Your conception of "fascist" makes a significant difference here. Like a lot of words, it gets used to describe so many things that aren't in the definition of the word, it's not safe to assume we're talking about the same thing.

Unfortunately a large percentage of the indigenous people were wiped out by European diseases, leaving the continent sparsely populated.

I'm not ashamed of what my ancestors helped to build. I'm a big fan of Western culture and civilization pre 20th century, and the foundation it set for the benefits the whole world enjoys and embraces today. I prefer posting on Nostr using a smartphone from the comfort of a climate controlled house with reliable electricity to sending smoke signals outside a buffalo skin wigwam. If you disagree, that's cool and I respect your opinion. The irony is beautiful though.

Gotcha, I understand now. 90-95% of the natives were unfortunately wiped out by diseases the Europeans introduced before most of the Americas were settled, that's why the continent was largely empty.

You misunderstood my position. I'm not at all opposed to immigration. I'm opposed to welfare.

My issue is with what you're doing, comparing my ancestors to the immigrants flooding in today with expectations of full government support at my expense. It's not a fair comparison. That's all I'm saying. I have no problem with immigrants who come to work and contribute.

"I do not have an explanation for the origin of life nor did I ever claim to."

Then why are you embarrassing yourself by suggesting that breeding cats for loose skin and low weight would eventually result in flying cats? I can tell you the outcome without running the experiment, because I understand enough about DNA and mathematics: you can run the experiment for a billion generations and you won't have a cat with wings. It's like saying "you need to do the experiment, if you let a monkey type on a keyboard long enough you might end up with the complete works of Shakespeare eventually." No you won't. Don't need to do the experiment, math already provides the answer.

I pointed out that atheism requires more faith than believing God. You criticized that as misleading. Your criticism was a defense of the theory of evolution. When I point out that evolution doesn't work scientifically and doesn't explain the origin of life anyway, you now don't have an explanation of the origin of life but that's okay?

So what's the disagreement? I have an explanation for the origin of life. You have no explanation for the origin of life. Yet somehow you're sure my explanation is wrong, without providing a better alternative. So why defend the theory of evolution to the point of sounding like an insane person? Life is all around us. There's an explanation for its origin. You're satisfied with having zero idea of that explanation. Yet for some reason you feel compelled to defend evolution to the bitter end, to the point of claiming the possibility of breeding flying cats? Why? Why not put that into the same category as the origin of life and say you don't know how different species came about? You don't have a better explanation of origins anyway, so you don't have a position to defend in the first place. You're not pro-something, you're just anti-God. So why the defensiveness? If you're so sure God doesn't exist, what are you afraid of? Why not just say, "I have no idea how life came to be or explanation for what I see around me, but God definitely doesn't exist so I'm going to continue doing whatever I please with no obligation to higher authority" like the typical fedora? That's at least a coherent claim, unlike trying to defend the theory of evolution for no apparent reason.

Sorry, I don't understand the question.

You make my points for me better than I even can. I point out that ears are irreducibly complex, so there's no way natural selection can go from no ears > ears in multiple tiny steps over generations. You "refute" that with artificial selection (intelligent design) going from already functional ears > bigger functional ears. Amazing, my point precisely. How many generations of artificial selection will it take to select cats with the biggest wings every generation until you end up with cats that can fly? And I don't understand how DNA works? 🤣

But like you say, why should you believe? I'm sure you have a fully logical explanation for the origin of life, one you've witnessed personally. I'm sure you have a perfectly logical reason for not sharing your explanation. Which is perfectly fine. Like I said, you won't have to answer to me. Just giving you an alternative perspective, you're a responsible adult with freedom of choice who gets to make their own decisions.

I didn't find one, but it should be the same chart with a few years lag since women typically marry men a few years older than themselves. Other than that, I can't think of any reason it would be different for me. It's just that demographic data typically focuses on women since they're the ones having children so it just makes everything easier

I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Bible doesn't say God is "actively creating everything," whatever that's supposed to mean. He created the plants and animals "according to their kind" at creation, and they've adapted throughout the world using the built-in genetic variations within those kinds since then. God doesn't create new DNA with each generation. We can see and observe the DNA code degrade as mutations build up over time and genetic potential variability is lost.

Even your "artificial selection" of eliminating all long haired cats, using intelligence, doesn't result in any new information. It's a loss of genetic variability, which is what we see everywhere. We don't see increasing genetic potential, which is what evolution should result in.

Irreducible complexity isn't word salad, it's a very simple concept in various scientific fields. There's a certain amount of information or structure necessary for a certain thing to function. Think of a mousetrap for example. A mousetrap is basically irreducibly complex. It has the minimum number of parts necessary to function. If you remove one part, it's not a mousetrap anymore. It's just a collection of wood and metal parts that doesn't do anything useful. In biology, organs and systems have a level of complexity that's necessary for the part to provide a benefit to the organism.

