Evolutionary biologists holocausting the world

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Theory is that the spike proteins in the vaccins, or produced by the vaccins, end up in the bloodstream.

While the covid virus, there the spikes are attached to the virus, and not freely floating in the bloodvessels.

Then the vaccine spikes end up sticking in the walls of the bloodvessels, and the bloodcells respond to that with clotting, to shut down the damaged artery.

Which then leads to death by heartfailure in about 3 years, because of all these small arteries being shut down with clots.

Hundreds of millions of people dead by the vaccine.

Dead because of bad judgement. Bad judgement by people who simply have no idea about what a judgement is. People who deny free will, deny that choices are made, deny that judgements even exist.

How dare you to deny the reality of the human spirit making choices, and the validity of subjective judgement?

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

[gary...@cox.net]

This is more stupid than the average stupid.

Is this an attempt at humor?

Remember Poe's Law was invented fro creationist discussion groups.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Smart alecky moron.

Is something stupid, when you don't like it to be true?

Op donderdag 22 juli 2021 om 16:56:11 UTC+2 schreef gary...@cox.net:

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

No, it's stupid to make claims based on nothing.
It is understood that there will be side effects
that occur from the jab, but only a tiny minority.
The fact that the majority of Covid patients
are unvaccinated is sufficient to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the vaccines.

There are no gods unless we create them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:16:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "youngbl...@gmail.com"
<youngbl...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:

>> Smart alecky moron.
>

....and Nando indulges in self-description once again...
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 22, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<fr0kfg5adc394c7m6...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 13:16:33 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by "youngbl...@gmail.com"
> <youngbl...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 9:31:11 AM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > Smart alecky moron.
> ....and Nando indulges in self-description once again...

There’s nothing, absolutely nothing, smart about Nando.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 22 Jul 2021 21:21:58 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>:

Oooh, *that* smarts! ;-)

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Maybe you are right, maybe I am not smart. The creationist conceptual scheme is simple, and the evidence of it directly availble in common discourse. Doesn't really take smarts, just requires straightforwardness.

I suppose it's true then that it could just be true that tens of millions, hundreds of millions die from the vaccination, in the coming years.

The theory about it is logical, it could be true. Nobody denies it could be true.

Looks like the talk.origins evolutionist PZ Myers could be sick from the vaccination, doesn't look too well.

And the pharmaceutical companies, they say nothing. You need to get a court order to get information out of them.

And Fauci, he first lied about the masks, saying they are useless, in order to preserve enough masks for hospitals. Then he lies in US congress about funding gain of function research, straight up lying for anyone to see. Then he hides the discussion he had with medical professionals, the outcome of which discussion was to throw out hydroxychloroquine.

These kind of people who are not straightforward. Who dance around things, twist and turn, they should not be in any position of power.

The people who concieve of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option, no matter what they choose, by definition they did what was best. No matter if millions are killed, Fauci made the best decisions, because he made decisions, and decisions are by definition for the best.

So that is what I see in Fauci, and generally in academic people, who have this kind of materialist culture. The "best" people. They are never straightforward.



Op vrijdag 23 juli 2021 om 03:26:10 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 23, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<64e3140e-3249-4c73...@googlegroups.com>):

>
> Maybe you are right, maybe I am not smart.

oh, there’s no doubt about it. You’re an idiot.

[Nando Ronteltap]

You've got nothing.

Op vrijdag 23 juli 2021 om 21:46:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 23, Nando Ronteltap wrote
(in article<5f5ee06d-e0de-459a...@googlegroups.com>):

> You've got nothing.
You’re an idiot. You can’t understand what I have. Your inability to read
for comprehension is a major reason why you cannot communicate your points;
you are simply incapable of understanding what you’re trying to say in the
first place, and further are incapable of understanding when others point out
your errors. Your sole reason for being is to amuse those smarter than you
are, which is everyone else posting on t.o, even Glenn. Well, except maybe
for AB.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Another load of nonsense. You're a bad person. What you do with evolution theory, is pure evil.

If you would be wise, you would take it as a sign that the nazi's taught the hitler youth selection and evolution, in explicit reference to Charles Darwin. And then selection extended to "socialist selection", meaning to "wipe out the less worthy".

