>>22226

> The idea that millions of the animals evolved to have the exact same features.

It's called convergent evolution. It's believed to be why so many different animals developed poison, because it's evolutionarily advantageous.

> Eyes, hair/scales/feathers, wings, legs, teeth, spine, similar brain receptors and similar cells.

Most of those come from common ancestors you dimwit. Eyes for example developed hundreds of millions of years ago.

I would just like to add, that I'm probably way more of what some might call a fanatic or fundamentalist than I let on. I've probably gone on tirades before here or KC that you've seen, can't remember, and my underlying ideology is apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism that sees Revelation as being literally and metaphorically true (since it outright says things are parable and metaphor in places) and the genuine truth of our future and think no law is valid except God's law.

I don't know what koolaid you've been drinking but that sort of retarded Creationism is a dumb American thing promoted by the worst sort of spiritual whores. The idea that the Earth is 6000 years old comes exclusively from the interpretation of some modern pastors who added up the ages of people in the Bible and take a literalist interpretation of everything (even though some of the Bible including Christ Himself speaks in metaphors and parables) and concluded that the Bible is the only source of historical knowledge and is literally true and then applied their own personal interpretation of Scripture and assumed what they thought was literally true as well. Nowhere in the Bible does it actually state the world is that old and it is promoted by the same sorts of people who were trying to claim the world would end on May 21st https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_end_times_prediction despite the fact that anyone who's Biblically literate or simply has the spiritual intuition knows that it comes as a thief in the night and no one, not the angels, or any man, nor even the Son Himself knows the hour.

The idea of Creationism was made by a person such as Harold Camping. Go read up on him and understand that it was his sort of logic that was applied to the Bible and came up with Young Earth Creationism. It is heretical because it assumes man is as knowledgeable as God in God's affairs. A true man of God searches out truth wherever it may be found to understand God if that means accepting things like the vastness of the cosmos to be in awe at the true unending and magnificent power of the Lord that He could create and rule over such a thing as the vastness of not just the physical space of the universe but also its sheer scale temporally across billions of years of time which is unfathomable to a human mind.

>Evolution hampers research into genuine biology.

That's a bizarre statement. Please extrapolate.

>That isn't even getting into the probablity of a successful mutation actually occuring.

It happens all the time in fact what some Evolutionary biologists had been assuming is probably false in that evolution may not have been quite as gradual but rather a series of fits and starts due to mutation. Just recently in the news
https://www.insideedition.com/3-eyed-snake-discovered-australia-52660
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polydactyly
I greatly appreciate your interest in Christianity and giving yourself to Christ, if it's done sincerely. If it's done purely out of ideology then it's meaningless and possibly cancerous. I ask you not to listen to these people claiming to represent churches, and acting like Imams and at times Pharisees, but to read Scripture for yourself and to truly become literate in it, for there is never a time where it is a fault to read Scripture. What you should not do is listen to these American Christians, particularly not the Evangelicals and some strains of American fundamentalist, as that path can also lead to such blasphemies as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology

So far I've wasted this day too. Decided to change my default browser to Palemoon, since Firefox decided to randomly block all of my extensions, and I'm not going to use the internet without adblock.
Though it was a bit annoying to set everything up, since the dictionaries for the spellchecker are out of date, and I had to get a direct download link to the Firefox servers (because on their site only Firefox users can download add-ons), and then modify that to the different locations the dictionaries I wanted were in. (Not to mention I had to use older ones instead of the newest versions.)
But in the end, I got all the dictionaries I wanted. (Though I can't get rid of this English-US dictionary.)

It's still raining. I felt that feeling of anxiety again.

Yesterday my mother offered me some money if I were to seriously go out and clean up the garden for real. 1.5 Euros an hour is really good. She offered me the same "wage" I get while working my data entry job. Turned her down. I can't accept that. I'd feel guilty. (Though I still feel guilty.)

>>22182
I'd definitely go for something far-eastern (Chinese or Japanese). Or Russian.
Though I'm biased because I actually try learning Mandarin on my own.

>>22212

>there's lots of older literature that can appeal to autists

The problem with that is the fact that a lot of the classics have been written using Classical Chinese, so learning the grammar of that is also a factor.
(Though it's not like there aren't good books written in the vernacular language.)

>>21908
Pattern recognition = understanding how things work. Your understanding of how things work naturally relates to your ideas on how to solve problems with those things. Lifelong success in pattern recognition where others pathetically fail also leads to hubris, which is why the intelligent so often misjudge things.

>>21910

>I highly doubt that but it would again show a reaction to complex problems or situations in the most straight forward thus least intelligent manner.

Sometimes the straightforward solution is the best one, but that's not the point here. Nationalism is not synonymous with knee-jerk stupidity because muh country. Depending on your specific understand of the world "nationalism" you might not use it to describe what I have in mind. But humans need some concept of membership in a wider community in order to cooperate at a large scale in a prosocial manner, and nationalism at its most basic is setting the nation state as the level of community.

In the recent past, the highest level of community was the faith, and national distinctions were relatively minor. But if the faith starts to become less important in people's lives, where do you construct the tribal boundaries? Existing national boundaries are often the most instinctive and natural way to go.

>>21912

>It's a flawed way of looking at it because it assumes actors formed of groups of agents to behave as individuals.

Even if you take a very real part in making important decisions, your individual agency still doesn't matter because of the scale we're operating on (unless you're someone like Jeff Bezos). I don't have to look at 300 million people as individuals - in fact, I can't - to produce an accurate model of how society works. I have to look at patterns among those 300 million people, and in their relationships with each other.

>And it will never be as representative as competition since a national government cannot react in a manner as granular as dispersed government could.

So what is your vision of an ideal government? If you disperse power too much you weaken the ability to cooperate and coordinate at the national level, and you will then be conquered by a society that isn't undermining itself like that. Do we just give every homestead a nuke?

>Shay and whiskey rebels

My point stands because the founding fathers themselves, including George Washington and Alexander Hamilton, were the ones who caused the problems that triggered the rebellions, and who directed the persecution of the rebels. There wasn't unanimous agreement on that front, but for every anti-state idealist like Thomas Jefferson, there was a pragmatic statist like Washington and a hardcore ideological statist like Hamilton. And ultimately, the Federalists were the more influential party in the design of our government.

>Oh no. If you want to take libertarianism to the extreme end,

This isn't taking libertarianism to the extreme end. This is the world we actually see today. Huge swathes of America work under shithole conditions like this. Much more suffering in this country comes from free market economic oppression than from the government. And in the countries where there is less economic oppression than the US, we universally see either a massive role of the state in the economy, or a culture with a huge collectivist bent that obviates the need for much of that state action. Removing some cancerous regulations would make things better, but we need greater regulations in other areas. The answer is not a uniform retreat of government from the economy.