Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

betiko wrote:I try to suck it before it spills everywhere. Otherwise your fingers are all sticky icky.
Do you guys shave your peaches before eating them? The skin is a bit furry othrwise.


I think a great godly fruit is the apple. Unlike a banana, you can t stick it up your ass though. Wonder if viceroy disagrees with this truth.

Different people have different anuses or ani, therefore it would appear that only a few have the god-given right to store apples in their bum.

If evolution were true, then we'd see more people with apples in their asses because it's a superior form of storing food while on the hunt.

I don t agree. I m sure people able to store food like that would probably lose in the running performance. These guys would end up eating no meat, but apples that taste like shit. Maybe they existed and they all just died. Maybe that s what the bible meant by "don t eat apples adam".. i think we re getting somewhere!

Reach into your rear, and give yourself an apple for good effort. The fruits of our shite labor, indeed.

Woodruff wrote:Ewwwwww! I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

As opposed to storing food in your anus, knowing (and I have to assume that all of you have some basic level of anatomy) the various bacteria colonies that reside in the colon?

Fascinating.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Ewwwwww! I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

As opposed to storing food in your anus, knowing (and I have to assume that all of you have some basic level of anatomy) the various bacteria colonies that reside in the colon?
Fascinating.

Well, I've been rather able to ignore that as not serious. I took yours as serious.

Woodruff wrote:Well, I've been rather able to ignore that as not serious. I took yours as serious.

Hmmm, well let me get my Freudian Mouse Rug and we can have a chat.

Now what do you find so disturbing about a banana, some mayo and a little Indian Spices placed on a long divided edible container made with processed flour?

Bananas are lovely in a thai curry with white fish (I recommend Ocean Perch).

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Well, I've been rather able to ignore that as not serious. I took yours as serious.

Hmmm, well let me get my Freudian Mouse Rug and we can have a chat.

Now what do you find so disturbing about a banana, some mayo and a little Indian Spices placed on a long divided edible container made with processed flour?

Are you sure you didn t mean saussage? Cause i m pretty sure if you replace the saussage with a banana it won t taste as good. I recommend jonsey s receipe just bellow for the banana.

Otherwise woodruff, i tried to make this thread about cool caloric receipes a few dozens of pages back, maybe you would like those better.

tzor wrote:

Woodruff wrote:Well, I've been rather able to ignore that as not serious. I took yours as serious.

Hmmm, well let me get my Freudian Mouse Rug and we can have a chat.

Now what do you find so disturbing about a banana, some mayo and a little Indian Spices placed on a long divided edible container made with processed flour?

It sounds disgusting. I thought I covered that. <smile>

betiko wrote:Are you sure you didn't mean sausage? Cause I'm pretty sure if you replace the sausage with a banana it won't taste as good.

Of course it will taste "just as good" ... it will just taste different! I like sausage on a bun as well. I like many things.

And for the record, Elvis' favorite food was a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich. (I happen to be allergic to peanuts.)

tzor wrote:And for the record, Elvis' favorite food was a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich. (I happen to be allergic to peanuts.)

I like grilled peanut butter and jelly...I guess that's close. It's noticeably more messy than grilled cheese though, so I don't have it often.

For a great food diet, we should all learn from Elvis. There should be an elvis restaurant to become like him.

Wouldn't that mean that in the far future homo sapiens would have evolved into homo elvisians tho? With snake hips and a pot belly? And religions will all bury dead people sitting upright on a toilet with a cheeseburger to stop them getting hungry on their way to heaven?

No. Evolution among homo sapiens has ground to a halt because there is constant cross breeding of all the human subspecies. Once we start going to other planets there will be enough isolation to start forming the potential for diverse human species. It is more likely that "evolution" in homo sapiens will be mostly artificial in the next millennium.

Elvis's specialty Peanut Butter & Banana sandwich also had bacon.

