Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

896

Ancient Roman and Greek empires had genius scientists, philosophers, architects, engineers, and all other intellectuals that somehow were even more intelligent than modern ones, because they had to invent everything by themselves. In the same time, they also had degenerates who were responsible for tortures, orgies, pederasty, prostitution, eunuchs, and all the other perversions that still exist today.

If you think about it, evolution doesn't exist. We still have intelligent Vs degenerates.

The only difference is degenerates are winning, because the intelligent are pacifists now.

Ancient Roman and Greek empires had genius scientists, philosophers, architects, engineers, and all other intellectuals that somehow were even more intelligent than modern ones, because they had to invent everything by themselves. In the same time, they also had degenerates who were responsible for tortures, orgies, pederasty, prostitution, eunuchs, and all the other perversions that still exist today. If you think about it, evolution doesn't exist. We still have intelligent Vs degenerates. The only difference is degenerates are winning, because the intelligent are pacifists now.

(post is archived)

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. It will clear up a lot of your misconceptions about evolution.

[–] • 1 pt

Excellent book, it's a shame he stroked out and lost his nuts in the process somehow.

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Nah. The fool says in his heart that there is no God. I could parrot the arguments made but will just leave it for you to view if you want.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Doug's arguments are not good.

He does not try to seriously refute anything. That is preaching to the choir.

The Rogan + Dawkins original video wasn't especially good either.

The point that atheist are just monotheists except with one less God is a good argument. Doug's counter-argument that there are several theories of science seems to me to indicate that Doug does not understand that there is a difference between science and religion. In science a theory can be proven to be bullshit and thrown in the trashcan. Most people, there are exceptions, are not religious about their scientific beliefs.

There is a reason why scientists can be accused of being religious in their scientific beliefs, and why religious folks are not accused of being scientific in their religious beliefs

I know religious people can be highly intelligent, some can make me look like an intellectual dwarf, but I got to call out a bullshit argument when I see one.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

atheists are just monotheists except with one less God

Acts like we don't have overwhelming evidence of intelligent design. I doubt most people can get past the immediate moral implications and instead "suppress the truth [e.g. that God created us] in unrighteousness."

science

Science is its own religion. Ok maybe using that exact word isn't particularly helpful, but scientism certainly is. There are dogmas, places of worship, leaders, rituals, etc.

Why do so many scientists/doctors peddle a difference between gender and biological sex, trans stuff, etc.? The science should be clear.

Same question for climate, abortion, etc. The SCIENCE is clear. The emotions are not.

intelligent

I wouldn't say that's the key, but rather pride. Are you willing to accept the possibility that there is an almighty being out there, your objections to whom are invalid because of the vast power and intelligence gap between you and "him?"

[–] • 0 pt

The smart ones tend to stay in their comfort zone (ie: philosophy), when it comes to physics/nature they are usually clueless and/or they get reduced to "god of the gaps" very quickly and fall back very hard on determinism and time before the big bang invalidating all their dogma/holy books in the process. I have no dispute with deists, sometimes I consider myself one, I just want to debunk the big bearded kike in the sky theory.

It pains me people like Harris or even Hitchens spend 10 minutes in a debate responding to abstract theological bullshit that could be shut down by Dawkins in like 30 seconds.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

This is a great folly I see commonly used to build argumentative foundations in many places and I'm not sure how you guys are arriving here. History is extremely fond of Socrates and all Plato wrote about him is highly regarded as some of the most sage wisdom modern man has recorded. The funny thing is, Socrates fucked boys. No, I'm not saying he was gay. I'm saying he had sex with boys. Socrates wasn't just a faggot, he was a pedo. Yet History regards him as one of the most intelligent people that it's familiar with.

Now, does this mean I hate everything Socrates stands for? Of course not. But Michael Jordan isn't touted as one of, if not the, best Basketball player that ever lived because of that one time he was an asshole to someone's aunt. He's regarded as one of the best Basketball players ever because of how good he was at Basketball.

Richard's piety or lack thereof doesn't diminish what he says in that book, which you definitely need to read. It's practically a refutation of Altruism, which was my mine takeaway and the reason I tend to reference it. What FellowPoaler said may very well be off base, but explaining away Dawkins' authority on the subject of Evolution by claiming his spiritual beliefs disqualify him being an authority on the subject is asinine.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Dawkins' authority on [a false, hollow worldview]

[–] • 3 pts (edited )

Whoever believes in genes must believe in evolution.

Really. Imagine niggers (sorry). Why do niggers, and primitive human-wannabe "natives", become so easily addicted to alcohol? Hm, why?

Obviously because they are/were so f. primitive thar they never invented what's needed to brew alcohol, ya know agriculture.

What happened with whities is that we invented alcohol many thousand years ago. Mhm, so what? you say. Listen, whites were as fuggin' dependent upon alcohol as niggers to begin with, cuz we had no exposure to it.

But what happened over time, because we could make loadz of alcohol, is that unsurprisingly the white alcoholic population reduced over time, a.k.a died, so over generations whities became the übermen we are drinking liqour en masse without becoming nigger drunkards. And that's that. Listen, the percentage of drunkards in countries, if you draw a map man, is perfectly correlated to how long time ago the folks there invented agriculture. Don't say it ain't so.

