Darwin was not an Atheist. He was a Theist. His God was Satan.
His theory cones from that. Like much that does come from that community, his theory is a half-truth taken beyond truth quite deliberately.
Micro-evolution exists. Today, we have almost a thousand terminal taxa of the genus Eucalyptus and the closely allied genera of Corymbia and Angophora as botanical taxonomy regards them. There could easily be at least six genera there, rather than three. Equally, there could be a few hundred species. Or even one hundred, depending upon whether one lumps or splits taxa.
Some of these species are so similar that even botanists cannot tell them apart. They hybridise and intergrade and confuse even the most expert.
However, clearly differentiation and adaption happens. Yet, this does not turn a Eucalyptus gum tree into a rose, for example. It is micro-evolution within a type, something that genetics wholly backs up.
One may compare a eucalypt with a myrtle and conclude they are part of the same Family, despite a myrtle having superficial similarity to a blueberry. Yet, this doesn't prove evolutionary theory. Neither does the fact that a eucalypt shares traits with algae, such as photosynthesis. Neither does a finch population developing larger bills so as to eat different food.
Nothing proves Evolutionary theory. I came to Evolutionary disbelief after coming into contact with religion, but I don't refer to my Christianity. I refer to the religion practised by Darwin which caused him to write a theory he knew full well to be false.
"Consider Halloween, its origins stretching back to the ancient Celtic festival of Sawan, marking the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter."
Or one could consider that Samhain was the Celtic Day of the Dead which is far beyond the status of seasonal marker and harvest celebration... And far darker too.
That why it is celebrated by those who worship Satan today in ways that no historian shall talk about. Instead, we get the children's version here. This does not surprise me at all.
In the end many will quote from knowledge they themselves have not personally aquired or openly and honestly investigated... and I include myself.... But to be fair, let Michael Behe a Biochemist speak as well.…
It's fair to question evolution. It's simply a replacement religious worldview for atheists. It's inherently anti metaphysical. Similar morphology is not proof of relationship. It does suggest it and could be true. A platypus, some aquatic species not related by morphology, and birds have beaks or bills. Does this mean along the evolutionary chain narrative there existed a common species that randomly developed a proto-beak? Let's not dismiss evolutionary or metaphysical speculation. Speculation is all we have. All beliefs are narratives.
Words like “diversity” and “enrichment” among many other postmodern tropes are inherently anti-white. Kali Yuga is real. We can't stop this madness but we can liberate ourselves and help others realize but keep in mind only people who can will. Most people are sheep. This is culture war but it's an ontological reality. As above, so below.
For the purposes of claroty on my comment below:
The reason for a modern program of non-European immigration into the UK is to bring in non-Christians. i know this for a fact. I know those behind it. And I mention them constantly.
Skin colour is irrelevant. Don't bring it up. Once again, the target is Christianity.
Anti-white sentiment is just a cover. Those ultimately behind it have no real interest in the colour of your skin. They just want you to think they do. They shall happily encourage white nationalism in the shadows because it serves their purpose of division for conquest and can cause a useful backlash.
What they are really targeting is European Christianity. Articles like this one can come from those who know full well what they are doing and those who don't. The latter are like white nationalists, in being unwitting spreaders of half-truth.
I know that whenever I see the name of this author we're generally in for another, less-than-subtle, anti-white, anti-western, anti-men bashing session. She can't help herself.
And I'm female btw so I'm not just repelled by her obvious disdain for the people, cultures and processes that have brought her into this world.
It's absolutely par for the course that academia is now shoehorning such pieces into everything. As Brits, we know we're a diverse bunch but longstanding, native Brits contributions TO Britain is always, always underplayed and there are now so many agendas in academic writing, particularly assaults from afar and from many people who, even if based in Britain, rarely seem to see life across this island from anything other than a Leftwing, elite-presenting, finger-wagging academic culture.
It's a No, Cecilia. Not a no to how you choose to write or how you conduct your thoughts. It's simply a personal No to your endless underlying wokery and how you drain any fun out of this website.
As a Brit in Britain, I live here and always will, and you don't.
This type of leftwing propaganda narrative has no place on this site. The perspective here presented by the author is manipulative postmodern nonsense. Very disappointing.
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” —George Orwell, 1984
Yikes the anti-white bias on this site has become absurd. It's like reading the BBC. Immigration isn't essential to British identity. Britain is being conquered. I just canceled my membership.
Too little voltage for any practical use, even if more “batteries” were put in series, because of the voltage drop of those primitve (would be) connections. Most probably mainstrean archaeology is right, just a jar for storing documents.
I really like Paul Harper's YouTube account. It's full of 'off the beaten track' and underreported history. He just gets out there and goes sleuthing. This story is particularly interesting if you're keen to learn more about England and ultimately Britain's buried and rather undersung-by-the-mainstream history.
His book about Cerdic comes out on the 30th April too. Should put even more meat on the bones.
Yes, I believe there were some fascinating “fats” during the Hellenistic Age: animal fats, olive oil, etc. But, primarily, there were some fascinating “facts” during the Hellenistic Age.
Here you can navigate quickly through all comments made in any article sorted by date/time.
Yours is the very attitude that many in the thrall of a particular religion has.
There is a religion that promotes Atheism, not for them but for others.
They promote your scientific world view.
You ask a very good question.
I know who would finance Ancient Origins. They have both motive and means. They also have a track record of this type of activity.
Yet, most historians are oblivious to such activity.
Darwin was not an Atheist. He was a Theist. His God was Satan.
