so religion is fighting back (with phony arguments of Creationism) -- because if science ends up answering all possible questions, religion will have lost its purpose altogether -- just as it has already lost most of its purpose.

Personally, I think there will always be one scientifically unanswerable question: Why is there a universe at all? Why is there anything? Moreover, I think the exact nature of the intelligence and power that created the universe will always be beyond our ken. So I think there will always be a place for spiritualism, if not religion. Religion can't tell us anything more about the true nature of the creator of the universe than guy next door. The nature of God is unknowable. For that reason, I think religion serves no beneficial purpose to mankind -- and is, in fact, a detriment -- because it invariably poses only false (untested) premises. Decisions and actions based on false premises lead inevitably to failure -- which is why the non-white world has failed where the White world has succeeded.

This is not to say that personal spiritualism (as distinct from an externally imposed religion) -- that is, a belief in an unknowable God or Creator -- doesn't serve a purpose . It can and does. That purpose is to explain reality. I think that purpose is as legitimate as science because both are legitimate and rational explanations of reality. Science post-universe, spiritualism pre-universe; science during life or earthly consciousness, spiritualism post-life, post-earthly consciousness.

Now let's see to what extent we are on the same page at all. Creationists, please answer the following questions in a straightforward and honest and simple way. Don't try to sidestep.

1. Do you believe in the scientific method? Do you believe in science -- that there is such a thing as science -- or is everything just religion?

2. Do you believe that biology is a field of objective science -- or do you think it is a religion?

2. Do you believe there are separate and distinct races?

3. Do you believe there is a White race?

4. Are the races separate species or are they races (varieties of the same species)?

5. Did God create each race?

I don't know that there is a creationist registered here. Did you get a chance to watch the videos yet? In an earlier post, you said that challenging the "cornerstone" of science, aka your evolution religion, is a detriment to scientific progress. One of the videos asserts that clinging to the failed theory of evolution does just that. Interesting, eh?

Answer the questions, Joseph.

I read the following in a major magazine I subscribe to:

"In a Michigan State University study that ranked 34 major countries by their citizens' acceptance of the theory of evolution, the United States ranked second to last (thank you, Turkey), 39% of our adult population rejects the concept."

Considering that Creationism is the only alternative the fucktards have at this point...

Jewbook vs. Fossil Record? Words vs. Objective reality? 39%?

Answer the questions, Joseph.

OK, but I am not a chrisling.

1. Do you believe in the scientific method? Do you believe in science -- that there is such a thing as science -- or is everything just religion?

I believe that there is a difference between real science, defined as the logical search for understanding of the natural world. I believe there are legitimate social sciences that differ from natural sciences. And I believe there is pseudo-science, like creationism and your bullshit theory of evolution. I believe the these pseudo-sciences are detrimental to real scientific endeavor.

2. Do you believe that biology is a field of objective science -- or do you think it is a religion?

As I recall from school, biology is the study of life. Religion is not related.

2. Do you believe there are separate and distinct races?

No I believe we are all exactly the same, that's why I am a racist. /sarcasm

3. Do you believe there is a White race?

Not for long.

4. Are the races separate species or are they races (varieties of the same species)?

Races are races. ???wtf

5. Did God create each race?

The origin of all living things is unknown - despite your fascination with the (G)od.

Remember, Devere, I am an evolutionist.

#4: Are the races separate species or are they varieties within the same species? Are the White race the negro race separate varieties of the same species or different species? How about the White race and the mongoloid race?