Think of an ear. An ear is complex, with lots of different parts working together to capture sound waves, convert the sound waves to electrical signal, and send the signals to the brain. If any of those parts and systems fails, the ear no longer functions and you go deaf. It's not useful anymore, it's just a random collection of skin, bones, nerves, etc.

The reason this matters is that it eliminates the potential for the kind of gradual, imperceptible changes you claimed drive evolution. You can't evolve an ear with a huge number of tiny, imperceptible changes over eons of time. Until the ear is complex enough to function and perceive sound, it's useless to the organism and will be a liability that's selected against. That's the lower bound of irreducible complexity. Evolution has to account for a functional ear developing over a single generation, otherwise the claimed mechanism of natural selection won't "know" to save those new parts and keep improving them in the next generation. The whole idea is so silly it's hard to even steel man correctly.

The appendix is part of the immune system. Just because you can live without it doesn't mean it has no function. You can live without a finger or a toe too, and lots of people have those amputated if they get infected in a way that could be fatal. Just because scientists don't know the function or purpose of the tailbone, just like they didn't know the function of the appendix or the dozens of other "vestigial organs" for a long time, doesn't mean there is no purpose. Same goes for what was called "junk DNA" until scientists began discovering its purpose a few years ago.

I provided no evidence other than "the Bible says so?" So in other words you chose to reject the evidence I provided, and now you want to make it sound like I didn't provide any. Okay, that's your choice. I did my part.

I haven't seen that artist's conception of a so-called "firmament" in my Bible anywhere. You can find a picture somebody drew that has the word on it and depicts something imaginary that doesn't exist. That doesn't show anything about the Bible. I already told you the definition of the word. The fact that you found a picture that uses the word incorrectly isn't relevant.

The fact that government is their surrogate protector is a big cause for this trend in the first place. The marriage market is absolutely grim for men right now. The women are effectively married to the state already, and if you marry one it's more like cheating with a married woman. It's all good as long as she's happy, but as soon as something happens she'll run straight back to her husband Big Daddy Government, and he can come throw you in jail and take half your stuff if she cries and begs him.

And regardless whether you're married or not, your tax dollars are still going to BDG to support his harem of unmarried women and their fatherless children. The higher tax burden this requires makes it all the more difficult for men who actually would like to risk getting married and providing for a family.

The destruction of the nuclear family as a viable social institution is progressing rapidly, but the consequences will be felt for decades, probably centuries.

I understand perfectly well what you're saying, it's just illogical and wrong.

I provided evidence, you declined to accept it.

If you think a genetic sequence coding for a trait above the bound of irreducible complexity is simpler than a deck of cards, you aren't informed enough to evaluate the claim.

We have tail bones for the same reason we have an appendix; because that's how we were created.

Why should I even need to prove any of that? You don't have an alternative explanation of origin at all, so there's no need to choose if only one choice exists.

"Firmament" doesn't mean a flat earth lol. Check your dictionary. It means the expanse of sky.

And then anyone who complains about uncontrolled immigration gets hit with the "well your ancestors were immigrants too." Absolutely disgusting and infuriating.

So my ancestors who came here when the country was a desolate wilderness, cleared timber with their hands and some oxen if they were lucky, farmed and hunted for their food, and built this country from nothing into the richest country in the world with their blood, sweat, and tears before government support even existed, are in the same category as someone who buys a plane ticket from Timbuktu to Toronto, rides to the US border in a car, walks across the border, and claims entitlement to an apartment in NYC and full support on my dime without having to lift a finger? I don't think so.

(1) Open Borders

(2) Welfare State

Pick one. You can't have both. If you don't understand why yet, give it 20 years and you'll see.

Yet they keep screaming about how everyone who disagrees with them is a fascist. Amazing.

I'm not confused at all. You're making an argument that is illogical, and I'm just pointing it out to you. I explained why it's illogical clearly enough. If you can't grasp the logic, that's out of my control.

I don't know the religious people you're talking about, but I certainly don't think God created humans the way they are for some reason other than because that's how He wanted to do it. He created life in an unimaginable variety of forms, obviously He could create it however He chose.

Once again, you say it's not intelligently designed, just the best evolution can do, without offering a more intelligent design. You say God could have created humans to reproduce without sperm. Single cell and low level organisms reproduce without sperm. You're the one who has to argue that there's some advantage to sexual reproduction that caused evolution to "create?' and select for that trait. So non sexual reproduction isn't actually a better design?

I know you didn't answer what the origin of life is, that's why I asked. "Where does God come from" isn't a response to that question, it's avoiding the question. Implying that my explanation for the origin of life is wrong isn't a "gotcha" if when you don't have an explanation at all. Like I said, God exists outside the parameters of time and the physical universe, so it's not a coherent question. Origin implies a time and a place, God isn't confined by time and place so He doesn't need an origin.