As grand director of evolution, God has told me that he plans on running a homo sapiens 2.0 pretty soon. I can't say if its elvisian or not, but he expects great things. For it is written, or rather told me first and then some people will write it down for me later. True knowledge is true.

BigBallinStalin wrote:As grand director of evolution, God has told me that he plans on running a homo sapiens 2.0 pretty soon. I can't say if its elvisian or not, but he expects great things. For it is written, or rather told me first and then some people will write it down for me later. True knowledge is true.

Did that come from the church of Elvis?


http://www.geocities.ws/presleyterian_church/home.html

(actually turns out there are several Elvis churches.. go figure!)

BigBallinStalin wrote:As grand director of evolution, God has told me that he plans on running a homo sapiens 2.0 pretty soon. I can't say if its elvisian or not, but he expects great things. For it is written, or rather told me first and then some people will write it down for me later. True knowledge is true.

I think HS2.0 have already been released for a while now.

I read the first few pages and it seems there are some hysterical reactions to the author questioning evidence for a theory that, whether proper science boffins do or not, influential figures in the human world expect and encourage the populace to believe using a range of classic ideological features.

Somebody mentioned under-sea being a good place for fossils. Presumably the 'missing evidence' might be there?

Another response suggested that because there aren't many fossilised remains for common species, this explains why there are 0 remains for mutations that didn't survive long. Whoever made that point needs to understand the difference between 0 and any other number.

Perhaps there is some evidence in studies of mutations of simple organisms such as bacteria which breed quickly? Maybe there is more evidence in studies of insects, again due to breeding time.

Studies of human 'evolution' is tricky as nobody lives long enough to study trends, and, evolutionists could argue that the human environment is too complex to study, as any threats are pretty-much all human themselves.



Also what do you think of the neanderthal? that it has nothing to do whatsoever with our specie, and that we are not 2 branches with a common root?


There is also the political issue that too much human study, combined with the prevelance of evolutionist ideology could lead to the degrading of millions of mutant humans amongst our multi-billion populace. The far-right would have science to back-up their 'purity' ideology. So, interestingly, if you take evolutionism to its logical conclusion, an understanding of this theory could disprove the theory by its being used to prevent further mutations, and therefore developments taking place.

The controlling middle-right may also prefer not to see much study of humans in an evolutionary theory context as it may reveal that the above has already happened. It could well be that europeans are an inferior race with their small percentage of neanderthal genes, just as many cross-breeds of dogs are pretty messed-up creatures (there is probably a correlation between human mongrels owning maladaptive dog mongrels). Conversely, it could be possible that eradicating those with neanderthal genes proves the theory. Darwin could put his own species out of business!

Darwinian science is essentially a study of behaviour. Can it be a very exact science when it studies something that can't be measured properly?

Psychology is similarly a dodgy science. Apparently, a correlation of 70% is 'acceptable'. A proper scientist would want much better percentages to even start thinking about a theory. Yet psychology is used by political and media ideological perveyors massively (despite the non-use of sociology which is equally valid/unvalid in scientific terms). Take 'choice theory' as an example. Its an ideology gone mad in the western world, controlling and making us conform, yet where is its scientific basis? Anyone ever seen a choice-making consciousness through a microscope?

Ultimately, at this current stage of 'evolution' a lot of people talk a lot of rubbish based on dodgy science, and a lot of that rubbish is controlling people, wasting a lot of their time and mental energy and holding them back.

Even Newton got it all wrong and proper science showed him to be right for many generations.

Maybe in a few millennia kids will learn about how the human race became so much more civilised when it got rid of the neanderthal mongrel mutants.

"A correlation of 70%"

I'm digging in my classes on statistics and econometrics, but I've yet to pull out anything remotely meaningful on 'a correlation of 70%'.

Teflon Kris wrote:Somebody mentioned under-sea being a good place for fossils. Presumably the 'missing evidence' might be there?

I wouldn't say there's any missing evidence. Evolution has a pretty airtight case.