Evolution is everywhere. It's even what can best explain women, especially their sexual behaviour.

Also when I evolve my neural networks on my 'puter whattya gonna go? You gonna tell me it's not real that it aint happening mane?

[–] • 3 pts

>be me >wake up >open up poal >user tells me to imagine niggers >I do it >dayruined.jpg

[–] • 0 pt

I get it. Next time I mark it as NSFL.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

Also there is no evidence of the evolution of species. Just more atheist bullshit.

[–] • 3 pts

This is what people don't understand. There are several categories/types of evolution.

Darwin's theory of human evolution is almost completely debunked at this point. There exists no supporting evidence man evolved from ape. But publically admitting this means empowering the theological side of the house. Their church will not allow competing voices.

[–] • 1 pt

All of this is wrong. There are NO categories of evolution. Evolution is just change over time through a filtering process, every single human that ever existed is a transitional sample.

But, hey, if it makes you happy to believe in the magical jew in the sky waste your white life.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

To cite the common example, how did the eye evolve? You've heard of the concept of "irreducible complexity," right?

Your life is wasted until you humble yourself before your maker.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

"Non-sequitur, non-sequitur and non-sequitur. Therefore evolution is bullshit!"

You didn't even make a single point to counter Darwinism, like not even one. This is like a new form of creationist, smart enough to know he has no argument, dumb enough to start one anyway.

Even if you want to dispute something like Abiogenesis or group vs. individual selection, evolution itself is the most vindicated theory in history. We have literally observed it in both phenotype and genetic code, simulated it in computers, performed it artificially on countless species (we turned wolves into little sniveling pathetic pugs in a few thousand years by just choosing who fucks who), witnessed it in the wild, in fossil records, you see it at work in virology almost in real time, we can accurately predict genetic defects from DNA testing, we are literally selecting weeds for round-up resistance every time we spray the stuff and you can see the resistance developing year over year, same with livestock and anti-biotics... If there is 'a designer' the only thing they did was put in the equation for reality/the laws of physics before sitting back and watching the show. Furthermore if a designer routed a Giraffe's laryngeal nerve 20 + feet, down under the collar bone and back up it's neck again instead of a few inches over the designer is a retard.

[–] • 2 pts (edited )

This is correct, great writeup.

The real brainfuck comes when the people posting this childish bullshit realize that a universe that has causation is computable at which point all the pieces of the puzzle on the table just magically arrange them selves and the whole picture is revealed.

I love it when I can get these folks to understand this magic in principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP5-iIeKXE8

It's not often but it does happen.

[–] • 0 pt

That's pretty cool, it's like a fractal that's computing itself.

[–] • 2 pts

How can mirrors be real if our eyes aren't real?

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Their knot. Nor are you real in the scheme of things. Or are you?

[–] • 2 pts

Your theory does not seem to have a firm grasp of the theory of evolution.

In order for evolution to 'select' a trait it must be doing so at the cost of letting other traits die out over time. In general this tends to mean that a trait that is lost over time must be mutually exclusive to a trait that is being actively selected for. For example is there is an evolutionary advantage to intelligence then the theory of evolution would say that over time intelligent animals survive and dumb ones get killed.

In order for your assertion to make any sense you would need to be arguing that somehow 'degeneracy' make an individual less likely to breed than a 'intelligent' person. Your assertion assumes that the traits are exclusive; that a degenerate cannot be smart and that a smart person will not be a degenerate. I feel that these are both poor assumptions. I know highly intelligent degenerates and in my experience degenerates breed at a higher rate than rocket scientists. In short, 'degeneracy' does not increase the chances of dying before procreation.

[–] • 0 pt

Not to mention that he needs a few thousand years to be sufficient for all members of a particular trait to die out.

Evolution operates on significantly longer timescales

[–] • 1 pt

Evolution works perfectly well and what you just figured out is the natural cycle of civilizations: hard times select for intelligence and strong moral character, smart people build a successful civilization, things get better, selection pressure for intelligence and character lowers, weak people start out-breeding the smart ones, civilization collapses and all starts again. The first to formalize this was Francis Bacon in his book Hereditary Genius. He estimated that the Athenians of the Greek Golden Age must have had an average IQ of about 120. We went from there to the Dark Ages, slowly got smarter, expelled Jews and Sandniggers, got a Renaissance, industrialized and from there the stupid started once again out breeding the smart....

[–] • 0 pt

The only difference is degenerates are winning, because the intelligent are pacifists now.

That is evolution, unfortunately. Evolve doesn't always mean the direction you want.

[–] • 0 pt

You're wrong and you're right, we've witnessed evolution on human timescales, it absolutely happens. The theories aren't 100% correct and some fields are infiltrated with bullshit dogma.

You're other points about degeneracy are spot on though. I just don't think it's so black and white.

[–] • 0 pt

people are a foot taller now, Warhorses of the period were the size of ponies...

that's evolution

the only counter argument is niggers, they haven't evolved at all

[–] • 0 pt

Raping, looting and begging are also evolutionary strategies.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

Macro-evolution is retarded on face value. Non-life can never produce life. Existing Life can never produce new genetic information. Period.

“Micro-evolution” which gives credence to the absurd theory of evolution is actually just the process of dominant/regressive gene selection more commonly known as “breeding.”