What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[I'm a Silly]

All of that said

I'm not a believer, but I've always liked this scene from The Ninth Configuration:

preservetube

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

Evolution and Creationism don't contradict one another, they prove one another.

you're right that evolutionism and creationism don't contradict, but that's because evolution refers to the process that changes species over time, and creation refers to the first appearance of life
they're not catch all terms for "science believer guy" and "mythos believer guy", even if the two do typically tend to separate themselves
they neither contradict nor prove each other, they're slightly different topics

and there's absolutely a scientific theory on the beginning of life

 

[Overly Serious]

I usually avoid counter-arguing posts in this thread because I like how the general tone of it is additive of new theories. However, I feel I should in this case.

Evolution and Creationism don't contradict one another, they prove one another.

They don't necessarily contradict each other if you have some very liberal definition of Creationism, but they certainly don't prove one another. Anymore than not being a dog means you're a cat.

An extremely liberal view of Creationism could take it as just a very early on set up of conditions - planet and stars are made, primitive lifeforms are made. Evolution takes it from there. But Creationism is in the normal sense that relatively modern lifeforms are created - humans, large mammals, etc. If you allow for that then what sense does it make to ALSO have preceeding forms of life? At best you get a model of Continuous Creationism in which God decides to make some arthropods or molluscs, 500 million years ago, evolution happens but never produces the larger modern lifeforms (for some unknown and arbitrary reason). Instead, evolution just runs in parallel going not really anywhere and God at some point starts adding new species and types of organisms.

The alternative to that is that God is directing evolution. Which is really at odds with the actual Theory of Evolution because it either invalidates it or involves an omnipotent being altering the environment to favour preferred outcomes in which you're moving into realms where Creationism as popularly understood doesn't cover this. Creationism is "God / Being declares species appears" not "God creates the universe with Oxygen and Carbon so that lungs might develop one day".

Origins of life:
Creationist - It was God
Evolutionist - ??? (We have no fucking idea how life started on this planet, to the point where intervention from a divine or extra-terrestrial source makes the most sense)

This is the "I'm not a dog so I'm a cat" logic. Not knowing how something happened doesn't imply another unproven explanation is therefore correct. And there are Scientific hypotheses about how life may have begun on this planet. And pan-spermia is not a Creationist theory.

Proof of God
Creationist - God exists
Evolutionist - Shit gets better over time and on a long enough timeline, a life form so advanced will exist that it views us as ants, and we view them as Gods.

This is known as the Teleological Fallacy. Evolution is not "shit gets better over time". Evolution does not have a direction from less -> greater. It goes in the direction of fitness to the environment. The T-Rex is greater than the rodent but the rodent survives because it can handle a colder and resource-scarce environment.

You're suggesting that over time, an entity indistinguishable from God must arise. This depends on a couple of assumptions:

1. Evolution will inevitably lead to more and more complex and powerful organisms.
2. There is no cap on how powerful an entity evolution can produce. I.e. a God-like being even can arise from it.

Neither of these is demonstrated. Though I'll concede over a long-enough timeline they're logically possible. But even if it were true, it runs contradictory to Creationism because Creationism supposes divine action to be the starting point and you've made it an outcome of evolution. Which came first - the Creator or the Evolutionary Process? In the above it has to be the latter.

The two have been pitted against one another to stop the truth coming out. In the same way the uniparty keeps us down.

It's true that any social division tends to get exploited by those in power to divide those they have power over. And in the absence of social division some will be manufactured. So this does happen. But religious belief has for the longest period of time held dominance in human culture. So I observe that what happens most are efforts not to use Religion and Atheism as pawns, but to use the latter to try and destroy the former in a sincere way to remove Religion as the powerful rival it is. Actually I can put it better. What I observe is not the behaviour of a powerful faction above both Religion and Atheism exploiting them against each other, but that the Religious and the Materialists are in genuine antithetical competition.

I might go further than that even and say that under the mask of Religion, there are Materialist and Spiritual factions at odds with each other. But getting into a wider discussion there. So I'll keep it to the short version - I don't think this matches observation, I think genuine religious thought is the enemy of many of TPTB, not one more tool in the box like other divisive issues. This war is genuine.

Hopefully my post doesn't come across as too confrontational. These are my thoughts on what you posted.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

and there's absolutely a scientific theory on the beginning of life

Which one? As far as I'm aware, the widely believed and referenced idea from the 50s/60s is not possible and is science fiction.
The other widely held belief is pan-spermia, but that falls apart under simple logic.