Teflon Kris wrote:Also what do you think of the neanderthal? that it has nothing to do whatsoever with our specie, and that we are not 2 branches with a common root?

Neanderthals, if they were alive today, would be our closest genetic relative. They would be considered to fall under the genus Homo, of which we are currently the only living species.

Teflon Kris wrote:There is also the political issue that too much human study, combined with the prevelance of evolutionist ideology could lead to the degrading of millions of mutant humans amongst our multi-billion populace. The far-right would have science to back-up their 'purity' ideology. So, interestingly, if you take evolutionism to its logical conclusion, an understanding of this theory could disprove the theory by its being used to prevent further mutations, and therefore developments taking place.

Social Darwinism is nothing more than a heavy handed attempt to bend science to fit a philosophy that its proponents already had. That particular brand of bigotry lies on the scrap heap of history. Besides, how would selective breeding prove evolution false?

Teflon Kris wrote:The controlling middle-right may also prefer not to see much study of humans in an evolutionary theory context as it may reveal that the above has already happened. It could well be that europeans are an inferior race with their small percentage of neanderthal genes, just as many cross-breeds of dogs are pretty messed-up creatures (there is probably a correlation between human mongrels owning maladaptive dog mongrels). Conversely, it could be possible that eradicating those with neanderthal genes proves the theory. Darwin could put his own species out of business!

Leaving aside the invalidity of the term "inferior" in an evolutionary context, the genetic differences between the races of humanity are trivial. Even if this weren't the case, how pleasant we find the truth to be has no bearing on what the truth is.

Teflon Kris wrote:Darwinian science is essentially a study of behaviour. Can it be a very exact science when it studies something that can't be measured properly?

I would hardly call it a study of behaviour, unless you would consider biology as a whole a study of behaviour.

Teflon Kris wrote:Even Newton got it all wrong and proper science showed him to be right for many generations.

Newton didn't get it all wrong, we just can't use his model on absolutely everything. If he had been completely incorrect we wouldn't still be teaching his laws today.

Teflon Kris wrote:The controlling middle-right may also prefer not to see much study of humans in an evolutionary theory context as it may reveal that the above has already happened. It could well be that europeans are an inferior race with their small percentage of neanderthal genes, just as many cross-breeds of dogs are pretty messed-up creatures (there is probably a correlation between human mongrels owning maladaptive dog mongrels). Conversely, it could be possible that eradicating those with neanderthal genes proves the theory. Darwin could put his own species out of business!

Leaving aside the invalidity of the term "inferior" in an evolutionary context, the genetic differences between the races of humanity are trivial. Even if this weren't the case, how pleasant we find the truth to be has no bearing on what the truth is.

Strange that scientists aren't funded to look for this 'truth' then !

Similarly strange that there is no funding for genetic scientists to analyse right-wing proponents and politicians, or the ruling class in general

Teflon Kris wrote:There is also the political issue that too much human study, combined with the prevelance of evolutionist ideology could lead to the degrading of millions of mutant humans amongst our multi-billion populace. The far-right would have science to back-up their 'purity' ideology. So, interestingly, if you take evolutionism to its logical conclusion, an understanding of this theory could disprove the theory by its being used to prevent further mutations, and therefore developments taking place.

Social Darwinism is nothing more than a heavy handed attempt to bend science to fit a philosophy that its proponents already had. That particular brand of bigotry lies on the scrap heap of history. Besides, how would selective breeding prove evolution false?

Eradicating all mutations would prove evolution false . If humans are wrong in what they claim to be 'inferior' and delete the claimed 'inferiority' then their actions disprove Darwinism - evolution would be stopped according to his theory. Selective breeding would actually be de-mutation / de-evolutionary breeding.

Apparently, it is now claimed that rebels have a genetic disorder ODD !! Classic attempt by the rulers to get rid of ('caste out') mutants that threaten them before the mutants can adapt and multiply.