His theory cones from that. Like much that does come from that community, his theory is a half-truth taken beyond truth quite deliberately.
Micro-evolution exists. Today, we have almost a thousand terminal taxa of the genus Eucalyptus and the closely allied genera of Corymbia and Angophora as botanical taxonomy regards them. There could easily be at least six genera there, rather than three. Equally, there could be a few hundred species. Or even one hundred, depending upon whether one lumps or splits taxa.
Some of these species are so similar that even botanists cannot tell them apart. They hybridise and intergrade and confuse even the most expert.
However, clearly differentiation and adaption happens. Yet, this does not turn a Eucalyptus gum tree into a rose, for example. It is micro-evolution within a type, something that genetics wholly backs up.
One may compare a eucalypt with a myrtle and conclude they are part of the same Family, despite a myrtle having superficial similarity to a blueberry. Yet, this doesn't prove evolutionary theory. Neither does the fact that a eucalypt shares traits with algae, such as photosynthesis. Neither does a finch population developing larger bills so as to eat different food.
Nothing proves Evolutionary theory. I came to Evolutionary disbelief after coming into contact with religion, but I don't refer to my Christianity. I refer to the religion practised by Darwin which caused him to write a theory he knew full well to be false.
"Consider Halloween, its origins stretching back to the ancient Celtic festival of Sawan, marking the end of the harvest season and the beginning of winter."
Or one could consider that Samhain was the Celtic Day of the Dead which is far beyond the status of seasonal marker and harvest celebration... And far darker too.
That why it is celebrated by those who worship Satan today in ways that no historian shall talk about. Instead, we get the children's version here. This does not surprise me at all.
Nice headset
Religion is simpy a replacemnt sceintific worldview for religious people.
https://falkenblog.blogspot.com/2024/04/why-evolution-is-false.html
In the end many will quote from knowledge they themselves have not personally aquired or openly and honestly investigated... and I include myself.... But to be fair, let Michael Behe a Biochemist speak as well.…
Who finances Ancient Origins?
Peace to all
It's fair to question evolution. It's simply a replacement religious worldview for atheists. It's inherently anti metaphysical. Similar morphology is not proof of relationship. It does suggest it and could be true. A platypus, some aquatic species not related by morphology, and birds have beaks or bills. Does this mean along the evolutionary chain narrative there existed a common species that randomly developed a proto-beak? Let's not dismiss evolutionary or metaphysical speculation. Speculation is all we have. All beliefs are narratives.
Words like “diversity” and “enrichment” among many other postmodern tropes are inherently anti-white. Kali Yuga is real. We can't stop this madness but we can liberate ourselves and help others realize but keep in mind only people who can will. Most people are sheep. This is culture war but it's an ontological reality. As above, so below.
The UK refugee program could bring in persecuted Indian Christians, who can even be killed by Hindu nationalists. Does it?
No. They're Christians.
For the purposes of claroty on my comment below:
The reason for a modern program of non-European immigration into the UK is to bring in non-Christians. i know this for a fact. I know those behind it. And I mention them constantly.
Skin colour is irrelevant. Don't bring it up. Once again, the target is Christianity.
Anti-white sentiment is just a cover. Those ultimately behind it have no real interest in the colour of your skin. They just want you to think they do. They shall happily encourage white nationalism in the shadows because it serves their purpose of division for conquest and can cause a useful backlash.
What they are really targeting is European Christianity. Articles like this one can come from those who know full well what they are doing and those who don't. The latter are like white nationalists, in being unwitting spreaders of half-truth.
I know that whenever I see the name of this author we're generally in for another, less-than-subtle, anti-white, anti-western, anti-men bashing session. She can't help herself.
And I'm female btw so I'm not just repelled by her obvious disdain for the people, cultures and processes that have brought her into this world.
It's absolutely par for the course that academia is now shoehorning such pieces into everything. As Brits, we know we're a diverse bunch but longstanding, native Brits contributions TO Britain is always, always underplayed and there are now so many agendas in academic writing, particularly assaults from afar and from many people who, even if based in Britain, rarely seem to see life across this island from anything other than a Leftwing, elite-presenting, finger-wagging academic culture.
It's a No, Cecilia. Not a no to how you choose to write or how you conduct your thoughts. It's simply a personal No to your endless underlying wokery and how you drain any fun out of this website.
As a Brit in Britain, I live here and always will, and you don't.
This type of leftwing propaganda narrative has no place on this site. The perspective here presented by the author is manipulative postmodern nonsense. Very disappointing.
“It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” —George Orwell, 1984
Yikes the anti-white bias on this site has become absurd. It's like reading the BBC. Immigration isn't essential to British identity. Britain is being conquered. I just canceled my membership.
Too little voltage for any practical use, even if more “batteries” were put in series, because of the voltage drop of those primitve (would be) connections. Most probably mainstrean archaeology is right, just a jar for storing documents.
How cleopatra says that no man can will see her tomb.
A good write up. Thanks for this.
I really like Paul Harper's YouTube account. It's full of 'off the beaten track' and underreported history. He just gets out there and goes sleuthing. This story is particularly interesting if you're keen to learn more about England and ultimately Britain's buried and rather undersung-by-the-mainstream history.
His book about Cerdic comes out on the 30th April too. Should put even more meat on the bones.
I was ready to make to same comment, but you put it nicely.
Yes, I believe there were some fascinating “fats” during the Hellenistic Age: animal fats, olive oil, etc. But, primarily, there were some fascinating “facts” during the Hellenistic Age.
It’s a typo, I know. But it’s a fun one.
Pages