And it is a sign that in all probablity some biologists trained in evolution theory, cultured the covid disease.

You should take it as a sign that evolution theory destroys people's personal judgement, because of that the whole concept of a personal judgement, is an inherently creationist idea, while evolution theory stands in direct opposition to creationism.

You may think it is normal to disregard the subjective human spirit, normal to deny choice. But you can consider, that maybe those things are not properly found to be normal. Maybe if the subjective human spirit is disregarded, then blowing up a human being is then basically the same as blowing up some rock.

Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 03:51:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 23, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<fcd91ae1-d4db-4819...@googlegroups.com>):

> Another load of nonsense. You're a bad person. What you do with evolution
> theory, is pure evil.

As I don’t do a damn thing with ‘evolution theory’, well...

Again, your problem is your lack of comprehension. You have no idea what
‘evolution theory’ is. You have no idea of who uses ‘evolution
theory’. You have no idea. Period. You’re an idiot, here on t.o just to
amuse the more intelligent posters, which would be just about everyone else.
With the possible exception of AB.

[jillery]

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 01:10:21 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@zoho.com>
wrote:

Since you mention it, one can imagine quite a competition going on to
see who can post the most inane and idiotic comments.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

The nazi's showed that evolution theory destroyed the belief in subjective personal character, making personal character objective instead.

Your insult that I am an "idiot", it is loaded with suggestions of my biological inferiority, based on evolution theory.

You reject the creationist idea of the subjective human spirit making decisions, and replace creationism with evolution theory, so that then the logical implication is that personal character is a matter of objective fact of biology.

That is how you perpetrate evil with evolution theory.

Look at all the intellectuals supporting evolution science who deny free will. Dawkins, Dennett, Provine, Blackmore, etc. Dehumanizing people, ripping out the subjective human spirit making choices. These are not marginal figures among the evolutionists, these are mainline evolutionists.

It is a very simple, and true, that you stand with total evil.



Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 07:11:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 24, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<4ca4b228-6ebe-4bf5...@googlegroups.com>):

> Your insult that I am an "idiot", it is loaded with suggestions of my
> biological inferiority, based on evolution theory.

you again fail to comprehend. You’re an idiot. It’s not an insult, it’s
a fact.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

That would be the problem, that evolutionists assert every issue is factual, including personal character.

So that Martin Luther King's phrase, judge by the content of character, becomes to be interpreted as a call for biological racism about personal character.

Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 13:31:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 24, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<93e2a150-44a4-4cae...@googlegroups.com>):

>
> That would be the problem, that evolutionists assert every issue is factual,
> including personal character.

Nah, the problem is that you cannot comprehend what you read. You’re an
idiot.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

You have some kind of attitude whatever. Fuck your attitude. Learn creationism, the logic underlying subjective opinions, and the logic underlying facts.

Op zaterdag 24 juli 2021 om 22:06:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 24, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<8f75442c-4f54-4d61...@googlegroups.com>):

> You have some kind of attitude whatever.

My attitude is simple and clear: you lack basic communication skills, because
you are an idiot. See, for example, the line quoted from your post. You need
to learn basic communication skills, if only so that you might be able to
clearly communicate your point. As it is, the only point that you make clear
is the one on the top of your head.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It's nothing about communication skills, you are just a fucking asshole. Everyone who does not properly acknowledge people's emotions, which is you, is a fucking asshole.

You have some attitude, that you can deny free will, can reject the subjective spirit making decsions. That this would all be interesting intellectual positions.

But you are just being a fucking asshole when you do that. You have less right to deny the subjective spirit making choices, than you have a right to deny 1 + 1 = 2.

Scientists denying 1+1=2, they are better scientists than the scientists denying the subjective spirit making choices.

You have lost the feeling of science, the emotion of it, the spirit of it, because you reject the subjective spirit making choices. You are not really any part of science without the emotion associated to science. And you have thrown out the emotions.



Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 00:26:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 24, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<58aadf03-070f-43eb...@googlegroups.com>):

> It's nothing about communication skills,

it’s everything about communications skills. You can’t read for
comprehension, and you can’t make a point. You’re an idiot. But a very
funny one. Keep it up.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

I make my point, I make it very well. You are just stuck in your own arrogance. You and yours make science crappy. Not like the great creationists of old, who with very little to start with, achieved very much, and achieved it in a grand way. The creationists made the big names of the universities, with the good emotion. No atheist assholes like Dawkins or Darwin did that.