This is the "I'm not a dog so I'm a cat" logic. Not knowing how something happened doesn't imply another unproven explanation is therefore correct. And there are Scientific hypotheses about how life may have begun on this planet. And pan-spermia is not a Creationist theory.

For sure, but we have no realistic ideas of how life started on this planet, to the point where "it was aliens/It was God" are the most plausible, as mad as that may sound.

Creationism and Evolution can both be true. For an analogy; If someone tells a joke on the farm and receives 1000 positive stickers, does Null get the praise for the joke? No. All Null did was create the farms (IRL lore sidestepping a little bit), but his creation allowed the framework of organic life (in this case a joke) to flourish.

You're suggesting that over time, an entity indistinguishable from God must arise. This depends on a couple of assumptions:

1. Evolution will inevitably lead to more and more complex and powerful organisms.
2. There is no cap on how powerful an entity evolution can produce. I.e. a God-like being even can arise from it.

Evolution, for the billions years of the existence of our planet has lead to more and more complex and powerful organisms.

Not indistinguishable from God, but certainly to a point where we would view them as Gods. Just like ants do to dogs, dogs do to chimps and chimps do to us, to keep it simple.

I hope my replies don't come off as snarky, if they do, that's not my intention, i haven't had my morning cuppa yet.

 

[Overly Serious]

I hope my replies don't come off as snarky, if they do, that's not my intention, i haven't had my morning cuppa yet.

No, not at all. I'm afraid I still don't agree with you but the debate is friendly so far as I'm concerned - it's all good. I don't want to derail the thread into too much on this though. So if my point is clear and you don't agree, I'm happy to sit back and agree to disagree. So I may not write that much on it.

For sure, but we have no realistic ideas of how life started on this planet, to the point where "it was aliens/It was God" are the most plausible, as mad as that may sound.

I'll leave it to the person you replied to discuss how life got started as they probably know the scientific theories better than I do and my own beliefs are personal and lean more towards the spiritual. My argument is purely one of logic and normal definitions of creationism which conflict with the Theory of Evolution for reasons given previously.

Creationism and Evolution can both be true. For an analogy; If someone tells a joke on the farm and receives 1000 positive stickers, does Null get the praise for the joke? No. All Null did was create the farms (IRL lore sidestepping a little bit), but his creation allowed the framework of organic life (in this case a joke) to flourish.

I don't see a need to go to analogy when I was talking in real terms. It is better to attempt to refute those. Analogies should be kept for explanation. The moment you switch to an analogy to counter-argument I feel it's because a counter-argument to what was actually said is being avoided. Creationism proposes that higher order life forms are created by an external being (God, normally). To combine that with Evolution and on the known time scales requires not just multiple stages of creation but the dismissal of previous evolution leading to the higher orders of life form. But you're pushing me into just writing over again what I already said in a briefer and therefore less robust way. I already addressed your analogy when I discussed manipulation of the environment and time scales of life's evolution above. I'll only engage if you counter my actual points, not turn them into analogies that I feel lose relevant details.

Evolution, for the billions years of the existence of our planet has lead to more and more complex and powerful organisms.

And less. Again, it's the teleological fallacy to suggest that evolution has a purpose or direction. A resource rich environment can lead to larger and more sophisticated organisms. A less resource rich environment can lead to smaller and simpler ones. I'm not saying it's impossible for an entity to arise via evolutionary process that to us would appear magical / divine. But I am saying that it doesn't make Creationism compatible with Evolution because Creationism as normally termed, supposes the creator to be the INITIAL state.

You are proposing something in which like Von Daniken or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 some entity(ies) might have engineered life on Earth and that's fine to propose. My argument is that it is not Creationism by any popular definition. It's perhaps Intelligent Design, but not Creationism.

 

[Meriasek]

Evolution, for the billions years of the existence of our planet has lead to more and more complex and powerful organisms.

Not indistinguishable from God, but certainly to a point where we would view them as Gods. Just like ants do to dogs, dogs do to chimps and chimps do to us, to keep it simple.

While that is true, it doesn't mean that it's going to continue that way. There are likely physical limitations to complexity and advancement. The whole "technological singularity" kinda assumes that shit can actually advance nigh infinitely, when that might not be the case, and that the physical limitations are much further ahead than we currently think.
So who knows, it's all extremely hypothetical, and something truly transcendent can't really be imagined by us to begin with.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

I don't see a need to go to analogy when I was talking in real terms. It is better to attempt to refute those. Analogies should be kept for explanation. The moment you switch to an analogy to counter-argument I feel it's because a counter-argument to what was actually said is being avoided

That's good advice and I wasn't doing it to confuse things, more to keep it simple for me.