Mutations? So random copying mistakes in DNA? Coincidental errors? If you make enough mutations to a DNA string you go from a single cell organism with 500 genes to a human with 20,000 genes?

Genetic code is incredibly complex, but let's say for the sake of argument that one specific trait, say a functional wing, could be simplified down to a deck of 52 playing cards in a specific order. Would the mechanism of action be a mutation or mutations shuffle the deck, then natural selection determines whether the changes are beneficial, and if they aren't the organism just dies, but if it did succeed in getting the correct order to code for a wing, that organism will survive and pass on the improvement? And if the first try is a failure it basically just keeps "shuffling the deck" with more mutations until the correct sequence is hit and progress happens?

There's only one God, the one described in the Bible. God didn't say things that are false. Whether you choose to believe what He said is up to you, I'm not the one you'll have to answer to for your choice.

I've heard that when you find yourself at the bottom of a deep hole holding a shovel, the best policy is to stop digging. But you haven't stopped yet so...

That text wall about testicles makes zero sense. You start off by claiming that it's a stupid design. Which supposedly proves that it evolved instead of being created.

Then you continue by explaining in detail why a different placement wouldn't work because it would reduce reproductive fitness. Unfortunately you actually have no idea what you're talking about, you say your best guess is that hardy sperm that could survive in the rib cage would either (1) take too much energy or (2) be too slow to produce. That's just complete speculation, you actually have no idea. But you defend the existing design by claiming any other design would hurt reproductive fitness and would therefore be eliminated by the process of natural selection.

So which is it? Your entire point was that the current placement is a design flaw that proves it wasn't intelligently designed. You can't simultaneously argue that it's a stupid design that proves evolution occurred, but also the most reproductively ideal design possible. If it's a stupid design, propose a better one. If you can't, I don't see any alternative to the conclusion that it was designed by someone more intelligent than yourself.

The problem is, you're trying to play both sides of the fence. You want to use so-called "design flaws" to "prove" no intelligent design. But you know full well that almost everything in nature is elegantly and functionally designed almost to the point of perfection. So you also have to leave the door open to the argument that evolution can produce ideal and optimally fit outcomes. It's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument, and I see right through it.

I'm fully aware of how birds lost their ability to fly and mole rats their ability to see. Again, I'm not sure how you think a loss of function is going to convince me of the power of evolution. The problem for you is, that's all we observe happening today; loss of previous function and information. We don't see the reverse. If you could point to a bird that had no wings and developed wings and the ability to fly over time, that would be relevant. This isn't. It's like arguing that the fact that some shingles blew off your house during a hurricane proves that your house was built by random gusts of wind blowing the structure into place. It's ludicrous. Increasing entropy is the exact opposite of what we would see if evolution was in fact responsible for the order we see in living organisms.

I fully agree that evolution does not create something new out of nothing. Gradually adapting what it already has begs the question of where that "what it already has" came from. If evolution doesn't explain the origin of life, it seems pretty ludicrous to keep defending it given the complete lack of alignment with the real world.

You keep dodging the question of how evolution does all the things you claim it does. How does it change the DNA? A human has 20-25,000 genes and over 3 billion DNA base pairs. How does evolution go from a single cell organism or whatever you think came first somehow, to that? How do the changes in the DNA happen? If the changes don't happen randomly by coincidence, what's' the mechanism?

One piece of evidence of God's existence outside our reality is His Word, in which He gives us some specific information about His nature and activities. Since the other information He gave has proven to be accurate, reliable and useful in understanding the world, it's logical to conclude that the information about His existence is also accurate.

Percentage of American women ever married, by decade of birth. Love how the projected numbers for 80s/90s do that vertical spike like the Biden vote count at 3 a.m. Good luck with that. I'm seeing a lot of upcoming demand for boxed wine and cat treats. Don't get caught paying for this disaster, get out of the fiat/bond system and stack sats if you don't want to be left holding the bag.

Excellent commentary

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/delusional-feminist-power-fantasy-relies-male-charity-and-tolerance

Imagine the level of narcissism and psychopathy it takes to go "yeah I think I'll tell millions of people what they can and can't do with their own money."

Get rekt you contemptible 🤡s

Imagine the level of narcissism and psychopathy it takes to go "yeah I think I'll tell millions of people what they can and can't do with their own money."

Get rekt you contemptible 🤡s

At least they're being responsible and letting their wives drive instead of driving drunk 🤷🏼‍♂️

Sound money is equity in civilization. It's like owning a stock index that tracks the entire economy. With sound money, the "low risk" investment strategy is just being productive and saving your money, not investing in some broad basket of complex financial instruments.

SOUND MONEY IS EQUITY. SLAVE MONEY IS DEBT.

note12t02qwcymstvap9uwqev0av2y9rkg3s0xje6k0u0pxs0pnaqu89svc6ud3