Universities are now shitholes, with high rates of mental illness, and a kind of like fascist culture, surpressing free speech. 50 percent of students suffer from debilitating mental illness, during their student career. Very, very high rates of mental illness. The emotional basis is gone. You threw the emotions out, you stupid sonofabitch.

Do you think I listen to anything you say, you fucking moron? Why would I listen to a moron, moron? I know better than you.

You will just die in the end, and the final judgement is not going to be good. Far from it.

You worked your intellectual life, to deny the reality of choice in the universe, the mechanism by which all material things are created.

The judgement is not going to be good for doing that.

And with throwing out choice, then obviously you also threw out the agency of the choices, the subjective spirit. All the emotions, out.

It means intellectually, you poured shit over all the love in your life.

There will be a final judgement. Life is not the materialist nonsense you think it is.

The subjective things are in charge of the objective things. That is the way the logic works. We choose objective things, out of our subjective emotions.

You are wrongheaded to ignore the subjective, and you are going to suffer because of that in the final judgement, in a way that destroys the meaning of your life.

Any emotion you thought you have had in life, gone, in the final judgement. Emotions are not like material things, different rules apply. You cannot have emotions safe in history. Like that you had love in life, and that this love is now safe in the past. The love you had in the past, it can be destroyed now. Your emotions aren't safe in history, your emotions are only safe with God.

You dare to throw out the subjective spirit, making choices, then that's going to be a complicated judgement for you. Why did you throw it out, what is your excuse? Because you had no evidence for what is subjective? It is subjective, there cannot be any objective evidence for what is subjective.







Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 02:46:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 24, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<f8df36b5-a1c7-4c2e...@googlegroups.com>):

> I make my point

no, you don’t.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Yes I do make my point, moron. Again, what's with a moron like you, who has no emotional credibility, pretending that his words matter at all?

My words matter, because I care about things. Because I pay dedicated attention to subjective issues. I maks sure of it, that my care is good, backed up with good emotion. You're just another moron, who is obsessed with facts, and discards the entire spiritual domain. Discarding God the holy spirit, and people's personal character, emotions, people's souls.

As perfectly explained with the creationist conceptual scheme:

1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

You ignore the entire category 1, in which all emotions, personal character and God, are classified, and in which category the concept of a personal opinion is validated. And then you are only left with, material / objectivity / fact, of category 2. You accept the earth is real, the existence of it a matter of fact, but you are clueless that the earth is a creation, just as you are clueless about the entire first category.


Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 06:11:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 25, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<e2b81575-45f4-40e8...@googlegroups.com>):

> Yes I do make my point,

No, you don’t. You’re failing to do that in the post I’m replying to
because you lack proper communications skills.

You are funny, though.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

It is just laughing like a stereotypical atheist fancying himself.

You throw out emotions, personal character, God, throw out everything subjective, for the reason that it is not objective. This is normal in academics, and even insisted on.

It means your emotional credibility is absent, your personal opinions are crappy, and you only have intuitive understanding of subjectivity left, no intellectual understanding, like you are some kind of animal.

You saying what is "proper", or using any subjective word, it is all intuitive. And that must be true for the rest of your life, that you only have intuitive understanding, of everything subjective. Your intellect totally in the dark about it. Sucks to be you.



Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 13:51:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 25, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<64e58d30-916f-444a...@googlegroups.com>):

> It is just laughing like a stereotypical atheist fancying himself.

As I’m not an atheist, you are again showing just how poor your
communications skills are. You are simply incapable of comprehending what you
read. And I’m laughing at you. You’re fulfilling your basic job
description: providing entertainment to those smarter than you are. Keep it
up.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Laughing at people who are stupid, because you are so much smarther than them, does not show emotional maturity. You're a fucking moron about how subjectivity works, and it's just completely terrible. A fucking horrorshow. It's a trainwreck.

Supposedly you are not an atheist, whatever. Then you just act like one.