And less. Again, it's the teleological fallacy to suggest that evolution has a purpose or direction. A resource rich environment can lead to larger and more sophisticated organisms. A less resource rich environment can lead to smaller and simpler ones. I'm not saying it's impossible for an entity to arise via evolutionary process that to us would appear magical / divine. But I am saying that it doesn't make Creationism compatible with Evolution because Creationism as normally termed, supposes the creator to be the INITIAL state.

You are proposing something in which like Von Daniken or Arthur C. Clarke's 2001 some entity(ies) might have engineered life on Earth and that's fine to propose. My argument is that it is not Creationism by any popular definition. It's perhaps Intelligent Design, but not Creationism.

Maybe there's something lost in translation where our concepts or understanding of what the definition of creationism and evolution is, are different. I don't doubt my understanding is off a little, as I see creationism as God started the process of putting life on Earth, and evolution is the force that drives life to continue to survive.

No, not at all. I'm afraid I still don't agree with you but the debate is friendly so far as I'm concerned - it's all good.

You're always pleasant so it's all good.

While that is true, it doesn't mean that it's going to continue that way.

I'm all for debate and crazy ideas, this been the conspiracy thread and all, but this is a largely, and I don't mean to sound rude, but dumb statement. We have billions of years worth of evidence to say that life gets 'better' and more complex, and no evidence of evolution hitting a cieiling and stopping.
Even the fish that left water to find more resources on land ended up splitting, with most of them returning to the sea; Whales, dolphins etc.

Saying that after billions of years, evolution may not continue, based on no evidence that that has ever happened, as a way of saying a God-like create will be created is not a serious counter-point. Especially if one believes in the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligent life. Which, maths, chance and probability say that it's almost guaranteed, doubly so if one believes in the origins of life on Earth coming from asteroids.

 

[Benjamin Spooner Briggs]

Deny all history.
Somewhere in the past 2 presidencies I hit a critical mass where I lost my ability to have faith in anything besides the Bible and cryptic messages I receive from the last sip of vodka before it goes down the hatch.

 

[Meriasek]

I'm all for debate and crazy ideas, this been the conspiracy thread and all, but this is a largely, and I don't mean to sound rude, but dumb statement. We have billions of years worth of evidence to say that life gets 'better' and more complex, and no evidence of evolution hitting a cieiling and stopping.
Even the fish that left water to find more resources on land ended up splitting, with most of them returning to the sea; Whales, dolphins etc.

Not saying it won't continue, just that it might not continue indefinitely, and that there might be hard physical limits way short of what we'd consider godlike.

 

[Alexander Thaut]

I believe that we're starting to see the elites realize something got fucked up with the swing to the far left and now they're scrambling to figure out damage control, which is why they've let Trump win.

Perhaps the elites realize that maybe it'd be better to keep their "eyes wide shut" bullshit secretive because all the plebs imitating their sexual degeneracy doesn't bode well.

 

[NoReturn]

Got a new one for you guys: The aboriginal Australians genocided the people who were there before them.
I was talking to someone online and he told me to look into the "Lake Mungo remains". They're ancient remains found in a dry lakebed, but when you read the story, it raises the same alarm bells for me as what happened with Kennewick man re: "Oh no, you can't see the remains! It's cultural tradition! We got rid of it provided it with a traditional burial! Stop asking questions!"

 

[teriyakiburns]

Kennewick man

Smithsonian Magazine has a great write-up on that. Turns out they managed to stop the tribe claiming him. The Army Corps of Engineers fucked over the research good and proper though.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

I believe that we're starting to see the elites realize something got fucked up with the swing to the far left and now they're scrambling to figure out damage control, which is why they've let Trump win.

Perhaps the elites realize that maybe it'd be better to keep their "eyes wide shut" bullshit secretive because all the plebs imitating their sexual degeneracy doesn't bode well.

They want Leninism, just without the cult of personality for someone else to ride the coattials of, because when that happens you get Stalinist purges and the jews, rich, intelligent and muzzies get pushed into a frozen wasteland with naught but a loincloth.