Teflon Kris wrote:Darwinian science is essentially a study of behaviour. Can it be a very exact science when it studies something that can't be measured properly?

I would hardly call it a study of behaviour, unless you would consider biology as a whole a study of behaviour.

Err, yes, adaptation is a study of behaviour. It studies what species and mutations do, their actions, their behaviour! Descriptions, not measurements.

Do you have too much neanderthal in your genes? Or did your logic just go to sleep when you wrote that? Darwin isnt all of Biology - Biology that doesnt study behaviour is proper science with measurements.

Teflon Kris wrote:Even Newton got it all wrong and proper science showed him to be right for many generations.

Newton didn't get it all wrong, we just can't use his model on absolutely everything. If he had been completely incorrect we wouldn't still be teaching his laws today.

Newton didnt get much 100% right - ok, so I exaggerated, but not getting it 100% right is technically wrong. Unless I dreamt Einstein?

Teflon Kris wrote:

Teflon Kris wrote:Darwinian science is essentially a study of behaviour. Can it be a very exact science when it studies something that can't be measured properly?

I would hardly call it a study of behaviour, unless you would consider biology as a whole a study of behaviour.

Err, yes, adaptation is a study of behaviour. It studies what species and mutations do, their actions, their behaviour! Descriptions, not measurements.

Do you have too much neanderthal in your genes? Or did your logic just go to sleep when you wrote that? Darwin isnt all of Biology - Biology that doesnt study behaviour is proper science with measurements.

Adaptation, as far as evolution goes, is the idea that those most suited to an environment tend to see greater success in passing on their genes within that environment. Any behavior that is not hardwired as a genetic preference will only result in temporary genetic success (at best). If an individual organism picks up a certain personality trait over the course of its life it won't mean anything on the sort of timescale that evolution occurs in.

Teflon Kris wrote:

Teflon Kris wrote:Even Newton got it all wrong and proper science showed him to be right for many generations.

Newton didn't get it all wrong, we just can't use his model on absolutely everything. If he had been completely incorrect we wouldn't still be teaching his laws today.

Newton didnt get much 100% right - ok, so I exaggerated, but not getting it 100% right is technically wrong. Unless I dreamt Einstein?

Sure, science did not cease to progress after Newton. My point is that not all previous discoveries are discarded as soon as the next big idea comes along. More often than not the foundation of older science is found to be correct while some of its details are not. Such is the case with both Darwin and Newton.

Teflon Kris wrote:

Teflon Kris wrote:There is also the political issue that too much human study, combined with the prevelance of evolutionist ideology could lead to the degrading of millions of mutant humans amongst our multi-billion populace. The far-right would have science to back-up their 'purity' ideology. So, interestingly, if you take evolutionism to its logical conclusion, an understanding of this theory could disprove the theory by its being used to prevent further mutations, and therefore developments taking place.

Social Darwinism is nothing more than a heavy handed attempt to bend science to fit a philosophy that its proponents already had. That particular brand of bigotry lies on the scrap heap of history. Besides, how would selective breeding prove evolution false?

Eradicating all mutations would prove evolution false .

Purposefully choosing which sort of genes are preferable is exactly what has given us the various breeds of dogs that we see today. If anything I would expect change in the human species to speed up.

Teflon Kris wrote:If humans are wrong in what they claim to be 'inferior' and delete the claimed 'inferiority' then their actions disprove Darwinism - evolution would be stopped according to his theory. Selective breeding would actually be de-mutation / de-evolutionary breeding.

Evolution doesn't state that one species is better than another, it just states that genetic traits favored by the environment tend to propagate. There is no such thing as an inferior being.

Teflon Kris wrote:Apparently, it is now claimed that rebels have a genetic disorder ODD !! Classic attempt by the rulers to get rid of ('caste out') mutants that threaten them before the mutants can adapt and multiply.

Such claims, regardless of who they are directed at, are invariably propaganda.