I guess you are trying to blame it on me that you are a stupid fucking moron about how subjectivity works. That I did not communicate it to you properly, so it is my fault that you are clueless about it.

Not really true though. You say you are smarter, which means to say you are superior.

The superiority - inferiority complex, is a consequence of conceiving of making a choice in terms of figuring out the best option. Instead of properly conceiving of it in terms of spontaneity.

Makes perfect sense. You use the wrong concept of choice, because it makes you feel superior, and has other psychological rewards.

And then you rebuff any attempt at reasoning, with your feelings of superiority.



Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 17:56:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 25, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<c6b35508-4acf-40f8...@googlegroups.com>):

> Laughing at people who are stupid, because you are so much smarther than
> them, does not show emotional maturity.

At last you comprehend that you’re incredibly stupid! You’re making
progress! If you try, you may improve your position to almost as able as an
aytistic six-year-old! You’ll have to work hard, though!

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

So can you think of a choice in terms of it being spontaneous? Without evaluation if one alternative is better than another?

Logic says, the definition of choice in terms of spontaneity is the right one. But are you psychologically capable to follow the correct definition?

Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 20:41:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 25, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<a30bb83e-7590-42e2...@googlegroups.com>):

> So can you think of a choice in terms of it being spontaneous? Without
> evaluation if one alternative is better than another?
>
> Logic says, the definition of choice in terms of spontaneity is the right
> one. But are you psychologically capable to follow the correct definition?

As usual, you fail to properly communicate your point.

As usual, you succeed in being amusing.

Keep it up.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

More of your feelings of superiority rebuffing any threat to the feelings.

In a choice there are alternatives A and not A. Can you make the choice, without consideration of which one is better?


Op zondag 25 juli 2021 om 23:41:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 25, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<c7ad47e4-d500-400e...@googlegroups.com>):

> More of your feelings of superiority

and again you fail to read for comprehension. You’re on a roll. Keep it up!

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

If you define choice in terms of picking the best option, then no matter what you choose, then by definition of the word "choose", you always did your best.

That's another psychological appeal of thinking of choice in terms of picking the best option.

So there is the psychological appeal of feelings of superiority - inferiority, and there is the psychological appeal of not having any real guilt ever.

That's you isn't it? Always in this psychosis of the best. Not capable of reasoning about the logic of choice, and the associated logic of subjectivity.

That's where you are a total fucking moron, or as Christian scripture puts it, a fool.

There are maybe hundreds of millions of socialists in the world.

Always overachieverisly, doing their best. Cancelling free speech. Denying God as a fantasy. Having sophisticated socialistic formula's about what is just, and good, and not having any emotions about it. Lacking any kind of common sense, about any issue whatsoever, always taking a socialistic view of every issue. Idealistically believing in socialism, no matter if the country is falling apart before them, and they end up killing significant numbers of people. Having no conscisouness of guilt for any of the choice they make.

Real psychosis, that hundreds of millions of people have.

Aren't you obviously having that exactsame psychosis, in your incapability to reason about emotions, subjectivity, choice?


Op maandag 26 juli 2021 om 00:41:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 26, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote
(in article<50c3db20-a33e-414a...@googlegroups.com>):

> If you define choice in terms of picking the best option, then no matter what
> you choose, then by definition of the word "choose", you always did your best.

partb of your problem is that you’re too stupid to understand that you
don’t get to make your own private definitions of terms. It’s a major
reason why you fail to communicate: you insist on trying, and failing, to use
your own private language.

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

I don't make a private definition, I make a definition that is consistent with the logic used with the word choice, in ordinary common discourse.

Others, like you, make the definition of choice that suits their psychological needs for the best. And you're always in this psychosis of the best. Not having any real guilt over anything ever, always doing your best, no matter what you choose. Because it is defined that way, that you always do your best.

Google definition:
choose (verb) pick out (someone or something) as being the best or most appropriate of two or more alternatives

he chose to rob a bank. Meaning he picked the option to rob the bank as it being the best or most appropiate thing to do, besides the other alternatives.

he chose to put his nuts under the mechanical hammer. Meaning he picked the option to put his nuts under the hammer, as it being the best or most appropiate thing to do, besides the other alternatives.