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

Got a new one for you guys: The aboriginal Australians genocided the people who were there before them.
I was talking to someone online and he told me to look into the "Lake Mungo remains". They're ancient remains found in a dry lakebed, but when you read the story, it raises the same alarm bells for me as what happened with Kennewick man re: "Oh no, you can't see the remains! It's cultural tradition! We got rid of it provided it with a traditional burial! Stop asking questions!"

the theory that any group of aboriginals fought, killed and perhaps even wiped out one or several of the groups of people living on the same land before them in the modern day, is about as unlikely as theorizing that the guy with crumbs all over his face stood by the empty cookie jar probably took the cookies
every native group of locals had trouble with other locals and if there was ever a separation of more than one perfectly homogenized group of people in Australia before the Europeans sent their prisoners there, which by necessity had to have been, they were probably picking fights with eachother and if we only found one when we boated over there, then only one must have remained

never fall for the "and all the races lived together in harmony until the white man attacked" bullshit

 

[Otterly]

The alternative to that is that God is directing evolution. Which is really at odds with the actual Theory of Evolution because it either invalidates it or involves an omnipotent being altering the environment to favour preferred outcomes

Or that God made the ability for life to evolve and change in a changing universe. Otherwise he’d have to be constantly fiddling around and maybe He’s not so keen on that. Kind of allows you to kick things off and … well like a giant game of Spore basically. Which raises its own questions as well but it’s a thought.
Evolution as a process, or rather natural selection as a process, allows life to change in a changing environment

 

[The Gene Genie]

I believe that we're starting to see the elites realize something got fucked up with the swing to the far left and now they're scrambling to figure out damage control, which is why they've let Trump win.

Perhaps the elites realize that maybe it'd be better to keep their "eyes wide shut" bullshit secretive because all the plebs imitating their sexual degeneracy doesn't bode well.

At this present moment, I doubt it. Trump 2.0 and the “vibe shift” is something more like the ratchet effect, with the ratchet coming to a momentary stop to allow for consolidation. You have trannies, homosexuals, and freaks all on board with this supposed Golden Age, so we’re not exactly going back to “trad values.”

Even if it’s not this, then it’s probably to do with the final endgame in regards to Iran, Russia, and China. A demoralized and left-leaning populace being propagandized in a left-leaning manner doesn’t inspire people to go and fight.

Also assuming you are right, if they “realized” anything it’s that the Left started attacking the Chosen People and they quickly changed script to avoid this from becoming a bigger deal than it already is. Now you get mass deportations for foreign students who criticize Israel.

 

[rusty shackleford 1]

I think the divide of the sexes is intentional and viral “him or the bear?” style campaigns are pushed to keep the war going, but I think they’ve had an unintended effect and TPTB are panicking. Maybe it’s been happening and I’ve only just started paying attention, but I’ve seen a lot of articles about women choosing to be single or forgo motherhood because men’s fault. A whole lot of almost panicked articles about how men are listless and dropping out of work and society. A lot of “somebody has to do something!” articles about getting men more involved in society. Hell today an article about expedited mandatory female conscription in Scandinavian countries because they’re panic-assembling a military and male volunteers aren’t enough. Have these always been shat out and I’ve only noticed recently?

It’s been a topic of debate in the A&N thread but the adolescence show inspired by Muslim violence with a white-washed character. Some farmers posit that it has multiple take-aways that are useful, and it’s not just “white bad”. like not allowing your kid access to unrestricted internet because they’re exposed to weird ideas about love and relationships through porn. About how it can happen to regular families. (I haven’t seen it) I can get down with that. But I think it’s nefarious how of all the race-swapping that usually goes one way, they brought out a white kid to be the baddie during a time when Islamic violence seems to be rising. The response to the show seems like intentional demoralization of the native population to discourage them from getting any ideas about standing up for themselves. Importing infinity Muslims and starting mandatory he-man woman lover’s classes for school kids is also interesting, is this an attempt to humanize the native population to the imports? Or is this a way to pretend to address the violence without having to say who’s doing it? The increasing surveillance state coming with the discussion, what’s the point when the two tiered justice system exists and only one group will be more victimized and punished? The more I read about bongland the more questions I have.

 

[Cuntspiracy Man]

X

Them importing muslims and then trying to re-educate them under the guise of this being directed at the white man is certainly an interesting proposition
Otherwise what benefit is there to a feminized culture at times of crisis? Weak men may be good mind slaves but they don't fight a good war

I think another large aspect of this divide in the modern world from a more social standpoints is women just not thinking ahead
Nobody likes being hit on someone they don't like, nobody wants to turn someone down or tell the wrong person that their advances aren't appreciated, so a lot of women decided it'd be easier to just deconstruct culture as a whole where such a thing will never happen again.
How much media have we seen recently where a guy is vilified just for *liking* a girl? Not hurting her, not trying to assault her, not even being overly pushy or jealous, sometimes not even perusing her, just being into her as all the other characters deride him 'dude, that's like, not cool bro, like that's so weird that's so creepy bro the way you're crushing on that woman and want to be with her? that's so like not okay bro, stop it!'
This is a result of women entering the entertainment industry and trying to send a very clearly message uggo's fuck off "undesirable men don't even try it!", thinking by sending this clever hint all the guys who don't have a chance with them will get that their very feelings give them the big icky and will just buzz off, while the good men of course will continue to pursue
But silly men don't get it, those morons don't instinctively know if they're desirable or not or don't catch onto the oh so clear and never stated fact that this attitude only applies to guys who need not apply, so when they see media that tells them men liking women is evil, they just get the completely absurd notion that what said media tries to tell them is that men liking women is evil
Women saw the minor flaws of our courtship culture and decided that to eradicate the culture as a whole will undo the flaws, and are now baffled as to why there's no sense of romance in the society they built, or why the only guys who don't respect the clear requests they made and still hit on them despite clearly being told NO, I DON'T WANT THAT are assholes who can't take NO for an answer

TLDR men sure are stupid and this is their fault

 

[Alexander Thaut]

This is a result of women entering the entertainment industry and trying to send a very clearly message uggo's fuck off "undesirable men don't even try it!", thinking by sending this clever hint all the guys who don't have a chance with them will get that their very feelings give them the big icky and will just buzz off, while the good men of course will continue to pursue

this gets even funnier considering "hoeflation" and all the "fat activism" and etc. so you wind up with guys simping for landwhales and 4/10 women acting like they're 10/10 in every way.

it's a whole comedy of errors.

 

[Troon_Patrol]

Can we just talk about consumer level cars for a minute here?

They have turned into cover-complicated shitboxes required 20-30 on board CANBUS modules. The high tier brands that used to be fancy and reliable such as the Benz E class has become a fucking Joke, Land Rover (still owned by VAG) has become this fancy overly complicated still surviving on the history is was a fucking tank when made in the 80's-90's. Last I checked the originally factory engines rarely make it to 150K miles thse days.

In the least 10-15 years it's become notably far far harder to service these without investing in a $4,000 diagnostic tool to do the most basic of basic. In the last 3 years now a live data connection to a dealer server is required to service anything security related on most vehicles. The writing was on the wall when VW started making their transmissions dealer-only serviceable back in 2000 or so. Now it seems like a plain old ford after 2020 has a "non serviceable transmission". Now my understanding is "sealed transmissions" like a Nissan CVT transmission (ABSOLUTE SHIT AVOID CARS WITH THIS TRANSMISSION) are nearly impossible to service even by auto shops specializing in such. Now some will do a factory refurbished core-trade in program, not a warranty, they simply give you IDK %20 discount of the cost of a new Nissan transmission when you send it the old one. Doesn't that mean they can be re-manufactured? Why not just provide the technical data and parks for a qualified tech can repair their own? Some of us are far more than mechanics, metal fabrication and engineering experience.

Even ford service vehicles are getting out of control. Transmission issues? yeah you can drain them to flush/fill it requires a somewhat unusual inverse metric all tool, oh also no dipstick or means of measuring, in fact you are supposed to put the vehicle on perfectly level ground, buy a laser temp sensor and make sure the trans hits around 200 farenheit and there's no dipstick so it takes complete removal of the air box intake and then you can remove a rubber shift sensor and start filling, no fill port. How do you know when it's full? Well the excess fluid will drain from the unusual reverse Allen wrench metric plug. The real kick in the fucking nuts is this is not in the factory service manual you have to find it and after you fill to factory spec, it still requires about 1/3 to 1/2 quart of special magic ULVATF only Ford and one other company make. Anything else less than full and you get slipping at cold temps followed by damage till she dies.

So they removed the dipstick, the fill port, and the car must be level and set at a certain temp just to dial in the correct amount. Did I mention you need to remove the entire air intake first? How do you know when its got proper amount of ULVATF? The car runs right. have fun yanking that airbox in and out 3 times till you dial in the right amount between slipping gears on a cold day and destroying your transmission.

AFIK, all the newer vehicles have lie GPS data, this data is sent to dealerships not just used to navigate. They not only know where you are going but where you will be at this point. I guess it's good for auto theft prevention only they will not give you live data obtained on your own stolen cars, on the local law enforcement. Too much liability you would go taking the law into your own hands.

I am of the belief I pay 25K cash for a car, it's mine to use and abuse as I see fit. The German auto manufacturers have always had the mantra "just cause you bought it does not mean you own it" last 5 years the same bullshit has become pushed into Japanese imports, and ever American motor manufacturers.