And you are incapable of reasoning about the definition, because of your psychosis. You never reason about it, why is that? Funny that, isn't it? Any argument about is immediately rebuffed by your psychosis.

The idea of spontaneity is a direct attack on your psychosis of the best. This psychosis is very serious in socialism. But softer forms of this psychosis abound, like in corporate culture. You are probably one of the more severe cases.

Op maandag 26 juli 2021 om 22:21:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Jul 26, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote

(in article<62301655-3957-4970...@googlegroups.com>):

> I don't make a private definition, I make a definition that is consistent
> with the logic used with the word choice, in ordinary common discourse.

Nope. You make private definitions. You do it all the time. It’s a major
reason why you cannot comprehend what others write; you use your private
definitions instead of reality and then pout when no-one else uses your
definitions. It’s one reason why you lack communications skills; you insist
on using your private definitions, thereby ensuring that you simply cannot
make your point clear.

However, you are very funny when you do this. Keep it up. [gets more popcorn]

[mohammad...@gmail.com]

Everyone uses the creationist logic in common discourse, that a choice is what makes one of alternative futures the present. Or, makes a possible future the present, or not the present.

Either Trump or Biden becomes president, then elections follow, which is referred to as a choice, and by this choice then Biden is president, and Trump not.

I do not invent a fucking thing, the logic is all there in ordinary common discourse.

So then you define terms not by logic, but you define them by your own authority. Because that is what you say, you do not accept any consideration of another definition, you only accept the definition that you use. And then you complain I do not use the definition that you use.

And while there are a lot of people who use your definition of choice in terms of what is best, maybe even the majority of them, you don't accept that definition because it is the majority definition, but because it is the definition that you use. Because you don't allow any consideration of what the definition should be, it means you neither respect majority, nor minority definitions, you just only accept the definition that you use.

Which is obviously all just psychosis that you are inside this feeling of the best, and immediately rebuff any challenge to this feeling. And this kind of laughing at things, is also just a wellknown psychological defense mechanism. Especially when you have no argument whatsoever, then it is most probably just a psychological defense mechanism. Just laughing it all away, and have your feelings of the best protected.



Op dinsdag 27 juli 2021 om 14:31:11 UTC+2 schreef Wolffan:

[Mike Duffy]

On Tue, 27 Jul 2021 06:56:48 -0700, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:

> Everyone uses the creationist logic in common discourse, that a choice
> is what makes one of alternative futures the present. Or, makes a
> possible future the present, or not the present.

Whatever. Yes, anyone can change the future.

> So then you define terms not by logic, but you define them by your own
> authority. Because that is what you say, you do not accept any
> consideration of another definition, you only accept the definition that
> you use. And then you complain I do not use the definition that you use.

I explained that already. You need to hold in mind all of those
definitions - reasons for making a choice - simultaneously.

Otherwise the quasi-entangled nuclear spin states in your neurons cannot
perform 'quantum' computing to carry out a perfectly-balanced reaction
simultaneously considering all possible outcomes vs. all possible current
actions. (By the way, that is what consciousness is all about.)

Instead, you focus on one definition of 'best choice'. In real life, it
might be several simultaneously about different things.

Have a nice day.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 22, 2021 at 7:11:11 AM UTC-7, mohammad...@gmail.com wrote:
> Theory is that the spike proteins in the vaccins, or produced by the vaccins, end up in the bloodstream.
>
Not a theory, just disinformation.

> While the covid virus, there the spikes are attached to the virus, and not freely floating in the bloodvessels.
>
> Then the vaccine spikes end up sticking in the walls of the bloodvessels, and the bloodcells respond to that with clotting, to shut down the damaged artery.
>
Absolute bullshit.

> Which then leads to death by heartfailure in about 3 years, because of all these small arteries being shut down with clots.
>
Impossible to know.

> Hundreds of millions of people dead by the vaccine.
>
That's just your worthless opinion.

> Dead because of bad judgement. Bad judgement by people who simply have no idea about what a judgement is. People who deny free will, deny that choices are made, deny that judgements even exist.
>
> How dare you to deny the reality of the human spirit making choices, and the validity of subjective judgement?
>
How dare you make claims without any evidence.

> 1. Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
> 2. Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact

There are no gods unless we create them.